Christians. That's never a good way to start out an entry. Today, on the topic of homosexuality, I heard the female christian "clique" discussing how cute and well dressed gay men are. Of course, that was following several arguments they'd had with other people in the past about how they're still sinners and they're all gonna rot in hell. What do I get out of all of that? Cute things go to hell. At least that's the generalization that's most easily picked out of their mess of stereotypical stereotypes.

My question is why? Why can't they leave well enough alone? If they're going to hell, that's one thing. If you're making their lives hell, that's a whole different story. Christians are one of the biggest reasons same-sex marriages are banned in such a large percentage of the U.S.

What gets me steaming the most is this mainly christian (and by christian I mean any system that believes in christ) belief that, as seen predominately in catholicism, you must ask “god” for forgiveness. That’s just B.S. If you can’t get forgiveness from the person or people that you hurt by whatever you did, then maybe you shouldn’t be forgiven.

 

This belief lets people of the hook far to easily, as more often than not they skip the whole seek-forgiveness-from-the-wronged stage and skip straight to asking god. Of course, god is more inclined to forgive you, but what have you really done to him that you need to apologize for.

 

Surely the person that you wronged deserves your apology. Maybe they won’t forgive you… that’s something you’ll have to live with. But if they’re hesitant to forgive you than perhaps you should note how they were affected by the incident and why that might cause them to be hesitant.

 

If you trip somebody and then ask your best friend for forgiveness, does it really make any sense? Not unless it was your best friend that you tripped. And that would prompt the question, “Why would you do that to some one you care so much about?” Vengeance?

 

Hopefully you would never have reason to strike out at some one you know so well in vengeance. But if it’s some one else that your getting revenge against, shouldn’t you know them better? You might find you don’t have as good of a reason for seeking vengeance as you once thought. In fact, all they may want is your forgiveness, but you hesitate to give it to them because the thought of revenge is still fresh in your mind.

 

Perhaps you can see now why it is so important to ask forgiveness from those that you harmed. Any god that may exist may be willing to accept you and your forgiveness, but humans are not quite so holy and are forever in need of sincerity.

If a man is heartless, can he still yet be alive? Modern science would say that one cannot sustain life without a heart to pump its copious amounts of crimson blood to veins and vesicles alike.

If one such man were to commit a murderous crime, would it be possible to punish him with yet another? If he is truly heartless, then is it possible to bring death upon him? If in his heartlessness he is still capable of achieving death, would it be wrong to bring such upon him as he had already brought upon another?

Surely, if you were to rip him open, his blood would spill before him on the ground and there contained within his chest would be his beating heart. So if not heartless, then perhaps mindless.

The mind is the source of all thought, and without thought no consequences would hinder his actions. If he is incapable of thinking about and understanding morals and ethics, what is to stop his endless slaughter of innocent victims? Would it now be wrong to punish him for his crime with yet another? He would neither understand what the punishment is for, or even that is a punishment.

Perhaps it is not even punishment that we seek; maybe we merely want judgment so that we can rest in peace. But judgments of one’s rights and wrongs is subjective and must be based on some belief system.

But who’s? Surely not his own because society has long since neglected his rights whether the law has or not. Even if he were allowed to be judged based on his own beliefs, who’s to say that murder is not acceptable in his belief system? Then what judgment can be decreed? Innocence? That is an absurdity. So once again, who’s beliefs is his judgment to be based on if not his own?

Surely no one of them can be said to be more correct than another. But with all this to weigh, if one set of beliefs is still chosen above all the rest, who is in the right to judge? Will it then be up to people to judge or some divine power? Regardless, will those who believe differently feel they’ve been avenged for the crimes committed against them by such a man if their own belief system was not used in choosing his punishment?

But surely the punishment should be equal to the crime and death must be the only thing that equals death. So all must agree that he will die and feed the worms who’ve committed no crime.

But what if he’s accused of slaying more than one entity? Can a man die more than once in a lifetime? Such an idea is beyond human thought but all reason would force the assumption that no such possibility could ever exist.

So what punishment could be forced upon him that would make up for his crime? Again assuming that if his heart cannot be absent, his mind must surely be in its place. Are the mindless, however, any more capable of dying?

Learning, reasoning, socializing: all things that are aspects controlled by the mind. Would one not say that they are required for life?

If one does not have the means to live in their possession, how can they be alive? Our reasoning would be spoiled yet again as we’d have to agree that this walking, talking, breathing mass of human flesh and features is indeed alive. Then we must change our whole approach to the situation at hand. If he is already dead, he obviously cannot be punished by death. But if he is still very much alive, then there is still a chance to punish him with such methods.

Then another question of morality must be posed. Are we in the right when killing a living man? It is after all the crime he is being punished for. How is it right for he himself to be murdered if it was not alright for he himself to murder? If it is right in one instance then it must be right in all instances. And he is therefore being punished for something that is not a crime.

The executioner would then be guilty merely for carrying out the punishment and not for murdering him in itself. For if one act is committed in response to another in order to leave a lesson learned, then it is a punishment regardless of whether it is or is not a crime.

But assume death is an applicable and acceptable punishment for murder, which in our lifetime is viewed as a crime. If death is a punishment, why is it given freely to the innocent? If the innocent are deserving of such, then perhaps it is not as good of a punishment as we expect.

What if it is in fact a reward for innocence? Then by killing the guilty among us we are rewarding them for their crimes. For murder is a crime is it not?

What if the monster’s victims were not of the human form? Do different rules apply because apposable thumbs separate us from them? We all breathe the same air and inhabit the same Earth.

If death truly can be discerned from a reward and be recognized as a punishment, then surely the whole race of man is worthy of the plagues and war that defeat them. The race as a whole has yet to unify, that must be punishable at least, for disunity has brought more than its fair share of deaths. Disunity is, after all, merely a side effect of the existence of man and therefore man is guilty of murder. The whole race is at fault and no one is innocent. The fault is inheritable.

And if no being fashioned in man’s likeness can be innocent, then we no longer have to fear that the innocent are being punished unjustly. In fact, we may rule out death as a reward altogether unless you would argue that all men in their sinful ways are to be rewarded.

Assuming you have not taken the aforementioned path you must agree that the man mentioned earlier in this text is deserving of death just as were his victims.

Only if the faults of our forefathers, present in their hatred and murderous tendencies, can some how be atoned for can we erase our deservance of death. And for that reason alone must we live, in an effort to see our deed done in our lifetime and spare those who would live after us.

 

Not only that people can be so stupid... but that people will ridicule another person for false stupidity. Today in my biology class, one of my classmates asked a question pertaining to ligers. Of course the idiot sitting next to them's sole education has come from the mind-numbing and far-from-hilarious Napolean Dynomite. She broke out in laughter and mocked the ponderer because of their question. Now, to me that says at least one of two things:

1. Napolean Dynomite is a useless movie meant for entertaining the water-headed masses of society and is of no value comical or otherwise.

and

2. Some people are so stupid that they will take anything they ever hear from a movie and assume is is applicable to life and will try to apply it.

I, myself, vote equally on each. I might not be a genius on the subject, but I know that ligers are a hybrid resulting from the cross between a tiger and a lion, and like all know hybrids is sterile. There is also a tigon (at least I believe that is what it is called) and it is also a cross between a tiger and lion. The difference between the two is that the tiger is the male in one and the lion is the male in the other.

What point am I trying to make? I'm really not sure I'm trying to make a point. If I am, then it would surely be that Napolean Dynomite needs to rot in hell, and stupid people need to shut the fuck up. They can think all the stupid things they want, as long as I don't have to hear about it. Especially when they're ridiculing some one for asking a legitimate question (and in turn making them feel like an idiot) because of their own lack of intelligence.

Think about it. If people still got their hands chopped off for stealing, how many people would be stupid enough to steal? And few people that I know of would chance becoming a eunuch just so they could fuck around.

In some countries they still do it... at least from what I hear. Which means the crime still continues. But, the U.S. is so shielded from everything... if you forced everyone to watch people being mutilated and tortured they would shapen up.

Morals. That's what it's really all about... and this is how you force them on people. Throwing people in jail doesn't do any good. They're more than likely getting fed and clothed better than they do out in the world. That's just saying that the world would rather reward their burglars and rapists. I know I don't.

But seriously, would you ever cheat if you were going to have your tongue cut out, or have large painful objects rammed down your throat or up your ass. I would think more than twice about it...

It may be painful, and maybe even unethical by some stretches of the imagination. But they ARE guilty aren't they, and there usually isn't anything ethical about comitting a crime. So I say shove it up, cut it off, and stretch it out.

Please allow me to welcome myself to the blogs... as I don't expect anyone else to, nor would I care if they did. I could be all cheery and happy, but I've realized that it's easier to be real in a fake world and easier to be fake in the real world. On top of all of that, I'm just sick of wearing that same ol' facade day in and day out.

Oh, sure, I don't have to fake it... but I'm in a world full of people that need to be shot. I may very well be one of them, but at least I know it.  Sure, I'm a predjudiced individual. I'm predjudice against christians because they're predjudiced against everyone else. Not only that, but they don't even stop to question it. Even I question whether or not I should hate those that hate everyone that is not like them. I haven't found a flaw in my hatred yet.

It's not only christians. It's anyone that walks around with a dick in their ass, figuratively of course. Hell, the people that literally walk around with dicks in their ass are some of the few people that I can sympathize with. They're on the losing side of battle between righteousness and the mass production of stupidity.

Does religion really have a lot to do with it... not really. But there sure are a few major religious groups that stick around with lot of idiots that lack the ability to accept others. You can go to whatever hell you wish if you think people should be shunned by society because of differences in opinion. They are just that, opinions, not facts. Therefore, none of them are right, but some are most definitely more righteous.

The thing that pisses me off about religions (not all of them mind you) is that it's always "God" that says that the people that think the "wrong things" or do the "wrong things" are wrong. Well maybe god is wrong. Ever think about that. Fork him. Even if he is real, that doesn't mean he's right. All that means is that if he really has said all the things that the pious in the world preach, then he can be held accountable for all the fucked up things he's caused.

If I'm wrong in my opinions, then may lightning strike me down and remove me from a world of hatred and stupidity. If I'm right, then may all those who make it so share that bolt that would otherwise be reserved for me.