left biblioblography: EVERYONE HAS A CROSS TO BEAR

Friday, September 22, 2006

EVERYONE HAS A CROSS TO BEAR

Religious folks (read: Christians) are up in arms (again! Yeesh, don’t any of these people shrug and go on with their lives?).

Apparently, Madonna has stirred up a hornet’s nest:

Religious groups have complained about the cross scene and NBC is still deciding whether to include it in a November broadcast of the tour.”

The singer remarks, “"It is no different than a person wearing a cross. My performance is neither anti-Christian, sacrilegious or blasphemous," she said in a statement.”

Apparently, she's getting crucified (literally as well as figuratively!).

So she's adopted not only the Kaballah, but also the surname of the Virgin Mary and now she's nailing Catholic symbology (all puns are intended).

Not ordinarily a big fan, but you go, girl!

(Ummm...can I pull that last one off?)

In nomine, domine, vobiscus celius selius, feely me bonny belly...

(I recall my dear departed uncle, Russ Coughlan, raging at her back in the late 80's, when he was ABC General Manager - my mom's side of the family is/was Irish Catholic)


Stumble Upon Toolbar

17 comments:

The Intolerant One said...

KA:

Religious folks (read: Christians)

Wow! First line and I already disagree. There is a difference between the "religious" and the Christian. Example: An atheist battling drug and alcohol addiction can become “religious” in there (routine) AA attendance and indoctrination of the applied 12 step format (BTW not a shot an organization that helps people kick these destructive habits) However, they live by the code of conduct outlined for them in the “book.”

Christianity is about a relationship with God, not a hundred repetitive boring prayers, fifty ritualistic hail Mary's, and confessing sins to another fallible human being who does not have the authority to clean the proverbial slate. Those are not impressing the big Guy! Religion is very surface and shallow. That is why Jesus renounced the religiosity of the hypocritical Pharisee's. And that is why, speaking as a Christian, I do not consider my self religious.

again! Yeesh, don’t any of these people shrug and go on with their lives?

Hey KA, cut them a little bit of slack here. At least they are not using it for an excuse to strap bombs to themselves and rush into a crowded shopping mall full of mother's and their children screaming out for Holy Jihad and God is great! right before pulling the pin and snuffing out a pile of innocents to hammer home their point they have been offended. Let's be thankful for the "democratic" way they are voicing their opposition.

Apparently, Madonna has stirred up a hornet’s nest:

When hasn't she? She is a genius at manipulating the masses and using it as a marketing tool. Then of course batting her eyelashes at the rest if us saying “Moi, offensive”?

The singer remarks, “"It is no different than a person wearing a cross. My performance is neither anti-Christian, sacrilegious or blasphemous," she said in a statement.”

Hmmm..apparently neither was her other song/video "Like a virgin" despite the heavy “religious” overtones on what appeared to be a Catholic church setting. But I am sure it had absolutely nothing to do with it. Personally, considering the cross is recognized as a Christian symbol I am not sure why people who do not believe in the crucifixion/resurrection want to bother wearing it in the first place?

I am curious though how the great and mighty Madonna would react if say Mariah Carey came out with a set that involved a lot of her Kaballah symbols only they were not treated in a way that would be considered respectful towards those who practice it. Can we say CATFIGHT!

On that note it also arrogance on her part to simply dismiss those she has offended. Just because she does not consider it offensive (why would she, she does not subscribe to the Christian faith) does not mean that it isn‘t offensive just the same. For crying out loud, she is standing on a cross simulating crucifixion and this bears no resemblance or mockery to Christianity? Naturally there will be those who will be offended.

Krystalline Apostate said...

ITO:
Wow! First line and I already disagree. There is a difference between the "religious" and the Christian. Example: An atheist battling drug and alcohol addiction can become “religious” in there (routine) AA attendance and indoctrination of the applied 12 step format (BTW not a shot an organization that helps people kick these destructive habits) However, they live by the code of conduct outlined for them in the “book.”
I have a friend in AA, who actually does counselling, & that’s not necessarily true. He’s born again, & I asked him about this. The members have to look to something larger: in most cases, it’s deity-driven, but some actually look to the community as the larger ‘being’ of sorts. His short version: he doesn’t really care, as long as it’s not a doorknob.
Christianity is about a relationship with God, not a hundred repetitive boring prayers, fifty ritualistic hail Mary's, and confessing sins to another fallible human being who does not have the authority to clean the proverbial slate. Those are not impressing the big Guy! Religion is very surface and shallow. That is why Jesus renounced the religiosity of the hypocritical Pharisee's. And that is why, speaking as a Christian, I do not consider my self religious.
Well, you know most of my views on that anyways.
Hey KA, cut them a little bit of slack here. At least they are not using it for an excuse to strap bombs to themselves and rush into a crowded shopping mall full of mother's and their children screaming out for Holy Jihad and God is great! right before pulling the pin and snuffing out a pile of innocents to hammer home their point they have been offended. Let's be thankful for the "democratic" way they are voicing their opposition.
You mean like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4797151.stm
Still, good point.
When hasn't she? She is a genius at manipulating the masses and using it as a marketing tool. Then of course batting her eyelashes at the rest if us saying “Moi, offensive”?
Offense makes good press. If I were a bigger asshole, maybe I’d get more readers? ;)
Hmmm..apparently neither was her other song/video "Like a virgin" despite the heavy “religious” overtones on what appeared to be a Catholic church setting. But I am sure it had absolutely nothing to do with it. Personally, considering the cross is recognized as a Christian symbol I am not sure why people who do not believe in the crucifixion/resurrection want to bother wearing it in the first place?
Well, she was raised a Catholic, & Cardinal Ersilio Tonino wants her excommunicated. Can’t really speak to that: not big on jewelry.
I am curious though how the great and mighty Madonna would react if say Mariah Carey came out with a set that involved a lot of her Kaballah symbols only they were not treated in a way that would be considered respectful towards those who practice it. Can we say CATFIGHT!
I think I’d buy a ticket to THAT imbroglio!
On that note it also arrogance on her part to simply dismiss those she has offended. Just because she does not consider it offensive (why would she, she does not subscribe to the Christian faith) does not mean that it isn‘t offensive just the same. For crying out loud, she is standing on a cross simulating crucifixion and this bears no resemblance or mockery to Christianity? Naturally there will be those who will be offended.
Hey, she’s just a ‘material girl’. ;) They could just tell themselves, “Hey, she’s going to hell, not my prob”, & walk on, right?
I, for 1, am willing to ‘tolerate’ her nonsense. ;)

The Intolerant One said...

KA,

The members have to look to something larger

Agreed. But that does not necessarily mean they are. I deal with many of these types within my own ministry and in a "few" cases they acknowledge they are to appease the sponsor when all they want more then anything is to be off the bottle and someone who will hold them accountable.

His short version: he doesn’t really care, as long as it’s not a doorknob.

How about a rock? Yes, I have come across these types. I share your friend's sentiments.

Well, you know most of my views on that anyways.

Yes I do. I was aware of them before I began typing the response but clarification from my perspective was important. In some instances you and I will hold similar views regarding "religion" however I believe there is an important distinction when it comes to "Religion vs. Relationship". I distinction I wanted too make.

You mean like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4797151.stm

This link did not work. Are you sure it is the correct one? You have my interest peaked on what the story is.

Offense makes good press. If I were a bigger asshole, maybe I’d get more readers? ;)

Trying being intolerant, works for me ;)

Well, she was raised a Catholic

Raised in a catholic home anyways but obviously not a practicing one. Which does not justify or rationalize her position.

I think I’d buy a ticket to THAT imbroglio!

Think? I got dibs on ringside!

They could just tell themselves, “Hey, she’s going to hell, not my prob”, & walk on, right?

Sure they could but then even that attitude would have me questioning the passion and validity of their faith in God. The whole purpose of the Christian in this life is to reach out to those heading down the path of destruction (and , yes, eventually hell). To write the other person off as "going to hell so it's not my problem" is so callous if one actually believes that hell exists that I would suggest they are not much of a Christian in the first place.

One may not like what Madonna does (and others I might add) but if God does not write them off then neither should we, the body of Christ.

Jerret said...

Calling something something else doesn't change what it basically is. Religion is religion, by definition. To have a quote unquote, "relationship with god", one has to believe in God, correct? Believing in God is being religous.

Krystalline Apostate said...

ITO:
Agreed. But that does not necessarily mean they are. I deal with many of these types within my own ministry and in a "few" cases they acknowledge they are to appease the sponsor when all they want more then anything is to be off the bottle and someone who will hold them accountable.
I understand that. I used to have a drinking/drug problem. But I kicked the habit(s) on my own.
How about a rock? Yes, I have come across these types. I share your friend's sentiments.
Better yet, a pet rock! LOL.
Yes I do. I was aware of them before I began typing the response but clarification from my perspective was important. In some instances you and I will hold similar views regarding "religion" however I believe there is an important distinction when it comes to "Religion vs. Relationship". I distinction I wanted to make.
I always thought that the term ‘religion’ was the descriptor for said relationship, as Jerret points out.
This link did not work. Are you sure it is the correct one? You have my interest peaked on what the story is.
Hmmm…just copied & pasted it. Try going to the paper, & run a search if it doesn’t work again for you?
The headline reads: “German prosecutors are to monitor Madonna's concert to determine whether a mock crucifixion could be construed as insulting religious beliefs.” Code word, is prosecutors. It could be a bit of spin, though. I won’t put anything past the ‘liberal’ media.
Trying being intolerant, works for me ;)
I am fairly intolerant on certain things, ain’t I? ;)
Raised in a catholic home anyways but obviously not a practicing one. Which does not justify or rationalize her position.
I thought we were talking about the jewelry thing?
Think? I got dibs on ringside!
I think my hopes are a tad more…decadent than yours. ;)
Sure they could but then even that attitude would have me questioning the passion and validity of their faith in God. The whole purpose of the Christian in this life is to reach out to those heading down the path of destruction (and , yes, eventually hell). To write the other person off as "going to hell so it's not my problem" is so callous if one actually believes that hell exists that I would suggest they are not much of a Christian in the first place.
Y’see, it’s that concern that makes me more than a little nervous. For some, it seems to border on…well, a scary interest in my (or other people’s) affairs.
One may not like what Madonna does (and others I might add) but if God does not write them off then neither should we, the body of Christ.
Best any of us can do is speak up. If it doesn’t get heard the 1st dozen times, whaddayagonna do? When does compassion become coercion? It’s a tough question, atheist or theist. Sometimes when passions become inflamed, the line gets crossed.
I think my side of the fence is a little better about this (niener, niener, niener!).

Oh, hey, friendly correction here: the word is 'to'. 'Too' means also.
Just trying to help.

The Intolerant One said...

KA,

I understand that. I used to have a drinking/drug problem. But I kicked the habit(s)

Sheesh you and I have a lot in common with our past's. Booze, drugs, and even Tai Chi. ( I studied for several years at the school of Tiger Claw Gung Fu and Tai Chi) The tattoo's on my right arm have a tiger, the ying yang, a Chinese wind god (got it before I became a Christian) and a samurai warrior.

I always thought that the term ‘religion’ was the descriptor for said relationship, as Jerret points out.

This taken from Webster's dictionary:

1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Although it discusses a "belief" and a "faith" in a supernatural/God what it does not decipher is the relationship one seeks with God. When I think of religion (and I suspect this is the case with many atheist's) is number 2. This is the one most people identify Christians as. This, from my perspective, is misleading. I, for one, agree that religion is most definitely about institutionalization I see this as manipulation of God's word to control the masses. Often the case we see is where a particular church denomination's doctrine, Catholics for example, have an entire set of rules and regulations written, not only outside of the scriptures, but a number of them that directly contradict what the scriptures teach. You are a learned man of the Bible. Remember how Christ rebuked the Religious Pharisees for the identical thing? He took it as far as referring to them as children of the devil. At the sake of repeating myself, this is why I do not identify myself as a religious person.

If you look at number 4 for example, there are instances where that can apply to the atheist. Anyone can be just "religious" even where no belief in a deity exists.

Try going to the paper, & run a search if it doesn’t work again for you?
The headline reads: “German prosecutors are to monitor Madonna's concert to determine whether a mock crucifixion could be construed as insulting religious beliefs.” Code word, is prosecutors. It could be a bit of spin, though. I won’t put anything past the ‘liberal’ media.


The headline worked on google search. I am not too sure what they could prosecute her on unless they have a an actual law that states what she is doing is illegal. If it is illegal and she is aware of it, but breaks the law anyway, then she deserves to get busted. However it does not appear the prosecutors are taking it all that serious as the article stated they are not sending any of their own to the show to monitor it. Again, pretty mild reaction compared to our militant radical Muslim friends ;)

I am fairly intolerant on certain things, ain’t I? ;)

Well actually yes! But seeing I am in your sandbox I thought I would be nice. Besides, I can be a little selfish with my title. LOL

Y’see, it’s that concern that makes me more than a little nervous. For some, it seems to border on…well, a scary interest in my (or other people’s) affairs.

I understand. Some people's approach is intrusive to the point that they end up pushing people even further away from where they are trying to bring them. They truly do mean well and they genuinely care about other's eternity. Although Fred Phelps is a scary one. He seems to delight in people going to hell. I still cannot get over that nut job!

Best any of us can do is speak up. If it doesn’t get heard the 1st dozen times, whaddayagonna do? When does compassion become coercion? It’s a tough question, atheist or theist.

Not so tough for the theist. If it refuses to heard it is then I step back and say "It is now in your hands Lord". I am one who has and will continue to speak up but one thing I have recognized about God. That is...if He is all that I know Him to be in the scriptures then He really does not require me to defend Him. He is big enough to that Himself. And it isn't that God is a wimp who let's people walk all over Him. He quite simply has not dealt with them yet.

So in that respect, I would say my side of the fence is better (niener, niener, niener!).

Krystalline Apostate said...

TIO:
Sheesh you and I have a lot in common with our past's. Booze, drugs, and even Tai Chi. ( I studied for several years at the school of Tiger Claw Gung Fu and Tai Chi) The tattoo's on my right arm have a tiger, the ying yang, a Chinese wind god (got it before I became a Christian) and a samurai warrior.
Ummm…hope you don’t mind this, but an apostrophe ‘s is short for is. Sorry. Used to embarrass my ex-GF, we’d go into a restaurant, I’d point out typos on the menu. I figure no 1 says anything, nobody knows.
Yeah, it was Tai Chi that got me off my speed addiction. I started out coming to class wired to the gills. Realized that was antithetical to what I was learning. Most of the other stuff kinda just petered out – I had a stupid episode going to a Steppenwolf concert, smoked too much weed, lost my ride, all kinds of idiocy. I figured: if it makes me that stupid, who needs it? I stopped drinking after my dad passed – went 3 years, wouldn’t touch a drop. I have the occasional nip now ‘n again – but it’s barely regular.
You strike me as the sort who’d take Tiger claw – it’s a little too aggressive for my taste. Which style of TCC did you do? I do Fu and Chen, Yang short form, some weapons.
Got an eagle on my chest – always fancied a samurai in full armor on my back, but then people’d think I was a white Yakuza.
Although it discusses a "belief" and a "faith" in a supernatural/God what it does not decipher is the relationship one seeks with God. When I think of religion (and I suspect this is the case with many atheist's) is number 2.
Well, no, #2 doesn’t fit. For 1 thing, freethinkers tend to be somewhat less…communal than religious folks. I’ve said it, & others elsewhere, that we all tend to do our own thing individually. Kinda like cats: fiercely independent, not really pack creatures.
This is the one most people identify Christians as. This, from my perspective, is misleading. I, for one, agree that religion is most definitely about institutionalization I see this as manipulation of God's word to control the masses. Often the case we see is where a particular church denomination's doctrine, Catholics for example, have an entire set of rules and regulations written, not only outside of the scriptures, but a number of them that directly contradict what the scriptures teach. You are a learned man of the Bible. Remember how Christ rebuked the Religious Pharisees for the identical thing? He took it as far as referring to them as children of the devil. At the sake of repeating myself, this is why I do not identify myself as a religious person.
I understand that, I was raised (loose) Catholic. I appreciate the compliment, but I’m just an amateur w/too much time on my hands. I do recall the Pharisee rebuke: it was mostly about being too strict in interpretation, if memory serves. & I have heard the concept that ‘religion was invented by the devil’. An earlier post of mine actually talks about some guys who took that to the next level.
If you look at number 4 for example, there are instances where that can apply to the atheist. Anyone can be just "religious" even where no belief in a deity exists.
I suppose so, but most go w/#1.
The headline worked on google search. I am not too sure what they could prosecute her on unless they have a an actual law that states what she is doing is illegal. If it is illegal and she is aware of it, but breaks the law anyway, then she deserves to get busted. However it does not appear the prosecutors are taking it all that serious as the article stated they are not sending any of their own to the show to monitor it. Again, pretty mild reaction compared to our militant radical Muslim friends ;)
Yeah, it popped up in my Google headlines 1 day. It didn’t really go into detail, so I’m suspecting it was more of a P.R stunt.
Well actually yes! But seeing I am in your sandbox I thought I would be nice. Besides, I can be a little selfish with my title. LOL
Well, between your title & your picture, I was rather surprised how polite you tend to be in conversation. You to appear to be somewhat fiercesome.
Of course, 1 of the beauties of being an atheist, is that I don’t scare easy. ;)
I understand. Some people's approach is intrusive to the point that they end up pushing people even further away from where they are trying to bring them. They truly do mean well and they genuinely care about other's eternity. Although Fred Phelps is a scary one. He seems to delight in people going to hell. I still cannot get over that nut job!
Yeah, I saw a really interesting video on youtube: “When mormons attack!” These 2 guys decided to bombard 2 missionaries w/water balloons. It got pretty crazy – the guy & gal tried to physically assault them! My buddy, Hairless monkey, got into w/some JW’s recently – became a brawl. Mostly ‘cause HM is pretty heavy on the sarcasm.
Phelps is 1 of those guys that gets me white-knuckled, all right. Solid state hate, thru ‘n thru.
Not so tough for the theist. If it refuses to heard it is then I step back and say "It is now in your hands Lord". I am one who has and will continue to speak up but one thing I have recognized about God. That is...if He is all that I know Him to be in the scriptures then He really does not require me to defend Him. He is big enough to that Himself. And it isn't that God is a wimp who let's people walk all over Him. He quite simply has not dealt with them yet.
Yeah, my BAX buddy’s like that too – I wish there were more like you & him. Problem is, youse guys is in the minority.
So in that respect, I would say my side of the fence is better (niener, niener, niener!).
I guess since its colder in Canada, people are more mellow. Here in the states, the ‘brethren’ are more than a little…obsessive.

say no to christ said...

TIO

A belief in gawd makes you a religious person and the fact that you believe it is you christian duty to set others straight about their belief in gawd makes you a dogmatic religious person.

The thing that irratates me the most about christians and other religius folks is that they all say that the great thing about the bible/qaran/tarah is that everyone interprets it differently. BUT, they are the first ones to make a big stink if someone interprets it differently then they do.
Madonna has every right to express her religious views however she wants.

The Intolerant One said...

KA,

hope you don’t mind this, but an apostrophe ‘s is short for is.

Yeah, thanks teach. I will blame that error on my spell check.

I had a stupid episode going to a Steppenwolf concert, smoked too much weed, lost my ride, all kinds of idiocy.

LOL my concert was The Tragically Hip! How I made it home that night I still don't recall.

went 3 years, wouldn’t touch a drop.

Good for you. 9 years and counting for me.

You strike me as the sort who’d take Tiger claw – it’s a little too aggressive for my taste.

Ya think? I always felt Tae kwon do to be the aggressor of martial arts. Maybe it was the school I attended but our "Si Kung" was adamantly opposed to tournaments. He felt they made a mockery of the arts. We were "taught" to walk away from any threatening scenario "If possible". If not, then, and only then were we to get in quick, break something, and walk away Incapacitate them not get "Jean Claude" on them. He always taught us from the perspective of self defense. He actually threw guys out of the club if he heard they were either involved in tournaments or were using their knowledge of the arts to "bully" people. I hold a high regard for him.

Which style of TCC did you do?

I honestly do not know what you would call it. It has been awhile (although I still practice maneuvers at home) so I always called it what our school sign stated and that was Gung Fu. I would say the style itself is similar to that practiced by Steven Seagal.

The focus was often mid body range, stepping into your opponent as opposed to backing off for that "round house" that an experienced fighter is going to see coming a mile away anyway. Wind him with a hard sternum shot or twist into him while pulling his arm over your shoulder and then yanking that elbow down so it bends the wrong way! If all else failed, step into his kneecap and watch that fold over :) Did a number of weapons training with bats, knives, etc. When we practiced the Tai Chi portion that was intense. The body and mind get a far more vigorous work out moving at a slow pace as opposed to the quicker pace of Gung Fu.

I never tapped into the spirituality side of it. I was still a professing atheist at the time. My tattoo's were a reflection of the respect I had for the culture. (BTW, I forgot to mention the oriental dragon and bird of paradise on my upper left arm)

I do recall the Pharisee rebuke: it was mostly about being too strict in interpretation, if memory serves

It was the manipulation of their interpretation too justify all the other "laws" that they themselves came up with that overburdened the people. Laws they would not even practice themselves. Las that were not even founded, or in some cases even supported scripturaly. Off the top of my head I do believe the Pharisee's added almost 2,000 of their own laws along side the Old Testament.

Well, between your title & your picture, I was rather surprised how polite you tend to be in conversation. You to appear to be somewhat fiercesome.

9 years ago your assumption would have been bang on! I will give God the credit for my change in attitude and demeanor. However, I appreciate the compliment just the same. There is still that "old" man in me who still gets a kick out of watching people drop turds in their drawers when I walk toward them. Bizarre quirk I am still working on. (LOL)

Phelps is 1 of those guys that gets me white-knuckled, all right. Solid state hate, thru ‘n thru.

I think if you and I came across this fellow at the same time we would be fighting for a place in line at who gets first crack at him.

Yeah, my BAX buddy’s like that too – I wish there were more like you & him.

Aww shucks (sniffle). There are many but quite often they are not the ones that get heard. It is always the "flamboyant" ones who get remembered.

The Intolerant One said...

Say no to Christ...

Interesting title you carry. If you do not believe then how can you say no?

A belief in gawd makes you a religious person

No it does not. Wait a minute, in some cases yes but not in all. Many believe in the existence of God and even attend church "religiously" but as soon as they depart for the week they continue in sinful wickedness with no reverent or healthy fear of the God they profess to follow. They go thru the motions of going to church because they feel it will somehow score points with the big Guy on judgement day when in reality they have absolutely no relationship with Him whatsoever. To that degree they are religious.

I suspect you and I are going to disagree on this.

the fact that you believe it is you christian duty to set others straight about their belief in gawd makes you a dogmatic religious person.

Very presumptuous on your part. It is NOT my duty to set others straight. That is the job of a parent to a child. It IS my duty to present the gospel message of redemption and salvation. The onus is on the individual to either accept it or reject it. If one decides to accept the gospel as truth then they make the choice to submit to Christ thereby setting themselves straight according to His teachings. I cannot do that for them.

I think you are confusing me with militant Islam which says"either you convert or we will eradicate you from the land!" That is dogmatic religion.

The thing that irratates me the most about christians and other religius folks is that they all say that the great thing about the bible/qaran/tarah is that everyone interprets it differently.

I will not speak for the "other" religions but when it comes to Christianity I am in disagreement with this statement. There is nothing great about others interpreting the Bible differently. In fact it is scary the way some have desecrated God's word to suit their own agendas.

When all is said and done at the end of time God will not be bound by "man's" interpretation of His word anyway.

BUT, they are the first ones to make a big stink if someone interprets it differently then they do.

That depends on the source and how ludicrous their claim is. For example, if a non-believer comes along and tells me that God is OK with homosexuality because He is a God of love (which He is) that does not nullify or dismiss what God has already said regarding homosexuality as sin. When someone does that it is a clear and obvious misinterpretation. Therefore I would point it out. The individual may not like or agree with it but it is pretty black and white.

Madonna has every right to express her religious views however she wants.

She wasn't expressing her religious views. If she was her stage would have resembled her practice of Kaballah not the cross which is symbolic of Christianity. The following taken from KA's link:

The pop star has defended the imagery, saying it forms part of an appeal to her audience to donate to Aids charities.

What the (bleep!) does that have to do with expressing her religious views? It has more to do with her exploiting religious symbolism for yet more free publicity for her concert tours. Madonna could care less, she is all about marketing and capitalizing on the almighty dollar. Even though as a democrat she would deny that. But then, whoever knew a democrat that told the truth. :)

The Intolerant One said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
karen said...

TIO
they continue in sinful wickedness with no reverent or healthy fear of the God they profess to follow.
Reverent or healthy fear? For someone/thing that loves you?
What is that?
I can see having a healthy or reverent fear of nature--which cares not a whit about you--but why should you have ANY fear of someone with whom you supposedly have a loving relationship?

The Intolerant One said...

Karen,

That, my lady, is misunderstanding on your part.

If one claims to be a follower of God with a devoted love towards Him yet lives in such a manner that dishonors, maligins, and obviously contardicts what He is also about they obviously have no fear of judgment.

Your children love you. You have set down the parameters and guidelines in your home. They know when abiding within those guidelines (out of love for you) there really is nothing to fear at all. They also have the "healthy" fear of knowing mom's wrath if they openly, willfully, and intentionally step outside those parameters.

I hope this parrallel helps you better understand the angle I was coming from.

karen said...

TIO
Yes my children love me, and I love them. That does not mean that when they misbehave, I would withhold my love from them, or condemn them to any kind of Hell or death for having willfully sidestepped the parameters.
And I never punished one of them for something another of them had done--or for something their aunts, uncles or great grandparents had done.
I would hope it wasn't me they feared, but rather the consequences of their actions. I do know they feared their father. As a result, they are more open with me and more forthcoming about what they do. They know from experience that I don't shoot from the hip and react in a judgemental way, but talk to them and try to work it out instead.
Now, one of my sons went through a period when he didn't seem to care what anyone thought about his actions. He was on drugs and that was driving him. He broke not only our rules, but society's rules, and ended up in prison. It was a heartbreaking time in my life, because I could not get through to him, and had to let him accept the full responsibility for what he'd done. But I let him know I would always be supportive of his efforts to be constructive and contributing, even if he wasn't always successful.
He has since turned his life around.

My other son, as you know, is gay. By your reasoning, he is "openly, willfully, and intentionally" stepping outside your god's parameters. If I thought like you, my son might fear my wrath in this case, but as such, he knows I accept him lovingly and fully as he is.

How is it that I, a mere mortal, have (what I consider to be) more reasoned punishments and more widely accepting love than your vastly powerful deity?

Krystalline Apostate said...

TIO:
Yeah, thanks teach. I will blame that error on my spell check.
Sorry, dude.
LOL my concert was The Tragically Hip! How I made it home that night I still don't recall.
Here’s the weird part: I can pretty much remember every detail of approx. 80-90% of all my wild years. I could write a 1000 word (easy) short story about that bloody night. I can vividly recall many of my sojourns on LSD in the hills in my wastrel youth.
Short version: trying to escape from reality never seemed to work for me.
Good for you. 9 years and counting for me.
I indulge on the odd occasion – I made the conscious decision about who was in control – that was me.
Ya think? I always felt Tae kwon do to be the aggressor of martial arts. Maybe it was the school I attended but our "Si Kung" was adamantly opposed to tournaments. He felt they made a mockery of the arts. We were "taught" to walk away from any threatening scenario "If possible". If not, then, and only then were we to get in quick, break something, and walk away Incapacitate them not get "Jean Claude" on them. He always taught us from the perspective of self defense. He actually threw guys out of the club if he heard they were either involved in tournaments or were using their knowledge of the arts to "bully" people. I hold a high regard for him.
That is pretty cool. It’s nice to hear there are some real teachers out there. Too many diletantes for my taste. As for JCVD: that Belgian waffle’s a ballet boy – I don’t have much respect for him. Only good movie – Cyborg. Rest is pretty boy prancing.
I honestly do not know what you would call it. It has been awhile (although I still practice maneuvers at home) so I always called it what our school sign stated and that was Gung Fu. I would say the style itself is similar to that practiced by Steven Seagal.
Ummm…Seagal does Aikido. I’ve seen him use the occasional TCC move. I’m betting it was Yang style – that’s what everyone does.
The focus was often mid body range, stepping into your opponent as opposed to backing off for that "round house" that an experienced fighter is going to see coming a mile away anyway. Wind him with a hard sternum shot or twist into him while pulling his arm over your shoulder and then yanking that elbow down so it bends the wrong way! If all else failed, step into his kneecap and watch that fold over :) Did a number of weapons training with bats, knives, etc. When we practiced the Tai Chi portion that was intense. The body and mind get a far more vigorous work out moving at a slow pace as opposed to the quicker pace of Gung Fu.
Yeah, TCC has a lot of similar moves. Fan Thru Back, for instance: it looks pretty tame, but you actually take the arm, turn, break the arm on your shoulder, & flip the guy. Most students get a shocked look on their faces when I outline the applications: they think it’s some sort of moving yoga (it is, in a sense, but it’s also an MA).
I never tapped into the spirituality side of it. I was still a professing atheist at the time. My tattoo's were a reflection of the respect I had for the culture. (BTW, I forgot to mention the oriental dragon and bird of paradise on my upper left arm)
The spiritual side of it (as I see it), is that you learn to quiet the internal dialogue, in order to respond w/effortlessness. Cool thing is, it’s non-denominational (though I’ve read xtians claiming it’s an ‘occultic’ practice – yeesh!).

It was the manipulation of their interpretation too justify all the other "laws" that they themselves came up with that overburdened the people. Laws they would not even practice themselves. Las that were not even founded, or in some cases even supported scripturaly. Off the top of my head I do believe the Pharisee's added almost 2,000 of their own laws along side the Old Testament.
Is that in the Tanakh/Talmud?
9 years ago your assumption would have been bang on! I will give God the credit for my change in attitude and demeanor. However, I appreciate the compliment just the same. There is still that "old" man in me who still gets a kick out of watching people drop turds in their drawers when I walk toward them. Bizarre quirk I am still working on. (LOL)
Frontieres null fides: in appearances, put no faith.
I think if you and I came across this fellow at the same time we would be fighting for a place in line at who gets first crack at him.
Be my guest: I’ll just sell tickets.
Aww shucks (sniffle). There are many but quite often they are not the ones that get heard. It is always the "flamboyant" ones who get remembered.
True dat. Negative press seems to be the only press.

Krystalline Apostate said...

TIO:
But then, whoever knew a democrat that told the truth. :)
You musta missed Clinton's wailing on Wallace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/09/25/nice-little-conservative_e_30179.html
& already the neocons are re-spinning it.
Fact is, there's probably just as many honest folk & liars on either side of the fence.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Oops, meant 'whaling', not 'wailing'. I always get those 2 goofed up.