Debate With Dan

For the past couple of days, I have been engaged in a debate with Dan, the author of a Blog entitled "The Truth".

Until now this debate has taken place in the comments section of his blog and in the comments sections of three of my previous posts: here, here, and here. Since the debate is not fully contained in any one place, and my most recent reply is not only long, but, I think, useful to others, I have decided to simplify things, and use posts here to continue our discussion.

The following is Dan's most recent statement, and came to me by way of e-mail. It was later published on his blog. My previous reply can be found here:

RE: This was my response to what you wrote
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:30:59 -0800
I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator

I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I live by “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to “Hell’s best kept secret”

God bless you on your journey

My retort follows: (I have broken Dan's comment into pieces to ensure an understandable context for my answers)

Paragraph One:

"I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator"

I already covered this with a prior comment.

Paragraph Two:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Since this paragraph is something of a run-on, I will break it into pieces and address the pieces separately.

First piece:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise."

First--a bit of confusion on my part--Are you saying that the child/iron parable is your experience? If so, a parable hardly qualifies as experience. If not then OK.

As for the example/parable: If the child believes the iron to be hot, he would not touch it. What is more likely going on is that he doesn't trust his father (perhaps because his father had lied in the past), and then proves to himself, by way of a simplified form of the scientific method, that his father was right. The child will now believe that all irons are hot; at least until further scientific study shows that he is wrong, and that, in fact, only "some" Irons are hot.

The lad has engaged in an activity that will prove invaluable throughout his life: he has formed a hypothesis--the iron's not hot, an experiment--touching the iron, and then based upon his experiment, formed a theory--all irons are hot. He will no doubt perform another experiment or series of them and discover that his initial theory is flawed and form a modified theory based on his new findings such as--not all irons are hot.

Eventually, through many repetitions of his experiment, and with the same findings coming from others who perform the same exact experiments our lad will formulate a law such as--some, but not all irons are hot.

Then he, or maybe someone following in his footsteps will pursue the question--why are some irons hot and others not.

But, the young man will always know that some irons are hot, in the same way that he knows that the initial iron is hot when the second, and I might say abusive, adult comes along and says that the iron isn't hot, because he has proof that it is; proof that he can easily share by showing the second adult (the non-believer if you will) the burn on his hand, thereby supplying empirical evidence for his position.

You have yet to show me your burn.

As for the piece where you discuss God making himself hated by you I am confused. Unless, of course you mean revealed and not reviled. In which case, I would counter with my own experience with the Baggins. [see previous retort]

I would be considered insane if I went up and down the street shouting that I had seen the Baggins, and I dare say that few if any would come to me for some divine knowledge. But, many people have claimed to have seen God--Jim Jones, and David Koresh come immediately to mind as does Joseph Smith. Despite their claims I have not decided to drink poison kool-aid, not burnt myself alive at a compound in Texas, and have not become a Mormon. This is because I don't have a habit of blindly accepting anything I am told.

In fact Muhammad also had God reveal himself to him. Should I believe that?

Then we have your philosophy on life:

"I live by 'I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.'"

If this is how you decide to live, then that is your decision, but for me this is an old argument which was once thrown at me by my late-wife's priest. He and I had regular philosophical debates. I like talking with Catholic Priests about such things because they are generally better educated than most clergy, and don't hold to the antiquated notion that the Bible is literal truth. But, I digress.

Under this logic, shouldn't you believe in the Hindu afterlife, the Jewish after-life, the Buddhist, the ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Sumerian, Babylonian or any number of other beliefs that were written down long before the Christian one? What if I said that if you don't follow the teachings of Frodo Baggins and Gandolf you will go to Hell? You would naturally say that these beliefs were silly and had no basis in reality, and therefore wouldn't consider it a risk to not follow them.

Better yet what if my neighbor wrote two conflicting stories about my Frodo-given ability to create Wallabies out of muffins, then presented them to you as the only place in the universe that told that story, and said that it was the Frodo's honest truth. It would no doubt be easy for you to refute his claim because of the two conflicting stories. Without some kind of unbiased supporting document or a news story saying the same thing my neighbor's story would fall flat on it's own merits.

In the spirit of this parable read Genesis chapter one then go back later and read chapter two. Then answer the following question: If the Bible can't even get the creation story straight then how am I supposed to believe any of it? And since it is the only place there is an argument for the Christian god in the entire universe, why should I believe in such a god based on flawed evidence? (In case you don't see what I am talking about--I had already intended to post a blog about the conflict in the Genesis creation stories, so I will do so following this one for clarification)

For that matter explain the two versions of Judas' death I talked about in an earlier post. The Catholics have a good, albeit flawed, answer for these issues, but it involves accepting a lot of the Bible as fairy-tale, which I doubt you are ready to do.

So, I reverse the statement, and say that I would rather live my life, the only one I get. I know that I will eventually die and that will be the end of me, so I won't waste my life by expending time, money, or energy that could be spent with my children or in any number of other useful and/or enjoyable activities by following a religion based on Bronze Age myths.

Then we have a rather unwieldy Paragraph Four:

"If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

First off, the law of averages does not apply here, a census does. And, as we are shown in in 2 Samuel chapter 24 God will kill at least 70,000 of his own people in payment for a king taking a census. As for a hypothesis based on the census... . A hypothesis is an educated guess that is put to experimentation in order to arrive at a theory. Due to my education, I would never arrive at a hypothesis as baseless as the existence of Christ.

So many things--so little space, so bear with me here.

First: If thirty people tell me I'm drunk, and I haven't been drinking then I will suspect that those thirty people are nuts or trying to fool me. If I am in fact drunk, then I will know that before they tell me.

Second: Actually it is the year 2006 after the year your lord was supposedly born--get your facts straight. It has nothing to do with death as many people believe. A.D. is an abbreviation for anno Domini and actually means "the year of our lord." It is also incorrect by several years.

As for using the B.C./A.D. system, the Chinese calender, and the Jewish calender predate ours which is only some five hundred years old. It was created by an Italian doctor, and decreed as official by Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name--Gregorian calender). We continue to use it and the B.C./A.D. system out of simplicity not out of a belief in Jesus. If the World's still using it could prove anything along the line of religion, it would be that the Catholics were, and thereby, are right because they conceived the whole idea. And, in fact, most scholarly material now uses B.C.E. and C.E. which stands for: "Before Christian (or Common) era", and "Christian (or Common) era", and acknowledges only the existence of Christians, not Christ.

Third: Not too many years ago, the entire population of the planet, save for a few smart people, believed that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun, stars, and all other things in the universe revolved around the Earth, both concepts found in the Bible. Did majority opinion make these things true?

Two-hundred years ago, the majority of Christian American citizens believed that slavery was morally acceptable. Is that true?

By your argument, anybody who believed that Christ was God in 20 a.c.e. was a fool, because the majority of the World's population had never heard of the guy. Does their ignorance of your savior exclude them from your logic? Just because a majority of people are ignorant of a fact the fact is still a fact, and just because a majority of people believe a lie--it is still a lie.

Fourth: If your god exists, and the Bible is his word then by calling me foolish, you have earned the wrath of your god and are looking at going to your own Hell
by violating the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5:22:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

If you are right about the whole Jesus thing then you may want to start begging for forgiveness.

A fool as defined by Websters can be a few things (including a dessert), but the two most commonly held definitions are:

1) "a person lacking in judgment or prudence"
2) "a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding"

Both definitions imply a lack of ability to understand things and see beyond what they are told to believe, i.e. one who can't think for ones self, as in "a fool and his money are soon parted." Only a fool believes something for which there is no proof, and much proof against.

As for my being in denial: that infers that I have all of the evidence laid out before me, yet continue to ignore it--it would seem that I am not the one in denial, because I am not the one disregarding evidence. I cannot be in denial about something unless there is some shadow of belief.

Fifth: As for the quote from John, I think I have already established that I have no more fear of his warnings than I do of Thor's.

Next you say:

"You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to 'Hell’s best kept secret'"

Simple answers to the questions are: Yes and Yes. Both of which I think I have shown here. Can you answer both questions the same way?

As for the writings and teachings of Ray Comfort, I am way ahead of you, which is why it was so easy to refute your claims, many of which it would seem are plagiarised from Mr. Comfort.

I promise that his teachings will be covered by a future post, doing so here would get off of the subject and take up too much space.

So, stay tuned.

Finally we have:

"God bless you on your journey"

Thanks for the blessing. Frodo bless you.

Your Turn.

Rev Spitz--Terrorist Sympathizer/Ron Reader

Well folks, yesterday marks one of the proudest moments of my Internet career. I obtained a special new fan, and, better yet, was given enough material for several posts, which will allow me to avoid not having something to Rant about for quite some time.

Yesterday I had the following reply to my post "Jesus Love the Little Children":

Rev. Don Spitz said...
You are quite the anti-Christian bigot. Suffice it to say, most, if not all problems on the planet earth are from people like you who reject Jesus Christ. Our prisons are filled with people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. Most if not all rapes, murders, robberies and thefts are committed by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. AIDS is mainly spread by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ and have sex outside of marriage or else like children with AIDS get it from people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. I hope you will turn from your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and escape the fires of eternal hell. Turning from your sins and giving your life to Jesus Christ is the only way you can escape the fires of hell and receive everlasting life. If you persist in your sins and continue to turn your back on Jesus Christ, you will be lost forever.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

February 8, 2007 12:06 PM

Rev Spitz read only the post he commented on and took just 8:15 to read and respond to the post.

I was quite honored by his visit for a couple of reasons:

1)--As Michelle so eloquently put it, I had garnered my first "firebreathing raving godbag" troll.

2)--My visitor is not your run-of-the-mill Jesus freak, in fact, among the Christian-terrorist-nutbag demographic, Donald Spitz (the Rev) is something of a hero/media darling.

The Rev is the self-appointed spokesman/apologist for The Army of God, a fringe group of Christian fanatics whose major claim to fame for more than a decade has been the supporting of the cause of American domestic terrorists.

There is so much material here that I hardly know where to begin. But, I do know that to put it all in one post would make said post quite large, and after the post that the Rev commented on I promised myself that I would try not to make another post of that size for a while.

So that I can also tackle other issues that come to mind, I will most likely do several posts about the Rev and his entertaining attack on me.

In this post I will tackle the obvious starting point and address his comment.

First, a general observation about his comment. He did a better job with his comment of proving my point than anything I could have written. But, his fanaticism, and methods have a history of helping his opposition (more on this in a future post).

So, now to addressing the comment--

First we have the name calling intro:

"You are quite the anti-Christian bigot".

This line goes a long way toward showing the Rev's tendency to read things into what he reads instead of reading it, his tendency to make prejudicial assumptions based on little or no knowledge, and his lack of familiarity with the English language.

Had the Rev actually read the post then formed an opinion, instead of reading his opinion into the post, he would have seen the following lines:

"...my attacks on religions, primarily Christianity, have a serious side which stems largely from my opinion that fanatical religious beliefs are dangerous."

"I won’t go so far as to say that patriotism, ethnic pride, or even religious belief are in and of themselves evil, but such things in the wrong hands can be very dangerous."

My post is obviously directed at the fanaticism and actions of the subject of the post. I am not anti-Christian, or even anti-Christianity, otherwise I would actively engage in attempts to "convert" the 95% of the people in my life who are Christian, and definitely wouldn't have tutored religious studies at the Catholic University I attended. However, I will admit, as I have done for many years, that religious beliefs, in my opinion, are to knowledge, and social progress, what castration is to one's ability to procreate. I am anti-fanatic-of-any-religion, and, as the Rev and his people show, for good reason.

The Rev's opinion that I am anti-Christian stems not from anything I have said about Christians, but rather from his delusion that he represents true Christianity. So, when I attacked the wacko fanaticism that he holds to, and used his pal Rudolph as an example of the dangers of such ideas, he became defensive and lashed out, which is in stark contrast to the teachings of his dear Lord:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39 KJV Bible

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Matthew 5:43-47 KJV Bible

As I am not bound by the words of a mythological creature I may lash out all I want, but the Rev is supposed to be an example of faith--so far he's not doing such a good job. His imaginary boss would be pissed.

Then there's the term bigot.

Webster's defines the word bigot as:

One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, he is comparing my views on Christianity to those of white-supremacists. Being a bigot, entails hatred of a group, so it would follow that I could no more love a Christian than a Klansman could love a black, much less marry one. Well, as it turns out, I did love AND marry a Christian, and not one of those Christian-when-it-suits-my-needs Christians, but rather an honest to goodness actual Christian whose faith was a large, and generally positive, part of her life.

My late-wife was a devout Catholic, we were married in the church, and both of my children were christened in the church. Admittedly, my children have become quite agnostic in their beliefs, but they know that they have the freedom to pursue other beliefs without fear of reprisal, which is more latitude than I was ever given by my fundamentalist wacko father.

You can't get more Christian than Catholics. The Catholic church along with the Eastern Orthodox church is the closest thing on the planet to being the original Christian church. The other 130,000+ Christian sects, (including the Rev's little group--Pentecostals) throughout the World are merely offshoots who have manipulated the words in the Bible to suit there own needs.

Of course a bigot, according to Webster's, could also entail being:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

This also couldn't apply to me because I am show no intolerance to people who hold beliefs different to my own. Once again I turn to my late-wife. She was Catholic--I an atheist, she was "pro-life"--I pro-choice, she voted for the first Prez Bush-I voted for Clinton. Not only proof that I am not intolerant, but also that opposites not only attract, but can have a loving wonderful marriage.

Then there's the prejudice of a bigot--I did not prejudge anyone whom I mentioned in my post or even the Rev, because of their religion. I researched Becky Fischer, watched the film, and read her website's various documents before I formed an opinion. As for the Rev, not only have I researched him, but I actually remember his being on television, and remember the terrorists that he supports (also, more on this in a future post).

But, this definition would definitely mean that the Rev is a Bigot, and, as a result, a hypocrite.

As for the cause of all of the World's problems, the population of prisons, people with AIDS, and criminals being people like me, that is not so easy to prove without a great deal of research, but I will say that it is unlikely, because Atheists like myself are an extremely small minority compared to Christians, so statistically his assertions are doubtful. I have never been in prison, don't have AIDS, never cheated on my wife, and am not a member of the Bush White House, any religious denomination, or Al Qaeda, so have not caused the World's problems. I will say however, that there are more convicted murderers, and thieves among his list of heroes than among mine (again, more later).

But, if he means people who are not true Christians, he is definitely right, because as we have seen, anyone who disagrees with him is (in his fantasy world) not a true Christian. This eliminates every human on the face of the planet except for a handful of people who share his beliefs, a good many of which are either in prison or have already been executed for their crimes (details ..you guessed it--in a future post).

Then we have his saying that I am bound for Hell. Well, once again he is in violation of the words of his sky-pixie:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22 KJV Bible

For those unfamiliar with ancient Greek, Raca means (in modern terms) "your opinions are moronic." The Rev is bound for his own fire, poor guy.

Then we have the Rev's own version of talking to one's self. As it turns out this too is in violation of the words of Jesus:

The part of the prayer in which he asks for eternal life is in violation of Matthew 6:8 which says:

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

E.G. don't ask for things because God already knows what you need. To ask for things is to show distrust of God's will and knowledge.

Then there is the whole prayer itself, which is in direct violation of Gods command contained in Matthew 6:9-13:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

This is the only prayer you are to use, and its main theme is being given the ability to forgive other sinners, not a reward for yourself which is greedy. Don't believe me:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:14-15 KJV Bible

Yes, Rev--you are in deep shit if your sky-god exists.

Well that covers my reply to his comment. Being a person who believes in a tit-for-tat approach to blogging, I left the following comment on the Rev's blog:

Well Rev it seems that you have been busy trolling the web and attacking people.

I came here to challenge you to defend the comment left on my last post if you think you can.

So, I do hereby challenge you to defend your positions as a self-appointed soldier of God. If you in fact have God and truth on your side then your beliefs should be unrepraochable, and stand up to scrutiny, because your god is supposed to be all powerful and infallible.

I personally feel sorry for Christianity if its self-appointed defender cannot defend it.

I also feel badly for all of the actual decent Christians in the World because they are so often represented by wing-nuts like yourself.

I look forward to more of your infantile ravings and leave you with the following quote from a self-proclaimed Christian who reminds me a lot of you:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."


p. 46 Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler

Good day sir--I look forward to hearing from you.

11:33 AM [ 8 February 2007]

I'm not overly confident that he will take up my challenge, but if he does it promises to be fun, and I promise to share it with you.

Unless I do receive a reply, my next post concerning the Rev will most likely entail a discussion of the Rev's background and co-wackos.

A Must Read

By way of God is for Suckers I found an essay written by an 11 year-old girl that does a better job of putting the whole Christmas thing in perspective than anything else I have ever read on the subject.

Then, to top it off, there are certain replies to this young lady's essay that do more to show the character of the average American Baptist than anything I could ever write.

This essay and its follow-up would easily classify as must reads, so for a worthwhile bit of reading check it out.

Five Things About Me

I have been officially tagged by Mojoey at Deep Thoughts with a meme. Being new to this I can only hope that I am getting this right by telling five things about me that readers may or may not know, and then tagging others with the same challenge.

As this blog is relatively new, supplying five unknown facts about myself is relatively easy so, here goes:

Fact One--I am a backslider:

Believe it or not, I was raised a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. My father was a fervent follower of the teachings of a man by the name of Garner Ted Armstrong and drummed the teaching of Garner Ted into me on a daily basis.

Among other things, I was taught that Pope Jon Paul II was the anti-Christ and that it is a sin to eat pork, celebrate Christmas, celebrate Easter, celebrate damned near anything for that matter. Pops also taught me that going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday is a sin, and that everything in the Bible (King James Version) is literal truth. I had to do a complete study course on the Bible under his direction.

I saw my first book burning when I was twelve when Dad burnt a Time Life book on the evolution of man that I had gotten from school. He also beat me senseless for having the book, and refused to pay for it because it shouldn't have been printed in the first place. Dad then arranged to have the demons in me expelled.

Fact Two--I am a widower.

In 1991 I married a wonderful woman whom I had been dating for four years and living in sin with for one. We produced two wonderful children before her death in 1994 due to an inoperable brain tumor.

I met her in college, told my room mate that she was the woman I would marry, and never looked back. My time with her was the most wonderful period of my life.

Fact Three--I'm a Vet.

I served in the U.S. Army for six years after high school. During that time I did nuclear missile security in Germany, and was stationed with the 82nd Airborne division at Fort Bragg, NC, as a team leader in C company 1st battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

Fact Four--I'm a music fanatic.

I am very passionate about music, and listen to music during the majority of my waking moments. I am particularly fond of 80's hair metal, punk, and 90's grunge.

Fact Five--I'm a good cook.

I have always enjoyed food, but since I could never find anyone to cook for me I had to learn to do so myself. I don't have a particular type of food that I like, so I dabble with all types of cooking. Lately I have been doing a lot of Mexican food. Not the Tex-Mex crap that is passed off so often as Mexican food, but true Mexican foods. A friend's wife has been supplying me with recipes that she got from her mother and grandmother. Her family is from some village in southern Mexico that I've never heard of.

Okay, that's five about me, so I'll tag Michelle at Mutant Cat since she's really the only person I know on here, and her answers would promise to be interesting.

Sexy Beast

Yesterday during a particularly strong bout of boredom I started hitting the "next blog" button at the top of the posts page.

During my travels down this route I noticed that there seemed to be a large number of blogs that had as their sole purpose the posting of pictures of women who are supposedly known by the postee. I also noticed a rather large number of sex-related sites.

While traveling through these sites I began to get bored again, and moved on to trying to find something else to amuse myself with, such as stupid religious sites, but the sheer mass of "my hot girlfriend" and "I am a sexpert" sites continued to bother me.

Don't get me wrong--I am a human, straight, male, so pictures of beautiful women, and intelligent talk (emphasis on "intelligent") about sex are both intriguing subjects to me, but when every other blog says "look at the pictures of my hot girlfriend (which I downloaded from someone else's site)," or "I know all about how to please a man/woman" it gets kind of old.

But---I also have this problem with wanting to belong, so I too will jump on the sex bandwagon, and, in the spirit of sharing, I offer you the video below. Note: this is not me, the girl is not my girlfriend, and I am in no way implying either of these statements.

Enjoy