Last night and into the a.m. hours, I was commenting up a storm over at Yahoo, the article being about the new biracial Spider-Man. Some of the things I learned:
1) Folk can't read.
Over in the comic book world, the change to the Spider-Man character has been rocking the Web. Meet Miles Morales, the half-black, half-Latino teenager who takes over when (spoiler alert!) Peter Parker is killed. Before anyone gets too upset, keep in mind that, first, the September relaunch of "Ultimate Spider-Man" is an alternate universe from the Marvel comic book series in which the original Peter Parker is alive and well.
Did you read that? The comic takes place in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE. So Peter Parker is STILL ALIVE in the main storyline. But apparently, that hasn't sunk in for many of the posters. All they see is that the new Spiderman isn't white.
2)People (mostly white people) don't understand that black superheroes are seen as not as profitable as white superheroes, nor do they have as much of a following. Nor are they as marketed to the public.
3)People jump to the conclusion that it's a P.C. thing rather than it simply being a new superhero that just happens to be mixed (over there people refer to him as black), with dramatizations of PC ruining everything - as if by making Spiderman not white, the franchise is ruined.
Another thing. A common comment that I read was that there's "only one" Spider-Man, and he's Peter Parker. What I wonder about is if the new Spider-Man was white, would there be as much of a reaction. Is the issue the fact that the new guy isn't Peter Parker, or is it that he isn't white?
One thing I have to say is that folk can be dramatic. I've seen comments jumping to complaints about the President, whites being replaced, etc., etc. Too many people making a big deal out of nothing if you ask me.
Here is an EXCELLENT article about the whole thing from the blog The Root.
I give you:
New Spider-Man: Not the Obama of Comics
Luckily, I have alot of stuff written down already, so as long as I keep my procrastination and laziness in check, I should have no problem posting more often.
So consider this a new beginning of sorts......
AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS :D !!
“Yeah, that is true as well since Christians are supposed to be representatives. This is especially true for those of no understanding of God or Christianity.”
So what are you saying? Because I understand things differently, I have no understanding of God? Or that because I understand Christianity too well, and disagree with a good bit of it, I have no understanding of God?
First let me say that what by the latter part is that it's especially true that Christians should be representatives of the Kingdom of God for the benefit of those who either don't believe or don't understand. Now to your question. Based on much of what you have said, you don't understand actual Christianity or who God is (based on the Bible). Your god is Nature, my God is the creator of all things, alpha and omega, my provider, etc, etc, (check out this site).
I would be insulted if I was deluded enough to think that any human could have any real understanding of God.
You're right, no one can truely understand God's ways, but with the help of the Bible and church sermons that I attend, I can have an idea.....For example, it has been taught in church that when something bad happens to you, it's because you have done something wrong.....when it's not that at all most of the time. Sometimes it's because there's a lesson to be learned, to prepare us for our destiny, and to persuade and show us the glory of God and who He is - to test our faith in Him, just to name a few.
The conversation is going somewhere. It’s just not going the direction you feel it should go, so you’re saying it’s not going anywhere. Where it’s going is that you’re trying to convince me that I have no understanding of the Bible, and bonus, somehow less understanding of God than your thought police.
Actually, it was simply getting tiring. But now it's a new day and I've been rejuvinated ;) And anyway, that Bible advises Christians to not even have debates with nonbelievers. We should simply evangelize (to announce good news - 1st Corinthians 15:1-4), live with our "faith on display", and be walking testimonies to His goodness and mercy. of course if someone asks you questions, then it's ok to respond.
I don’t read something I disagree with and then try to make it mean what I want or whatever the dogma du jour is.
That's not how it should be done anyway. There's more that goes into studying the Bible than just reading it. There's prayer, meditation, and even research.
Renee asks, “How can he be a representative if he doesn’t believe in God?”
Does your husband need to believe in God in order for God to exist? Is he any less a child of the same God you believe yourself to be, because he does not believe?
Absolutely not (how did you even come up with that). It's just that he's not a representative if he doesn't believe in who he should represent. And we're all children of God, but only those who believe in Him and that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again (1st Corinthians 15:1-4) are "joint heirs to Christ".
According to the Bible, we are all created in God’s image.
If your husband is a Machiguenga shaman dancing around a fire naked except for body paint, you should be the one who carefully made each and every jaguar like spot along his golden shoulders…and joyfully so.
I agree. But you should pray for him also. This site touches on the subject.
I said, “Yes it is, if your husband and the bishop disagree.”
Renee says, “I don’t doubt this happens. In the end, a wife should follow God. That doesn’t mean putting the bishop first. You’re only following what was preach (which reaffirms teachings in the Bible), which came from God.”
What came from your god, or at least those you choose to prop up as speaking for him, is that you follow God by obedience to your husband.
Yes, I never disputed that. I just said that at the same time you stand by and follow God and His Word.
I said, “Not just that. It says you must be subject to him. That means that you obey and serve him regardless of whether or not be believes in God, and even if he calls God Allah, or even Damballah.”
Renee says, “Yes, but you hold on to your own belief in God and pray for for your husband, that’s all YOU can do.”
I’m glad you’re finally clear on that.
I've been saying that all along.
If…and if you converted to Christianity and he didn’t?
Pray for him.
A righteous Muslim follows the same God as a righteous Christian. They’re just from different social backgrounds.
That means squat. They are not the same god or even the same beliefs. The only path is Jesus Christ and God. And if you don't agree with that, then agree to disagree. You go your way, and I'll go mine.
It speaks of tragedies and disasters, and recovering from them. It says that a godly man gets up again, and ungodly people don’t.
Bonus, it’s from the old testament, so for sure it’s not talking about repentance in Christian terms.
Perhaps it can mean that too. There are many passages where you can read it one time and see it one way, and read it a second time, and interpret it in a whole new way. Each relevant for whatever you're going through. And as far as I know, repentance strictly speaking wasn't only found in the New Testament.
She continues, “But it’s important that their ready to change or do something about their situation. God only helps those who help themselves. We have to take the first step. Of course as humans (because Christians are humans too) fall back to our old ways, and screw up.”
That would be impossible if you were truly a born again new creature, or whatever they’re calling it now. I’m a little behind the fads since my parents went roots.
No it's not. We're human and humans make mistakes, many times BIG mistakes. People all the time get saved and fall back to old ways (I should know). Hence the term "rededication" to Christ, or to rededicate you life to Christ.
Anybody can be religious, but it takes much to be a believer.
Christianity has NOTHING to do with social convenience , far from it (it's not even of the "world"). Anyway, being a Christian and walking a path of faith is HARD lol.
There are other comments you posted, but I'm going to leave those alone, because you basically disagree with the foundation of Christianity and who God and what the Bible are. So there's no point in responding to those comments. We just have differing opinions and that's fine.
These shades of color are classified as the color "nude". You'll find this category of color in everything from lady's undergarments to lip gloss.
Now take a look at the pictures again. Notice anything yet? What does the shade remind you of...or should I say what skin color does it remind you of?
I'm not one to sweat the small stuff or make a mountain out of a mole-hill. However, what bothers me is how the universal shade of "nude" for the most part resembles the shade of white people in general. The implication is that the shade and skin color of white people is the default and ONLY definition of "nude", if that makes sense. And that doesn't sit well with me.
I don't know about you, but as a black woman, the above examples aren't considered "nude" to me, or rather, "nude" is relative and the shade should change with the person in question. For example, "nude" for me would be more of a brown shade. But instead I have to look at the above shades and deem that as universally "nude". Simply put, there shouldn't be one single standard and shade of the color "nude" when the color would mean something different for many groups of women. Once again, anything caucasian related is held either as the standard or default.
To me, there really shouldn't be a shade titled "nude" in the first place. Shades like the above pictures should be called "peach" or something. Or instead, "nude" should be a theme, as whenever a woman, no matter her skin color or ethinicity, wears something close to her skin tone such as in the mentioned examples above.
Now maybe I'm looking too much into this and misunderstood the meaning behind the color nude.
And yes, I know women of ethinicities like Japanese and Chinese have skin colors that match some of the shades of nude. However, I was looking at this topic through the context of whiteness being held as some sort of standard when it comes to beauty and appearance.
- Current Music:SciFi Network - Fact or Faked
Around the 4th of July holiday, while surfing the net, I found a poignant and amazing document written by none other than Fredrick Douglas. Here he expresses his thoughts and feelings of the holiday in the wake of America's 76th birthday through the eyes of a person who belonged to a group of people who were themselves denied independence and acknowledgment as citizens in this very country.
I know that the 4th of July has long passed, but nevertheless, it's our country's history and something to think about.
I now give you What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
*Sweeps away dust*
Phew haven't been here for awhile. Hopefully this marks the beginning of more frequent posts. Anyway without further ado.
A few weeks ago I was watching a segment of ABC's What Would You Do that involved sexual harrassment in the workplace, in this instance a resturant. One actor was the male manager, the harrasser and the actress was the victim, the employee. Two actresses played the victim, both dressed in different attire. The first actress was wearing modest attire, a simple dress with a short sleeved jacket. The other actress was wearing a form-fitting red dress, an outfit that one would consider inappropiate in that particular worplace.
When the first group of scenerios played out involving the modestly dressed actress, some customers in the resturant came forward and tried to help the victim. A few even confronted the manager. One man offered the young woman a job working for him. However, with the second group of scenerios involving the actress in the inappropiate dress, much fewer people came forward to help.
When the host of the show interviewed the customers, one woman said that she was "asking for it". Others were saying that she was inappropiately dressed. People were less sympathetic. As the host said, it seemed that more people had a problem with what she was wearing than what the employer was doing. Basically blaming the victim.
This segment touched on something that absolutely bothers me to no end. Victim-blaming. Putting the blame on the victim in regards to crimes committed against them.
Keep in mind that there's a difference between victim-blaming and simply discussing percautions or pointing out what a victim did to put him/herself in a situation. Even if a rape/harrassment victim made poor judgment concerning his/her safety, that doesn't negate the fact that the perpetrator CHOOSE to commit that crime against that victim. The victim isn't to blame for being raped or sexually harrassed. The perpetrator was.
But what tends to happen is that the discussion turns into picking apart every single thing the victim did wrong that caused him/her to get into that situation (I'm thinking that in the instance where the victim is a woman, there's a connection to the previous mentioned discussion and behaviors that is seen as improper when it comes to traditionally proper behavior in women....or something like that). It's one thing if the discussion is generally about what steps to take in personal safety, but it's another thing entirely if the victim is put at the same level of blame as the rapist for simply trusting a person they recently met, kissing someone, dressing a certain way, drinking (and no I'm not condoning getting drunk) etc. For example, certain behaviors imply consent so one should be careful as to how they present themselves and their actions in certain situations. With that being said they shouldn't be held responsibile for being raped. Yet, are they responsible for putting themselves in a dangerous situation, yes. Now maybe I'm wrong and the two are one and the same.
Anyway, I'll leave you with a few interesting links that inspired this post. This one is a very insightful, objective, and unique discussion about mating, consent, and rape. Fair warning though, you may need some thick skin or rather, you would need to be VERY objective.
and HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR :-D
Check this out while you're at it:
You think you're looking at a painting of a tiger. Well you are....sort of. What you're actually looking at are body painted models:
"You are looking not into the eyes of the tiger but at the backs of two lithe models. And the jaw of the beautiful beast is actually the shapely posterior of a third."
--- from the Telegraph
Slut, skank, whore, ho, tramp.....
They all basically mean the same thing. A promiscuous woman, a female that has many sexual partners, etc., etc.
Here are some definitions I found on the net:
--- slattern: a dirty untidy woman
--- adulteress: a woman adulterer
--- (derogatory) a sexually promiscuous woman; (derogatory) a man with the above qualities, often a gay man; a prostitute; (derogatory) a slovenly ...
--- A derogatory term. Refers to a sexually promiscuous person, usually female. One who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons ...
( Read more...Collapse )