Every season change brings something new. For me that usually means a sinus infection, a cold, or bronchitis. I think it's just a nasty head-cold this time around. I was thinking today that had it not been spring break I might have had to miss class a few times this week. Lucky for me it is spring break and I can just go ahead and sleep in. And totally waste my spring break week on stuff that isn't fun at all.
The real question, of course, is: am I back to blogging? I don't know for sure. As usual I have many ideas on stuff to blog about. My running commentary on life has little to no outlet without the blog. It's kind of upsetting actually. I miss the therapeutic aspect of typing away my thoughts into an angry or comic rant. Whichever fits my mood.
I think that part of the reason I don't blog much anymore is that constrictive feeling of knowing that so many people I am personally acquainted with will read my writing. Not to say I mind that. I kinda like it that people I know think my stuff is worth reading. On the other hand, I do have to temper it a little. However, there is this thought that I would probably temper my writing even if people I know didn't read it. The fact is, someone I know will likely come across my words and I would not wish to be unkind.
What's the big deal about anonymous blogging anyway? Why is it so frightening for people who know us to know what we are thinking? Yes, it's easier to be honest when you're talking to faceless names on a computer -- who have no nonverbal communication to boot. But is that right? Or is this one of those things that goes beyond right and wrong and is defined more by personal preference, attitude, and ability to assert one's real personality?
You tell me. If you've a mind.
Showing posts with label stand on a limb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stand on a limb. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Friday, February 27, 2009
What Heros Are Not Made Of
Lights, camera, action. An explosion like a blossom opens into the sky showering the world with debris. There is fire and noise and smoke. The heat of the explosion, you can almost feel it. Except, you're sitting in a cozy, butt-forming chair with your head leaning against the head rest of luxury cinema seating. So, you cannot actually feel the warmth. In fact, it's quite cold around you. That's why you brought your sweater. It is always cold at the theater.
I am as much an action movie fan as the next person. Believe me. I like the spectacular explosions because they are not real so nobody got hurt. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not real either. Or should I say fortunately? I have come to a few conclusions about society and movies which I would like to share. Since this is where I spout off, well, just hear me out.
The word hero immediately conjures the image of the current version of a hero. Some total bada$$ with a need to save hundreds of people from certain death. Just because. Well, because he's damn cool and kinda ruthless and a badguy and women like him. Oddly enough, he has not noticed the fact that he has no life and no friends and no reason to want to save people and he's a stereotype. I think if you were to ask most people who their hero was they would not mention someone they know who blows things up and always has a snappy comeback before leaving to let others bag the bodies. No, they would probably mention a friend or relative who helped them through a tough time. I would talk about my husband because he has supported me through all of the changes I've made over the past year and a half -- despite the fact that some of those changes were inconvenient to him. An abused child might bring up the teacher or friend who gave him the courage to go to the authorities. An alcoholic might remember the friends or relatives who pushed her into rehab even after she messed up their lives.
What am I talking about? Am I seriously saying that heros are everyday people? That's so cliche. Isn't it? I do not think so. Because for every one of those small time heros there's a person who would not have done the same. Let me compare two fictional people who wanted to achieve greatness. Perhaps you can judge which of them was more of a hero.
Person No. 1 is Batman, portrayed so brilliantly in the recent flicks. He's obviously a special guy given everything from day one, but deciding to learn what he can despite his privilege. We see him use his money and power for good although it would be so easy to do otherwise (right?). He goes out at night and rescuses people from common criminals. He makes the world a better place and by the way he has a really cool car. No one quite notices the fact that his life is empty with no family or close friends. I mean, he's out doing cool things all the time, why should we care that he's all alone? Surely, the cool things must be more fulfilling than human interaction. Surely, depriving himself of human brotherhood must be working for him.
Person No. 2 is George Bailey from the Christmas movie It's a Wonderful Life. He's just an ordinary guy with dreams who grew up in a loving, supportive family. We watch George as he is trapped doing a job he hates in a town he wants to leave, surrounded by his friends and family whom he kinda takes for granted. At the same time he's all about doing good things for the people around him. George does not allow his complaints about the life he's had change the fact that he's a caring, compassionate person willing to sacrifice for others -- even to the detriment of his own reputation. It is not until the end of the film that life's frustrations build to a head and George finds himself angry at everything he loves. He is about to be ruined as far as he can tell. Despite the fact that he has given his all no one seems to have come through for him. And then it happens. They all show up at his house and promise to help him no matter what the cost. Heavenly intervention aside, a person cannot help but tear up at that ending. Or at least, I can't and I've seen that movie almost once a year since I was a young child.
It's clear to you that I think George Bailey is the true hero between the two characters. Perhaps it is because I too have delusions of grandeur. I would like to be a cool, loner like Batman. But I don't want to miss out on the greatest part of life. I don't want to miss out on companionship, family, and the connection that comes when an ordinary person helps another ordinary person in need. A cool car and an explosion are unneccessary for courage. Courage is just the simple will to live in the moment showing compassion to everyone you meet. George Bailey will always be a greater symbol of heroism to me than Batman. Not because he destroys evil, but because he nurtures goodness.
I am as much an action movie fan as the next person. Believe me. I like the spectacular explosions because they are not real so nobody got hurt. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not real either. Or should I say fortunately? I have come to a few conclusions about society and movies which I would like to share. Since this is where I spout off, well, just hear me out.
The word hero immediately conjures the image of the current version of a hero. Some total bada$$ with a need to save hundreds of people from certain death. Just because. Well, because he's damn cool and kinda ruthless and a badguy and women like him. Oddly enough, he has not noticed the fact that he has no life and no friends and no reason to want to save people and he's a stereotype. I think if you were to ask most people who their hero was they would not mention someone they know who blows things up and always has a snappy comeback before leaving to let others bag the bodies. No, they would probably mention a friend or relative who helped them through a tough time. I would talk about my husband because he has supported me through all of the changes I've made over the past year and a half -- despite the fact that some of those changes were inconvenient to him. An abused child might bring up the teacher or friend who gave him the courage to go to the authorities. An alcoholic might remember the friends or relatives who pushed her into rehab even after she messed up their lives.
What am I talking about? Am I seriously saying that heros are everyday people? That's so cliche. Isn't it? I do not think so. Because for every one of those small time heros there's a person who would not have done the same. Let me compare two fictional people who wanted to achieve greatness. Perhaps you can judge which of them was more of a hero.
Person No. 1 is Batman, portrayed so brilliantly in the recent flicks. He's obviously a special guy given everything from day one, but deciding to learn what he can despite his privilege. We see him use his money and power for good although it would be so easy to do otherwise (right?). He goes out at night and rescuses people from common criminals. He makes the world a better place and by the way he has a really cool car. No one quite notices the fact that his life is empty with no family or close friends. I mean, he's out doing cool things all the time, why should we care that he's all alone? Surely, the cool things must be more fulfilling than human interaction. Surely, depriving himself of human brotherhood must be working for him.
Person No. 2 is George Bailey from the Christmas movie It's a Wonderful Life. He's just an ordinary guy with dreams who grew up in a loving, supportive family. We watch George as he is trapped doing a job he hates in a town he wants to leave, surrounded by his friends and family whom he kinda takes for granted. At the same time he's all about doing good things for the people around him. George does not allow his complaints about the life he's had change the fact that he's a caring, compassionate person willing to sacrifice for others -- even to the detriment of his own reputation. It is not until the end of the film that life's frustrations build to a head and George finds himself angry at everything he loves. He is about to be ruined as far as he can tell. Despite the fact that he has given his all no one seems to have come through for him. And then it happens. They all show up at his house and promise to help him no matter what the cost. Heavenly intervention aside, a person cannot help but tear up at that ending. Or at least, I can't and I've seen that movie almost once a year since I was a young child.
It's clear to you that I think George Bailey is the true hero between the two characters. Perhaps it is because I too have delusions of grandeur. I would like to be a cool, loner like Batman. But I don't want to miss out on the greatest part of life. I don't want to miss out on companionship, family, and the connection that comes when an ordinary person helps another ordinary person in need. A cool car and an explosion are unneccessary for courage. Courage is just the simple will to live in the moment showing compassion to everyone you meet. George Bailey will always be a greater symbol of heroism to me than Batman. Not because he destroys evil, but because he nurtures goodness.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Every Hill
You may have heard the phrase, "Some hills are not worth dying on." Maybe you haven't. Maybe somebody I know made it up. Either way, it's a good phrase -- unless you happen to find a hill worth dying on. For clarification's sake, you could also say that some things are not worth fighting for, or you should pick your battles. Or you could just say "Give up and lie down in the dust like a dog because you're not going to get anywhere with this one, okay." Some BS isn't worth hiding behind.
No, I'm not writing this to sound resentful and angry. Frankly, I am not angry. I am thoughtful. I spent the last year and a half holding onto a dream, a principle. For the first time in my political life I fought the losing battle in full knowledge of what I was doing. Most of the time I don't think other people understand that. That would explain why they tell me I will never win no matter how much I do. That would explain why they say that some hills aren't worth dying on or I should pick my battles. That would explain the shakes of their heads. It's not that I go around spouting off about my political beliefs all the time. It's rather that I have some misunderstood beliefs -- I almost said unpopular, but that's not true.
Let me tell you a story. In the winter of 2004 I interned at a congressional office in Washington, D.C. The man I worked for was one of the few true fiscal conservatives to get into office in 1994 and not change into a big spender. He really cared about the issue of spending cuts and smaller government. There was one issue in particular that he wanted to cut so as to reduce the budget. It was a pretty unpopular stance, but he took his stand. I was given the job of getting the word out to the press. This is not a glamorous job in case you were wondering. I spent hours proofreading press releases and painstakingly faxing them to all sorts of publications in the hope that some reporter would write an article about the issue. It worked. We actually did drum up more discussion of the issue than my congressman had in previous years -- so the legislative assistants told me.
The day of the vote arrived and the congressman I worked for was on the floor of the House debating all day. You would not believe the phone calls I had to listen to when all his constituents decided to watch C-Span at once because they had nothing better to do. I tried to watch some of the debates but missed them somewhere between talking with the old lady who just wanted to talk about decency on television (she heard the f-word at midnight) and the old guy from Alabama who claimed the CIA was populated by commies who were putting cameras in walls to watch us (as if we do anything of that much interest to a government agency). Anyway, the congressman was brilliant.
At the end of the day he came back from the vote and I asked him how it went. He told me the numbers. To my surprise his initiative lost big time. I mean, it was a huge vote against it. I was stunned. All those hours I had put in trying to get support and it was over without any fanfare and without even a decent vote in its favor. Everything I had done was for nothing. And I had never suspected for a moment that my congressman was going to lose.
After he went back to his office (busy, busy man) I asked one of the other staffers why the vote in our favor had been so low. "It's higher than it was in any previous year," she said. "We never expected to win this one, but we make it an issue every year. Maybe someday people will get the message."
That's when I learned the most valuable lesson I learned over that long semester in D.C. Sometimes you have to fight the losing battle and show your face to all the world as if you know you're winning. Why be bummed out and down about something that you care about? When you know you're right you should be happy about that. And when you show others that you are going to fight the good fight no matter the condescension around you then they can think of nothing more to do than shake their heads as if you're an idiot. But they will never feel the satisfaction that comes with knowing yourself to have done everything you could for a cause that was well worth losing to advance. Some things are bigger than a full ballot box. I'll take my stand on that hill.
No, I'm not writing this to sound resentful and angry. Frankly, I am not angry. I am thoughtful. I spent the last year and a half holding onto a dream, a principle. For the first time in my political life I fought the losing battle in full knowledge of what I was doing. Most of the time I don't think other people understand that. That would explain why they tell me I will never win no matter how much I do. That would explain why they say that some hills aren't worth dying on or I should pick my battles. That would explain the shakes of their heads. It's not that I go around spouting off about my political beliefs all the time. It's rather that I have some misunderstood beliefs -- I almost said unpopular, but that's not true.
Let me tell you a story. In the winter of 2004 I interned at a congressional office in Washington, D.C. The man I worked for was one of the few true fiscal conservatives to get into office in 1994 and not change into a big spender. He really cared about the issue of spending cuts and smaller government. There was one issue in particular that he wanted to cut so as to reduce the budget. It was a pretty unpopular stance, but he took his stand. I was given the job of getting the word out to the press. This is not a glamorous job in case you were wondering. I spent hours proofreading press releases and painstakingly faxing them to all sorts of publications in the hope that some reporter would write an article about the issue. It worked. We actually did drum up more discussion of the issue than my congressman had in previous years -- so the legislative assistants told me.
The day of the vote arrived and the congressman I worked for was on the floor of the House debating all day. You would not believe the phone calls I had to listen to when all his constituents decided to watch C-Span at once because they had nothing better to do. I tried to watch some of the debates but missed them somewhere between talking with the old lady who just wanted to talk about decency on television (she heard the f-word at midnight) and the old guy from Alabama who claimed the CIA was populated by commies who were putting cameras in walls to watch us (as if we do anything of that much interest to a government agency). Anyway, the congressman was brilliant.
At the end of the day he came back from the vote and I asked him how it went. He told me the numbers. To my surprise his initiative lost big time. I mean, it was a huge vote against it. I was stunned. All those hours I had put in trying to get support and it was over without any fanfare and without even a decent vote in its favor. Everything I had done was for nothing. And I had never suspected for a moment that my congressman was going to lose.
After he went back to his office (busy, busy man) I asked one of the other staffers why the vote in our favor had been so low. "It's higher than it was in any previous year," she said. "We never expected to win this one, but we make it an issue every year. Maybe someday people will get the message."
That's when I learned the most valuable lesson I learned over that long semester in D.C. Sometimes you have to fight the losing battle and show your face to all the world as if you know you're winning. Why be bummed out and down about something that you care about? When you know you're right you should be happy about that. And when you show others that you are going to fight the good fight no matter the condescension around you then they can think of nothing more to do than shake their heads as if you're an idiot. But they will never feel the satisfaction that comes with knowing yourself to have done everything you could for a cause that was well worth losing to advance. Some things are bigger than a full ballot box. I'll take my stand on that hill.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Coming Up With Stuff
I have lots to write about, but before I start my rants I think you should read this guy's words. Kind of inspiring, really. Take note of some of the comments afterward if you have the time.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Funny Thing Is . . .
I remember a year ago people were telling me why I shouldn't care about the economy and why we didn't need a candidate who understood the economy. I was rooting for Ron Paul along with all the other crazies who know something about economics. I listened to so many people dismiss the economy as an unimportant issue. It's only a year later.
Ah, the irony.
Ah, the irony.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Blame Feminism
I am grateful to the feminist movement for paving the way for women in the workforce. If I couldn't go out of the home and work I'd be bored, angry and probably alone. I don't think anyone would want to be around me. My mind is just too active to be content at home. Feminism has benefited the treatment of women overall. Yet there is one area of the feminist movement that's a big pet peeve of mine.
This may sound shallow but I am an attractive woman. I am pretty, insightful, funny, and intelligent. I like to dress up without overdoing it. Nobody of the male sex ever tells me I look nice or have a cute top on or my necklace is pretty. At least, not unless I fish for the compliment and I don't do that because it's immature. People tend to laugh at my jokes (the less obscure ones). People seem to like me. So, that's all okay. When I am out in public I attract quite a few looks and some catcalls or comments from gross-looking alpha males -- and not gross-looking ones -- who I don't even know. This gets old. Really. Fast. On the one hand I am mildly flattered that they noticed I'm good looking. On the other I would prefer some respect. This may not sound like much of a dilemma, but hear me out.
It seems that in this crazy, mixed-up world it's okay for a man to make a gross sexual comment to an attractive woman. However, it is not okay for him to tell a female friend that she looks nice today or something more benign. This frustrates me to no end. I mean, not that I don't get enough compliments from Craig and not that my self-esteem depends entirely on my looks. But, you know, if I have to hear the offensive comments it would be nice to have them balanced with the thoughts of nice guys. I blame 1990s feminism for this problem. It was then that compliments became sexual harassment. Someone should have climbed up on a soapbox 15 years ago and reminded the world that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The same goes for compliments.
This may sound shallow but I am an attractive woman. I am pretty, insightful, funny, and intelligent. I like to dress up without overdoing it. Nobody of the male sex ever tells me I look nice or have a cute top on or my necklace is pretty. At least, not unless I fish for the compliment and I don't do that because it's immature. People tend to laugh at my jokes (the less obscure ones). People seem to like me. So, that's all okay. When I am out in public I attract quite a few looks and some catcalls or comments from gross-looking alpha males -- and not gross-looking ones -- who I don't even know. This gets old. Really. Fast. On the one hand I am mildly flattered that they noticed I'm good looking. On the other I would prefer some respect. This may not sound like much of a dilemma, but hear me out.
It seems that in this crazy, mixed-up world it's okay for a man to make a gross sexual comment to an attractive woman. However, it is not okay for him to tell a female friend that she looks nice today or something more benign. This frustrates me to no end. I mean, not that I don't get enough compliments from Craig and not that my self-esteem depends entirely on my looks. But, you know, if I have to hear the offensive comments it would be nice to have them balanced with the thoughts of nice guys. I blame 1990s feminism for this problem. It was then that compliments became sexual harassment. Someone should have climbed up on a soapbox 15 years ago and reminded the world that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The same goes for compliments.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
One Small Step
I have decided to embrace the fact that I am an intellectual and not an academic (I'll define the differences between those words in a later post). No more time spent wondering why my grades didn't add up to my intelligence. It is time to stop wishing I was like everyone else (everyone "normal"). The time has come to face one of the ways in which I define myself.
If you have kept up with me at all then you have probably noticed the number of posts lately that suggest I am searching for something. Seeking is my theme of late. I have spent the last several months on a journey to understand my direction in life. It would have been nice to have discerned my place in the world a long time ago. However, I was not raised in a way that helped me come to terms with my talents and potential. For example, I mentioned I am an intellectual. There are many circles where it is not a good thing to be an intellectual. One of them often happens to be Protestant Christianity in the Midwestern United States. The herd mentality infiltrates all parts of society. In evangelical Christianity it encourages a certain reliance on experience rather than rational thought. Unless you're a Calvinist, that is. Then it encourages an arrogance about why no one else can understand how deep you are.
I was raised in a Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) church for a time then moved on to a less intellectual place. I was taught to disagree with Calvinists. Believe me, I have argued with the best of them from a very tender age. Anymore I just won't talk about the Calvinist idea of "predestination." Yet it shaped so much of my understanding of faith. You see I was taught to consider the intellectual Christians to be wrong and theology to be unnecessary. I learned to feel disgust toward those who consider or question the Bible's teachings in a non-dogmatic manner. You're just not supposed to do that as an evangelical -- it is shameful. Instead you just go out there, tell your story, knock on your doors, leave your tracts in restrooms, and get offended. When someone asks you to defend your faith you say, "But I found God in this way . . ."
Well, that's not good enough for some of us. Especially those of us who notice other possible reasons for quote unquote religious experiences. What if all that laughing and falling down were a psychologically induced response and not caused by the Holy Spirit? I know. I blaspheme. People always tell me not to "limit" God when I say things like this. I ask you, why doesn't it limit God to assume that you will always have an emotional high when you worship him? What about the days when he just feels far away? Am I supposed to interpret God based solely on my feelings about him? Some days I almost hate God. Some days I want to ask him a thousand angry questions. I am not Job. I cannot accept all of my sufferings without wondering how God could love me and let me go through some of the things I have been through.
Am I weak in my faith because I doubt God at times? Well, yeah. I'm only human after all. I recognize that I am finite. I have a strong intellect, but not infallible wisdom. Some things I do have to take on faith either because they are too big for the human mind or because I do not have enough knowledge to understand them. That is no easy task for a person who likes to be right.
It is okay. I accept that I am an intellectual about my faith, my life, my God. About the people around me and the ideas they espouse. It's not an evil thing to doubt and question. God gave me a brain, after all. Why should I be ashamed to use it? Perhaps he gave me a brain so I could weigh the evidence for and against his existence. So I could consider the logic of his judgments and actions. If so then he also gave me faith and hope. He gave me the need to rely on something bigger than myself. Myself can be a bit of a mess sometimes, after all.
If you have kept up with me at all then you have probably noticed the number of posts lately that suggest I am searching for something. Seeking is my theme of late. I have spent the last several months on a journey to understand my direction in life. It would have been nice to have discerned my place in the world a long time ago. However, I was not raised in a way that helped me come to terms with my talents and potential. For example, I mentioned I am an intellectual. There are many circles where it is not a good thing to be an intellectual. One of them often happens to be Protestant Christianity in the Midwestern United States. The herd mentality infiltrates all parts of society. In evangelical Christianity it encourages a certain reliance on experience rather than rational thought. Unless you're a Calvinist, that is. Then it encourages an arrogance about why no one else can understand how deep you are.
I was raised in a Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) church for a time then moved on to a less intellectual place. I was taught to disagree with Calvinists. Believe me, I have argued with the best of them from a very tender age. Anymore I just won't talk about the Calvinist idea of "predestination." Yet it shaped so much of my understanding of faith. You see I was taught to consider the intellectual Christians to be wrong and theology to be unnecessary. I learned to feel disgust toward those who consider or question the Bible's teachings in a non-dogmatic manner. You're just not supposed to do that as an evangelical -- it is shameful. Instead you just go out there, tell your story, knock on your doors, leave your tracts in restrooms, and get offended. When someone asks you to defend your faith you say, "But I found God in this way . . ."
Well, that's not good enough for some of us. Especially those of us who notice other possible reasons for quote unquote religious experiences. What if all that laughing and falling down were a psychologically induced response and not caused by the Holy Spirit? I know. I blaspheme. People always tell me not to "limit" God when I say things like this. I ask you, why doesn't it limit God to assume that you will always have an emotional high when you worship him? What about the days when he just feels far away? Am I supposed to interpret God based solely on my feelings about him? Some days I almost hate God. Some days I want to ask him a thousand angry questions. I am not Job. I cannot accept all of my sufferings without wondering how God could love me and let me go through some of the things I have been through.
Am I weak in my faith because I doubt God at times? Well, yeah. I'm only human after all. I recognize that I am finite. I have a strong intellect, but not infallible wisdom. Some things I do have to take on faith either because they are too big for the human mind or because I do not have enough knowledge to understand them. That is no easy task for a person who likes to be right.
It is okay. I accept that I am an intellectual about my faith, my life, my God. About the people around me and the ideas they espouse. It's not an evil thing to doubt and question. God gave me a brain, after all. Why should I be ashamed to use it? Perhaps he gave me a brain so I could weigh the evidence for and against his existence. So I could consider the logic of his judgments and actions. If so then he also gave me faith and hope. He gave me the need to rely on something bigger than myself. Myself can be a bit of a mess sometimes, after all.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A Different Perspective
The combination of politics and psychology in this psychiatrist's opinion fascinates me. I have long wondered about the public hatred for GWB. Not that I approve of much of his actions as president. However, I have legitimate complaints. I don't sit around talking about how he looks like a monkey. Nor do I actually hate him. I merely disagree with some of his policies. As a young voter I also have enough memory to know that a lot of Bush's actions gain precedent from the actions of his predecessors (Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton) believe it or not.
Of course, the articles talks about a lot more than the general animosity against George W. Bush. It's quite interesting even if I don't understand all of it.
Of course, the articles talks about a lot more than the general animosity against George W. Bush. It's quite interesting even if I don't understand all of it.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
What Does This Mean?
As I kid I was taught that I have a destiny and I am going to fulfill that someday. It's a rather simplistic notion as I look back upon it. I never questioned the idea. Frankly, I doubt a lot of kids would question such a notion. You lean on adults to tell you how the world is. If they tell you the world is what it is not, well, who are you to know the difference? The more I think about it, however, the more I believe the destiny doctrine -- I coin the phrase -- is both naive and destructive. It places an expectation in a person that one should wait for the appropriate moment to react to a particular event. An event that you will somehow recognize because God is going to shoot down a light from heaven to let you know about it. Or something like that. Not that God cannot come and get you if you walk away from your calling. I am not contradicting that idea. There are far too many biblical examples for me to knock down the fact that God does call people to specific purposes.
However, not everybody gets a burning bush. You might notice that the people who get those moments are the most reactive rather than proactive people in the whole Bible. I mean, look at Moses. He tried to help his brethren, ended up committing murder, tried to cover it up, and ran off into the desert to hide from it. He had no plans to return and rescue his people. How do you get through to someone who reacts to his calling with fear? Burn a bush and yell at him. Sounds good to me.
On the other hand, consider Jesus's parable of the talents. Nowhere does it say the master explained in excruciating detail what each servant should do with his money. It just says he gave them the money and went on a journey. He expected them to use the money to produce more money. Maybe the idea of an explicit destiny is incorrect. A calling is different from an absolute destiny. A calling allows for free will. Destiny doctrine is fatalistic. It even suggests you cannot accomplish your work until you receive that explicit voice of God. It does not take into account that things change as you live your life. If you go along waiting for that epiphany I doubt it will ever come. You have to make a decision to follow a dream. You have to develop yourself and continue to make positive changes. You cannot hide away expecting your opportunities to walk up to you and ask if you are ready to join the game. Destiny doctrine is a rigid teaching that I have heard at many evangelical churches. I think it's a human response to a human idea. We want to believe that our lives have a purpose. Yes, they do. But it's okay to make that purpose happen.
In the end I am talking about myself here. I have taken a circuitous route to reach the place where I am. The truth is, I will never have a fulfilled life until I make the decision to pursue the interests that I really enjoy. I will never be content until I give up the idea that somewhere out there my fate is waiting to grab me by the throat and pull me into the right path. Frankly, I need to remind myself that proactive is better than reactive. One might say, proactive is the new reactive -- for me, at least.
However, not everybody gets a burning bush. You might notice that the people who get those moments are the most reactive rather than proactive people in the whole Bible. I mean, look at Moses. He tried to help his brethren, ended up committing murder, tried to cover it up, and ran off into the desert to hide from it. He had no plans to return and rescue his people. How do you get through to someone who reacts to his calling with fear? Burn a bush and yell at him. Sounds good to me.
On the other hand, consider Jesus's parable of the talents. Nowhere does it say the master explained in excruciating detail what each servant should do with his money. It just says he gave them the money and went on a journey. He expected them to use the money to produce more money. Maybe the idea of an explicit destiny is incorrect. A calling is different from an absolute destiny. A calling allows for free will. Destiny doctrine is fatalistic. It even suggests you cannot accomplish your work until you receive that explicit voice of God. It does not take into account that things change as you live your life. If you go along waiting for that epiphany I doubt it will ever come. You have to make a decision to follow a dream. You have to develop yourself and continue to make positive changes. You cannot hide away expecting your opportunities to walk up to you and ask if you are ready to join the game. Destiny doctrine is a rigid teaching that I have heard at many evangelical churches. I think it's a human response to a human idea. We want to believe that our lives have a purpose. Yes, they do. But it's okay to make that purpose happen.
In the end I am talking about myself here. I have taken a circuitous route to reach the place where I am. The truth is, I will never have a fulfilled life until I make the decision to pursue the interests that I really enjoy. I will never be content until I give up the idea that somewhere out there my fate is waiting to grab me by the throat and pull me into the right path. Frankly, I need to remind myself that proactive is better than reactive. One might say, proactive is the new reactive -- for me, at least.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Citizens Of Blank
One of my college professors used to give short soliloquies on how we should not identify ourselves as citizens of any particular nation. He said we should be "citizens of the world." I remember thinking, "What does that even mean?" every time he said that. My student evaluations reflected my confusion on the subject. As I ruminate, I remember that the idea of being a "citizen of the world" and not of any one particular country has become old hat. At least, since I was a kid. The term itself is so vague that I do not think I can actually define it in a blog post. I can, however, diss it to my heart's content.
I am not here to point out why any particular country is better than any other country. I like my country best because it's where I was born. I am a part of my nation. I am invested in its political process, its laws, and its people. I speak the language primarily spoken here. I discuss and debate values based upon a common upbringing with those around me. In some senses, my childhood was not very common. I do not understand the desire to go out and make another country's culture into my own culture. This has become a popular practice of late. I am not sure why; although, Allen Bloom had a lot to say about that. I am interested in learning about other cultures. Sometimes other cultures annoy me -- I notice only the children of Mexican descent trying to sit on my parked car when I look out the window, for example. Sometimes my own culture annoys me -- hugs are practically illegal here. At the same time, I respect other cultures for what they are and only make value judgments based on obvious moral wrongs (e.g. human sacrifice). I also appreciate many of the distinctly American notions that we bat around on an everyday basis.
One of the things I love about my nation is private property laws. In the U.S. we get a lot of crap thrown at us for being "materialistic." But that is part of what we are. Frankly, we started this country because we got fed up with paying taxes. We like our stuff and we don't like other people trying to take it away from us. That's not really a problem. I mean, buying a house is a right of passage to adulthood. I'm fine with that. I just bought a home and will move into it within the next two months. I'm stoked. I plan to make sure it's secure and well maintained. You know why? Because it's my house. My own property. It's important to me.
That's really the bottom line of why I care about the country where I was born and the place I have made for myself in my own community. It is mine. I have moved from place to place a lot. I have finally found a good place to call my home. I like it because it belongs to me. I want to make my community a better place because it's a part of my life. I appreciate many things about my country including the rule of law and the right to vote.
Today was chosen to be a day of remembrance and celebration. It's not a day to remember all the things I hate about my country or all the horrible things my government has done. It's a day to remember what I value about my country and why I will continue to work for its betterment. It's a day to remember that I am a citizen of the United States of America and that does have meaning. It gives me a sense of identity that being a "world citizen" never could. I know who I am based partly on the fact that I live in this place and I comply with its rules. I try to change the rules I disagree with, yes. And I appreciate the fact that I am free to work against the laws that disrupt my moral code. I appreciate the fact that I can go out and suggest everybody vote for a guy just because I agree with his principles -- and even though I always knew he would never win. I really love my country.
I am not a citizen of meaninglessness. I am a citizen of the US. Now, for some fireworks . . .
I am not here to point out why any particular country is better than any other country. I like my country best because it's where I was born. I am a part of my nation. I am invested in its political process, its laws, and its people. I speak the language primarily spoken here. I discuss and debate values based upon a common upbringing with those around me. In some senses, my childhood was not very common. I do not understand the desire to go out and make another country's culture into my own culture. This has become a popular practice of late. I am not sure why; although, Allen Bloom had a lot to say about that. I am interested in learning about other cultures. Sometimes other cultures annoy me -- I notice only the children of Mexican descent trying to sit on my parked car when I look out the window, for example. Sometimes my own culture annoys me -- hugs are practically illegal here. At the same time, I respect other cultures for what they are and only make value judgments based on obvious moral wrongs (e.g. human sacrifice). I also appreciate many of the distinctly American notions that we bat around on an everyday basis.
One of the things I love about my nation is private property laws. In the U.S. we get a lot of crap thrown at us for being "materialistic." But that is part of what we are. Frankly, we started this country because we got fed up with paying taxes. We like our stuff and we don't like other people trying to take it away from us. That's not really a problem. I mean, buying a house is a right of passage to adulthood. I'm fine with that. I just bought a home and will move into it within the next two months. I'm stoked. I plan to make sure it's secure and well maintained. You know why? Because it's my house. My own property. It's important to me.
That's really the bottom line of why I care about the country where I was born and the place I have made for myself in my own community. It is mine. I have moved from place to place a lot. I have finally found a good place to call my home. I like it because it belongs to me. I want to make my community a better place because it's a part of my life. I appreciate many things about my country including the rule of law and the right to vote.
Today was chosen to be a day of remembrance and celebration. It's not a day to remember all the things I hate about my country or all the horrible things my government has done. It's a day to remember what I value about my country and why I will continue to work for its betterment. It's a day to remember that I am a citizen of the United States of America and that does have meaning. It gives me a sense of identity that being a "world citizen" never could. I know who I am based partly on the fact that I live in this place and I comply with its rules. I try to change the rules I disagree with, yes. And I appreciate the fact that I am free to work against the laws that disrupt my moral code. I appreciate the fact that I can go out and suggest everybody vote for a guy just because I agree with his principles -- and even though I always knew he would never win. I really love my country.
I am not a citizen of meaninglessness. I am a citizen of the US. Now, for some fireworks . . .
Monday, June 16, 2008
Pick Your Friends
Life outside of school is very different. There are bills to pay -- including loans that were once deferred. Logistics to determine. Vacations to plan. You have to take care of your property. You always have to provide your own meals. Luckily for me I would rather eat cooked crickets than go back to cafeteria food. You also have to plan stuff to do because you're not always studying. Another major difference between college/highschool and "real life" is the making of friends.
In college we were all alone and knew no one. We were always looking for friends. Plus, we were always around one another. We would go hang out at midnight or start a movie at 2am and it was just fine. School is a whole different world from where I am now. Now I have to make the effort to get to know people. I have to make a conscious effort. When I am around new friends I have to tell myself, "Esther, you need to ask them questions and listen." Not that I am a bad listener. I am just used to friendships that flow along like a river. Outside of school friendships are more like climbing a mountain.
For other people this might not be so difficult. But I didn't learn to make friends until I was in highschool and then it was a crash course. I was homeschooled. Yeah, I got "socialized" some. But the whole bit about exerting myself to befriend other kids never really came up. Studies were always the most important thing. Frankly, studies are somewhat useless if you can't deal with people on a regular basis. Just my opinion. I recently realized that I have never taken matters into my own hands to seek and pursue a friendship since my freshman year of college. And that was the only time I ever did that. I kept all those friends -- which is great. However, I only got to know people other than those few close friends on a superficial level.
Yeah, I had a few people who were proactive in their friendships toward me outside of school when I was younger. Without going into detail let's just say those friendships did not always end well. At this point in time I prefer to be the initiator. Why? Because I know what I am looking for. Because I have good judgment of people. I trust myself more than I trust others. My friends don't have to be just like me. They do have to be people who give back into a friendship in a positive way. At my age, it's really strange to be having to put myself through a whole new education. But that's how it goes. I never learned to make friends in an environment where people other than myself already had all the friends they needed. Now I have a lot to learn. Lucky for me I am a very fast learner.
In college we were all alone and knew no one. We were always looking for friends. Plus, we were always around one another. We would go hang out at midnight or start a movie at 2am and it was just fine. School is a whole different world from where I am now. Now I have to make the effort to get to know people. I have to make a conscious effort. When I am around new friends I have to tell myself, "Esther, you need to ask them questions and listen." Not that I am a bad listener. I am just used to friendships that flow along like a river. Outside of school friendships are more like climbing a mountain.
For other people this might not be so difficult. But I didn't learn to make friends until I was in highschool and then it was a crash course. I was homeschooled. Yeah, I got "socialized" some. But the whole bit about exerting myself to befriend other kids never really came up. Studies were always the most important thing. Frankly, studies are somewhat useless if you can't deal with people on a regular basis. Just my opinion. I recently realized that I have never taken matters into my own hands to seek and pursue a friendship since my freshman year of college. And that was the only time I ever did that. I kept all those friends -- which is great. However, I only got to know people other than those few close friends on a superficial level.
Yeah, I had a few people who were proactive in their friendships toward me outside of school when I was younger. Without going into detail let's just say those friendships did not always end well. At this point in time I prefer to be the initiator. Why? Because I know what I am looking for. Because I have good judgment of people. I trust myself more than I trust others. My friends don't have to be just like me. They do have to be people who give back into a friendship in a positive way. At my age, it's really strange to be having to put myself through a whole new education. But that's how it goes. I never learned to make friends in an environment where people other than myself already had all the friends they needed. Now I have a lot to learn. Lucky for me I am a very fast learner.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
On One Condition
The worst thing a person can do to another is offer conditional love. I submit that it is the cause of much sorrow and darkness. Perhaps the greatest cause. I would rather be hated than be the recipient of conditional love. To say that affection will only come if the object of affection does what the giver wants is a sentence of living death. You think I am being too extreme? Well, let's partake of an example then.
My favorite tv show is Smallville (I'm sure you all knew that). The relationship on Smallville that most interests me is the one between Lex Luthor and his father Lionel Luthor. It portrays the results of conditional love. I know, this is fictional, but stories can often illustrate to us what we find confusing in real life. When we first meet Lex he is the subject of his father's will. Lex is strong willed and emotional. He desires to be a good person and the audience cannot help but like him. Lionel is ruthless in his treatment of Lex. He places Lex in charge of a Luthor Corp plant and demands Lex achieve perfection in all his business dealings. Lex tries passive aggressive strategies to bypass his father's inflexible standards. Somehow Lionel is always one step ahead of Lex. It's like a horrible game between father and son. Nothing Lex does is good enough for Lionel. Lionel pits Lex against himself just to teach Lex how to be strong. We get a few flashback moments between Lex and Lionel. What we learn is that Lionel has always told Lex that he is weak and pathetic. That's how he tries to be a good father to Lex. Even when Lex does the right thing Lionel can find some mistake in it. Lionel himself is committing the greatest mistake a father can commit: conditional love. It is a mistake that teaches Lex he must be a perfect son or forever live ashamed and angry. Later in the series Lionel turns his life around and tries to reach out to his son. He is eventually able to offer the unconditional love that Lex never knew. But then it is too late. Lex is a bitter young man who refuses to believe his father could love him. Lex has taken conditional love to the next level. He distrusts everyone around him. He drives away even his closest friends because he constantly manipulates them in order to keep their friendships. And they tire of it. He is a lonely, sad, dark, obsessive, manipulative person.
So I repeat, the worst thing you can do to another human being is offer love based on their performance of your standards or wishes.
At the same time unconditional love can be taken to an extreme or used in an unhealthy manner. It's kind of like the battered wife principle: don't allow the abuser back into your life without proof of full repentance because that's unhealthy. Don't allow someone to take advantage of you just because you love them. Limits must exist in order for unconditional love to work. Those limits, however, should never be more important than the love we have for those around us. First offer the love, then the limits. If you go the other way round the person will probably never realize you care.
My favorite tv show is Smallville (I'm sure you all knew that). The relationship on Smallville that most interests me is the one between Lex Luthor and his father Lionel Luthor. It portrays the results of conditional love. I know, this is fictional, but stories can often illustrate to us what we find confusing in real life. When we first meet Lex he is the subject of his father's will. Lex is strong willed and emotional. He desires to be a good person and the audience cannot help but like him. Lionel is ruthless in his treatment of Lex. He places Lex in charge of a Luthor Corp plant and demands Lex achieve perfection in all his business dealings. Lex tries passive aggressive strategies to bypass his father's inflexible standards. Somehow Lionel is always one step ahead of Lex. It's like a horrible game between father and son. Nothing Lex does is good enough for Lionel. Lionel pits Lex against himself just to teach Lex how to be strong. We get a few flashback moments between Lex and Lionel. What we learn is that Lionel has always told Lex that he is weak and pathetic. That's how he tries to be a good father to Lex. Even when Lex does the right thing Lionel can find some mistake in it. Lionel himself is committing the greatest mistake a father can commit: conditional love. It is a mistake that teaches Lex he must be a perfect son or forever live ashamed and angry. Later in the series Lionel turns his life around and tries to reach out to his son. He is eventually able to offer the unconditional love that Lex never knew. But then it is too late. Lex is a bitter young man who refuses to believe his father could love him. Lex has taken conditional love to the next level. He distrusts everyone around him. He drives away even his closest friends because he constantly manipulates them in order to keep their friendships. And they tire of it. He is a lonely, sad, dark, obsessive, manipulative person.
So I repeat, the worst thing you can do to another human being is offer love based on their performance of your standards or wishes.
At the same time unconditional love can be taken to an extreme or used in an unhealthy manner. It's kind of like the battered wife principle: don't allow the abuser back into your life without proof of full repentance because that's unhealthy. Don't allow someone to take advantage of you just because you love them. Limits must exist in order for unconditional love to work. Those limits, however, should never be more important than the love we have for those around us. First offer the love, then the limits. If you go the other way round the person will probably never realize you care.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
"I Have A Bad Feeling About This"
Emotions are an interesting concept. I say this partly because I have sequestered most of my emotions. I tend to be extremely logical. To a fault in fact. Mr. Spock in Star Trek: The Original Series and I would get along very well. We both make the same mistake, we fail to evaluate the emotional level of those around us. The question then becomes, how did I get this way? Did I, like Spock, choose to emulate the behavior required of me? Did I ignore my emotions because I was taught that they are unacceptable and perhaps even evil? A Vulcan does not have emotions. A Christian should control her emotions.
It all sounds eerily the same does it not? We are societally afraid of our emotions. Especially in the Christian evangelical setting. The strange thing is, there are many in evangelical churches who rely solely on their emotions to understand God. You know all those slogans about how Jesus is "my best friend" and we have "to be on fire for God." (By the way, if you're on fire you should stop, drop to the floor and roll around to put the fire out, only then should you continue reading this blog post.) I am not writing this to condemn or vilify Christian evangelicals. I think there are many good things that they do. Outreach is definitely one of their strengths and I applaud them for it. On the other hand, I am pointing out a logical anomaly in their doctrine.
Many evangelical churches despise the notions of doctrine and theology. Yet these are important things. Wars have been fought over different interpretations of biblical passages. You cannot convince me that doctrine and theology should be ignored in favor of experiences. I am not saying we should wage war over it now, heck, we have freedom of religion so we can discuss it freely. I encourage a positive response to the questions of what different doctrines mean. I am merely pointing out that doctrine is important (not all important, no, not more important than God). I do not think it is possible for humans to know everything about God. There are things we have to accept. At the same time, the wishy-washy drivel you sometimes learn in church is not helpful.
It is not so much the positive aspect of that drivel that I want to discuss. It is more the negative aspect. The continual need to tell the youth that their feelings are invalid or they should be ashamed of them. The fact is, obsession is a problem. Feelings are not. They are feelings, neither wrong nor right, but simply there. It is healthy to accept them for what they are and discuss them without hurting anyone. It is also helpful for parents to teach children how to express their feelings appropriately as they grow older. What would you rather have: A child who throws her ice cream cone on the ground because she wanted a piece of gum instead of ice cream (I can't justify her decision, no)? Or a child who says, "I really wanted gum not ice cream"? Okay, duh. The second alternative. Well, telling the child that she is spoiled and cannot have everything she wants is going to get you the former. Telling the child that you love her, you understand why she wants gum, but today we are having ice cream might still get you a tantrum. But it won't get you a child who goes through the rest of her life believing her needs are invalid and she should be ashamed of them.
There is nothing wrong with feelings. Even feelings that are rebellious toward a parent or authority figure. The fact is, children need to know they are individuals. They will never learn to live with their independence if they are not allowed to disagree. Pulling away from an angry child or withdrawing as if hurt when a child disagrees is damaging. In a rather evangelical sounding statement, I submit that God would not do that to his children. Even if he could not agree with us, he would not walk away to a distance or make us believe that we are always guilty of something (even just having a feeling). Why is it that evangelicals treat the youth this way? Not just in their own homes even, but everywhere? There could be many valid reasons. In fact, I am open to hearing them if you wish to join in the conversation. I am expressing my opinion and my hope that things will change for the better. That is all.
It all sounds eerily the same does it not? We are societally afraid of our emotions. Especially in the Christian evangelical setting. The strange thing is, there are many in evangelical churches who rely solely on their emotions to understand God. You know all those slogans about how Jesus is "my best friend" and we have "to be on fire for God." (By the way, if you're on fire you should stop, drop to the floor and roll around to put the fire out, only then should you continue reading this blog post.) I am not writing this to condemn or vilify Christian evangelicals. I think there are many good things that they do. Outreach is definitely one of their strengths and I applaud them for it. On the other hand, I am pointing out a logical anomaly in their doctrine.
Many evangelical churches despise the notions of doctrine and theology. Yet these are important things. Wars have been fought over different interpretations of biblical passages. You cannot convince me that doctrine and theology should be ignored in favor of experiences. I am not saying we should wage war over it now, heck, we have freedom of religion so we can discuss it freely. I encourage a positive response to the questions of what different doctrines mean. I am merely pointing out that doctrine is important (not all important, no, not more important than God). I do not think it is possible for humans to know everything about God. There are things we have to accept. At the same time, the wishy-washy drivel you sometimes learn in church is not helpful.
It is not so much the positive aspect of that drivel that I want to discuss. It is more the negative aspect. The continual need to tell the youth that their feelings are invalid or they should be ashamed of them. The fact is, obsession is a problem. Feelings are not. They are feelings, neither wrong nor right, but simply there. It is healthy to accept them for what they are and discuss them without hurting anyone. It is also helpful for parents to teach children how to express their feelings appropriately as they grow older. What would you rather have: A child who throws her ice cream cone on the ground because she wanted a piece of gum instead of ice cream (I can't justify her decision, no)? Or a child who says, "I really wanted gum not ice cream"? Okay, duh. The second alternative. Well, telling the child that she is spoiled and cannot have everything she wants is going to get you the former. Telling the child that you love her, you understand why she wants gum, but today we are having ice cream might still get you a tantrum. But it won't get you a child who goes through the rest of her life believing her needs are invalid and she should be ashamed of them.
There is nothing wrong with feelings. Even feelings that are rebellious toward a parent or authority figure. The fact is, children need to know they are individuals. They will never learn to live with their independence if they are not allowed to disagree. Pulling away from an angry child or withdrawing as if hurt when a child disagrees is damaging. In a rather evangelical sounding statement, I submit that God would not do that to his children. Even if he could not agree with us, he would not walk away to a distance or make us believe that we are always guilty of something (even just having a feeling). Why is it that evangelicals treat the youth this way? Not just in their own homes even, but everywhere? There could be many valid reasons. In fact, I am open to hearing them if you wish to join in the conversation. I am expressing my opinion and my hope that things will change for the better. That is all.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
People Are Gullible
This post is meant to precede a series of my thoughts on religion in the U.S. today. I would draw your attention to this article found on the NeuroLogica Blog. It's an interesting description of how psychics ply their trade (i.e. dupe people so they can make money).
After reading the article linked above I felt creeped out. This is not because I ever believed in psychics. Personally, I think it's all hogwash. This is because I have known preachers of Christianity who have employed the same methods to get money from people and have called it the gift of prophecy. I do believe that God can speak to us today. I am not denying his power. But I also think that most people who claim to be prophetic and then utter vague incantations that could be applicable to anyone are frauds. Most of what they say is geared to get a bigger offering. Or they might actually believe they are prophetic. That is possible. Let me try an example to help you understand. If you tell a Christian that she "reads the Word a lot" and "should remain strong in the Word to accomplish her destiny" then you are certainly not saying anything new or unheard of. Chances are if the person identifies herself as a Christian then she does read her Bible a lot. The whole thing about "destiny" is vague and inscrutable. It does not mean anything. For the record someone who claimed to be a prophet actually gave me the above "prophecy." Personally, it did more harm then good. I went around wondering what the heck that meant and where that left me for a couple years after that. I could have actually been doing something useful. But no, some weirdo said something that didn't make sense and my upbringing had taught me not to ignore such people.
Now, however, I am a different person. Aside from the fact that in Revelations it suggests that prophecy has ended, it's illogical to pay attention to every bit of reasoning that comes from the mouth of someone who claims to have a prophetic gift. Many Christians act like someone is an "unbeliever" if she questions the words spoken by a "prophet." I would say no. Paul did tell us to test the spirits. I consider it a matter of common sense. Why believe everything someone says? Especially when there is no way to prove them wrong. People who claim to be prophetic are often believed -- for a while at least -- by evangelical protestants. I have seen this time and again. Someone claims to have this "gift," stands up and makes a prophecy. The time for the prophecy runs out and nothing happened. Unless, of course, you search the news and stuff. You can always find something that will coincide with the prophecy and could be what the person meant. Yeah, I call bullsh**. If there are multiple events that could be interpreted as the prophecy, but nothing definitive than it's obviously not sensible to go on listening to every word that person says. Furthermore, I have known several people who actually make stuff up to reinforce others opinion of them. They lie. It's a sad commentary on today's religious culture in the U.S.
My favorite of the methods some so-called prophets use to gain credibility is the argument against those infernal "unbelievers." The person will hold their religious meeting -- seance-- and then they will see someone walk out of the meeting less than halfway through. The person will then come up with multiple stories concerning people who "don't believe" and who have "already gone home to gossip about this meeting." Essentially, the "prophet" wants the followers to realize that they are special for believing in his meeting. Frankly, it's creepy. People who have to put others down in order to reinforce their own reputations are up to no good.
On the other side of things I have known people who are overly critical of other Christians beliefs. Again, sad commentary on today's religious culture. But perhaps not completely. The fact is, we have the freedom to believe what we want to believe in this country. That is a huge plus. So long as we have that freedom I cannot dismiss everyone I disagree with. Religious freedom is one of our most important rights. So go on, believe what you believe. I would never make a law against your gullibility.
After reading the article linked above I felt creeped out. This is not because I ever believed in psychics. Personally, I think it's all hogwash. This is because I have known preachers of Christianity who have employed the same methods to get money from people and have called it the gift of prophecy. I do believe that God can speak to us today. I am not denying his power. But I also think that most people who claim to be prophetic and then utter vague incantations that could be applicable to anyone are frauds. Most of what they say is geared to get a bigger offering. Or they might actually believe they are prophetic. That is possible. Let me try an example to help you understand. If you tell a Christian that she "reads the Word a lot" and "should remain strong in the Word to accomplish her destiny" then you are certainly not saying anything new or unheard of. Chances are if the person identifies herself as a Christian then she does read her Bible a lot. The whole thing about "destiny" is vague and inscrutable. It does not mean anything. For the record someone who claimed to be a prophet actually gave me the above "prophecy." Personally, it did more harm then good. I went around wondering what the heck that meant and where that left me for a couple years after that. I could have actually been doing something useful. But no, some weirdo said something that didn't make sense and my upbringing had taught me not to ignore such people.
Now, however, I am a different person. Aside from the fact that in Revelations it suggests that prophecy has ended, it's illogical to pay attention to every bit of reasoning that comes from the mouth of someone who claims to have a prophetic gift. Many Christians act like someone is an "unbeliever" if she questions the words spoken by a "prophet." I would say no. Paul did tell us to test the spirits. I consider it a matter of common sense. Why believe everything someone says? Especially when there is no way to prove them wrong. People who claim to be prophetic are often believed -- for a while at least -- by evangelical protestants. I have seen this time and again. Someone claims to have this "gift," stands up and makes a prophecy. The time for the prophecy runs out and nothing happened. Unless, of course, you search the news and stuff. You can always find something that will coincide with the prophecy and could be what the person meant. Yeah, I call bullsh**. If there are multiple events that could be interpreted as the prophecy, but nothing definitive than it's obviously not sensible to go on listening to every word that person says. Furthermore, I have known several people who actually make stuff up to reinforce others opinion of them. They lie. It's a sad commentary on today's religious culture in the U.S.
My favorite of the methods some so-called prophets use to gain credibility is the argument against those infernal "unbelievers." The person will hold their religious meeting -- seance-- and then they will see someone walk out of the meeting less than halfway through. The person will then come up with multiple stories concerning people who "don't believe" and who have "already gone home to gossip about this meeting." Essentially, the "prophet" wants the followers to realize that they are special for believing in his meeting. Frankly, it's creepy. People who have to put others down in order to reinforce their own reputations are up to no good.
On the other side of things I have known people who are overly critical of other Christians beliefs. Again, sad commentary on today's religious culture. But perhaps not completely. The fact is, we have the freedom to believe what we want to believe in this country. That is a huge plus. So long as we have that freedom I cannot dismiss everyone I disagree with. Religious freedom is one of our most important rights. So go on, believe what you believe. I would never make a law against your gullibility.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Caucus Impressions
There is much I could say about the Iowa caucus experience. I am not really sure where to begin. A caucus is like a huge Party meeting without the formalities and familiar faces. Since most of my readers have probably never attended a meeting for their political party my description is useless. I'll start from the beginning.
I arrived at about 6:20pm at the caucus location along with my husband. We started to walk inside only to discover Hillary and Obama signs. Democrats were everywhere. A few questions later we learned that the Republicans were meeting on the other side of the building. We found our way into our meeting room and registered. Craig went to make signs directing people on where to go because most people -- Dems and GOPs included -- were confused. I put on my Ron Paul button, stuck a Ron Paul sign on the wall and sat down waiting to see if anyone would approach me. Several people did. Most of them thought that the Ron Paul campaign had sent me over and wanted to know if I could help the chairperson get people registered. I explained that I was a caucus voter just like them and a volunteer for the campaign in my own precinct. I talked for quite a while to a lovely, elderly woman who supported Ron Paul. I met a few other Ron Paul fans. It was great.
At a few minutes after 7pm the meeting began. The first order of business was electing a secretary to help the chairperson. I volunteered because it meant I would be able to make sure nothing bad happened to the votes. No one objected to me being the secretary.
Thus followed a lengthy period of standing on a hard floor in very high heels. My feet still hurt. We had a series of short speeches for each candidate. My husband gave a speech for Ron Paul and it was very well spoken. I passed out voting ballots. Then I collected them making sure that each person turned in only one ballot. I counted votes along with a representative from each of the campaigns. A little over half the people left the room at that point, not caring to stay for the rest of the meeting. We selected precinct delegates. I decided to be a delegate. Then I got all of us delegates and alternates signed up while the chairperson called in the vote, supervised by the representatives of each candidate. The last order of business was to choose important issues to go to the Platform Committee. Oh yeah, and choose a representative to the Platform Committee.
That's when my true party animal nature came out. I could not help myself. A few months ago I vowed to avoid the Iowa GOP at all costs. But now, I am one of them. I volunteered to represent my precinct to the Platform Committee. Part of the reason I decided to do this was, well, I need more responsibility or I'll continue to be a bum this year. Another part is that I really do not appreciate the recent turns the Republican Party has taken. I have not done much good as an independent. I think I am going to try changing the party from the inside out instead of standing to one side aloof and mysterious about my views. I now know of a candidate who champions my own political ideas for this country. Even if he does not make it to the nomination, I can still take his ideas and insidiously work them into the party structure. Wait, I am giving away my hand. Perhaps I should not say anymore about this . . . Then again, perhaps I should. Perhaps I will, at the Platform Committee meeting.
After all that Craig and I went to the Ron Paul post caucus party and hung out with fellow volunteers. It was fun. Ron Paul showed up and made an excellent speech. He gives me hope for America. And even if he does not win the nomination I am thankful that I got to be a part of this movement.
I arrived at about 6:20pm at the caucus location along with my husband. We started to walk inside only to discover Hillary and Obama signs. Democrats were everywhere. A few questions later we learned that the Republicans were meeting on the other side of the building. We found our way into our meeting room and registered. Craig went to make signs directing people on where to go because most people -- Dems and GOPs included -- were confused. I put on my Ron Paul button, stuck a Ron Paul sign on the wall and sat down waiting to see if anyone would approach me. Several people did. Most of them thought that the Ron Paul campaign had sent me over and wanted to know if I could help the chairperson get people registered. I explained that I was a caucus voter just like them and a volunteer for the campaign in my own precinct. I talked for quite a while to a lovely, elderly woman who supported Ron Paul. I met a few other Ron Paul fans. It was great.
At a few minutes after 7pm the meeting began. The first order of business was electing a secretary to help the chairperson. I volunteered because it meant I would be able to make sure nothing bad happened to the votes. No one objected to me being the secretary.
Thus followed a lengthy period of standing on a hard floor in very high heels. My feet still hurt. We had a series of short speeches for each candidate. My husband gave a speech for Ron Paul and it was very well spoken. I passed out voting ballots. Then I collected them making sure that each person turned in only one ballot. I counted votes along with a representative from each of the campaigns. A little over half the people left the room at that point, not caring to stay for the rest of the meeting. We selected precinct delegates. I decided to be a delegate. Then I got all of us delegates and alternates signed up while the chairperson called in the vote, supervised by the representatives of each candidate. The last order of business was to choose important issues to go to the Platform Committee. Oh yeah, and choose a representative to the Platform Committee.
That's when my true party animal nature came out. I could not help myself. A few months ago I vowed to avoid the Iowa GOP at all costs. But now, I am one of them. I volunteered to represent my precinct to the Platform Committee. Part of the reason I decided to do this was, well, I need more responsibility or I'll continue to be a bum this year. Another part is that I really do not appreciate the recent turns the Republican Party has taken. I have not done much good as an independent. I think I am going to try changing the party from the inside out instead of standing to one side aloof and mysterious about my views. I now know of a candidate who champions my own political ideas for this country. Even if he does not make it to the nomination, I can still take his ideas and insidiously work them into the party structure. Wait, I am giving away my hand. Perhaps I should not say anymore about this . . . Then again, perhaps I should. Perhaps I will, at the Platform Committee meeting.
After all that Craig and I went to the Ron Paul post caucus party and hung out with fellow volunteers. It was fun. Ron Paul showed up and made an excellent speech. He gives me hope for America. And even if he does not win the nomination I am thankful that I got to be a part of this movement.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Back In The Race
It has been a while since I have done anything related to the Ron Paul for president campaign other than read the news. Today I finally rejoined the ranks of the committed and crazy. I went to the campaign office in my town and made phone calls. Fortunately, they were what we call "warm calls." That means the people had already put their names in the hat as Ron Paul supporters. The idea was to get them to register Republican, go to the Iowa Caucus on Jan. 3rd and maybe even recruit more supporters.
It went fine. I am not a big fan of making phone calls to random people. But I signed up to help out every week. The fact is I need to help and I know it. I care about this cause, I need to put my best foot forward. That's how I am. When I care, I act. I do not just sit on the sidelines and watch other people act. In fact, doing that makes me feel like a less worthwhile person. I am proud of myself for working the phones.
After I made it through one page of numbers I asked to do something different for a while. Like I said, I hate making phone calls to random people. As I get used to the idea I will probably be less apprehensive about it. But after the first time I needed something else to do so I could blow off steam. Most Ron Paul supporters are pleasant and interested people. I did have one guy get mad at me because he was on his way to catch a plane and another gal got annoyed because she was heading to class. A) I am a volunteer B) they're the ones who answered their phones when they were busy. People always put blame on innocent parties for their own issues.
Oh well, for the most part I got to talk to some interested and excited RP supporters. That was good. I'll keep trying. It's all I can do.
It went fine. I am not a big fan of making phone calls to random people. But I signed up to help out every week. The fact is I need to help and I know it. I care about this cause, I need to put my best foot forward. That's how I am. When I care, I act. I do not just sit on the sidelines and watch other people act. In fact, doing that makes me feel like a less worthwhile person. I am proud of myself for working the phones.
After I made it through one page of numbers I asked to do something different for a while. Like I said, I hate making phone calls to random people. As I get used to the idea I will probably be less apprehensive about it. But after the first time I needed something else to do so I could blow off steam. Most Ron Paul supporters are pleasant and interested people. I did have one guy get mad at me because he was on his way to catch a plane and another gal got annoyed because she was heading to class. A) I am a volunteer B) they're the ones who answered their phones when they were busy. People always put blame on innocent parties for their own issues.
Oh well, for the most part I got to talk to some interested and excited RP supporters. That was good. I'll keep trying. It's all I can do.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Great Failing Of Homeschooling
I am walking out on a limb to talk about this one and I know it. It is a limb upon which I will make my stand. Basically, I know a lot of my family and friends read my blog. I ask that you do not take what I am about to say to be anything more than constructive criticism.
In my mind there is one true failing in the area of homeschooling. I was homeschooled all through grade school and highschool. That is how I can identify this failing. I would add that it was less of a failing in my home than it was in those of some of my friends I have talked to. I would also add that it could be considered a general failing of our time when it comes to the parents of my own generation.
This failing concerns a simple enough part of human existence, one that we all must come to terms with eventually. That is sex. The way I understand it many homeschool parents keep their children out of schools so they will not receive the negative messages and poor education that is widespread today. When it comes to sex education I believe the most negative message is the notion that parents are not doing a good enough job telling kids about this so the schools have to step in and do it for them. Unfortunately, this negative message is true in many cases. I have had many friends -- schooled and homeschooled -- whose parents never told them a single thing about sex. Unless of course the kid was female then the parents told them one thing. The parents at some time or other suspected that the child was engaging in intercourse, thus projecting a feeling of insecurity and untrustworthiness upon that child and making the child desire to be rebellious. Come on parents, I think you can all do better than this.
I am lucky in that my parents at least explained the mechanics to me. I am unlucky in that they were not open about it once "the talk" was said and done. If I had questions I had to resort to the dictionary, the biology book or a friend with a dirty mind. But at least I had some direction in the beginning. Granted that direction did not teach me to defend myself against temptation, nor did it teach me to watch for predators. In those areas I have merely been lucky or perhaps God gave me a wisdom beyond my years. The short truth is that I think today's parents -- especially homeschooling parents -- are all too apt to view sexual intercourse in a completely negative light. They respond to this belief by allowing their children to learn sex education from negative institutions and from less innocent kids who are insecure enough to talk about their sexual experiences and non-experiences. The fact is, not telling kids about sex or giving them no positive information to replace or balance all the weird stuff they hear only makes kids angry, rebellious and willing to explore that which they do not understand. It gives them no feelings of reverence whatsoever for what is a very beautiful gift of God.
It is a sad position to be in really. Knowing and hearing all your life that sex is a horrible thing that you are "going to do anyway." Or hearing nothing until you are subjected to immature people talking about it by giving way too much information for your sensitive little ears. All kids want is direction, explanation and openness. But all they get is the negative. Thus, the only way to figure anything out is to do exactly what parents keep telling you not to do. No, I have no confessions to make. I simply want to say that the negative idea of sex is not helping our teens and young adults.
It does not make any sense to me why homeschooling parents allow these negative impressions to affect their children. This comes after the parents specifically decided to teach the children at home so they would avoid the problems in our destructive education system. A little openness and positivity about sex could go a long way to making a kid feel more secure as he or she grows up. Why does sex have to be a big, dirty secret when many of us know otherwise? Many of us know that it is a beautiful thing that only makes our marriages more wonderful. People always say that "sex is not everything." And I agree, but when you refuse to allow anything but the pessimistic views of sex into an adolescent's mind then you are telling them that sex is everything. Everything they are not allowed to understand and thereby the forbidden fruit that they will wonder about all the time. Then you teach them to feel guilty about sex and when they finally get to the age where they are out from under parental constraints you wonder why pregnancy occurred too soon. Wonder no more. Take a stand on the limb which I have walked out on and, like the anti-drug commercials always say, talk to your kids.
In my mind there is one true failing in the area of homeschooling. I was homeschooled all through grade school and highschool. That is how I can identify this failing. I would add that it was less of a failing in my home than it was in those of some of my friends I have talked to. I would also add that it could be considered a general failing of our time when it comes to the parents of my own generation.
This failing concerns a simple enough part of human existence, one that we all must come to terms with eventually. That is sex. The way I understand it many homeschool parents keep their children out of schools so they will not receive the negative messages and poor education that is widespread today. When it comes to sex education I believe the most negative message is the notion that parents are not doing a good enough job telling kids about this so the schools have to step in and do it for them. Unfortunately, this negative message is true in many cases. I have had many friends -- schooled and homeschooled -- whose parents never told them a single thing about sex. Unless of course the kid was female then the parents told them one thing. The parents at some time or other suspected that the child was engaging in intercourse, thus projecting a feeling of insecurity and untrustworthiness upon that child and making the child desire to be rebellious. Come on parents, I think you can all do better than this.
I am lucky in that my parents at least explained the mechanics to me. I am unlucky in that they were not open about it once "the talk" was said and done. If I had questions I had to resort to the dictionary, the biology book or a friend with a dirty mind. But at least I had some direction in the beginning. Granted that direction did not teach me to defend myself against temptation, nor did it teach me to watch for predators. In those areas I have merely been lucky or perhaps God gave me a wisdom beyond my years. The short truth is that I think today's parents -- especially homeschooling parents -- are all too apt to view sexual intercourse in a completely negative light. They respond to this belief by allowing their children to learn sex education from negative institutions and from less innocent kids who are insecure enough to talk about their sexual experiences and non-experiences. The fact is, not telling kids about sex or giving them no positive information to replace or balance all the weird stuff they hear only makes kids angry, rebellious and willing to explore that which they do not understand. It gives them no feelings of reverence whatsoever for what is a very beautiful gift of God.
It is a sad position to be in really. Knowing and hearing all your life that sex is a horrible thing that you are "going to do anyway." Or hearing nothing until you are subjected to immature people talking about it by giving way too much information for your sensitive little ears. All kids want is direction, explanation and openness. But all they get is the negative. Thus, the only way to figure anything out is to do exactly what parents keep telling you not to do. No, I have no confessions to make. I simply want to say that the negative idea of sex is not helping our teens and young adults.
It does not make any sense to me why homeschooling parents allow these negative impressions to affect their children. This comes after the parents specifically decided to teach the children at home so they would avoid the problems in our destructive education system. A little openness and positivity about sex could go a long way to making a kid feel more secure as he or she grows up. Why does sex have to be a big, dirty secret when many of us know otherwise? Many of us know that it is a beautiful thing that only makes our marriages more wonderful. People always say that "sex is not everything." And I agree, but when you refuse to allow anything but the pessimistic views of sex into an adolescent's mind then you are telling them that sex is everything. Everything they are not allowed to understand and thereby the forbidden fruit that they will wonder about all the time. Then you teach them to feel guilty about sex and when they finally get to the age where they are out from under parental constraints you wonder why pregnancy occurred too soon. Wonder no more. Take a stand on the limb which I have walked out on and, like the anti-drug commercials always say, talk to your kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
