George Aar

Rascal, Geeze, I'm glad I was able to give a little insight. I really am. Nice to know that all the heartache and introspection of the last 6 or 8 months wasn't entirely in vain. Could I suggest maybe finding a GOOD counselor for a bit? I really have no experience with them (well, the marital kind, anyway), but, if what I'm experiencing is the norm, you don't wanna try the alternative. It's just too goddam hard. It really is. The regret, the hopelessness, the guilt, the tainted memories of your whole life, the things that you used to love to remember now only make you cry. The overall dispair. There's just nothing good about it. Not a goddam thing. Far better, I would think, would be working out what makes you unhappy in your current relationship. Unless you decide to live alone, you'll just end up with another boneheaded, jerkoff man again anyway. Wouldn't be easier to work with the one you've got already? When I met with my lawyer (an old friend I've gone to school with since the third grade), he told me "Sorry to say it George, but you fit the profile". That is, divorces tend to happen the most at two times during the marriage. Once at about 7 years (the infamous "7-year-itch") - where it's usually the husband leaving the wife for a girl with a tighter butt and perkier breasts. And then again at around 20 years, where it's usually the wife leaving the husband because she's disappointed with where her life went and blames it all (rightly or wrongly) on her choice of husbands. Maybe knowing the natural tendancies towards divorce can help us aleviate the problems before they're insurmountable? I dunno...

Shaz, Re:"Yes, we women do tend to "drop hints," when what we should be doing is making it plain as day what is on our minds. We say things like, "If you don't know why I'm mad at you, I'm not going to tell you -- you should know!" The poor schlubs aren't mind readers." Thank you for that. Indeed, I'm sure there are bunches of women who are quite convinced that they've been over every detail of what they perceive as problems in their marriages. Problem is, their husbands don't know any of it. I guess women spend a lot of time pondering things like, "Why did she that?" "Why did he mean by THAT?" "How come she wore THAT sweater?" and other excursions into the world of Freudian motivations and hidden meanings. Men do not. If we're hungry, we say so. Tired? ditto Horny? We make our desires known (generally in plain english). And we generally don't spend ANY time trying to decern the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) hint. So if you're absolutely positive that he knows exactly how you feel, TELL HIM ANYWAY. GAWD, why do we have to play the farking game, geezus...

Belle, I appreciate the sentiments. My situation isn't entirely analygous to yours, though. Especially, in that, no doubt the whole rest of the world knew our marriage was in trouble, I didn't. I was planning a 20 year anniversary celebration in Mykonos or Tahiti or someplace or other when I got my "Dear John" letter. So there were no lengthy sessions with the marriage counselor or long, heart-rending discussions. There was nothing. Just "I'm leaving and you're not talking me out of this!" Maybe that's why I haven't entirely come to grips with it. It was ENTIRELY unexpected on my part. Yeah, I was a dope for not seeing the obvious signs, but then, I've ALWAYS been a dope, so what else is new? And Socks, I meant to add, though I'm sure your formula about all the love coming back to you and all, works in your life, I think there's a whole class of people out here who it doesn't work for. You're no doubt a good looking, talented popular guy, who's had a habit of winning in life. Maybe not in everything, but in the important stuff. There's a whole bunch of us out here who are none of those things. We're not popular, not particularly talented, and we have a habit of losing rather regularly. We're the Quasimodos of the world. Ugly, clumsy, always gauche, and often repellant, we yearn for the beautiful Esmereldas but usually get the rejoinder "You're such a nice guy!" as we go home to spend the evening alone. And we can give out all the love we want, but that's going to be our lot in life. And there's no shortage of us. Hell, there's a dozen or more of us that post regularly on this board alone. I've got one for a neighbor and another two or three that I work with everyday. So we spend our time having coffee at Denny's and talking about all of our conquests in life, knowing all the while that it's all bull..... But, like a duck having to swim or a bird having to fly, I think that's our job, whether we like it or not. Uh unh...

I guess it might be nice to have enough control over your spouse to say that you're gonna stay together come hell or high water. Problem is, though it sure takes two to keep the commitment, it only takes one to break it. I sure never anticipated going through a divorce, just never. Sometimes things just don't go the way you've planned... Socks, Re:"Love is never wasted, I believe. It'll come back to you, in bushels. Believe it. " I wish that were true. I really do. But as somebody's sainted grandmother once said "Wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which one dries up first." (I think I understand that)...

reply deleted

Well... I'm never doing it again, that's fer sure. I mean, the last time I stood in front of a judge and said "till death do us part" I meant it. That was it, the one and only time I'm gonna tell that lie. I may shack up with some broad for awhile now and then, but the whole scenario of love and ain't it grand and all of that, bah... It's just not worth the investment. At least my returns were pretty mediocre. YMMV

"Keep looking on the sunny side of life!" It had me in stitches. On their T.V. show though, I liked most of the sketches, but whenever they started in with the old still photographs, it always creeped me out. The big foot coming down on some Victorian gentleman's head, or the top of somebody's head popping open and a flock of little devils come steaming out, I dunno, it always gave me the willies. Never saw the humor in that stuff, it was just warped/peculiar...

Like driving by a carwreck, I couldn't NOT look, but oooooh, did that creep me out! You did a nice job of filiming it and all, but, oh gawd, the subject matter. I had no idea I could still feel that icky looking at WayWorld. Kind of cross between and endless Amway meeting, listening to a "Pat Boone's Greatest Hits" album, and talking to the Jehovah's Witnesses on your porch (shudder)...

I have to agree with Mark on this. The man IS an embarassment. A grown man, who should absolutely know better, to go on like this, sheesh, it's just shameful. Last year he tried to order a "hit" on a world leader. Then he condemns a city to oblivion. Now this. You've gotta wonder if they shouldn't be fitting him for one of those coats with the really long sleeves?

My paradigm? The known laws of physics, I guess. They've never let me down, not once. They've always done what they say they'll do everytime, no excuses. It's hard to argue with a record like that, no?

I'm breaking out in hives as I read this. Ugh Wasn't Loyboy real taken with Thomas Kinkade cottage sculptures or somesuch? That, thankfully, was after I left, but I heard rumors. If there is a hell, mine will be covered with Thomas Kinkade pictures and Country/Western on the intercom 24/7 (shudder, maybe I should repent of my sinful ways immediately)...

Mark, Re:"St. Thomas had to actually feel the holes in the resurrected Lord's hands before he'd believe. Had St. Thomas been a true skeptic, he would have said that this was the Lord's identical twin and that he drove nails through his own hands to produce an elaborate fraud. That's just the way it is." See, this is the kind of remarks that rub ME the wrong way. You make the baseless assertion that had Thomas been a "true skeptic" he'd have come up with some bogus reason to deny the obvious. That's not skepticism, that's being a dumbass. Trust me, if I'd ever come upon somebody with multiple fatal wounds, walking around and talking to me, I wouldn't assume it was a twin brother (how would that explain away the fact that he had a hole clean, clear through him? I don't get it...). Skepticism isn't not believing anything. It's simply requiring a modicum of proof before buying in. It's something we would have all done well to cultivate before our sojourns into cultworld. It's something that would-be jihadists would do well to garner a bit of. And it's something that every scientist in the world MUST have if he's going to do anything worthwhile. I don't think it's an option. Either adopt a skeptical mindset, or spend a good portion of your life chasing rainbows or being played for a fool (and yes, I have done both)...

Mark, You're serious about the shroud of Turin and the healings at Lourdes? Well, we have some rather divergent reading material, I'll guarantee. The sources I've read said that yes, the shroud had been tested, rather extensively, and was shown to be a painting done on a 13th century piece of cloth. One researcher even went to the extent of reproducing the painting and, in wrapping it around a 3-dimensional object (like a body) found that the image was indeed two-dimensional and did not conform to an object in 3-d. YEARS later it again became a cause celeb amongst some decidedly biased group of folks, whose only defense seemed to be to denigrate the scientific evidence. And even if none of that was the case, what connection does that clothe have to Jesus of Nazareth? It's beyond silly... And Lourdes, I confess to not reading much about it at all, other than seeing the movie of St. Bernadette (is that the right saint?) and finding out how much she suffered in silence, so, yeah, she was deserving of sainthood. I guess God likes it when people suffer? I dunno, I never figured out how that worked. "Oh, you've suffered a WHOLE BUNCH, let's put a gold star by your name!" Maybe the movie did a poor job of portraying the actual events. But out of the thousands (millions?) that have been there over the last 150 years, we get what? Sixty-something people who claim to be healed? How is this comforting or reassuring to the faithful? Wouldn't they have better luck with a lottery ticket? Gawd, Benny Hinn heals every damn body, never misses. And no, the issue isn't that I got "burnt" by WayWorld theology. I'd been burnt long before I got involved with those goons (though, admittedly, they didn't help any). I was pretty much an agnostic when the cute young girl came along and offered me her foot in exchange for taking "the class", but I digress. Even as an eight-year-old kid, sitting in a Methodist church basement, doing the "childrens' Bible study" routine, I often asked the "wrong" questions. "How do we know we have the right religion?", "If God loves everybody, why do people suffer and die?" "Why do babies die?", and such like. No, I never got satisfying answers then, either. Got a lot of hemming and hawwing, and a lot of spin, "It's all part of God's Plan", etc. But in The Bible, if it is what it claims to be, God's Holy Word, there's all kinds of miraculous stuff that happens all the time. Peter and the disciples get to see Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, RAISING THE DEAD! Sheesh, that would be cool. But what do we get, "Yeah, you prayed for so and so, and they died anyway, but it's all part of God's PLAN!" Yeah, I'm underwhelmed... And for all of that, doesn't it just make a whole helluva lot more sense that the world's religions are simply the expressions of an ignorant and desperate bunch of people? People who lived in an absolutely brutal environment with little or no knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy, and desperate to garner whatever edge they can. So they cook up superstitions. They paid obeisance to an invisible friend who would protect them. And in their position, who would dare not? But to hang onto those fanciful notions today, sorry, I can't do it anymore. That is, unless you've got some proof...

Mark, What would it take for me to believe (again)? Not much really, I mean, in contrast to biblical accounts, almost nothing. Just verified, tangible, reproduceable evidence. The kind of stuff that WayWorld promised but never delivered. Prayer that worked EVERY time (yes, holy wonderful, selfless, Godly kinda prayer would be fine) in a predictable manner. Hell, that'd be enough right there. And why not? Does God have some sort of affinity for the gullible? And if that's asking too much, then what SHOULDN'T we beieve? I mean, if looking for evidence is evil, then BigFoot must be real, Buddha too, and cold fusion is a reality, right? There must be some sort of criteria for what to believe, no? Why do we accept The Bible but reject the Koran? Or the Bhagavahgita? Or the sayings of Buddha? Is it all just how God works in your heart? If so, how do you know you're not just suffering from delusions? And really Mark, the quotes you highlighted as being so derisive and obnoxious, geeze, I guess we really do live in alternate universes, as I don't even know what you found offensive about them. O.K. "Biblethumper" is probably not the best choice of epithets, but other than that what? You find it offensive that I've never seen the miraculous come to pass? Well, I haven't. And I thought we WERE having a pleasant discussion. Whaddu I know? And Mo, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, suppose I told you I had an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, would you feel obligated to prove that I don't? I wouldn't think so. The obligation for proof is on the one making the assertion. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or so I've heard...

Well, gee, I'm glad I could illustrate it for you. So, what the unwashed heathen can learn from this is? Don't question just accept? If God doesn't want you, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it? Don't use your brain, 'cause God doesn't like it ?

Mark, RE:"If a person wants to be a skeptic, they're going to be one. It's not my place to change his/her mind. It is my place to pray for him or her, but if a person lacks the capacity to believe in God (ref the 1 Cor 2 quote i provided earlier), I can't fix that and no amount of evidence, logic, or persuasion can do so. It takes a miraculous intervention to happen. I'm not in charge of the miraculous intervention department. I'm also not in the position to second-guess the one who is." And what evidence to you have to make THAT sweeping statement? It seems to me that evidence just isn't too high up on your list of things to look for. Offhand condemnations and absolutes work just fine, I guess? And just how do you know what I would or wouldn't believe, and what would convince me? And how do you know what it requires for anyone to believe in God? And if you're not in a position to "second guess" (read "try to make sense out of"), then how can you know anything? If you blindly accept the "right" religious tenets and reject the "wrong" ones, what do you use as a guide to determine which is which? THE BIBLE you say? Which one? Which interpretation? Which commentary has the REAL word of God? How about The Book of Mormon? Mo seems to care for that one. Is she wrong? As a R.C. I guess you accept the apochrypha writings as well? How about the Protestants then? Are they all screwed up because they don't? And why is it that still, here in the 21st century with all the communication methods and all, that Christianity is still, percentage-wise, a religion of the western world? Maybe God just doesn't care for Kim Chee? And really, if the healing waters of Lourdes, or the shroud of Turin, or Mary's face in a tortilla are what pass for evidence, Yikes!, I don't know what to say...

Mark, "I appreciate your help (unintentional, I realize)!" Uh, you're welcome? So you're saying that despite promises of The Bible not coming to pass in your life, prayers going unanswered, in fact (I guess) no evidence of an Almighty at all, that you have a faith that is unaffected by such minor trivial matters. A more mature, refined, dare I say, better type of faith? Good for you. How does one come to the point where they can achieve such a remarkable feat, so as to believe in that which we have no evidence for whatsoever? I guess that's an accomplishment...

CM, re:"where do you get these ideas? and why do you attribute them to people who have not said it" Well, pardon me for invoking an infinite god. I thought that was a tenet of most folks' faith. If yours is of the finite variety, well, it's one I'm not familiar with. I usually hear about the god that's so vast, that "He fills up all of eternity" and such. My bad... And Mo, re:"And you are right I can't tell you how far back the lineage goes or when it started or how or why. So that leaves us both pretty much at the same spot. Except it is far more rational in my mind for a creator that creates to exist -- as to try and explain scientifically how nothing would become something--and that is why I believe as I do." Well, if that works for you, who am I to say different? It's seems to me, though, that simply pushing the issue back a few generations (to God's great-great-great-grandfather and beyond) does ZERO to address the actual question, though. It only obfuscates. And like the turtle standing on a turtle on a turtle on a turtle, sooner or later you've got to ask, "Yeah, but what's supporting the whole thing?" Apparently, not much. But that's usually what I've gotten from religion... And re: grief and comfort in time of same. Like the miners' families in W. Virginia, I find religion to be the "good news" that simply isn't. And sooner or later the truth will come out. I'd just as soon know up front what's really going on. And, like JJ said in his last post, one usually recovers in about the same amount of time, with or without the holy, invisible shoulder to cry on...

"No matter how far you go from atoms to protons to ions to quarks they HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE and science can't tell me where that is, but God can He made them" OK, Mo, I guess that's fine, though a little lacking in "logical progression" department. But then don't we have to ask ourselves - if we accept the idea of an all-encompassing creator - where did HE come from? Or, more to the point, if we imply that GOD has always been around, no beginning and no end, couldn't the material of creation have the same attributes? And the fact that God is so beyond question for you or others around does little for the rest of us. Sheesh, I know people who are convinced - beyond a shadow of a doubt - in the veracity of Astrology, numerology, herbal remedies, and Scientology. That people can be so convinced of something does little to add to it's credibility. We can all be fooled, look no further than our tenure in WayWorld for proof of that...

JJ, Well, I'm a little reluctant to say this, but I think, from the sound of your posts, that your "believer" days are all behind you. Kinda like losing your virginity, you can never go back to blissful ignorance you may have once enjoyed (or tolerated anyway). Once you start asking the kind of questions you're asking, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. Religion doesn't seem to have any really satisfying answers to basic questions like that. I know personally, when I start to drift towards the agnostic mindset again, I kept expecting the faithful around me to come up with some really compelling reasons why God and The Bible were "it". Those reasons never came. In fact, I was really shocked at how paltry and insignificant the evidence was that believers pointed to as their reason for believing. REALLY shocked. I mean, if one holds to the tenet that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, the proofs I've heard were well shy of inadequate. Pathetic even. And I don't think I was looking for all that much. But things like "I just know" and "The Lord will show you and it will be unmistakeable", really didn't do it for me. But maybe, like I've always surmised, God has got a big soft spot for the gullible. That would explain a lot...

Not on your list, but one I'm going to employ: 25. Take two weeks off and fly to Japan. Go to a Sumo match, eat lots of Sushi and sashimi, get roaring drunk at least two or three times before flying back home... Works for me :blink:

A few more came to mind: "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" - If you haven't seen it, put it towards the top of your list. A really classic scary flick with an over-the-top cast, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Peter Ustinov... And if you've never seen "Young Frankenstein" (but who hasn't?), sit down and watch it RIGHT NOW. I didn't much care for Mel Brooks' other cinematic efforts (Blazing Saddles, etc.) but this was an enchanted work. Gawd, it's good... "Little Big Man" and "The Graduate", though getting a little dated, are still worth a look "Bonnie and Clyde" with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway ditto to above And a fun little movie that slipped under most folks radar, "Cannery Row" with Nick Nolte and Debra Winger, (and a superb voice-over by John Huston). Again, the supporting cast made this a good one...

Danny, Funny you should mention that. I'd always thought about that servant and his plight as being so analogous to WayWorld. No matter how we handled a situation it was still a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " situation. So, yeah, I often identified with that "unjust" servant...

Oh, and I meant to add, I didn't even know there was a name for my chosen belief system, but lo and behold, looky what I found today: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I haven't come up with an entirely unique way of thinking...

JJ, What happened when I started thinking along those lines? I dunno, uh, well I stopped looking for a church to "fellowship" at. I guess nothing all that profound, I just gave up most of my unsubstaniated beliefs. I look at it as just trying to be honest. Gawd, that's something I never was as a Christian. I always encouraged people to pray for this or that, when in reality, I'd never seen any real, tangible results from it. I'd often had real mental gymnastic marathons to try to make Genesis conform with the known fossil record, and evolutionary theory. Gawd, that was difficult. Eventually I decided that I'd go wherever the evidence lead. No presuppositions, no assumptions, and as much as possible, no prejudice in my thinking. And following that path lead pretty quickly to an agnostic mindset. It's the only honest way I know to be. I certainly don't see any persuasive evidence of an all-knowing, all loving, omnipresent God. Yet how can I know with any degree of certainty that there isn't some sort of creator? A being vast enough to bring about all of creation, well He'd certainly be capable of remaining out of range of human cognition if He so desired, wouldn't He? So I think the only logical view is that of agnosticism. There's simply not enough evidence to come to any other sort of logical conclusion, is there? I never found it, anyway...