_ _ _ .. //
the flow of spit raging from a mouth so loosed and untamed, the tongue at the helm. A clueless bandana, mind chained to the sinking ship, USS Gomorrah. While the hands, the supposed hands of freedom and liberated creativity, swing and sway forced and controlled a the pupeteer’s whim. Oh but the eyes are open, aren’t they? So wide, so widely they gaze in a blind stupor, a self-sufficient soapbox made of cork, upon the foundation of society’s gelatinous morals. The heat is rising, the heat, the sad and angry heat, and so it goes and so it goes… floating and lost upon the sea of forgetfulness. While the spit still rages on.
\\ .. _ _ _

I was first inspired by these words when I was 14, when I first read a portion of it, decided to memorize it and recite it at a church service. I have been reciting it ever since. I hope that his words continue to encourage and bless others.

Me reciting the speech a couple years ago

• Listen to the original author, S.M. Lockridge, reciting “That’s My King!”
• Watch the video of the speech I recited on YouTube or Blip.
• Here you can find people have made visuals and montages with his audio and created cool worshipful videos.

Text of the Speech (Similar to the video version)

That’s My King!
S.M. Lockridge

The Bible says my King is a seven-way King: He’s the King of the Jews - that’s a racial King. He’s the King of Israel - that’s a National King. He’s the King of righteousness. He’s the King of the ages. He’s the King of Heaven. He’s the King of glory. He’s the King of kings and He is the Lord of lords. That’s my King!

Well, I wonder… do you know Him? David said “the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.” My King is a sovereign King; no means of measure can define His limitless love. No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of the shore of His supplies. No barriers can hinder Him from pouring out His blessing. He’s enduringly strong. He’s entirely sincere. He’s eternally steadfast. He’s immortally graceful. He’s imperially powerful. He’s impartially merciful.

Do you know Him? He’s God’s Son. He’s the sinner’s saviour. He’s the centrepiece of civilization. He stands alone in the solitude of Himself. He’s august and He’s unique. He’s unparalleled. He’s unprecedented. He’s the loftiest idea in literature. He’s the highest personality in philosophy. He’s the supreme problem in higher criticism. He’s the fundamental doctrine of true theology. He is the core, the cardinal necessity for a spiritual religion. He is the miracle of the age, and He is the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him. He’s the only one qualified to be an all-sufficient Savior.

I wonder if you know Him today. He’s the only one able to supply all our needs simultaneously. He supplies strength for the weak. He’s available for the tempted and the tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He guards and he guides. He heals the sick. He cleanses the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharges debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and He purifies the meek. That’s my King.

Do you know Him? Well, my King is the key to knowledge. He’s the wellspring of wisdom. He’s the doorway of deliverance. He’s the pathway of peace. He’s the roadway of righteousness. He’s the highway of holiness. He’s the gateway of glory. That’s my King.

His office is manifold. His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His love never changes. His Word is enough. His grace is sufficient. His reign is righteous. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I wish I could describe Him to you . . .but He’s indescribable. He’s God.

He’s incomprehensible. He’s invincible. He’s irresistible. You can’t get Him out of your mind. You can’t get Him off of your hands. You can’t outlive Him and you can’t live without Him. The Pharisees couldn’t stand Him, but they found out they couldn’t stop Him. Pilate couldn’t find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn’t get their testimonies to agree about Him. Herod couldn’t kill Him. Death couldn’t handle Him and the grave couldn’t hold Him. That’s my King. That’s my King!

Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever and ever and ever. How long is that? And ever and ever! And when you get through with all of the forever’s, then… Amen! Amen! and Amen!

I liked a part of the poem, and instead of posting it on my website I immediately thought of MySpace. Why? I have no idea. Kinda strange.

Anyway, so this is what I post…

and it started a mini-discussion with a friend. Here’s a response:

So after a few minutes of processing that I wrote a response:

My Response

You’re right, skin color isn’t the point.

“I must be measured by my soul
The mind is the standard of the man.”

Perhaps you’re right. He is assuming the existence of God, that he created humans, the faith in God, and the standards by which God measures humans. And it assumes that God created us with a “soul”, which is what is meant by “in the image of God”.

The exterior (body, skin color, etc.) has nothing to do with the “image of God”. And I’ve been arguing with myself for several years over the idea that the “soul” is a different thing from the “mind”. I’m not sure. Because being in the “image of God” means the creating, choice-making, loving, blah blah aspect of God.
And technically the “mind” is what does all that.

i digress….
I didn’t write it though; he did. However, I am a sucker for dynamic speeches, preachings and ’soulful’ word performances. So I enjoy his speeches any time of the year.

And of course I agree with his and others’ desire for the unity of humanity. However, the “soul” part to which you’re probably referring goes hand in hand.

That, of course, is because I believe we are created by this God, in His image.

so in a sense, perhaps “faith” is what he might’ve meant. but faith isn’t separate from the choice to live for God. Or rather, to realize/know/accept/believe that God exists and he has a purpose for this big Story we call Life, is to put your entire being into this cause and purpose. Because outside of it there is no purpose or meaning. faith is inevitably a part of the human experience, including the mind.

This “meaning” entails the compassion, unity, peace, love, responsibility, and action demanded of our ’soul’. or mind, I guess.

that effort as an individual would be the standard by which we are measured to this God.

and since MLKjr was obviously speaking within the context of a racially-stirred turmoil, and through the filter/lens of christianity, he uses the illustration of the keyboard and God - that all people, from bass-black to treble-white, are equal and valuable creations of God.

i talk too much. Good conversation starter.

Since I’m not much of a blogger, I hope someone appreciates this re-posting of thoughts on a somewhat interesting topic :) What do you think? Any thoughts on the poem or what we mentioned?

for the Bride of Christ,
sullied and dashed upon the rocks,
lifted her countenance unto the steeple
but the Groom met her eyes
wiped the tears and with His own
washed her raiment to a glistening white
His own blood healed her wounds
His own pain brought her strength
“With my Life I thee wed,
my Bride to be, my Bride forever”.

All hail and power unto the Lamb
the One Who sits on the throne
the God and Father, the Groom forever.

The Bride of Christ is come
the Church has found its Home
She resides in the busom of her Groom
the Christ, the Lover forever more.

booyah,
:: efrain ;)

“…Christians that aren’t fundamentalists are just metaphysical tourists that are only in it for the weekend barbecues and cut-price child day care. Simply put, if you’re not a fundamentalist then you’re not really religious. You either believe it or you don’t. Even fuzzy logic doesn’t cut the mustard because the purported rewards and punishments these religions will promise you are not planned to be dealt out on the basis that you 67% believed in the Holy Spirit. Nor will Satan let you off lightly with a roasting in aisle B of the 3rd level of Hell if you refused to commit murder in 9 out of ten opportunities. It’s in the very core of this dogma that you’re either in boots and all, or you’re out, and you don’t want to be out. …”
~ An excerpt of a comment made by OzJuggler on an article at kuro5hin.org

OzJuggler is not a christian, he’s an atheist. I don’t completely agree with OzJuggler, but there is truth in what he says. A lot of religious folks, let’s say Christians for the sake of example, are afraid of being classified as or associated with the term “Fundamentalist”. And at least here in California, people tend not to like Fundamentalists, regardless of the religion. Even my cousin apologized for referring to me as a ‘fundamentalist christian’ once, while we were having a conversation. It went something like “…oh curse those stupid fundamentalist christians. oh, not that you would be one, I didn’t mean that. I apologize. I know you’re not like that.”

I have two thoughts about what my cousin said. ONE: It’s funny that she thinks I’m not a “fundie”. I mean, she’s known me all of her life, and she knows what I stand for, morally, politically, etc. I should be a fundie to her because I’m fundamentally opposed to most of her moral-sociopolitical views. (In some ways, I could be a threatening(or sadly deluded) fundamentalist to her — the kind who is intelligent and functional in society yet still believes in an invisible creator-god, and bases life on a centuries-old Book written and compiled by multiple authors over a span of 1500 years or so, which are supposed to be the words of this creator-god.)

TWO: This may sound weird, but I feel a bit ashamed that she didn’t associate me with fundamentalist Christianity. Because, this is my point I think, “fundamentalism” in Christianity should literally mean Biblical Christianity — doing it like Jesus did. Not the passive buddha copy that so many think Jesus was, but the real Jesus, the dude who whipped the hustlers outta the temple; the dude who used spit and mud to heal a blind man; the dude who loved someone so much that he actually let the person make the choice to leave and be lost; the Jesus whose first words recorded were “CHANGE!(Repent) For the kingdom of God is at hand!“. The Man who actively pursued his mission and took on a horrible physical torture and death, and yes, ultimately, raised himself from the dead.

Of course the fundamentalism stuff also has some bad connotation to it. Blowing up abortion clinics, bashing homosexuals in word and deed, and general hatred. As with any group or religion, there are always the really bad eggs that seem to spoil the bunch. If Jesus and his followers were around today, would they be doing what a lot of those bad fundamentalists are doing? Based on the historical writings, which are all we have to go by, I’d say NO. They would, however, be offending many, that’s for sure.

Eniguey, I’ve never cared much for labels, and I don’t care if you call me a fundie, a bigot, a commie, a fascist, a conservative, a nazi, a christian, a fool, or narrow-minded. Nothing really hurts my feelings, honestly. But I do understand the importance of words, labels and categories. Humans seem to need them, it keeps things tidy, I guess. So it may be easier not to analyze, investigate, or think in general, simply throwing folks you don’t agree with into tidy little labelled categories. I get that. Sure, go ahead and continue using the labels, but I say, no matter your background or philosophy, just Think. Please.

All I really care about is living how Jesus and his early followers (the ones who wrote the new testament) would want me to live today. No, things don’t always go right, and boy, do I have to lot to work on (temper, anyone? sorry KION/KCBA), and yes, there are many people who won’t like me or other christians, but that’s just the way it is. The Dude said it would be that way.

“…You will be hated for my namesake… They will persecute you.”
~ Jesus Christ.

So, when I come across comments like OzJuggler’s or my cousin’s, it reminds what this Christian thing is supposed to be about. In a sense, OzJuggler is right: there is no middle ground. You’re either In or Out. You believe or you don’t. There must be a fundamental agreement with the cause, religion, teaching, faith, and your mind. You cannot take some of this and some of that. In any religion, it should be all or nothing(or something else).

At least in the JudeaoChristianMuslim religions, we’re not being judged on a curve. it’s a pass/fail test really. You either did your best to follow or you didn’t. You did what Jesus said to do, or you didn’t. You’re either fully devoted to Allah or not. You either followed God’s commandments or not.

Because in the end, you only have two options: Up or Down.

Sure, faith could sorta be your “guide”, but i think faith is more like a compass on your journey home to a loved one. A compass could be the most useful tool for survival, but it is not why you’re on the journey. Your compass points you north, toward your destination, toward home. Even if you’re lost, North is what keeps you going. North is why you walk through the darkness, the pelting rain, the burning fire; North is why you don’t stop even when you’re compass seems broken and you’re lost in miles of void. Because you know that North is where Home is, and as long as you keep moving in the direction your compass was pointing, you’ll find North, you’ll find Home.

Allow me to paraphrase with an analogy:
“When I was lost in that forest, my compass is what kept me going. My compass is my salvation and brought me through some very stressful times. My compass is why I am standing here today. My compass points me North, and I believe North also sustained me through some hardships. I’m unashamed to say that North tells me to live a life based on the principles I learned in Eagle Scout Training”.

ah yes, the wonderful wishy-washiness of politicians’ faith. Use the lovely terms of faith, integrity, and Higher Being, and you’re sure to grab the gullible. Simply using vague and ‘acceptably inoffensive’ terms.

Religion and faith are almost by nature offensive to the naturalistic norm. So why not just be truthful and say: “I’m a dude who subscribes to the teaching of Jesus Christ and his early followers which composed the New Testament companion to the Jewish Old Testament.” ?

In the true sense of Judaeo-Christianity, your guide would be the God of the Bible. I think McCain knows this, but he’s a politician. He needs to honey-coat his words, or rather, throw some wax paper over them.

Generic terms allow him to appeal to a bunch of religions. This would include even those who might not subscribe to the idea of a higher being. Wishy-washy christians, buddhists, hindus, secularized muslims, universalists, rosicrucians, etc. — all of these can now safely vote for McCain. Because, awwww, he’s a man of faith and the “higher being” he’s referring to might be my higher being, which at the moment is LOST, 9pm/8c Thursdays on ABC.
what the?

On one hand, it’s sort of cool seeing a modern movie deal in archetypal good and evil. It takes events straight out of the Hebrew scriptures (see the Book of Exodus), the ten plagues upon Egypt to be exact, and brings them center stage as the catalyst for this supernatural thriller about God’s holy avengers versus a Satanic cult attempting to breed an antichrist baby. Plus, there are plenty of freaky images and moments to make your heart gasp.

On the other hand, I wish I could begin and end this review with, “‘The Reaping’ sucked. Next.” But alas, I must fill up the rest of this space with hopefully coherent thoughts dipped in movie-geekness.

Hilary Swank (“Million Dollar Baby”) plays a former Christian missionary who, after a vaguely tragic loss, becomes an atheistic, expert miracle debunker. The action begins when she, along with her trusty church-going sidekick (Idris Elba of “The Gospel”), is called to a small Louisiana town where she must investigate and confront mysterious phenomena that can’t easily be explained by good ol’ fashioned science.

Don’t be fooled though, “The Reaping” is basically a stale retelling of “Rosemary’s Baby”. It’s kind of blasphemic to compare these two movies, seeing as how “Rosemary” is a better movie, but they definitely share plot elements, including an atmospheric creepiness that chills the room and ends with a bummer. “The Reaping” takes itself way too seriously, especially for the religious exploitation and a lot of the lame explanatory dialogue: “You! You deceived me so I would murder this child!?”

A flustered priest offers weak explanations at convenient bumps in the story which reminded me of another high concept crap of a Bible-inspired movie, “End of Days”, starring California’s favorite governor. I hate explanations from religious experts in movies. Most of the time they are corny, contradictory, convoluted, and treat the audience like Sunday school kids on the short bus.

While it entertains with its fire and brimstone visuals, “The Reaping” is a schlocky thriller lacking anything truly fresh. Instead of having deep questions about faith and religion, you might want to ask, “Wait, what the bleep just happened?” and “I wasted how much money?”, or “God, why does my bio photo have to look so dorky?”

Some questions just don’t have answers.

_____________________________

RATING: 1.5 stars out of 4

Way better alternatives
magnolia (1999) - a somewhat unrelated film referencing one of the Ten Plagues of Egypt
Signs (2002) - not necessarily related, but it’s a movie about faith and is a billion times better than The Reaping
Rosemary’s Baby (1968) - a movie about a cult trying to usher in the birth of the spawn of Satan on Earth. this movie is freaky and slightly evil, but is far superior to Hilary Swank’s bad choice

Below is a copy of the text along with my thoughts:

*************************************************

Don’t Hide Behind God ….
On a recent Saturday night, I was watching SHOWTIME AT THE APOLLO, and, during the amateur talent show segment, I noticed that some of the artists understood that if they came out and sang a gospel song, their chances of being booed were clearly reduced, whether they could sing or not. I began to wonder, do we hide behind God’s name in order to shield ourselves from public criticism? Think about it. Why does it seem as though artists like Michele Williams and Tweet were totally satisfied singing about being “Bootylicious” and touching themselves (”Oops”), respectively, yet with the stroke of a pen, they flip-flop and praise the Lord in the name of gospel music and potential unit sales? I’m not suggesting that these particular young ladies didn’t experience some life-altering rebirth or change; however, it did seem a bit bizarre to see Michele Williams return to Destiny’s Child to sing secular music after her change already occurred. And, I had the opportunity to be on a music panel with Tweet where every other word out of her mouth was “Praise Jesus.”

You and I know that the power of gospel music consumers is solid and far-reaching, but it goes further than that. Even rappers are jumping in on the “use God as a shield” act. Or is it really an act? It doesn’t seem as though rappers are concerned with appealing to that religious audience yet one of DMX’s last singles was “Lord Give Me A Sign.” Yes, this thing reaches further than any specific denomination, when even Lupe Fiasco proudly proclaims his Muslim faith as part of the reason for his unique outlook on music and culture. Don’t get it twisted: in no way am I dissing any artist who announces their faith in their music and lifestyle. For even I use my co-authoring of “Jesus Walks” as part of the advertisement for Rhymefest as an artist. And like Lupe, I have publicly embraced my Islamic faith. Although, I personally have a difficult time calling myself a Muslim (one who submits his will to God) because I’m still striving to totally submit myself to God. So let’s make this clear, sum it up and ask the questions:

1) Clarity: We’re not talking about partial submission to God or using God’s name as a marketing tool. We’re talking about totally submitting our lives to the idea of a power greater than record sales, saving face in lieu of criticism or even our own physical lives.

2) Sum It Up: It seems as though every artist finds their spiritual enlightenment until shit gets poppin’ again, from Pastor Ma$e to Gorilla Unit, from R. Kelly’s “Feelin’ On Yo Booty” to “U Saved Me” back to “Hit It Til The Mornin (ft. Do Or Die & Twista)” and many more to come.

3) Questions:

a) Is this honestly just a natural part of human spiritual progression, exposed to the public eye?

b) How do you think God feels about us using him a shield for our personal inadequacies?

c) Is it okay to invoke God’s name, even if only once, if that message truly helps someone? Even if it’s just once?

*************************************************

My Thoughts
i like that. thoughtful. however, some may interpret the alternative to “not hiding behind god” to equal “just be yourself and let it all hang out without regard to a god, if any”. but i know that wasn’t your intention.

• a) A natural part of human progression? Well, from a completely naturalistic point of view, that’s impossible to answer. Because who’s to say they know enough about the past, present and future of human progression to answer such a question?

  I believe that the hypocrisy, misunderstanding and misuse of religion and deities is definitely a part of being human. Our nature is to do things our own way, totally disregarding or ignoring a God, if any. When public figures irrationally misuse, misunderstand, misinterpret, or mock religions or deities, it affects thousands if not millions of people. Because there are so many people’s lives founded on these things, you can seriously affecting them psychologically which bleeds over to their personal, financial, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationships.

  Some people may be strong enough in their faith to see a pseudo-religious person mess up and diss their faith, but there are so many who are wishy-washy, and may actually be negatively affected by the misinterpretation and misuse by the public figure. Because people usually grow up with a certain set of religious beliefs and morals, it’s a part of them. They’re faith may be weak, but a religion is still a part of them. So the consequences of public hypocrites can be very detrimental.

• b) I’m not sure exactly what God would think. Also, the “God” is not specified here. If it is the judaeo-christian God of the hebrew people, and the same God of the christians, then we can only assume, based on the Bible, that he does not like it. He is also somewhat saddened by it. Because his love and grace are misunderstood, misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misused.

  Now, this may perturb some, but the God of Islam, Allah, is not the same. And we can only base our assumptions of what Allah would think based upon what Mohammed and his followers thought God said — in the Koran, the Hadith and a few other official sacred texts of the Muslim faith. However, we can assume that Allah would definitely not be pleased. His followers who claim allegiance to him are misrepresenting him. Similar to the judaeochristian God, Allah definitely wouldn’t approve of the vulgarity and immodesty of celebrity culture.

• c) The word “helped” could be very relative. Because being “helped” might mean ‘encouragement’, when really, within the context of juddaism, christianity or islam, it should mean ‘progression in relationship with God’ or ’salvation’. And this progression cannot be based on a personal feeling or assumption. It must be based on the only sources we have to go by: Scripture or sacred texts. Not fellow believers, leaders, friends, ‘feelings’, or intuitions. Even if you have a feeling, notion, intuition, or advice from someone, it needs to be confirmed with the Book.

  So yes, it can help someone, but it’s not the best way to be done. This is referring to a person who speaks one way, but lives another. the main thing is the speaker — this person should be consistent and honest. For some reason, hypocrisy speaks louder than consistency, so we need to be careful. Especially public figures: they have so much influence over masses that their actions could do more harm than good.

my problem with that is there is no such thing as morals without a moral authority. you can believe we are evolved accidents resulting from a large BOOM billions of years ago, and our ‘morals’ are merely learned chemical reactions and psychological developments that mean absolutely nothing….but your moral codes still come from somewhere.

sure it’s real easy and self-aggrandizing to say “i believe in doing good for people because i simply believe in doing good for people. i don’t do it because a book or deity told me so.” oh please, as if you came up with the idea for “being good”.

sentiments/statements like that are just simple, subtle attacks on people who do indeed follow a book or deity for moral codes, ethics, laws. these feelings are meant to make the atheist, humanist and/or agnostic look like a ‘better person’ than someone who follows a set of beliefs and/or book.

when people say they don’t need a god or book to tell them to do what’s right, i cringe just a little. because your ‘morals’ came from your parents, friends, society, government, media, etc. you do or don’t do simply because you were influenced into agreeing or disagreeing with certain beliefs and then absorbing them as your own moral code.
regardless of your beliefs or lack therof, morals don’t exist without a cause. you learned your morals and you chose to live your life by them.

and even if you pretend that that isn’t true, you still have to admit that your opinions on morality aren’t something “you just came up with”. you aren’t good just for the sake of being good. your view isn’t unique.

that’s a pretty simple concept to swallow. so now you gotta remember that the current american moral code, laws, and ethics are all influenced by a judaeo-christian worldview.

without a moral authority or God to appeal to, then you are left with nothing but made-up concepts in your own mind. these concepts are then spread throughout a society and accepted as a good generic morality.
in other words, there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, or ‘morality’ if there is no standard by which we can measure all this. all of this morality is simply concocted behaviour with patterned reactions.
this makes the concept of ‘wrong’ meaningless. as an acquaintance once said, you can rationalize murder if only you believe we’re evolved life-forms without a god or creator.

here’s a bad example….(sorry it’s what’s off the top of my head right now)

if i decided to get a kitten and proceed to beat a 4 year old child to death with it, why would it be wrong? why is that immoral?

1) because it’s wrong to kill.
says who? says you? why, because you believe in the sanctity of life? because some people think that all of nature declares an unspoken, natural right to life or sanctity thereof. who cares? If it’s being declared, then how come I don’t hear them? Maybe because that hogwash is your unfounded belief and i happen not to believe in that. i believe that life and death are arbitary. because several billion years ago, some speck got infected and mutated, evolved and spread into what humans are today, i cannot accept the idea of ‘right’ ‘wrong’ or ‘morality’. these are all the result of conscious thought projecting wishful thinking. so really, there’s no reason why i shouldn’t beat this 4 year old to death with a kitten.

you’re taking that kitten and child’s right to life away.
what right to life? who says they have a right to life? i’ve just said that you don’t have any reason to tell me to stop

the law says not to kill or be cruel to animals.
why does the law say that? by what authority are they claiming this? why must i listen to the law. because they’ll put me into jail? so what? i’m still not ‘wrong’ in killing the child with the kitten.  neither am i ‘right’. it is all meaningless because your morals are
empty terms for learned conduct.

………………………….
okay that was weird….but you get my point…
without appealing to a higher moral authority, your morals have no basis. you simply ‘believe just because’. if you just think it’s good to be good for goodness sake, then you’re deluding yourself.

without a moral authority, then it is okay to do anything you want. i can kill anyone i want to simply because i feel like it. oh sure, governments will prosecute me, but they only do it because they say it’s wrong. not because it’s ACTUALLY wrong. some say well, because we’re a civilized society, with concscious awareness of our existence, we must abide by certain sets of societal rules. we set forth these rules/laws so that we can continue in a civilized fashion, thus promoting and furthering the species. we are not savage creatures, we are free-thinking creatures who are atop of the food chain and will be the dominant race so long as we continue in our civilized, rational societal mindset.

whatever. even with that mentality, which is apparent today, you can’t prove the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of anything. a  morality-as-a-necessity-for-furthering-of-humankind mentality still leaves the question to be answered: why is anything ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? what constitutes as either one? does right and wrong even exist? does it exist independent of human nature? which came first? — RIGHT and WRONG….or human consciousness? if we came first and then invented the concepts of right and wrong, then really, they don’t have to be taken seriously. we can brush them off and do whatever we want.

we can indeed do anything that tickles our fancy, regardless of others’ feelings or our environments. because even if we are infringing on somenone’s ‘rights’ or life, it doesn’t matter. there is no right and wrong.

unless of course, RIGHT and WRONG (morality) exists independent of human thought. that is, humans did not create right and wrong. if we didn’t, then that is kinda scary. because we now have to wonder where this right and wrong came from. who determines the standard of right and wrong? then there must be some sort of moral authority, right? who?

to make a long story longer….there really is no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ if there isn’t an absolute moral authority to appeal to.

i’m sure there are holes in my rant, but that’s it for now…

“…admittedly all is unknown and we choose what we choose. That is why there are a thousand seperate religions….”

these are my semi-unrelated, rambling thoughts in response:

…every rational discussion must go back to a basic, reasonable, and common playing field…..

if all religions are false, then the only conclusion is that humans truly are amazingly wonderful accidents. and even the fact that we think something is “amazing” or “wonderful” is a mere happenchance. we reason and philosophize our origins just because we can. and even the concept of ‘amazing’ is something that exists only in our minds. but in cold hard reality, it is all useless and pointless. we are merely carbon-based life forms who’ve developed what we call ‘conscious thought’. apparently, we’re the only ones on this planet that seem to have this ability. and with this element of our supposed evolutional development, we think we are aware of our existence, can create ideas, inventions, theories, religions, and the strange need to document our ‘histories’.

but really, it’s all meaningless fluff.

either we are meaningless accidents resulting from a catastrophic explosion a few billion years ago, which also means nothing…
OR
something about faith and religion makes sense, coincides with what we call reality, and points to a deeper meaning and purpose of this life.

“Man now realizes he is an accident, a completely futile thing, that he has to play out the game without reason.”
~francis bacon

and i think because of our inherent consciousness of this supposed ’self’, we are desperate to find a purpose or meaning. our humanity has created these ideas of purpose and meaning, so we seek this sense of fulfillment. kindalike what that francis bacon guy said.

now if our search comes across an idea, or book that begins to make sense and coincide with basic reality…why shouldn’t we give it a second look?

no matter your faith, religion, or lack of it, you must question its source. blind faith is a beautiful thing, but it cannot be without your feet on solid ground. something about faith and religion seems to demand a coincidence with reality.
….
if you believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life and ghosts…why? or if you believe in angels, but not a god, then why? if you believe in ghosts but not a god or gods, why?
and if you believe in nothing at all ’spiritual’, why?

the idea that ‘all is unknown’ or nothing can truly be known is absurd. things are known. you and I both “know” things. we’ve seen, heard, touched, smelled, and experienced things. there are things we know.

These things coincide with our reality. not just a ‘relative’ reality, but a reality that is real to everyone. our experiences can be common, can be observed, can be related. our histories can be documented and real. there are absolutes. not everything is free-floatin’ jelly. our beliefs, lifes, words, all make up concrete evidence of a reality.

and this coincidence with reality can sometimes be described as ‘truth’, but of course, that’s my opinion. if we can determine that this supposed truth exists, then we can come to the conclusion that some things are real, true, universal. that sounds a bit redundant, but you get what i mean?

since all we have to go by is the observable nature and universe around us, that’s a good place to start questioning our reality, our truth. what about our history, science, writings, myths, beliefs, stories, and experiences coincides with observable reality?

do our beliefs make sense? should they make sense? why or why not? if we create our own meaning, then maybe you’re right, there is no meaning in anything. and the meaning of life is really “what you make of it”.

but if there is some belief, some faith, some evidence of meaning in this seeminly meaningless, accidental life, then how can we turn away?
what if we find a person, book, or belief that says: “hey that whole ‘purpose of life’ thing you’ve been asking about? i got it right here.”. Wouldn’t we want to investigate?

and what if this person, this thing, made good common sense? what if the ‘truths’ they spoke coincided with actual, observable time-space reality? with witnesses, testimonials, historic and scientific evidence? what if this universe really wasn’t a massive ‘oops’ by the ancient cosmos?

if all the pieces of this pointless existence come together when discussing certain ideas or beliefs, then maybe we’ve found something that gives us purpose. or maybe the purpose has found us.

if we find this purpose, then it sheds light on the cloudy evidence around us. and by finding this, how can we then not tell others? how can we just let others go by not knowing there is a purpose, a meaning, a fulfillment to this thing we call Life?

then again, this is all ramble. a puny little life form on a floating rock, shaking his fists at the emptiness of the universe. the silent void of space swallows every one of our attempts to cry out. because there is no one to answer, and really, no reason to cry out either. from the beginning all the way to the end…it’s all meaningless.

and all these little scribbling-marks we call text amount to a frivolous rant on an online venue we meaningless humans created for communication, documentation, and social interaction without actual social interaction. perhaps the internet is another way we try to give meaning to our pointless reality, our pointless lives? categorizing all known information in an archive that ultimately means nothing.

As that one dude Sartre said:

“All existing things are born for no reason, continue through weakness and die by accident…. It is meaningless that we are born; it is meaningless that we die.”

or if you prefer it put more poetically:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, lines 22-31
~ w. shakespeare

eh, what do i know?