I Want to See Blood!

kidsfighting

My sister, Karen, was four years older than me. As a result anytime mama was at work or out for any reason Karen was left in charge.

Now, I’d like to be able to tell you all that I always did just what Karen said, but that would be a bold face lie right here in black and white.  In fact, being the little sister who resented having the big sister in charge, I most definitely did not.  I usually did exactly not what big sis said.  Maybe not the exact opposite, but not what I was supposed to do.

And, Karen, being large and in charge really didn’t mind lording it over me either.  She dealt out demands and instructions with impunity.  Naturally I thought she was being militant and doling out more of the chores to me than she had for herself because, well, she was in charge.  And who could stop her?

She would give (cough)instructions and I’d say, “I don’t have to do what you say. You’re not the boss of me!” She would get angry and chase me down and I’d stick my fingers in my ears.  I spent a good portion of the time when mama was working with my back on the ground, Karen on top of me, using her knees to hold my hands down to keep my fingers out of my ears, pointing in my face and telling me exactly what I’d do when we got up.

When mama was home we’d bicker.  A lot.

“Yes, you did!”

“No, I didn’t!”

“Stop!”

“I’m telling mama!”

“Go ahead you little brat!”

“You started it!”

“Nuh-uh, you did!”

I am quite certain that my mama earned every grey hair she had.  I’m sure there were times when she wondered why on earth she ever had us!

One day we were going on with such childishness – we were children after all – and mama had clearly had enough.  Who knows how many times she’s told us to knock it off.

She ordered both of us out.  “Out! Go on!”, pointing to the front door.  Karen and I, still bickering and mumbling all the way, went out the front door.  Now mama stood in the hallway and we stood on the front stoop, with only the screened door between us.

“Fight, dammit!”

Karen and I looked at each other perplexed.

“None of that, now.  Y’all have been bickering all day long and I’m tired of hearing it.  Go on, fight!  I wanna see blood!”

Now we were looking at each other slack-jawed.

We didn’t fight.  We didn’t know what to make of whatever that was.  We stood there and looked at each other for a good ten minutes, I guess.  It might have only been two but the tension made it seem like at least ten.

I don’t think we bickered anymore that day.  A new day dawned, though, and we were right back at it.

He who fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day.” – Tacitus

________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Inspired by the recent grown-up version on various blogs.  Now I know why my mother told us to duke it out.  Sigh…

About these ads

71 thoughts on “I Want to See Blood!

      • S0me of the comments from John, Arch and Ron are informative – as always – and one always gleans at east one pearl of historical wisdom, but the two Jesus Sunbeams do not appear to be open to genuine discussion, hence my ’tis so, ’tis not comment.
        Sigh….c’est la vie, Ruth.
        We must all come to real enlightenment in our own good time.

        • S0me of the comments from John, Arch and Ron are informative – as always – and one always gleans at east one pearl of historical wisdom..

          No doubt. It’s just hard to sort through to find those pearls when there’s so much rhetoric.

          Mike and Kathy might actually be making some good points, too, but who could tell? There is a reason that people who put so much study into these things continue to believe. It goes beyond indoctrination. You can see time and time again where “God get’s the benefit of the doubt” even where it appears there are problems because if you go back and read this book or that text it can be made to fit. If one already had a bias then those seeming harmonizations confirm it.

          • Made to fit is the operative phrase though, is it not?
            The trouble is, it is based on fallacious text from the outset, so even if one can ‘harmonize’ the Garden of Eden, the Flood, Exodus or the Slaughter of the Innocents and JC’s nativity it didn’t happen in the first place, so what’s the point?

          • Made to fit is the operative phrase though, is it not?

            Oh, I agree. And I used to go by the mantra of the sovereignty of God. “He made us he can do what he wants with us”, too. Now I can see how utterly disgusting that is.

            And for anyone who says, ‘oh the children being killed wasn’t a problem because they went to heaven anyway’, then how is it they can condemn abortion? I’m not even a big proponent of abortion, but when one is done, how can any Christian not look at that as having done the kid a favor? Now they won’t have to grow up and make a decision about God. They got a one-way ticket to paradise.

    • For the record: I don’t know when I’ve seen grown people bicker so much – on BOTH sides! It was breakin’ mah brain. It was like a trainwreck; I knew I should look away, but I couldn’t. Now I’ll have carnage engraved on my brain for a while. :(

      • I’ve been reading along. Went to jump into the mix. Typed my comment. The index finger poised to hit *Post Comment* . . . and I stopped. Eyes wide open. Momentary freeze . . . instructions came to the forefront, hit delete! Delete this comment. Danger Zoe. Danger.

        Delete I did.

        It reminded me of why I said straight up that my blogging was not about debating (unless of course I chose it) but it wasn’t my purpose. This a.m. when I updated myself on the goings on over there I also remembered why if debate is the purpose it’s probably wise to have a time limit or comment limit.

        Great post. Brought a smile to my face. Pretty much figured where you were going with this. <3

        • Yeah, I’ve typed a couple of responses over there and deleted them. It’s not worth the mental anguish.

          It seems we were all just snowed by the wrong interpretation of these things and if we’d only studied a little bit more we’d still be in the fold. ;) I know you’ve been there, done that, got a gazillion t-shirts.

        • Chortle, chortle. When you said ‘Danger Zoe’ my mind said ‘Danger Will Robinson’.

          No use me getting in there. I have learned that it upsets me too much. Those guys almost make Becky look good :-) Plus Nate, John, and Ruth are all better at it than me.

          Really, the theists should argue with each other. When one God system soundly convinces all other God system, that victor should be the one arguing with atheists. (I am not holding my breath waiting for this.)

          Somehow clinging to one’s faith in the face of so much contradictory evidence from so many directions is deeply sad and deeply comical at the same time.

          • Those guys almost make Becky look good :-) Plus Nate, John, and Ruth are all better at it than me.

            You know, I don’t think Becky would have bothered me so much if it just hadn’t been the wrong time. While she might have gotten a bit frustrated at times she didn’t resort to character assassination.

            I’m not even in the same league with Nate, John or DagoodS. They have so much patience. I just tell myself not to jump in unless I can handle it because it can upset me as well. And I don’t like how I am or feel when I’m upset.

          • (((Hugs))). Nice to hear from you. :-) I was thinking Danger Will Robinson too.

            In regards to Becky, I too feel it is about timing. I was clear in my story about the trauma in my life and the trauma from spiritual abuse. I was clear about being triggered. When I silenced her as I finally did, it was about me. I didn’t need anymore help feeling crazy.

          • I can say that she always seemed genuinely concerned and it’s not that she was unkind, really. Except in the fact that we were clear we needed some headspace from the abuse we’d already suffered. So it felt like she was picking at scabs.

          • Really, the theists should argue with each other. When one God system soundly convinces all other God system, that victor should be the one arguing with atheists. (I am not holding my breath waiting for this.)

            Could we all just make this the starting point of god debate

          • I think that the starting point of all god debate should accordingly be proof that there actually is one.

            Whatever started the “Big Bang”, whether is be supernatural or not, it has to be established that a) it is an intelligent entity, b) that it is singular (who knows, if something like this exists it could be many) and c) that it is concerned with the happenings on this planet.

            Just labeling something supernatural doesn’t garner it deity status.

          • I think that the starting point of all god debate should accordingly be proof that there actually is one.

            Am thinking the beginning should actually be what god is before we talk about whether god is.

          • *Inspired by the recent grown-up version on various blogs. Now I know why my mother told us to duke it out. Sigh…

            I don’t think he’s your sister, though! ;)

            …I haven’t been following the comments in Nate’s Letter to Kathy (the Bible Has Problems). I’m guessing that’s better for my sanity.

            Ruth: “I noticed it continued even after his request. As if he’d said nothing at all.”

            Nan: “I added a comment referring back to HIS comment … maybe that will help? *fingers crossed*”

            For reference, I added links above, to the comments to which I think you were referring.

            I also see that Nate later commented: “I withdraw my request. For those of you who were holding back (kc and nan) feel free to jump back in.”

          • He’s definitely not my sister. The whole bickering thing over there just sounds like kids bickering. I want to tell them all to just go ahead and duke it out. :)

            I think you’re probably better off not following. I’m about done with it myself. I’ve been going over every now and then to check if he’s answered me on the previous post.

            He may as well have withdrawn it. It didn’t do any good and all it garnered was backlash that opposing views were being censored. o_O

  1. @Zoe

    I also remembered why if debate is the purpose it’s probably wise to have a time limit or comment limit.

    Clever idea!
    You should suggest it to Nate. Probably be better for his health. ;)

  2. Okay, I read your post today, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Then I read the comments and now I feel like someone told a joke and I didn’t get it. Or someone pulled a prank and I wasn’t in on it. So how about pointing me to whatever it was that prompted your post today and the comments that followed. My curiosity has been piqued!

      • I did. Wow. I’m beginning to get where you and V are coming from. It’s a whole nother world. God. Just. Is.

        I did perk up at the mention of abortion and archaeology. I was however amazed that people spent so much time and effort discussion the book of fairy tales. But it clearly means a lot to people.

        I griped about the definition of liberals. Americans do this I’ve noticed. You don’t think like me ergo you are liberal. Even when you have similar views on things.

        What annoys me most is the insult to my intelligence. I can work out how to live a decent caring moral life all on my very own. How difficult is that? I nearly replied to Kathy. I didn’t. You carry far more weight than me. I am not wasting my life researching something in which I have no interest to convince brainwashed people they are wrong.

        Were you ever convinced by atheists?

        • I don’t consider myself a liberal but I think too often conservatives and liberals in my country use their differences to polarize and divide rather than using their areas of agreement to come together. There’s far too much finger pointing and divisiveness. If one group doesn’t think the same as another they’re enemies no matter how many things they might have in common.

          I think that’s what Nan has been trying to say to Kathy but it seems she’s having none of that.

          Was I ever convinced by atheists? Nah. My faith was cracked before I could even entertain listening to anything non-religious.

          • Isn’t that my point? My ‘there is no person high in the sky or devil down in hell’ holds no water. Just like ‘it’s wrong to eat animals’ or whatever. We only ever change our minds through personal conviction. Or non conviction. Nan was v reasonable. But Ark made me laugh.

            I don’t consider myself an anything. If people put labels on me, that’s their choice.

          • In this country labels are quite important. It’s really not conducive to unity.

            I’ve gotten your point all along. I really don’t get into debate that often and I certainly don’t go to Christian blogs seeking it out. I don’t find that very productive. The reason I blog about religion and, in particular Christianity, is to give anyone who is cracked in their faith a soft place to land and to question without judgement. It helps so very much not to feel alone.

          • That’s a lovely way to describe it. If I could provide that place for anyone I would. Maybe for would-be vegetarians or feminists or environmentalists. Yes, I could talk people through that. Because, I’ve been there. That’s the difference isn’t it? I’ve been there and changed my views.

            But even so, each of those choices is based on reasoning and not blind belief. That is the very essence of what I struggle to comprehend.

            There is a door. It exists. I need to open it to exit. There is a god. Where? I can’t see it. It is not real. How can a burning hell physically sustain so many people? Huh?

            That’s why these debates leave me baffled. Who cares whether this or that point in the bible is accurate? The basic logic of believing in on egos over another or any god just defeat me.

            You are born. You live. You die. We have to accept that. Fear of death is a big big part of religion. Ain’t no paradise, no heaven, no nada. But we can do good in our short lives. We don’t need fairy tales to do that. My contribution is rescuing animals and helping my neighbours. I don’t lie, cheat or steal. Or murder, or commit adultery etc etc.

            So why does someone think a big book makes them better? I fear for peoples’ mental health. I found Kathy’s arguments very spooky. I’ll hold up my life to any Christian’s.

            Then tell me that atheists/agnostics are bad people. Anyway, at least it will be warm in hell.

          • But even so, each of those choices is based on reasoning and not blind belief. That is the very essence of what I struggle to comprehend.

            I understand your difficulty. I only know that, for most, religion isn’t based on reason alone. When I say that, I mean that there is some reason involved. Though that seems to take a back seat to the a priori that a supernatural God exists. Everything else flows from that presumption. If you never had that presumption, or held to that presumption skeptically, to begin with I can see how it would be difficult to understand or comprehend.

            And because we deceived ourselves into believing we had a relationship with this God it is quite painful when we realized it’s true nature – that it does not exist.

          • I’m probably a lot less activist about it than some would like, but I only see that activism (for me) being an emotional black hole. I’m glad others can sustain it, but I know my limits.

  3. Thanks for the trip down memory lane – it brought back vivid images (pretty much scripted EXACTLY the same as yours) of my older (3yrs) brother and I. Any given day was either about who got the “easy chores” or which TV program we would watch (Gilligan’s Island or Hogan’s Heroes) … much “disagreement” ensued and more than a couple of household items were broken in the melee.

    Then Dad brought home the boxing gloves and marched us outside to “duke it out” – no face shots allowed. I wonder if they took bets?

    Cheers,
    Robt

    • Ha! I don’t think mom would have cared if we took face shots. I think her plan worked. I really don’t know what she would have don’t if we’d actually taken her up on her challenge. :)

      We fought over all sorts, but TV programming and chores were the biggies.

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

  4. There are people with a lot of patience. I saw the comments re 400+. Who reads all those and it starts to go downhill before you get to the tenth comment.
    This is such a good post. I gave the instructions but we fought very few times.

  5. I wonder, if in an off-line debate forum, like a university or town hall meeting if the fact that there were boundaries on the length of time given for the debate and discussion if someone would make the accusation of censorship?

    • Definitely not. What happens is, off-topic discussions get table for another debate. Another debate is scheduled for that topic.

      I find it interesting that neither of them have linked to blogs of their own where they would invite debate topics.

        • Hmmm…I hesitate to call them trolls. I think they really believe they are doing God’s work; imparting truth to those of us who are lost.

          Maybe they’ve watched too many debates? Or not enough debates? They’ve gotten this idea that the comment section is a debate forum. And that debate involves a lot of name calling, generalizations, and rhetoric. I picked up on something Kathy said yesterday about comment sections being debate forums and then later she said something about using “liberals/atheists” do this or that as a CHALLENGE. Maybe she’s in college and taking a class on debate and trying to perfect her style? *shrug*

          • If they truly believed they were doing ‘god’s work’ (sic) one would expect a more respectful tone, or at least one not so aggressive/defensive whilst dealing with ‘the fallen’.
            They come across as hyper Evangelical and Jesus Sunbeam Mike, who has ducked and dived from the outset and been nothing but scathing in his interactions with ever commenter and is no more than a smarmy prat who needs a good ding around the ear .

            Continual interaction with these type of folk is little more than point scoring, and it just gets tiring.

            That level of fanaticism is beyond the pale. For me, at least.

          • Somehow, somewhere along the way, these folks got the idea that because we’re apostates their Christian mandate on behavior doesn’t apply in conversations with us. It’s like they think they’re only mandated to behave as Christians when in the presence of other Christians. Maybe there’s a chapter in their evangelism manual on that?

          • Ah, yes. A sort of ”All bets are off” type of thing.

            Doesn’t help their cause if they are looking for converts, does it?

            What next, Bring out the Turn or Burn dictum?
            Smile….nutters, the pair of them

          • I’m not sure they’re looking for converts. At least not among those of us who are vocal on the thread. Lurkers maybe…If I were lurking I’d run away.

            This is what I was talking about before with you. Remember when I said that calling people names and trying to make them look foolish doesn’t appeal to a broad base? My mama always said it’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar. It’s better to make your points, IMO, and let the facts stand. The ones yelling, hurling insults, and being rude will make themselves look foolish in the end.

            I’m working on a post about my feelings on the whole debacle.

  6. I think it’s not uncommon for some people to feel entitled online. They throw out there that it is a public forum and if you don’t like it then go private. There seems to be a lack of understanding that blogs are not necessarily a free-for-all environment, unless of course permission is given and last I saw, Nate gave permission. But, if he should change his mind and request an end to it and cries of “censorship” go up again then it seems to me to be a total lack of understanding that though one has a public blog it is still their blog and they have a right to determine when enough is enough.

    • I think that whole censorship thing was a challenge to Nate to keep it open. Surely after that many comments and that much animosity and that much rhetoric one could not cry censorship and keep a straight face.

      Exactly, Zoe. There are a number of blogs (mainly Christian ones) that either keep their comments closed or moderate all comments.

    • No, waltsamp. I go through spells of posting, really, sometimes posting frequently and then taking a hiatus. I’ve been on a bit of an unplanned hiatus. Just got a little burned out.

      I’ll be back to posting, probably regularly, soon. Thanks for asking about me, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s