Currently Listening Freebird: The Very Best of Lynyrd Skynyrd By Lynyrd Skynyrd Freebird by Ronnie Van Zant see related

Iraq, and Global Policy - Pros and Cons

Okay, I've been an avid watcher and reader of the news for most of my life.  To be honest, I find it fun, in a sick and twisted way.    However, has anyone noticed that since Bush and the GOP took over the government of this country, everything went to shit?  Never mind the moral issues, or the policies.  Look at the state of the union.  This country is in debt by trillions of dollars, and we're spending millions every day in Iraq, and even then, the troops are underfunded.  Badly.

But this horrific condition of the nation begs the question of why are we in Iraq?  Bush gave three reasons as to why invasion was nessessary.  Iraq was harboring terrorists, they were an immenate threat, and had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction).  Now, two years later, we've found no weapons, no terrorists connected with 9-11, and in Iraq's counterattack against the U.S., they launched five rockets, three of which blew up on the pad, and two that flew up and came straight back down.  Need anything more be said?  We were lied to, by our own government, and they still have not admitted that they were wrong.  I know that many of you in this part of the world are deeply conservative, but let me ask you this.  If you are able bodied and believe that this war is right, then sign up for the military.  You will get good benefeits, and be helping our struggling and overstretched military.  Are any of you willing to die for this war?  Or your brothers?  Fathers?  Sons?

George W. Bush is a man with no conscience, and no guts.  He's attacked a tiny and nearly defensless nation, which is doing everything that it can to get us out, because they wish to be left along.  We should know better than to believe that a democracy would last in that part of the world.  One day, when we actually do leave, it will go right back to the way that it was, or possibly be split into civil war and divided.  Then it would be worse then when Saddam was in power, which is ironic since the U.S. is the country that placed him into power.  I shall post a link in my next update to the site that tells the story.

Either way, I have no respect for the policies of Bush, since they are all aggressive.  I have enjoyed watching him back down from the threat of North Korea and Iran.  He would never attack them, because he knows what the reprecussions would be.  He has almost singlehandedly turnedthe entire world against us.  This could possibly be the worst mistake that we ever made in the history of this country, because it could very easily become our downfall.

I would also like to make one final note on Katrina, and the entire debacle of it.  Whether you agree with me on this or not, it does not matter.  This is my own belief.  If the people trapped in New Orleans had been wealthy white republicans, aid would have arrived there as soon as the hurricane finished.  Not three days later.  But, that's my own personal belief, say what you will about it in the comments section.  Good bye for now.

voIce

Currently Listening City of Evil By Avenged Sevenfold see related

A New Author. A New Beginning

As you might have guessed from the title, this is not the same person that was Voice.  I am someone very much different, one just as contriversial, but not as insulting.  When I discovered the identity of the first Voice, I had many long talks with that person on how what they said can be quite insulting to others, and that they should rethink the things that they say.  They chose to leave Xanga, but they did provide me with the password to use this account.  And so, I shall.

I will approch difficult topics just as my predecessor did, but in a much different manner.  My thinking is that you will all enjoy it and learn from it much more than you did the previous postings.

I will tell you all some things about myself now and how they differ from the previous user of this site.  We would all love to believe that we are completely fearless, but no one truly is.  I have my fears as well, but I do my best every day to conquer them.  I do not fear death in the conventional sense, I fear the means of death.  Will it be painful, or peaceful, etc.

I'm not perfect, in any sense.  I swear all the time, I drink all the time, I smoke, I've tried things that I should never have tried before, etc.  I realize that I'm imperfect, but I look at it as I'm being open and honest with all of you.  I would hope that none of you would be superficial enough to judge me, as I would never do to you.  Even though that I do all of the above listed things, I still will continue to offer my views upon the world, ask for opinions of lyrics that I write, and all around say what I think, etc.  If any of you would grant me that one courtesy of reading my writings, I would appriciate it very much.

voIce

Okay, I have decided to state my logic in a clear and complete manner, since I did not make it clear as I meant to before.  I would not want you actually believing that I am hypocritical and creating my own "dogma".  So, I shall state it here what I believe to be the truth, about everything, and repost it upon my own site.

I believe in a Supreme Being, a Creator, and everpresent, omnipitant force.  I do not believe in God as the Bible describes "Him".  God is not a he or a she, for the Supreme Being is beyond any of humanity's concepts.  We cannot even begin to fathom what the Being is, and so Christianity has personified the Being as what they wanted for "Him" to be.  In the Bible, or rather, in the Old Testament, God is vengeful.  If anyone can truly argue that point, then please do.  The Bible describes God as nothing but love, yet the God of the Bible set people against each other, caused plagues, destroyed two "sinful" cities, and even killed off the entire human race in one fell swoop.  Is that truly love?  NO.  As Christians would say, murder is murder.  That would make the God fo the Bible a murderer, and a violator of "His" own comandments.

Then came the New Testament.  The simple fact is that we do not know anything of the actual Jesus Christ because no one wrote down what he said at the exact time that he said it.  Everything that Jesus said was from the memory of writers or the apostles, and even their versions are highly conflicted with one another.  Their stories are tainted with their own biases and opinions, and none of it has the true meaning of Christ in it.  So we truly have no idea whom "He" was.  All that we have is the editied version of the Bible that Constantine the Great (which is proven fact) created for the Empire.  And it has been edited many times off of that.  King James editions, and New World, etc.

I think that Thomas Paine said it best.  "Why rely upon such a conflicting and contradicting piece of literature that has been edited countless times over the mellinia when one can actually observe the Being in nature?"

The Supreme Being is visible everywhere, friends.  Yet you all choose to believe in stories passed down for centuries about a Messiah who came to die for us all.  To cleanse us of sin.  Your "God" would be the most evil and henious monster to ever exist had "He" cursed us with sin from birth.  What about the countless people before Christ?  What happened to them?  Were they simply cast into Hell with no recourse, simple because Jesus had not come yet?  NO.  The Supreme Being would never do such an atrocious thing.  Never damn people to Hell whom did not lead sinful and evil lives.

Jesus' message was a great one, and it would be wise to follow his teachings in order to lead a good life.  However, no one should bow to Christ.  Christ is not God.  God, or the Being, is everywhere.  Within nature, us, beyond.  The Bible is no longer an accurate depiciton of the Being.  If it is, then we are all damned, for God is evil and vengeful.  I choose to believe that God is all good, and incapable of doing such things that are spoken of in the Biblical accounts.  Also, on a side note, the same sources that confirm that what the Bible says is fact also say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelen and had a child with her.  Which would make him imperfect.  Just a side note, however.

Now, for myself.  While I fear nothing, including death, most of the population does.  Most of Xanga's users do, while they may not admit it.  And, to address Austin's question of why are some people not scared of death?  Some never admit to being so, because they have too much pride and ego.  Most, however, are content with their faith and different religions, and believe that they know where they are going.  Yet, someone always has to be wrong though, do they not?  With my beliefs, no one is wrong, for most everyone believes in "God" or the Supreme Being.  So long as they lead fufilling lives, and have faith that their Creator will take care of them, they have nothing to fear.  Especially their God.

I attempt to tell people what my point of view says is Truth, my friends..  Some just find it interesting, and others may come to embrace it as the Truth.  Either way, it matters not to me.  I am secure in the fact of where I go when I pass from this world to the next.  However, in my beliefs, I will see many more people there than Christianity could ever claim.  However, that is beside the point.  I believe what I believe because that is where my life experiences have lead me.  I am sorry that what you all may believe would damn me to Hell, but I will not waiver on my belief system.  This is some of what I believe, and everyone can form their own opinions upon it.  In fact, I do encourage it.  Sorry that it is not longer and more presise, but it is quite late.

Thank you all for everything.

A_Voice_Amongst_The_Damned

Currently Reading The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings: Marx, Marat, Paine, Mao Tse-Tung, Gandhi and Others By Bob Blaisdell, Marx, Gandhi see related

A Post on the Topic of Religion

Yet once again, I have returned, and with an interesting article that I found while purusing the Internet.  Apologies for being absent for so long, and to make up for it, I shall repost this article.  I agree with it in its entirety, and it should give the many of you a much different view point on Christianity.  Bon au Revoir, good readers, and do enjoy.

THE  BIBLE'S  UNHOLY   ORIGINS

by Robert L. Johnson

Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.

The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.

According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! This fact is revealed in the second counter-rebuttal to Brian Show's first rebuttal to this article. This counter-rebuttal makes the following important statement and backs it up with FACTS - "Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use." Of course, I'd like to express my deep appreciation to fellow Deist Peter Murphy for the great research work he did in order to write such a great counter-rebuttal!

In the landmark work by H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. I, pages 462-463, we read, "It (the Council of Nicaea) marks the definite entry upon the stage of human affairs of the Christian Church and of Christianity as it is generally understood in the world to-day. It marks the exact definition of Christian teaching by the Nicene Creed."

Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures." It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go.

Compare the man-made origins of Christianity and its various dogmas to the simplicity of Deism. Deism is belief in God based only on reason and the creation itself. It makes no claim to false "revelations" as all of the "revealed" religions do. To Deists, proof of the Designer is in the design.

To quote Thomas Paine, "Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This is Deism. But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach itself to such wild conceits. . . .

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

"Instead then of studying theology, as is now done out of the Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted and the authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to the Bible of the Creation. The principles we discover there are eternal and of divine origin; they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of theology.

"We can know God only through His works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of His power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of His wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face."

On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine's response fits perfectly with this page regarding the origins of the Bible.

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

"The history of Christmas dates back over 4000 years. Many of our Christmas traditions were celebrated centuries before the Christ child was born. The 12 days of Christmas, the bright fires, the yule log, the giving of gifts, carnivals(parades) with floats, carolers who sing while going from house to house, the holiday feasts, and the church processions can all be traced back to the early Mesopotamians."  This is a quote from a site totally dedicated to the history of Christmas.

"Many of these traditions began with the Mesopotamian celebration of New Years. The Mesopotamians believed in many gods, and as their chief god - Marduk. Each year as winter arrived it was believed that Marduk would do battle with the monsters of chaos. To assist Marduk in his struggle the Mesopotamians held a festival for the New Year. This was Zagmuk, the New Year's festival that lasted for 12 days.  The Mesopotamian king would return to the temple of Marduk and swear his faithfulness to the god. The traditions called for the king to die at the end of the year and to return with Marduk to battle at his side. 

To spare their king, the Mesopotamians used the idea of a "mock" king. A criminal was chosen and dressed in royal clothes. He was given all the respect and privileges of a real king. At the end of the celebration the "mock" king was stripped of the royal clothes and slain, sparing the life of the real king.

The Persians and the Babylonians celebrated a similar festival called the Sacaea. Part of that celebration included the exchanging of places, the slaves would become the masters and the masters were to obey.

Early Europeans believed in evil spirits, witches, ghosts and trolls. As the Winter Solstice approached, with its long cold nights and short days, many people feared the sun would not return. Special rituals and celebrations were held to welcome back the sun.

In Scandinavia during the winter months the sun would disappear for many days. After thirty-five days scouts would be sent to the mountain tops to look for the return of the sun. When the first light was seen the scouts would return with the good news. A great festival would be held, called the Yuletide, and a special feast would be served around a fire burning with the Yule log. Great bonfires would also be lit to celebrate the return of the sun. In some areas people would tie apples to branches of trees to remind themselves that spring and summer would return.

The ancient Greeks held a festival similar to that of the Zagmuk/Sacaea festivals to assist their god Kronos who would battle the god Zeus and his Titans.

The Roman's celebrated their god Saturn. Their festival was called Saturnalia which began the middle of December and ended January 1st. With cries of "Jo Saturnalia!" the celebration would include masquerades in the streets, big festive meals, visiting friends, and the exchange of good-luck gifts called Strenae (lucky fruits).

The Romans decked their halls with garlands of laurel and green trees lit with candles. Again the masters and slaves would exchange places.

"Jo Saturnalia!" was a fun and festive time for the Romans, but the Christians though it an abomination to honor the pagan god. The early Christians wanted to keep the birthday of their Christ child a solemn and religious holiday, not one of cheer and merriment as was the pagan Saturnalia.

But as Christianity spread they were alarmed by the continuing celebration of pagan customs and Saturnalia among their converts. At first the Church forbid this kind of celebration. But it was to no avail. Eventually it was decided that the celebration would be tamed and made into a celebration fit for the Christian Son of God.

Some legends claim that the Christian "Christmas" celebration was invented to compete against the pagan celebrations of December. The 25th was not only sacred to the Romans but also the Persians whose religion Mithraism was one of Christianity's main rivals at that time. The Church eventually was successful in taking the merriment, lights, and gifts from the Saturanilia festival and bringing them to the celebration of Christmas.

The exact day of the Christ child's birth has never been pinpointed. Traditions say that it has been celebrated since the year 98 AD. In 137 AD the Bishop of Rome ordered the birthday of the Christ Child celebrated as a solemn feast. In 350 AD another Bishop of Rome, Julius I, choose December 25th as the observance of Christmas."

As most anyone can see, each different religion has their own celebrations around this time, and the Church simply tamed and adapted them to their own bidding.  So, that is the history of Christmas.  Any thoughts or comments are welcome.  Until then, however, I will await you all and then post again.

Thanks you's go out to Amanda and Kryst'n for their commenting.  Much appriciated ladies.  Thanks you both so much.  Bon au Revoir.