A Pawn of God vs. A God of Pawns

The latter part of the title refers mostly to my fictional characters: I create them, right? And they cannot fathom me unless I will it? - In which case, I'd better have a damn good reason.

I think I've personally broken the record for images in one post. But believe it or not, I was not thinking of "graven images" until after. Of course I'm not taking them down. And now, the reason for this post: a semi-imaginary conversation between myself and a religious nut. I am not attempting to portray any generalization of one group; I merely mean to point out the flaws in certain areas of religious reasoning and logic.

*******

NUT. Do you believe in God?

ME. Not sure. I don't think there is sufficient evidence.

NUT. He does not live on evidence, but on faith! Who do you think created you??

ME. My...parents?

NUT. Well, who created them?

ME. Their parents? It's a chicken-and-egg question.

NUT. So you just admitted that you don't know!

ME. I did not! There was no need to admit something I wasn't hiding. I don't know if He, or She, or Whatever, exists. At least I don't pretend to.

NUT (taken aback). How dare you! I know He exists, because He visited me in a dream! *1

ME. I suppose, by that line of reasoning, that a three-headed green cow exists?

NUT. Of course not.

ME. But I saw Her in a dream! I could swear up and down until the cows come home, no pun intended, yet still there's no reason for me to believe you.

NUT. Gahh, you will burn in Hell!

ME. If there is such a place, do open the door for me when I join you.

My personal theory is that, while there may be some sort of higher being, perhaps of time or a separate spatial dimension, or even a writer (I couldn't know if I was fictional) - but some of these claims are utter bogus. For example, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, nothing can simply vanish from all of existence, or be newly created for that matter. There are so many quarks, atoms, etc. in our universe, particles, which at one point - (billions?) of years ago - formed amino acids and eventually led to simple life. I just combined memories from my past two science classes. Hooray for memory! Also, I think that either to explain or comfort, people create myths and such. Explanation includes Zeus of lightning and comfort implies scenes such as a loved one's deathbed. "You'll go to Heaven and see [another loved one]!" - which is a bit more socially acceptable than "You'll be turned to ashes and spread" or "You'll rot in the earth until your cold, unfeeling bones wither away through the centuries." Personally I wouldn't mind that, although I'll probably be cremated. People create deities in terror, pray "just in case" in an emergency but never otherwise, etc.

Again, I have many friends of many religions, so I'm not knocking any beliefs; rather, I am questioning the foundations of faith and knocking those who attempt to push their doctrines down others' throats.

I do believe in doing good things for others, and I don't have to worship anyone/-thing to do so.

*1 - I never had any such dream, but it served its purpose, I hope.

Give More, Get Less

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy

Surprisingly, this is not a post about selfless generosity; I just like that quote. It's a post about public schools in my county and what ensues. Not the whole hell-storm - that will come sooner or later in a separate post, I should think - but the levels of education. It is said that home-schoolers learn more, which I have no reason to doubt. While I may like my school, I do not like the county a bit: it is as a solid branch in a rotten tree. The curriculum is rushed and sloppy and has more the intention of passing us than actually teaching us. What use is it to learn a bit of something and then forget it? They don't take the time to engrave things into us, only to imprint them long enough to score a test. My point is this, plain and simple:

Learning should not be for the purpose of passing, but for learning in itself.

In a way, it's like having a sign reading that it has sharp edges. Might as well not be there. I loved my World History teacher last year, Chaney (no "Mr." required, as he was pretty laid-back) - but the course itself was the entire history of the world crunched into nine weeks, so there was a week on Greek myth, a week on Chinese dynasties, one on World War II, etc. Not enough for elaboration. In English we don't fully read many books - we read excerpts and then watch the movie most of the time. Don't even get me started on science! Ugh.

I am the rare case of someone who wishes to relearn what was previously presented in forgettable ways. The Modern Scholar audio series is good for that. I wish I could have at some point experienced the benefits of a home-schooled life. Not only do I learn more and learn it in more effective ways, but I have much more free time and less necessity to encounter lower types of people (not judging by race or class, but by mental and moral values). I ride the bus with many boisterous and uneducated persons, which I blame on lack of independent reading. It drives me bonkers to see people confuse the possessive "your" with the you-are contraction. Some do it for convenience, but many are honestly that ignorant. Most kids go along with the grow-up-and-get-out philosophy. They tend to hate school. I like school in theory, but Wake County is just ridiculous. I always say, If you race through life, you'll find the finish line fast enough (death). I'm a rose-smeller and proud of it.

I continue to educate myself on the things which interest me and do me well, even though we can only take so many classes. Most are core, as they don't seem to give a damn about arts or anything that sticks.

I've been a captive of the system and I have nearly broken my bonds (that will come to a head in college, I hope), and I am learning other things.

For further reading on unschooling, I recommend my friend Kate's post: http://amateurishramblings.blogspot.com/2011/09/definition-of-unschooling.html

Bonsoir!

- Lewis

Slaying and Butchering

Slaying vampires is freaking awesome. Butchering their concept is not. What has happened to media!? It might have started with Twilight, my all-time least favorite book, but now they have an entire section at the bookstore devoted to paranormal romance. And now, apparently, there is paranormal erotica. If Count Dracula were still undead, he'd bite garlic, stake himself, or maybe run into daylight. And I'm sure Bram Stoker is spinning in his grave.

I think I'll do a numerical list:

1. They do not bloody sparkle! That is the least menacing thing ever.
2. Don't date them! They will bite you and have you drink their blood in exchange! Eek!
3. Why are they made out to be sexually attractive? If I fell in love, I'd prefer my partner to be, well, alive. Ugh.
4. You YA romance writers are crowding out most chances of us actual fantasy and/or horror writers publishing vampire stories. It's become a cliche and horror publishers are apt to assume that we are writing about fairies as opposed to bloodsucking demons.
5. What ever happened to the awesome backstories? Satan, the Reaper, werewolves, snakes, bats, crows and ravens, underworld, Hell, necromancy, wolves, spiders, rats, mist, smoke, curses, and so on? Now they are just overdone humans.
6. As a continuation of #5, where did the scary go? The only reason Edward makes me shiver is that he watches Bella sleep, and teenage girls find it acceptable. Vampires, nosferatus, used to be an emblem of terror. Watch Dracula or Salem's Lot (both the 1979 versions - year of vampires?) and you'll see what I mean. Undead Mina approaching her father under the cemetery and saying "Papa?" (Dracula) and demonic Danny Glick tapping on Mark Petries window (Salem's Lot) are both spine-chilling. The books of both are even better, although I loved the appearance of Kurt Barlow (Salem's Lot master vampire) ,and Count Dracula's ability to crawl down walls was beyond really cool.
7. Werewolves. I actually thought the ones in the New Moon film were pretty cool, although I have no plans to read it, and I don't consider the wolves to be "were-". They are supposed to change at the full moon, not by will, and they become a wild beast instead of fully-in-control teddy bears. If you want good werewolf movies, watch any Wolf Man film (I've seen the newest one and half the 1941 version), The American Werewolf in London, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, or Van Helsing - VH is not a perfect film critically speaking, but the vampires are really cool, as are the werewolves. It's a fun watch. And it also has the Frankenstein monster and Mr. Hyde - a bit of a mash-up of horror beasts.

I suppose that is all. I have school tomorrow and this is my third post tonight, so I'd better hit the hay!

Long (unlive?) the true meaning of necromancy and vampirism! Sanguis bibimus! Ave Draculea!

Living, breathing love from,

Lewis