endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
Some very nice sentiments if you read behind the Christian influence. 
...
Boycott Singapore - Van's unfair sentance
- Thread starter endlesseulogy
- Start date
- Status
endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
The parts about god dont really hit home with me.
This is what strikes me as important :
Life is a game of reflective mirrors. You play along with it and dont fear it (including death), you will be rewarded during your life. This game is fully interactive and you only get out what you put in. In taking your life extra seriously, you miss the point and often dont enjoy life. We very often forget this.
This is what strikes me as important :
Life is a game of reflective mirrors. You play along with it and dont fear it (including death), you will be rewarded during your life. This game is fully interactive and you only get out what you put in. In taking your life extra seriously, you miss the point and often dont enjoy life. We very often forget this.
pete_gasparino
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 251
Remember that there's a difference between an "imaginary friend" (as in, a conception that doesn't exist) and one you can't see.
And I think, easier even than turning to God in times of hardship, is discounting his existence.
Belief is a highly personal thing, and organised religion certainly has its failings: but regarding it in a communal sense instead of an organised sense, difficult as it is when one is more apparent than the other, is a concept, to me, more satisying.
As I've posted elsewhere here, I think faith is beautiful, and the power of the human mind even more so.
And since belief is such a personal thing, disbelief is also: the concept of God is individual regardless of whether one believes or disbelieves.
I look outside my window, and there I can see Eucalypts and Sweet gums, and beyond that the sky, and beyond that stars, of numbers unfathomable. It gives me comfort because nature elicits in me that feeling. And it elicits in me a feeling of humility, and a feeling of the highest regard, a feeling of love: I love the physicality of my country and I love the physicality of my world.
It is the same love I feel for my family and my close friends, similar maybe to the feelings of love people feel on MDMA. And with the latter, the fact that they have been induced catalytically makes them no less powerful, and obviously no less real.
So maybe the closest I can get to conceptualising God is the idea of love, like Coltrane said, "A Love Supreme", a love everlasting and a love that surpasses individuality. Can I see love? No, but I know it exists, has existed since we could identify it, and I can feel the grace of my God just by looking out the window.
Do I ascribe to God human personality, or even individuality, no.
But maybe when Van Nguyen says he puts his faith in God, he doesn't mean he's putting it into someone else's concept of an elderly man with a beard who lives up in the sky.
Maybe when he ascribes gender or individuality to God, he's articulating this concept in the only way that he can, by metaphor, and indeed one sense the only way possible.
Maybe he's putting his faith into the idea of a greater good, the idea that Martin Luther King described as the moral arc of the universe bending at the elbow of justice, and maybe he's putting his faith into the idea that individual perception of time and emotion is something as fragile and as malleable as humanity itself.
And perhaps disbelief stems from contradictory premise: that whose who regard God as an "imaginary friend" and hence don't believe in the existence of that concept, do so because this is the only concept that they have the inclination to know, conceive, or appropriate from other people's conceptions. Or perhaps not, perhaps they don't articulate on a concept metaphysical. Or perhaps something else entirely
But look:
In contrast to the implication that faith is a weakness and belief a last resort, I think faith requires immense strength, and maintaining it in the face of death even more so.
I respect Nguyen immensely for facing his death with this strength, and maintaining a noble attitude. I respect him more for not observing anger or ill-will towards those who have taken from him his most precious possession, his life. This, in my opinion, is the strength of faith, and the grace of his good nature.
I don't think anyone needs to look past the idea of God, or Nguyen's Catholicism to see how powerful these letters are, the last letters of a condemned man. And through the beauty of his faith and the beauty of his being, he has done something far more powerful than I could ever even hope to do, and that is to forgive those who killed him and even further, to beg their forgiveness.
I guess I go on too much, but I really thought these were powerful letters and I'm sure glad they were posted
But last lastly:
endless, I really agree with your analysis of those couple of sections. I really like your reflective mirrors metaphor, and I think it's true. I think we are rewarded by what we do, and that the basis of morality is giving to others and expecting NO reward, doing it for the sake of goodness.
Those whose only intent in spiritual belief is to get some sort of reward in the afterlife are as bad as those who keep others frightened, as those who would inflict harm on their fellow for personal gain or greed.
Whatever the mind might experience after death, whatever alteration of perception there is, perhaps none at all, should not determine what we do here, and now - because that's where we are.
And your metaphor reminds me of another, a Bill Hicks one, and it's a good way to finish:
And I think, easier even than turning to God in times of hardship, is discounting his existence.
Belief is a highly personal thing, and organised religion certainly has its failings: but regarding it in a communal sense instead of an organised sense, difficult as it is when one is more apparent than the other, is a concept, to me, more satisying.
As I've posted elsewhere here, I think faith is beautiful, and the power of the human mind even more so.
And since belief is such a personal thing, disbelief is also: the concept of God is individual regardless of whether one believes or disbelieves.
I look outside my window, and there I can see Eucalypts and Sweet gums, and beyond that the sky, and beyond that stars, of numbers unfathomable. It gives me comfort because nature elicits in me that feeling. And it elicits in me a feeling of humility, and a feeling of the highest regard, a feeling of love: I love the physicality of my country and I love the physicality of my world.
It is the same love I feel for my family and my close friends, similar maybe to the feelings of love people feel on MDMA. And with the latter, the fact that they have been induced catalytically makes them no less powerful, and obviously no less real.
So maybe the closest I can get to conceptualising God is the idea of love, like Coltrane said, "A Love Supreme", a love everlasting and a love that surpasses individuality. Can I see love? No, but I know it exists, has existed since we could identify it, and I can feel the grace of my God just by looking out the window.
Do I ascribe to God human personality, or even individuality, no.
But maybe when Van Nguyen says he puts his faith in God, he doesn't mean he's putting it into someone else's concept of an elderly man with a beard who lives up in the sky.
Maybe when he ascribes gender or individuality to God, he's articulating this concept in the only way that he can, by metaphor, and indeed one sense the only way possible.
Maybe he's putting his faith into the idea of a greater good, the idea that Martin Luther King described as the moral arc of the universe bending at the elbow of justice, and maybe he's putting his faith into the idea that individual perception of time and emotion is something as fragile and as malleable as humanity itself.
And perhaps disbelief stems from contradictory premise: that whose who regard God as an "imaginary friend" and hence don't believe in the existence of that concept, do so because this is the only concept that they have the inclination to know, conceive, or appropriate from other people's conceptions. Or perhaps not, perhaps they don't articulate on a concept metaphysical. Or perhaps something else entirely
But look:
In contrast to the implication that faith is a weakness and belief a last resort, I think faith requires immense strength, and maintaining it in the face of death even more so.
I respect Nguyen immensely for facing his death with this strength, and maintaining a noble attitude. I respect him more for not observing anger or ill-will towards those who have taken from him his most precious possession, his life. This, in my opinion, is the strength of faith, and the grace of his good nature.
I don't think anyone needs to look past the idea of God, or Nguyen's Catholicism to see how powerful these letters are, the last letters of a condemned man. And through the beauty of his faith and the beauty of his being, he has done something far more powerful than I could ever even hope to do, and that is to forgive those who killed him and even further, to beg their forgiveness.
I guess I go on too much, but I really thought these were powerful letters and I'm sure glad they were posted
But last lastly:
endless, I really agree with your analysis of those couple of sections. I really like your reflective mirrors metaphor, and I think it's true. I think we are rewarded by what we do, and that the basis of morality is giving to others and expecting NO reward, doing it for the sake of goodness.
Those whose only intent in spiritual belief is to get some sort of reward in the afterlife are as bad as those who keep others frightened, as those who would inflict harm on their fellow for personal gain or greed.
Whatever the mind might experience after death, whatever alteration of perception there is, perhaps none at all, should not determine what we do here, and now - because that's where we are.
And your metaphor reminds me of another, a Bill Hicks one, and it's a good way to finish:
endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
^^ Bill Hicks!
Bill Hicks is my hero. There is nobody alive that spoke more truth then this guy. If only he was alive now. He would have alot to say about the state of the world. I think a little bit of him rubs off on everyone.
Its just a ride. Then you die.
But you never really 'die' because death is life. The moment we are born we start preparing for our death. One cannot exist without the other.
I see that as extreamly beautiful.
Bill Hicks is my hero. There is nobody alive that spoke more truth then this guy. If only he was alive now. He would have alot to say about the state of the world. I think a little bit of him rubs off on everyone.
Its just a ride. Then you die.
But you never really 'die' because death is life. The moment we are born we start preparing for our death. One cannot exist without the other.
I see that as extreamly beautiful.
Last edited:
pete_gasparino
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 251
Yep, for sure, I think that's a very interesting concept, a hard one to grasp, but true and accurate. Because yeah, death is as natural as life itself and so shouldn't be feared: and as I said, those who respect humanity only out of fear and essentially reward, well, I guess they miss the point. But I'm not as good as I'd like to be in this respect, so I shouldn't comment. I think practice of love and respect, not only recognising the feelings but acting on them, is something very powerful but very difficult to achieve.
And that's why I'm enamoured by Nguyen's notes, because I know if I was to be put to death I'd be angry, too weak to maintain a true manifestation of my faith: which is to love not only your friend or your neighbour, but the ones who would put me to death.
And that is a very nice quote. Is that from Bill Hicks?
Oh and on another note: if I was anywhere near as good a person as I'd like to be, I wouldn't fucking hate Piers Akerman. I mean I really feel bitter towards this guy, and the fact that he is in a position to manipulate public opinion based on pretense:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17492083-5001032,00.html
Is this journalism? Or an attempt, minus any subtlety, to smear Van Nguyen himself by association with his brothers crimes, and thereby (and I guess this is the point), the 'legal professionals' and 'Victorian Labor MPs' who supported or expressed support for him?
I'd like to believe that Ackerman really gives a shit about Glen Kohu, and his being compensated, but the three little pictures at the top of the article, outlining the true targets of the piece, influence my opinions otherwise.
Any Australian who would let the actions of Nguyen's brother 'fully inform' their 'decision' (assumedly as to whether support his murder, or not) would be as narrow-minded, but slightly less despicable, than Ackerman himself.
Ackerman apparently doesn't grasp the laughable irony of his statement, or does but assumes, probably rightly so, that his readers will be too ignorant to pick up on it: perhaps he might raise the issue of 'free press' with his editors, while they're dining with frontbench ministers and discussing (read: being told) what particular line the paper's commentary might assume over the next week or two.
And perhaps he actually believes what he writes, but more likely he does as he's told.
It's a fucking snide and thoughtless rant, but the kind that annoys me so thoroughly, because of the existence of Ackerman's 'priviledged few' whose opinions are dictated to them by what they read in yellow rags like the Telegraph.
There is no moral justification for murder, state-sanctioned or otherwise: Nguyen's relationship with his brother is irrelevant.
Those who would let, via Ackerman's petty torrent of shit, the actions of Van Nguyen's brother affect their opinion on the matter of state sponsored murder, are so obviously guilty of the same selective reasoning - "sympathy when it suits them" - that I'm (only a little) surprised even the Telegraph would publish such spurious and contradictory crap.
Judge Meryl Sexton's extension of sympathy in sentencing Khoa Nguyen is a decision that draws Ackerman's ire. But it's obvious he cares little about any "compensation" for Glen Kohu, and it's obvious his real concerns lie not with Kohu, nor his mother, but with promoting, by connection, negativity towards those supporters of Van Nguyen targetted at the top of his page.
Well, here's something just as obvious:
If Ackerman spent more time really empathising with people of lesser circumstance than he does hobknobbing in expensive restaurants shovelling food into his fat blustering mouth, his paper might be slightly more well regarded than that which I use to wipe my arse.
And that's why I'm enamoured by Nguyen's notes, because I know if I was to be put to death I'd be angry, too weak to maintain a true manifestation of my faith: which is to love not only your friend or your neighbour, but the ones who would put me to death.
And that is a very nice quote. Is that from Bill Hicks?
Oh and on another note: if I was anywhere near as good a person as I'd like to be, I wouldn't fucking hate Piers Akerman. I mean I really feel bitter towards this guy, and the fact that he is in a position to manipulate public opinion based on pretense:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17492083-5001032,00.html
Is this journalism? Or an attempt, minus any subtlety, to smear Van Nguyen himself by association with his brothers crimes, and thereby (and I guess this is the point), the 'legal professionals' and 'Victorian Labor MPs' who supported or expressed support for him?
I'd like to believe that Ackerman really gives a shit about Glen Kohu, and his being compensated, but the three little pictures at the top of the article, outlining the true targets of the piece, influence my opinions otherwise.
Any Australian who would let the actions of Nguyen's brother 'fully inform' their 'decision' (assumedly as to whether support his murder, or not) would be as narrow-minded, but slightly less despicable, than Ackerman himself.
Ackerman apparently doesn't grasp the laughable irony of his statement, or does but assumes, probably rightly so, that his readers will be too ignorant to pick up on it: perhaps he might raise the issue of 'free press' with his editors, while they're dining with frontbench ministers and discussing (read: being told) what particular line the paper's commentary might assume over the next week or two.
And perhaps he actually believes what he writes, but more likely he does as he's told.
It's a fucking snide and thoughtless rant, but the kind that annoys me so thoroughly, because of the existence of Ackerman's 'priviledged few' whose opinions are dictated to them by what they read in yellow rags like the Telegraph.
There is no moral justification for murder, state-sanctioned or otherwise: Nguyen's relationship with his brother is irrelevant.
Those who would let, via Ackerman's petty torrent of shit, the actions of Van Nguyen's brother affect their opinion on the matter of state sponsored murder, are so obviously guilty of the same selective reasoning - "sympathy when it suits them" - that I'm (only a little) surprised even the Telegraph would publish such spurious and contradictory crap.
Judge Meryl Sexton's extension of sympathy in sentencing Khoa Nguyen is a decision that draws Ackerman's ire. But it's obvious he cares little about any "compensation" for Glen Kohu, and it's obvious his real concerns lie not with Kohu, nor his mother, but with promoting, by connection, negativity towards those supporters of Van Nguyen targetted at the top of his page.
Well, here's something just as obvious:
If Ackerman spent more time really empathising with people of lesser circumstance than he does hobknobbing in expensive restaurants shovelling food into his fat blustering mouth, his paper might be slightly more well regarded than that which I use to wipe my arse.
keystroke
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 13,316
-T{H}R- said:
I've diminished myself because a drug trafficker, samaurai sword wielding arsehole hacked almost to death another person and got caught for his drug crimes. then he sends his brother to get more drugs, but his brother dies (and accepted his punishment when he entered the country) in the process.
how the fuck am I meant to feel? am I meant to feel sorry for him for racking up thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to fight his brothers first, second, third court appearance, because Khoa thought it was necessary to repeatedly hack at a poor 17 year old boy with a huge sword AND get himself arrested for drug trafficking, therefore not enabling him to travel overseas to get more drugs?
KemicalBurn
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 514
-T{H}R- said:
exactly. you cant change anything now about this particular case. The ball is now in your court if you wish to make an actual contribution for opposing the death penalty in other countries (that means outside of bluelight).
The merits of this have been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum. Its obvious that no-one is going to change their opinion: so the options left are deal with it; get over it; or do something about it besides bitching on a message board and claiming superiorty because you have such a "great empathy for your fellow human beings" (which is a clear definition of irony if you consider that he was trafficking a drug that ensnares lives and destroys families).
peace out.
endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
...
Last edited:
silvia saint
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,869
up all night said:
make sure it's a .45 not a 9mm
. myself? i have no idea. heroin od sounds ok, as long as it's pure.
preacha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,519
endlesseulogy, this is no attack at you, but that father in the article you posted sounds like he is trying to blame someone else for his son's death rather than resign himself to the fact that his son was a junkie fuckhole
the fact that a drug can drive someone to that point of desparation is exactly the reason why it should stay illegal.
cigarettes don't drive people to knock off TVs and DVD players to fund their habits.
but hey, i'll just get labelled as narrow minded again, rinse and repeat
the fact that a drug can drive someone to that point of desparation is exactly the reason why it should stay illegal.
cigarettes don't drive people to knock off TVs and DVD players to fund their habits.
but hey, i'll just get labelled as narrow minded again, rinse and repeat
Doppelganger
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,539
^ I actually agree [minus the way you presented your case].
I don't think drugs should be legalised... and I'm in two minds about decriminalization.
I don't think drugs should be legalised... and I'm in two minds about decriminalization.
silvia saint
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,869
pete_gasparino said:
good post. maybe you should reiterate that and send the finished piece into the letter section. make sure you include something along the lines of "i bet you won't print this", they then will just to prove how unbiased they are 8)
silvia saint
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,869
preacha said:
would you like a free colour with that?
ban cigarettes tomorrow, see how many smokers are willing to knock off dvd players to pay for the increased black market cost rather than try to quit. remember, "junkie fuckholes" have said it's easier to quit smack than smoking.
lawmakers are responsible in part whilst they continue to fight an un-winnable, unjust war, where no amount of policing or education/propaganda has stopped people wanting to take drugs.
KemicalBurn
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 514
silvia saint said:
No. if cigarettes were banned tomorrow, i'd welcome it. It would give me an easy excuse to quit, and make it easier to quit due to the lack of accessibilty cause the "chop shop" tobacco makes me ill.
preacha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,519
silvia saint said:would you like a free colour with that?
ban cigarettes tomorrow, see how many smokers are willing to knock off dvd players to pay for the increased black market cost rather than try to quit. remember, "junkie fuckholes" have said it's easier to quit smack than smoking.
lawmakers are responsible in part whilst they continue to fight an un-winnable, unjust war, where no amount of policing or education/propaganda has stopped people wanting to take drugs.
silvia saint, i'd actually like to see a controlled experiment where we put chain smokers and junkies in a room, each of them holding a hammer. now behind one glass wall is their choice of poison. now if any of them break the glass, they get shot.
i'd like to see who would die first.
besides, i just like saying 'junkie fuckholes'
up all night
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 9,871
...we could also put preacha in the room with a computer behind the glass wall and see who dies first.
- Status