Tuesday, May 10, 2005

us and them

from where i sit it's all the same
why can't i just be free?
because no matter what you say
you'll never make me see
as you speak your voice rises
so great is your commitment to rescue me from the 'other side'
sure my eyes are open
so to your reason they are blind

but let me try
try to make you understand
it's nothing personal- it's just the way i am
i've seen too much consistent inconsistency
too many things are said by those lacking credibility

a surrogate shepherd performs a three-point scream
mopping sweat from his brow he tells of a dream
how darkness and terror invaded his head causing some thrashing about on the bed
apparitions wielding financial prophecy tormented his temples chanting 'bankruptcy'
and so to the faithful he beckons today
that if they truly would follow they must join him in his crusade

nothing is heard
nothing is felt
only thoughts of the lunch buffet
and of loosening the bible belt

please- don't get on the defensive
i didn't mean to wound your pride
i just wanted you to see my side
there there sit back and take it easy
if it will make you feel better you can say a little prayer for me

so now we're in it, one on one
and it's your turn once again
('the other side' written in mr jazwal's math class)

then agrippa said to paul,
'do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a christian?'
paul replied,
'short time or long- i pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what i am, except for these chains...'
(acts 26.28-9)

Icarus said:
"I always hold that the only way to make progress on a certain topic is to pull away any BS and start from the very foundation. I don't know how successful my post was, as everyone seems to be firmly planted in their respective corners, but at least it generated some interesting dialogue."

it went down this way: an open-ended dialogue began with a letter questioning christians' adherence to the bible's claims of spiritual authority and divine authorship which generated a fair bit of interest (comparatively speaking) in the blogosphere. it resulted in some good discussion and debate which was facilitated responsibly by its insightful author/devil's advocate, depending on your position on the issue. at the end of its run, its author made the comment cited above concerning the fruitfulness of the post.

the fact that icarus questioned the success of his 'a letter to christians' post surprised me. i guess your view of a successful dialogue depends on your reason for initiating the discussion in the first place. you see, debates usually prove little apart from who the least incapabable candidate for election might be. debates polarize the mob and serve to strengthen the already held positions of the constituents, but do little to convince. if the post was intended to draw people from one side of the spiritual issue on the cyber-roundtable to the other, then its authorship was misguided.

as misguided, i might add, as two thousand years worth of passionate evangelical monologues intended to fetch the fallen from the flame. in the constituency of the soul, the life-changing dialogue takes place between creator and created, not between the created quibblers. although reason is one of the empowering faculties of humankind, it is not the only one and it certainly struggles in realms where the facts just aren't all there to be examined through scientific, logical or otherwise empirical methods. yet apologists work very diligently at convincing atheists and agnostics that the espoused doctrines are true when, in some cases, these are too mystical to be 'proven' apart from the personal proof that is established through the experiencial living of a life according to said doctrines.

i think that this is similar to trying to explain how thinking in one language works to someone who thinks in a different one. thought patterns and structures that seem natural (but are, in fact, learned from a time prior to earliest memory) for an anglophone are foreign to the francophone who is attempting to learn english as an addition to their existing means of relating to the world. at first it requires a lot of discipline and interpretation, but it eventually becomes something that people refer to as 'second nature.' however, it takes an incredible amount of time, practice and often immersion to cause one to move beyond their 'mother tongue' and truly embrace a new language and the effect it has on how that person thinks and processes information.

yet, the atheist tries to convince the christian that the language of 'simple faith' is shallow and intellectually inferior, while the christian tries to convince the atheist that the language of 'pure reason' is limited to the physical realm in its scope and experience. can anyone ever be bilingual, speaking both languages fluently? i believe so, but it takes more than one lengthy blog or one passionate late-night conversation at tim horton's to get there.

(note: this doesn't mean that i am against sharing diagrams depicting large chasms which are bridged by crosses, or setting up s.b.a.'s or 'praying the prayer' or whatever... although i DO draw the line at leaving bogus tracts that look like money on the table as a tip for the server upon leaving a restaurant- that's just wrong. i'm just saying that, in my life's experience, the people that i know are most impacted when i put my gospel gun in the rifle rack and just hang out with the understanding that if they ever want to go there i'm game. i won't dodge the opportunity to share Jesus' love with somebody, i just don't think anybody really likes being considered a project by someone who has the audacity to label them as 'lost.')

i think that the 'progress' in this case was to have so many different voices present in a dialogue that should matter to all of us, but sadly doesn't take place nearly often enough because people have trouble with basic ethnocentricity issues. we see those who hold differing views on things that are important to us as somehow on 'the other side' when, in fact, we are all on the same side... we're on the 'mortal life on fallen planet earth' side.

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger marcythewhore said...

My Mother The Wisdom Display

by Paul Levy

Paul Levy
After struggling for awhile trying to decide what to write for my new article, I've decided to write about something very real and current in my life. My eighty-year-old mother died on July 1st. Being a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner, I have a little familiarity with the practice of "phowa," or transference of consciousness (at the time of death). In essence, this practice involves visualizing the recently deceased person's consciousness becoming completely liberated, free, and totally enlightened.

My mother was a wonderful woman, filled with enormous love. But while alive she certainly did not recognize the nature of her mind. She created for herself enormous suffering because she didn't understand her mind. Just like most of us.

After she died, I would notice that every now and then, when I would imagine my mother, I would be subtly and unconsciously imagining her to be this confused person wandering through "the bardo," or the gap between this life and the next. I then realized that by conjuring her up in this way, I was solidifying who I thought my mother's infinite hologram might be at that moment. But I would immediately justify concretizing her in this way by thinking "but she in all certainty IS probably wandering confused in the bardo, not recognizing the dreamlike nature of her situation, and thinking that what she was experiencing was objectively real." And a part of me was convinced that this was "objective reality."

What was objectively real; who IS my mother, right now? Now that she has passed away, is she enlightened or is she wandering confused through the bardo, terrified at her mind's own projections, as if lost in a nightmare? And even further, if I'm imagining her to have become fully enlightened, who am I imagining has become fully enlightened? Is it an entity, a being, a self? If I'm imagining her to be wandering in the bardo, is it a person, or a personality, or for that matter, any reference point whatsoever, that I am imagining to be wandering in the bardo?

Upon contemplating who my mother now was in all this, I began to realize that how I was "dreaming her up" was nothing other than a mirrored reflection of my own state of consciousness. If I was imagining my mother wandering through the bardo in terror, who was at that moment the one who was lost in the bardo but myself! And if I was truly seeing my mother as attaining complete realization, who was that a reflection of but my own state of mind? It's like for the last 42 years I've had a dream that included my mother, and when I now reflect upon this 42-year dream, it is very much like I am contemplating a dream I had last night. My experience right at this moment, though, is that I have woken up out of that dream and am in a new dream, or a new scene in the play, where my mother has exited stage left.

When I contemplate my mother as a dream character in this dream that I have now awakened from, it is clear that she was an emanation of what I call the deeper, dreaming Self, or Godessence. I realize that we both played roles in each other's dream dramas, and were ultimately nothing other than perfect wisdom displays in each other's dreams.

What does it mean to imagine that my mother has become fully liberated, enlightened and free? Is there a particular person, or entity, that I am imagining has "become" enlightened? As I snap out of the habitual, asleep imagination that there's a separate self called my mother who needs to or has become enlightened, I recognize, of course, that she's always been enlightened, due to no help from me whatsoever. I realize that enlightenment has always been her true essential nature, and that she could never possibly be anything other than enlightened, for all this time she has always been nothing other than a wisdom display, an emanation of the One. For who was my mother? And who is that a reflection of?

Blogger jollybeggar said...

the best writing is that which is real and current and fueled by first-hand friction with mortality
thanks for this article, marcy.

the 'phowa' reminds me of a rite described in lois lowry's 'the giver' where a person, having gone 'elsewhere' (a euphemism for death by euthanasia)is released from the community by the repeated utterance of their name in diminishing volume until it is neither heard nor spoken again. from here the people have no memory of the individual.

we experience social immortality to the extent that our legacy is celebrated and our memory is kept alive. i remember this to be a strong motif in the movie 'troy.' that one's name would be spoken of in stories for generations allows the hero to ascend beyond limited mortal existence to something lasting... also like that scene of tolkien's where frodo and sam are drawing hope to carry on from the notion that songs would be sung and stories would be told of them long after their journey was at an end.

sadly, as bono put it in his lyric for 'God part2', we tend to glorify the past when the future dries up...

somewhere between what was and what is to come is the air we breathe and what we do with it in real time.

Blogger marcythewhore said...

... one can calculate that the probable life of the proton must be greater than ten million million million million million years (1 with thirty-one zeros).


“Only entropy comes easy.” Anton Chekhov

Entropy is Greek for ‘transformation.’ It is a word that doesn’t necessarily sound poetic to the ear. Entropy is a topic integral to the laws of thermodynamics, in a simple definition entropy means that energy continues to transform, like hot to cold and back again, but that energy does not merely disappear. It’s a Buddhist principle that everything changes. A basic understanding of entropy is found in science and religion alike. Life becomes afterlife. There are claims that the soul has been actually weighed by subtracting a body’s weight before death, and how much the body weighed after the soul left its host. There are many who claim to have seen a ‘blue’ spiral of smoke leave a body at the moment of death. In a philosophical sense, the departure of the soul is a basic principle of entropy, or energy in transformation.
In a bit of a more complex attachment of entropy to philosophy and theology, we philosophically or theologically gravitate between choices that are made from free will. On the other hand, entropy comes into play upon the acceptance that our fates are predetermined. Either way, free will and predeterminism are two values of energy changing, but not disappearing.
John Milton, in his work ‘Paradise Lost,’ tackles the dilemma that the all-knowing God knew that his beloved creations, humans, were destined to fall into sin. At the same time, the all-knowing God knew that some of his angels would rebel behind the leadership of Lucifer. Did Lucifer have a chance, really? Even though Lucifer ‘chose’ that he’d rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
Another writer of great import to the debate of free will versus prediterminism was Dante Alighieri, in his ‘Inferno,’ from his ‘Divine Comedy.’ Dante gave his readers a picture of souls suffering for eternity in the borgias and circles of Hell, these souls are suffering by dint of the unfortunate choices they made in their mortal lives. Throughout Dante’s visit to Hell, one is imbued with the sense of helplessness that the damned are cursed with, while on the other hand one has to keep asking themselves, while reading, if these damned ever had a choice in the matter.
Possibly there was the choice of no choice, with the consequence coming out all for the worse.

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.” Dante Alighieri

A balance between the two philosophical conundrums of free will versus predeterminism is an exchange of entropic ideas, entropy being a scientific principle of balance within the cosmos. As hot as a star can get, that’s as cold as a dead star can get. There’s a Yin and Yang principle to the cosmos.
The Heisenberg ‘Uncertainty Principle’ of physics to entropy creates a good deal of latitude toward free will choice, and the principle is a bit more apart bit more apart from a rigid set of rules governing the universe. Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe, while the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ echoes more toward the possibility that we humans have a way of getting a dice game in progress when we attempt to personally interpret God’s word from the ancient scriptures. Heisenberg’s ‘Uncertainty Principle’ states that a set of rules (such as the rule that governs the path of electrons) is altered when someone observes (thereby finagling with) those set of rules. Putting Heisenberg’s principle to the reading of the ancient scriptures, we have a tendency to change the meanings of the ancient writers to fit our personal perceptions. Much the same way that historians revise history compared to each historians personal viewpoint. As for the entropy of the ancient scriptures, by interpreting the meaning of the ancient scriptures to fit our personal viewpoints, we change the metaphysical energy of the ancient script.
Sir Isaac Newton argued that humankind greatly altered the original meanings of the ancient scriptures. We’ve put uncertainty into the entropy of the original writings of the ancient scribes. Newton argued that the ancient scribes possessed a higher order of consciousness that placed the ears of the ancient scribes closer to the mouth of God. Through humanity’s ego and pride and personal needs, the energy of that higher order of consciousness was disturbed, and altered.

“Werner Heisenberg’s general principle is true no less in meditation research than it is in physics: attempts to measure meditative states introduces new inaccuracies and uncertainties.” James H. Austin ‘Zen and the Brain.’

Blogger marcythewhore said...

jollybeggar said...

anyway, i'm totally with you on 'knight's tale' except that in MY opinion the worst part of the film is very early on when the crowd is doing a really bad job of clapping and lipsyncing along with farookh bulsara's 'we will rock you.' if elvis would have lived to see the video age he'd have shot a lot more of his t.v. sets.

Marcythewhore says: You actually watched that movie? Mygawd! I just saw the trailer where the knight kids were dancing to David Bowie and figured I’d do better with my time watching ‘13th Warrior.’ And if you kind of think real hard about Elvis, he all but created the video age. Except it was with full length movies back when teenagers were busy screwing in the backseats of cars at drive-inn movies. Back when there were still drive-inn movies before cineplexes took over. A typical Elvis movie went something like this for the audience of a boy and girl humping in the back seat, “Hey, I wonder which Elvis movie is on right now?” So they sit up for about three minutes to look through the windshield at which Elvis movie was currently being projected. Drive-inn movies were famous for showing at least six Elvis movies in a row at night, mostly cause teenagers have lots of hormones and could make-out all night long, and basically they needed a place to make out. Voila! The drive-inn movie with those little bug burning coils. Anyway, someone figured that teenagers were watching only about three minutes of a total Elvis movie and they figured that it would be smarter and more cost efficient to cut Elvis movies down to three minute videos. Which does not diminish the fact that today’s videos owe their creation to the long string of Elvis movies that nobody ever saw the entire length of…….marcythewhore

jollybeggar said...
so i clicked on the link and skimmed (uh-oh!)fritjof's most recent, somewhat nostalgia-motivated article on the western cultural phenom called the 60's... it was mildly interesting until i realized that a cosmic loop had just been completed. i love that...
awhile back (comment no2 this post) i made a remark about catcher in the rye. it was basically saying that there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there which bind people with cords of fear and macroparanoia that are probably of their own design- although i suppose i could just be in.anyway, the remark came from a silly mel gibson/ julia roberts movie about CIA-trained assassins that are, under post-hypnotic suggestion, unconsciously compelled to purchase cia-tagged copies of catcher in the rye in order for the u.s. government to keep track of them. the idea springs from the historical account of mark david chapman who had, on his person at the time of his arrest for the assassination of john lennon, a copy of the salinger book. whatever.

Marcythewhore: J.D. Salinger invented the term ‘conspiracy theory’ in literature before anyone ever realized that the Manchurian Candidate was what Lee Harvey Oswald was. Salinger was so far ahead of his time that people hadn’t yet caught onto the idea that Lincoln’s assassination was a conspiracy, not just one bad Shakespearean actor who was all pissed off about losing the war…………..marcythewhore

Blogger marcythewhore said...

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
A Couple of Letters From Ms. Betty Bowers: America's Best Christian
Dear NRA and Culture of Life Member:

Well, the Pope's death extravaganza has confirmed as truth several suspicions of mine. First, Italian morticians clearly did not escape the sirenical vortex of Tom Ford era Gucci envelope pushing. I am, of course, referring to the Pope's edgy post-life appearance we were all treated to every time we turned on our television. The Lord may be forgiving, but daylight is not. Honestly, if one is going to be lying about idly in public, aubergine lipstick is a rather aggressive choice. (And, frankly, this goes for even those blessed with the more forgiving complexions enjoyed by the breathing.)

Another thing we all learned this week is that the American media's canonization procedure makes even the Catholic Church's most giddily expedited ascensions to sainthood seem rather languidly reluctant in comparison. Instead of the niggling requirement of a purported miracle (such as, say, witnessing Jennifer Lopez singing on pitch), cable news only requires one thing for instant beatification: the death of someone popular with people the network wishes to pander.

As anyone with a television now knows (after the most numbing repetition since our strenuously serene First Lady started repeating the word "teacher" like history's most monomaniac Tourette's sufferer), Pope John Paul II was quite conveniently without reportable fault. This fact is all the more remarkable since he blithely presided over an enterprise of child molestation so vast and industrious that it makes Munchausen Syndrome spokesperson Michael Jackson's notorious undertakings in this same regard seem quaintly amateurish. Nevertheless, everyone from ABC to Fox News graciously washed away all papal sins, including his particularly untenable habit of being an antiwar peacenik. As any Republican Christian will tell you, this particular teaching of Jesus' ("turn the other cheek if someone strikes you") is particularly galling to those of us more Christian than Christ.

Nor did anyone on television seem particularly inclined to spoil the national keenathon by pointing out that the King of the Mary Worshippers' last decision here on Earth only served to underscore to all of us Culture of Life® protestants just how lackadaisical and self-serving was the Pope's so-called embrace of our death-penalty-and-war-loving Culture of Life® (which, oddly, promotes none of one and little of the other). You see, it is all well and good to have a Vatican spokesperson condemn Terry Schiavo's husband's decision to honor his wife's outrageous decision not to be kept fresh in the medical equivalent of Tupperware, but you don't need to know Latin, swing a censer or light a candle to know that when a seriously ill man says, "I don't want to go back to the hospital" what he is really saying is "I want to die."

While alive, Pope John Paul II was one of Catholicism's most devout promoters of a goddess called Mary. And that, of course, is saying something! Indeed, judging from the most prevalent choices of graven images throughout Latin America, it appears that the Catholic Church has successfully promoted Mary over Jesus as the "go to" divinity when in need of a new car, coca crop or other financial blessing. In fact, the Pope was such an ardent Marian that he even suggested that the woman best known in the Bible for braying for free wine at wedding parties and failing to cook her son a lovely hot home-cooked meal for his Last Supper on Earth be designated as humanity's "Co-Redeemer." Apparently, Heaven's HR department posted that there is a new way to qualify for this position that doesn't involve the inconvenience of climbing up on a cross, news that came as a source of both shock and annoyance when I told Jesus.
Odd, how a seemingly omnipotent pope will turn to a woman for guidance and inspiration -- but only if she lives in a suitably remote formation of cumulus clouds. Even the church's belated, catty review of "The Da Vinci Code" was fueled solely by the Cardinals' rather peculiar fear of parishioners seeking advice from clergy of a gender actually born to wear red dresses. In this way, I think of the Catholic clergy as much akin to the most stereotypic homosexual Nancy boys: worshipping the idea of woman in Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland, but almost imperceptivity recoiling when a real female crosses their paths.

America's obsessive bemoaning that a man -- finally -- accomplished what he had supposedly devoted his long, full life to doing (meeting the mercurial Lord) only helped to spotlight our nation's disconcertingly needy relationship with death. For a so-called Culture of Life®, we certainly have an unseemly preoccupation with death. America is a country where the discussion of "s letter-after-d x" is verboten (don't tell me you didn't realize that in GOP America "Abstinence Only" refers to voting -- and "No Child Left Behind" is simply a result of our condomless teen pregnancy problem). Hence, our only acceptable form of self-stimulation now arises from obsessive, prolonged public grieving triggered by the death of someone we never actually met. This professionally orchestrated emotional masturbation hit its stride with Princess Di, but is a pastime flexible enough to adapt to both king (Ronald Reagan) and commoner (Laci Peterson).

Pandering to such periodic bouts of collective lamentation provides 24-7 cable channels a welcome and expeditious alternative to the laborious, passé tasks of research and reporting. It is a given that only one death, trial or scandal at a time will snare our stingy attention, all significant events that actually affect us usually failing to romance us sufficiently to muster interest. That is, of course, until everyone is distracted by the next fickle obsession. Our tendency for intense, serial-obsessions is what Terry Schiavo's parents were recently stunned to discover as they watched cameras briskly snap shut and local news vans squeal out of their neighborhood in what, they mistakenly thought, was going to be their golden moment of news cycle penetration.

In closing, Jesus, still peeved about the whole "Co-Redemtrix" thing, has asked that you not hector Him with your more tiresome requests this week. The prayer queues for both Cadillac Escalades and Grammies are full as of 10:13 this morning. And while He assures you that He had every honorable intention of sorting through the recent flurry of prayers for "papal health," by the time He checked that box it all seemed rather moot and pointless.
So close to Jesus, He's letting me roll the Holy Dice on Judgment Day,

Mrs. Betty Bowers
America's Best Christian

Dear Fellow American Theocrat:

As those of you who follow my blessed ministry know, Jesus has graciously waived almost all of His more ill-advised New Testament rules for connected, conservative Christians -- providing they meet retroactive, but stringent tithing guidelines. As America's Best Christian, I have, of course, played no small role in this joyous amelioration of Jesus' stated preferences. Indeed, the most useful waiver of scripture occurred after some coquettish wrangling on my part, which stopped perilously short of giving hope that my come-hither glance was anything other than something that happened to work with my Marc Jacobs dress.

After several bottles of a rather pretentious Brunello (that teetered on the threshold of being aloof until it was shown its place by my assertive Baccarat stemware), Jesus waved away His notoriously onerous "Judge Not!" proclamation with a dismissive fluttering of His lovely, if somewhat scarred, Caucasian hands. Friends, truly, the Lord does watch us from afar! Because I immediately recognized that His pantomime had been shamelessly appropriated from me (without, mind you, attribution). Yes, as the Lord floridly freed me from a biblical prohibition I had so often come close to almost following, He employed precisely the same vexed gesticulation I pull from my encyclopedic arsenal when seated in a restaurant near some odious creature that ignites one of those dreadful cigarette things or answers a cell phone.

If this bluntly carved caveat to Jesus' otherwise almost wholly acceptable teachings comes as news to you, someone has evidently not been paying attention to today's conservative Christian politics, dear. Judging is all the rage! Nevertheless, even the most loophole-dexterous Christian never likes to give the impression that one of Jesus' teachings has been forgotten, rather than simply ignored. That is why we take pains to show our awareness of scripture we otherwise seem oblivious about by graciously taking time to verbally apply any orphaned proscription to other people.

This is precisely why Republicans are not simply discarding "Judge Not!" -- to join "Give All Your Money to the Poor" on the already enormous landfill of charming, but regrettably inconvenient Biblical teachings. Instead, "Judge Not!" is being recycled (a word you never thought Jesus would type on my keyboard!) with a glitzy new campaign. You see, since we Republicans are no longer applying the "Judge Not!" rule to ourselves, who better to apply it to than, well – judges?

Yes, those annoying people who run around acting like it is OK to judge. In appalling defiance of the now more literal "Judge Not!" prohibition, judges seemingly make a profession of judging others. And, honestly, who are they to judge?

As the Terri Schiavo case underscored, these annoying people who perversely wear black robes even though they aren't soliciting cash for Christ are currently the biggest impediment to the new, improved American Dream: theocratic mob rule. Drunk with impartiality and left unaccountable to political fashions by the mischievous people who wrote the Constitution, judges are willfully impervious to the normally effective inducements to toe our theological line, such as enormous wads of Indian casino cash or Culture of Life® death threats. No, instead, judges rather rudely ignore our angry glares, stubbornly refusing to be "activist judges" only when it promotes our clearly stated list of righteous, implacable demands.

This is why I am asking all of you to join Senator Bill Frist and me this weekend to celebrate "Justice Sunday." Justice Sunday is a fabulously inventive "Two Branches of Government are Company – Three's a Crowd" marketing campaign. Sort of a Marbury vs. Madison Avenue approach, if you will. It is all part of our godly efforts to besmirch all judges, irrespective of any purported faith, as God-hating liberals intent on using the so-called Constitution to churlishly tamper with the Lord's greatest gifts to the GOP since communism and Bill Clinton's penis: absolute one-party rule.

I notice over in Rome that after a pragmatic klatch of ambitious cardinals realized that potential promotion to higher, more fabulous hats was possible only from John Paul II being sainted instead of sustained, they shooed the pontiff off to that undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns. After all, a pope in a coma would leave a billion dollar commercial enterprise with no one to sign the checks. And an organization that large simply can't function when its leader is unable to think or speak. America, of course, being the exception.

In any event, I trust that all of you now understand the importance of executing the appropriate legal documents to ensure that one of life's most personal decisions is left to your loved ones. In Congress. Indeed, my freshly minted living will stipulates: "All orders to resuscitate should be ignored unless seen on C-SPAN."

This whole "fobbing off Heaven until the last possible moment" spectacle was brought closer to home with the recent news of my dear friend Jerry Falwell being hospitalized. Rather inventively, Jerry's living will proactively stipulates that his feeding tube is only to spurt viscous fountains of lukewarm gravy. The sight of dear Jerry ferociously fighting the specter of death called to mind my devout suspicion that no one is more afraid of keeping an appointment with Jesus than someone who has parlayed Jesus' anti-materialism teachings into enormous real estate holdings.

They say there are no disbelievers of God in foxholes and, sadly, I suspect that there are also no disbelievers of science on operating tables. Yes, in a gesture of shocking disloyalty, Jerry was heard to ask his doctor, "Before you cut me up or anything, you didn't go to a med school that explains the origins of the Universe with that silly talking snake nonsense did you?"

In closing, if you know someone unsaved (not that I wish to impugn your social circles), please prevail upon him to accept Jesus as his Lord, Savior and inspiration for bracelets and automotive decals. And then invite him to help you prepare props for "Judge Not!" rallies at the courthouses and front lawns of our nation's busybody judges. Perhaps it is simply my deft touch with paper mache, but I always find that an effigy of the Culture of Life's® mascot Eric Rudolf always seems to get those vocationally judgmental people's attention. Even quicker than the saucy décolletage on a Marc Jacobs dress!

So close to Jesus, we filed jointly last week,

Mrs. Betty Bowers
A woman known throughout Christendom for her joie d' vivre
posted by marcythewhore at 9:41 AM 0 comments

Monday, May 23, 2005
Happy Hooking Thanks to Brown Shirt Christians
marcythewhore says: one of the best ways to find out about good sex books is to wait until the Brown Shirt Right Wing Christians send you a list of books they've condemned, then you know what to buy at the book store. Here's a list the Brown Shirts are sending out...and they're telling you not to let your kids see the latest Star Wars saga that has made 150 million dollars in three days already..................marycthewhore

The Happy Hook-Up: A Single Girl's Guide to Casual Sexby Alexa Joy Sherman, Nicole Tocantins "We've all heard the old saying "He's not going to buy the cow if he's getting the milk for free"-that ubiquitous adage the aging masses..." (more) SIPs: casual coitus, had casual sex, having casual sex, fifteen reps

The Hookup Handbook : A Single Girl's Guide to Living It Up by Jessica Rozler
Why Men Love Bitches: From Doormat to Dreamgirl-A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship by Sherry Argov
The Player's Handbook: The Ultimate Guide on Dating and Relationships by Heidi Fleiss
He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys by Greg Behrendt
Fearless Sex: A Babe's Guide to Overcoming Your Romantic Obsessions and Getting the Sex Life You Deserve by Joy Davidson
Date Like A Man: What Men Know About Dating and Are Afraid You'll Find Out by Myreah Moore
posted by marcythewhore at 10:24 AM 0 comments


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home