Obviously this is being posted hella late in the night, so excuse the title! However, if you diss David Bowie it is FRIENDS OFF! Okay? Cool.
Anyway, this post is inspired by three things: a blog I saw by a friend about similar subjects, some conversations I have had as of late, and the desire to be understood and accepted.
So, I am just going to come right out and say it: I have felt lonely for a very long time (though interestingly enough, I have felt less so lately). It's really silly since I've always had friends in some capacity even if they weren't very close to me. Don't get it twisted, I have had close friends and still do, but sometimes either that wasn't enough or it felt like they weren't there. This also isn't to say that any of these friends, though some surely have, ever betrayed me and weren't there. People betray people on occasion, even their friends. This is a truth I have no problem with. I'm very forgiving of many, many things. I even forgave two friends of mine that I had dated in turn and then decided to date each other (weird story) and make it seem like I was making up rumors about them when I was so happy with my first love I hardly gave them a thought.
So, yeah, I'm forgiving. I do find somethings terribly hard to forgive and may not ever get over certain betrayals until I grow more. That, however, is not why I am writing this.
Back on subject, yes? You better not say, no. In any case, friends: I have had them. No big, I don't think I've actually met someone with no friends. My particular case is interesting because I use to move so much as a kid. I learned how to make friends quickly and pretty well. I also learned that it was fairly unnecessary to get too close to people because, well, you were going to effin' move in a year---so, what's the point?
That all kind of changed when I moved to the last neighborhood I lived in while in California. I made some actually life-long friends there to my surprise (both were neighbors of mine). This was also, at the time, the longest I had stayed in one place (that I can remember, since I technically lived in Japan until I was 3). I made a mistake--once again, at the time--and got too close to these particular people. Thus, I was truly devastated when I was forced to move to Texas. That was the first knock against a state I envisioned was filled with crazy cowboys. I lost people I loved (in a sense).
Once in Texas, I sort of resumed my don't get too close to people thing and that was evidenced in lots of random friends whom I just really knew in school and occasionally from outside stuff. My best friend at the time, Stan, was the one person I was really close to. I use to have a crush on his sister and we went to the same church etc. But, we hung out all the time. I use to leave the house to stay over his place or he's come to my place. Those times, occasional basketball games, and school were mostly the only time I really left the house. This was the real start to my reclusiveness. I remember being outside a lot more in California, though i found plenty of time to devour books and video games. There were oodles of time back then it seems; but, then, our perception of the movement of time changes as we age. Now, everything goes so quickly. Anyway, I spent a lot of time alone though I did have one other good friend (the son of our then landlord's). I did a lot of the same stuff I did with Stan with him. I once accidentally stabbed him with a fork and also had a crush on his sister. I like girls...it happens. They are pretty.
Anyway, those excursions were not a weekly or even monthly thing (I don't think) they just happened when they did, though Stan and I would try and find ways to visit every sunday. In any case, the point here is I started to spend more time alone than with people rather than with a certain balance like I possessed in California. I probably split either evenly or 60-40 in favor of alone time or playtime depending on my mood. This meant I had tons of time to think. This isn't necessarily bad, but it would periodically become so as I was starting to grow into a fuller person entering my teens. I had many unresolved issues, mainly my dad and how to relate to him. I had no idea what to do about it nor what I wanted really beyond some acceptance and love. He was distant from me for some bullshit reason he made up in his own head. Unfortunately, I was born with a temperament that needs a certain level of affirmation to be more willing to work hard or try certain things. The things I excelled at tended to be things I picked up really fast and got approval for really fast. I picked up basketball really fast and received plenty of affirmation that I was good, very good in fact. It is enough to make a fella dream. However, with dad, I couldn't seem to do anything right. His approval, and my mother's, mattered most to me. I wanted to be pleasing and I couldn't seem to get it right. Thinking about it, and internalizing it lead to some of my later problems like a jaded lack of trust in myself or others that makes me suspicious when people want to actually be around me.
This combined with general alone time, a tendency to rarely bring up my own discomfort (a hallmark of my temperament as well), and the tendency to keep relationships at a surface level due to being a military brat let to some horrible ideas taking root and keeping me from feeling happy and fulfilled. I was a much happier child in California. My alone time wasn't because I was rejected or weird (though I am weird) it was for "me" time and leisure. I started becoming more moody as secondary school went on and my standoffishness became more about trust. I suppose I started to project whatever my dad did on other people. It certainly didn't help haven't him tell me I didn't have any friends, playing into secret fears of mine.
However, I'm not here to complain. I am thankful for the person I have become, I just need to remember that people do love and care about me and even if they didn't God cares. He is the real place for worth. I'm too tired to be coherent. Screw you. lol
Friday, February 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Pornography
I feel that it is finally the right time for me to write about this subject. It's a subject that plagues me, to be honest. It makes me feel dirty and unworthy of pretty much everything. This is saying something since, when I really look at myself, I would not bring the same relationship problems we are told most guys bring. This is due mostly to temperament and not really due to my trying terribly hard. I'm easy to get along with because that's kind of how I'm built. I naturally tend towards the peaceful route and this has its own problems. However, that's not what this post is about.
This post is about Porn and why I find it unacceptable and can never call it good. Yes, I realize that masturbation is supposedly very healthy for you--and that may be so--but I don't think that this makes Porn a good and service by extension. Masturbation itself is still to be considered a dubious or questionable practice at best. Why? Simply because it teaches us the wrong messages about sex, things such as: the pleasure is simply for us, you don't need the opposite sex, etc. It can have some practical purposes (particularly for women who tend to have a harder time reaching orgasm than men for physiological reasons) but the messages you subconsciously receive I do not think are terribly worth it unless it is done in moderation. The simple fact is that people need each other and I, for one, would rather remember that than selfishly forget that.
Anyway, I digress. Porn. Why is it bad? There are many philosophical reasons, and I'd like to highlight the first of those right here: It's created for the soul purpose of masturbation. This is meaning that it isn't created for art, because the business is masturbation. I'd also like to take this chance to extend the definition of masturbation because, in actually, I find it is not enough to just regulate it to one touching one's self until orgasm. It may seem harsh, but using a prostitute or seducing someone just for the purpose of getting yourself off would seem to be achieving the same goal of masturbation i.e. the pleasuring of one's self. The other person there is just changing the "style," if you will. They are not there as a person, however willing a participant they are. Willingness does not negate the fact that one person is there as a simple object. In the case of mutual one-night-stands for the soul purpose of hooking up, both people are making themselves into an object for the other person whilst they objectify their sexual partner. Here I am being a good Kantian, in that I am adamantly claiming that an action cannot be good if it is using another person. Strict yes, but definitely truthful. The gray area only comes into plays when people actually have feelings for each other. However, I am mainly speaking about the situations where no real feelings are involved, and since when do feelings good or bad change the consequences of an action. That's for another time though.
Anyway, this is using another person for your own sexual gain and takes no account of their personhood. Their compliance is irrelevant because there are many cases where a person will choose to do a sinful or bad thing for various reasons. Them choosing it does not mean that you are no longer sinning because they accept it. From a Christian standpoint, and actually a lot of religions, sex is something for marriage (whether polygamous or monogamous). There are various reasons for this that have been documented over time, particularly that the natural result of sex(all things going well, or not well depending on your viewpoint) is children. This is the natural order of things and, in this sense, nature is not fallen. Though, the fallen aspect of nature may rear its ugly head in terms of the various complications that can happen in the attempt for children.
I bring all this up, because porn--in its essence--is cleaner, safer, higher paying prostitution that has somehow become almost admired and garners actual fans. This makes it seem like people are enjoying the person of these Porn Stars, but the reality is they are objects of lust who get paid handsomely for it. Objectification is the real issue here. Whatever their reasons for doing porn, these people have chosen to become objects, specifically sexual objects (duh).
Some may defend porn by saying that some of the movies are beautifully made, funny, and or have good stories. This is true, in some cases, but the overwhelming amount of porn is not well made in a film making type sense. It isn't art. Playboy centerfolds are not compiled for the sake of true admiration i.e. gazing upon a beauty shape that was made beautifully. It is made for you, the viewer, to fantasize and pleasure yourself into orgasm. That's it. Filling a magazine with interesting articles and dirty jokes and comics does not change the fact that you are selling women's bodies for the sake of lust. Nudity done as art was done well in past ages where the erotic was more understated and the focus was actually on the beauty. There was no need for exposing the most private areas of a human body and the sentiments of love and a lover's embrace could be expressed fine without seeing its consumation. People know how it works. People have been having sex for centuries (there has also been porn for centuries, it just wasn't as widespread and considered the domain of deviants). Porn is not bringing anything that new to the table except for possibly inventing new fetishes or giving pre-existent fetishes a platform for...sharing. Fetishes in themselves can be fairly harmless, but some can be cause for concern. Such as the dominating aspect. That can be okay for a play with force within the sexual relationship, part of the game. But, if it becomes an obsession it can be quite horrific and I find it strange that there are people who have to be choked to have an orgasm. How could someone have equated those two things together? Anyway, fetishes happen and indulgence in them should be given over to wisdom. We shouldn't keep anything that necessarily points away from what sex really is or anything that objectifies the person.
Additionally, porn companies have begun to made casts of famous starlet's vaginas. It is simply the vag and the buttocks on this things the slight shape of a pillow. Sometimes it has hair, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that it is for putting one's member in and imagining it is the real woman. This obviously further bolsters my objectification claim and begs the question where are we going to draw the line for sexual perversion? It seems like we've been pushing the line back for years, and almost anything goes. The line is actually becoming arbitrary, which it wasn't initially. People took their cue from nature and the family. It made sense. Now, we have little choice than to go here is where we'll draw the line...and then push it back later.
As far as porn teaching people about sex goes, it is self explanatory. People figured it out and probably had great sex lives before their even drew things like the Kama Sutra. People probably occasionally talked about it, which isn't bad in itself. Fathers probably told their sons tricks to try or Mothers did the same for their daughters, which was embarrassing for all. I myself gave myself to a wonderful woman nearly 4 years ago and could not see what all the fuss was about. Getting the deed done isn't that tricky...how can you be bad at it. Granted, with kids you'll have less time to figure out the moves, but still. Come on, people!
Okay, this has gone on long enough and is no longer reading like I was planning to write it so...in closing...Porn is bad. For these reasons: it's a business of lust and masturbation (of the explicitly bad kind), it objectifies people and turns them into just their sexual components, it encourages improper thinking about sex, and is not artistic...like at all. Sex can be done artfully and not explicitly. People know what goes on...when you're showing it full on you're obviously just doing it to arouse them and get their money. It's safer prostitution, which was another reason. Finally, I'd like to make a point about clothes. Yes, clothes. Humans are the only animals who wear them. This is not just because we're pansies who get cold, though we do. This is because clothes are part of our essence as a person. Why else would we spend so much time trying to look the way we want to look. Granted, some men (and women, grody) don't take this as seriously, but humans have always liked looking presentable. Particularly when living in civilization. As C.S. Lewis once said, humans are the only creatures least at home when we're naked. DO NOT BRING UP NUDISTS!
This post is about Porn and why I find it unacceptable and can never call it good. Yes, I realize that masturbation is supposedly very healthy for you--and that may be so--but I don't think that this makes Porn a good and service by extension. Masturbation itself is still to be considered a dubious or questionable practice at best. Why? Simply because it teaches us the wrong messages about sex, things such as: the pleasure is simply for us, you don't need the opposite sex, etc. It can have some practical purposes (particularly for women who tend to have a harder time reaching orgasm than men for physiological reasons) but the messages you subconsciously receive I do not think are terribly worth it unless it is done in moderation. The simple fact is that people need each other and I, for one, would rather remember that than selfishly forget that.
Anyway, I digress. Porn. Why is it bad? There are many philosophical reasons, and I'd like to highlight the first of those right here: It's created for the soul purpose of masturbation. This is meaning that it isn't created for art, because the business is masturbation. I'd also like to take this chance to extend the definition of masturbation because, in actually, I find it is not enough to just regulate it to one touching one's self until orgasm. It may seem harsh, but using a prostitute or seducing someone just for the purpose of getting yourself off would seem to be achieving the same goal of masturbation i.e. the pleasuring of one's self. The other person there is just changing the "style," if you will. They are not there as a person, however willing a participant they are. Willingness does not negate the fact that one person is there as a simple object. In the case of mutual one-night-stands for the soul purpose of hooking up, both people are making themselves into an object for the other person whilst they objectify their sexual partner. Here I am being a good Kantian, in that I am adamantly claiming that an action cannot be good if it is using another person. Strict yes, but definitely truthful. The gray area only comes into plays when people actually have feelings for each other. However, I am mainly speaking about the situations where no real feelings are involved, and since when do feelings good or bad change the consequences of an action. That's for another time though.
Anyway, this is using another person for your own sexual gain and takes no account of their personhood. Their compliance is irrelevant because there are many cases where a person will choose to do a sinful or bad thing for various reasons. Them choosing it does not mean that you are no longer sinning because they accept it. From a Christian standpoint, and actually a lot of religions, sex is something for marriage (whether polygamous or monogamous). There are various reasons for this that have been documented over time, particularly that the natural result of sex(all things going well, or not well depending on your viewpoint) is children. This is the natural order of things and, in this sense, nature is not fallen. Though, the fallen aspect of nature may rear its ugly head in terms of the various complications that can happen in the attempt for children.
I bring all this up, because porn--in its essence--is cleaner, safer, higher paying prostitution that has somehow become almost admired and garners actual fans. This makes it seem like people are enjoying the person of these Porn Stars, but the reality is they are objects of lust who get paid handsomely for it. Objectification is the real issue here. Whatever their reasons for doing porn, these people have chosen to become objects, specifically sexual objects (duh).
Some may defend porn by saying that some of the movies are beautifully made, funny, and or have good stories. This is true, in some cases, but the overwhelming amount of porn is not well made in a film making type sense. It isn't art. Playboy centerfolds are not compiled for the sake of true admiration i.e. gazing upon a beauty shape that was made beautifully. It is made for you, the viewer, to fantasize and pleasure yourself into orgasm. That's it. Filling a magazine with interesting articles and dirty jokes and comics does not change the fact that you are selling women's bodies for the sake of lust. Nudity done as art was done well in past ages where the erotic was more understated and the focus was actually on the beauty. There was no need for exposing the most private areas of a human body and the sentiments of love and a lover's embrace could be expressed fine without seeing its consumation. People know how it works. People have been having sex for centuries (there has also been porn for centuries, it just wasn't as widespread and considered the domain of deviants). Porn is not bringing anything that new to the table except for possibly inventing new fetishes or giving pre-existent fetishes a platform for...sharing. Fetishes in themselves can be fairly harmless, but some can be cause for concern. Such as the dominating aspect. That can be okay for a play with force within the sexual relationship, part of the game. But, if it becomes an obsession it can be quite horrific and I find it strange that there are people who have to be choked to have an orgasm. How could someone have equated those two things together? Anyway, fetishes happen and indulgence in them should be given over to wisdom. We shouldn't keep anything that necessarily points away from what sex really is or anything that objectifies the person.
Additionally, porn companies have begun to made casts of famous starlet's vaginas. It is simply the vag and the buttocks on this things the slight shape of a pillow. Sometimes it has hair, sometimes it doesn't. The point is that it is for putting one's member in and imagining it is the real woman. This obviously further bolsters my objectification claim and begs the question where are we going to draw the line for sexual perversion? It seems like we've been pushing the line back for years, and almost anything goes. The line is actually becoming arbitrary, which it wasn't initially. People took their cue from nature and the family. It made sense. Now, we have little choice than to go here is where we'll draw the line...and then push it back later.
As far as porn teaching people about sex goes, it is self explanatory. People figured it out and probably had great sex lives before their even drew things like the Kama Sutra. People probably occasionally talked about it, which isn't bad in itself. Fathers probably told their sons tricks to try or Mothers did the same for their daughters, which was embarrassing for all. I myself gave myself to a wonderful woman nearly 4 years ago and could not see what all the fuss was about. Getting the deed done isn't that tricky...how can you be bad at it. Granted, with kids you'll have less time to figure out the moves, but still. Come on, people!
Okay, this has gone on long enough and is no longer reading like I was planning to write it so...in closing...Porn is bad. For these reasons: it's a business of lust and masturbation (of the explicitly bad kind), it objectifies people and turns them into just their sexual components, it encourages improper thinking about sex, and is not artistic...like at all. Sex can be done artfully and not explicitly. People know what goes on...when you're showing it full on you're obviously just doing it to arouse them and get their money. It's safer prostitution, which was another reason. Finally, I'd like to make a point about clothes. Yes, clothes. Humans are the only animals who wear them. This is not just because we're pansies who get cold, though we do. This is because clothes are part of our essence as a person. Why else would we spend so much time trying to look the way we want to look. Granted, some men (and women, grody) don't take this as seriously, but humans have always liked looking presentable. Particularly when living in civilization. As C.S. Lewis once said, humans are the only creatures least at home when we're naked. DO NOT BRING UP NUDISTS!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Big Bang
I find that the internet brings out the less sensible people far more frequently than it does sensible people. My case and point here is basically any article on science that is posted on any website. As soon as it is posted, droves of fundies of various belief systems come out and say ridiculous, polemical things that usually are not well thought out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_switzerland_antimatter#mwpphu-container
This article in particular has inspired this posting. I was sneakily roaming facebook and came across one of my less intelligent friend's page and she had posted this and wrote "Take that, Creationist," next to it. Interestingly enough she has the most confused religious views I have seen posted on facebook, but that is besides the point. To keep it short, she adheres to gnosticism, while claiming to also be Catholic and a general Christian.
The most interesting part of this is that the article says nothing of Creationist or their opponents. It's a short article musing about how we cannot use this material to make warped drives or bombs. The real meat of the article is just the fact that we have been able to make anti-Atoms from anti-Matter (makes logical sense that anti-matter would have anti-Atoms, though I could be wrong) stick around long than .00001 milliseconds. We were able to look at it and perhaps one day we will figure out why we cannot see it and why it "disappeared." I put that in quotes because if we can gain access to it, it's obviously not disappeared.
Anyway, as soon as you scroll down the comments you see the uninformed fundie Christians battling the uninformed fundie Atheists and neither gaining ground because both are likely stupid. Fundie, if you haven't figured it out yet, is a slang term for fundamentalist. Yay, urbandictionary.com (plug). In any case, some particular gems of argument are:
-I have never seen atheism, dumb and bandwagon used together before....because it is erroneous. You should check out Dawkins religious belief scale. I can pretty much guarantee you intelligence increases towards the atheist end of the scale.
(note: I'm assuming he's talking about Richard Dawkins, a notorious polemic and ridiculous person. How this person would not assume that Dawkins belief scale in regards to intelligence is skewed. I've known many brilliant, brilliant theists (and still do) and they were in droves at Baylor including my professors, of course. However, some supposedly unrelated study, does say that those who choose atheism are quite intelligent, and far moreso than theists. More on that later.)
-You believe in:
* A Jewish Zombie who was his own father that can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force in your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
*You think hes real just because he cant be disproved
*The 2000 year old fairy tale book
-... This in no way whatsoever proves "God" exists. If anything, it shows more and more that the idea of God is false. HUMAN scientists created this, it wasn't some invisible being performing a magic trick to hint at it's fake existence.
Go back to reading your Bible and playing with crayons.
-Man, this is fascinating..
...its funny how religious people say that their god or gods exist,
yet most religious ppl are ignorant and never read a science book to expand their minds and get different views on life.
That there's more to life and thats it's beautiful and rather they choose to believe that a "god" magically created everything and himself and that if u do good u go to heaven, or u do bad u go to hell..
if ppl were smart enough to think about it, they'll figure out that religion is the most stupid thing in this planet, it's one of the things that seperate us as humans!
-Man I wish all religious people would walk to their nearest cliff and take a leap of faith. If you are able to cross to the other side then you would have proven Newton's second law wrong and I will be the first to bow to your god. However, since you are not going to do this because gravity will take care of you, then please free up some room by crawling back under your rock and letting real knowledge develop.
-I am an ignorant god fearing simpleton, my beliefs are based on a book that was written by ignorant primitives many hundreds of years ago. I have been brainwashed since birth to reject any other belief or to open my mind to scientific discoveries and to aggressively defend my beliefs. I will also try my best to make you believe. I dont care that science is based on facts such as fossils etc. The devil planted fossils and bones of early hominoids to trick us non believers. My savior was a murderous criminal nailed to a cross for his crimes but I will make him my martyr and kill other religeous fanatics and non believers who dont share my beliefs. I will spend an eternity on a cloud playing a harp with all my relatives while the non believers burn. I can do all kinds of crimes and sins and be pardoned on Sunday. None of my prayers have ever been answered but that dont deter my closed minded belief system. My preacher is sodomizing children and lives in a big house but thats just gods way. I feel sorry for all you non believers.
-I have been having trouble finding the "Christian" counter part but, I think the reaction against it was so large (1300plus comment) I cannot find them, but here is a synopsis of what they might say:
SCIENCE IS WRONG.
THE BIBLE SAYS....insert pretty much anything here
YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!
etc. etc.
Yes, I chose the ones I found most ridiculous. The point is mainly that these crazies exist. I will say that this particular forum was interesting because I saw smatterings of sensibility. I was pleased. Good job, people! *five*
Anyway, I haven't looked at this for...a couple days, so I think I lost my original point. But, I'm sure it was that none of these are even decent arguments for or against God and that it is really pointless to make every scientific discovery a huge issue. St. Augustine (my patron) had a theory of evolution ages ago. Most of the big scientific discoveries were made by religious men or monks (see: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (he was religious, he just was kind of a dick) etc). This science versus religion dichotomy is ridiculous. Science cannot disprove the existence of God; it can, however, show us plenty of reasons to think there is at least some sort of creator deity. For me, the issue is not the existence of the Creator, but rather what sort of being the Creator is and what we are to it/he/she/it. There are simple facts that point to a Creator:
- The fact that we can make sense out of anything in this universe points to a mind being behind it. The universe would far more likely be nonsense if there wasn't a mind that created it and set rules in place.
-Because the universe would be nonsense, we would not be able to make sense of it and science, as it is, would not exist. There would be nothing to figure out; meaning that, even if we did search for underlying laws etc., we would find none.
-There is a starting point to the universe. At one point, there was nothing, and then there was something. Adding on into the equation does not mean things weren't created, rather it more likely means that the created universe had to be created specifically and very delicately.
-After the bang, the slightest change to the initial environment would have resulted in nothing. One way, it would have retracted on itself. While another way, it would have expanded and stars never would have been formed. We should all know by now that we quite literally come from the stars. None of the heavier elements that went into making planets and us would have existed without them.
- Even if string theorists are right, and they likely aren't, multiple big bangs and "branes" would not eliminate the need for a creator. Why should "branes" be the only eternal thing? It still does not prove that the universe wasn't created, it just adds a more experimental feel to it.
There's more, but I'm le tired.
Peace EASY,
Zaire
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_switzerland_antimatter#mwpphu-container
This article in particular has inspired this posting. I was sneakily roaming facebook and came across one of my less intelligent friend's page and she had posted this and wrote "Take that, Creationist," next to it. Interestingly enough she has the most confused religious views I have seen posted on facebook, but that is besides the point. To keep it short, she adheres to gnosticism, while claiming to also be Catholic and a general Christian.
The most interesting part of this is that the article says nothing of Creationist or their opponents. It's a short article musing about how we cannot use this material to make warped drives or bombs. The real meat of the article is just the fact that we have been able to make anti-Atoms from anti-Matter (makes logical sense that anti-matter would have anti-Atoms, though I could be wrong) stick around long than .00001 milliseconds. We were able to look at it and perhaps one day we will figure out why we cannot see it and why it "disappeared." I put that in quotes because if we can gain access to it, it's obviously not disappeared.
Anyway, as soon as you scroll down the comments you see the uninformed fundie Christians battling the uninformed fundie Atheists and neither gaining ground because both are likely stupid. Fundie, if you haven't figured it out yet, is a slang term for fundamentalist. Yay, urbandictionary.com (plug). In any case, some particular gems of argument are:
-I have never seen atheism, dumb and bandwagon used together before....because it is erroneous. You should check out Dawkins religious belief scale. I can pretty much guarantee you intelligence increases towards the atheist end of the scale.
(note: I'm assuming he's talking about Richard Dawkins, a notorious polemic and ridiculous person. How this person would not assume that Dawkins belief scale in regards to intelligence is skewed. I've known many brilliant, brilliant theists (and still do) and they were in droves at Baylor including my professors, of course. However, some supposedly unrelated study, does say that those who choose atheism are quite intelligent, and far moreso than theists. More on that later.)
-You believe in:
* A Jewish Zombie who was his own father that can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force in your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
*You think hes real just because he cant be disproved
*The 2000 year old fairy tale book
-... This in no way whatsoever proves "God" exists. If anything, it shows more and more that the idea of God is false. HUMAN scientists created this, it wasn't some invisible being performing a magic trick to hint at it's fake existence.
Go back to reading your Bible and playing with crayons.
-Man, this is fascinating..
...its funny how religious people say that their god or gods exist,
yet most religious ppl are ignorant and never read a science book to expand their minds and get different views on life.
That there's more to life and thats it's beautiful and rather they choose to believe that a "god" magically created everything and himself and that if u do good u go to heaven, or u do bad u go to hell..
if ppl were smart enough to think about it, they'll figure out that religion is the most stupid thing in this planet, it's one of the things that seperate us as humans!
-Man I wish all religious people would walk to their nearest cliff and take a leap of faith. If you are able to cross to the other side then you would have proven Newton's second law wrong and I will be the first to bow to your god. However, since you are not going to do this because gravity will take care of you, then please free up some room by crawling back under your rock and letting real knowledge develop.
-I am an ignorant god fearing simpleton, my beliefs are based on a book that was written by ignorant primitives many hundreds of years ago. I have been brainwashed since birth to reject any other belief or to open my mind to scientific discoveries and to aggressively defend my beliefs. I will also try my best to make you believe. I dont care that science is based on facts such as fossils etc. The devil planted fossils and bones of early hominoids to trick us non believers. My savior was a murderous criminal nailed to a cross for his crimes but I will make him my martyr and kill other religeous fanatics and non believers who dont share my beliefs. I will spend an eternity on a cloud playing a harp with all my relatives while the non believers burn. I can do all kinds of crimes and sins and be pardoned on Sunday. None of my prayers have ever been answered but that dont deter my closed minded belief system. My preacher is sodomizing children and lives in a big house but thats just gods way. I feel sorry for all you non believers.
-I have been having trouble finding the "Christian" counter part but, I think the reaction against it was so large (1300plus comment) I cannot find them, but here is a synopsis of what they might say:
SCIENCE IS WRONG.
THE BIBLE SAYS....insert pretty much anything here
YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!
etc. etc.
Yes, I chose the ones I found most ridiculous. The point is mainly that these crazies exist. I will say that this particular forum was interesting because I saw smatterings of sensibility. I was pleased. Good job, people! *five*
Anyway, I haven't looked at this for...a couple days, so I think I lost my original point. But, I'm sure it was that none of these are even decent arguments for or against God and that it is really pointless to make every scientific discovery a huge issue. St. Augustine (my patron) had a theory of evolution ages ago. Most of the big scientific discoveries were made by religious men or monks (see: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (he was religious, he just was kind of a dick) etc). This science versus religion dichotomy is ridiculous. Science cannot disprove the existence of God; it can, however, show us plenty of reasons to think there is at least some sort of creator deity. For me, the issue is not the existence of the Creator, but rather what sort of being the Creator is and what we are to it/he/she/it. There are simple facts that point to a Creator:
- The fact that we can make sense out of anything in this universe points to a mind being behind it. The universe would far more likely be nonsense if there wasn't a mind that created it and set rules in place.
-Because the universe would be nonsense, we would not be able to make sense of it and science, as it is, would not exist. There would be nothing to figure out; meaning that, even if we did search for underlying laws etc., we would find none.
-There is a starting point to the universe. At one point, there was nothing, and then there was something. Adding on into the equation does not mean things weren't created, rather it more likely means that the created universe had to be created specifically and very delicately.
-After the bang, the slightest change to the initial environment would have resulted in nothing. One way, it would have retracted on itself. While another way, it would have expanded and stars never would have been formed. We should all know by now that we quite literally come from the stars. None of the heavier elements that went into making planets and us would have existed without them.
- Even if string theorists are right, and they likely aren't, multiple big bangs and "branes" would not eliminate the need for a creator. Why should "branes" be the only eternal thing? It still does not prove that the universe wasn't created, it just adds a more experimental feel to it.
There's more, but I'm le tired.
Peace EASY,
Zaire
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A Change of Pace
So, as I've said, I'm Catholic. I do not know if I have said this, but I'm actually a convert. I officially became a Catholic Christian this past Easter when I was welcomed into the Church (my childhood baptism into the Baptist Church was valid btw). Anyway, this decision was not something I fell into. It happened over many years, and it was in 2009 after many discussion and research when I gave in and had to admit that Catholicism is far more sensible and the original form of the Church.
While my parents did not take any time to inoculate me against the Church, they expressed displeasure with my research into their ideas (particularly my father). Also, though they did not personally try to "protect" me from the Church, there are often anti-Catholic messages in Protestant Churches (particularly those of the Baptist persuasion). Actually, I noticed that a lot of Protestant preaching consists in citing how wrong other things are, instead of what is right with their religion and why it is. I think a lot of the clergy is taught to be mistrusting of the Church and, thus, so are their followers.
Anyway, this is the first of a series of post in which I would like to trace my own religious history, mostly because I find it interesting and partly because I hate the misunderstandings that I run into when I express my faith. Please keep in mind, that I do not believe I, personally, am always right. Nor will I always behave as I should. However, I believe in forgiveness and the grace to change and strive as best I can at any given moment to be better and let the medicine take its course.
So, now I would like to talk about my religious childhood. Though I would like to first point out that, while in general I do not, I sometimes harbor ill feelings for this aspect of my upbringing. This is for various reasons which I hope to express properly, but I do need that note to be taken, as it is ultimately a distaste and sense of having the full Truth held from me that pushed me in the direction I went.
I became a baptized Christian when I was 7. This was after probably months of questions and deliberations that I posed mainly to my mother (because my minister father was strangely against my desire for conversion) until I was satisfied with the belief system. I had, of course, attended church with my family my whole life until that time, but it wasn't until I was 7 years of age that it begin to settle with me. I started feeling as though what I was being taught was true, and had to find out more specifically what I would be assenting to.
That being said, I was obviously a strange kid. Most kids that age, Catholic and Protestant alike, feel more pressured to come into the Church (however good for them it is) and do not have their beliefs as formed as mine were by the time of my conversion. It's a social thing for a lot of kids, and many take the vows without realizing what they are getting into. Granted, I could not fully understand what I was getting into (i.e. the striving, the difficulties, the pain); but, I had figured out some things: I trusted God, believed Jesus was who he said he was, and trusted what was then the Church for me to lead me in the right way.
Unlike most children, even though I had trouble staying awake sometimes, I was always very serious about faith and matters pertaining to it. I was the kid who actively wanted to read the Bible and enjoyed going to church (I just didn't always have the energy I desired). I remember my attempt to read the whole (Protestant) Bible and how Leviticus crushed me. It was a lot to remember, and I love to read.
What all this signifies is a couple of things: 1. I'm quite serious about religious matters. 2. I am a nerd about religious matters and want complete understanding. 3. I approach religious matters with a serious amount of thought and need things to make sense. 4. I'm a little weird. The latter note was not necessary (i.e. number 4), but it's late and I do not care.
Anyway, I remained devout throughout my childhold, but ran into trouble with a tendency towards sensuality when puberty struck (cause it feels like you just got struck doesn't it? Everything suddenly gets really weird). I fell prey to the early life of the internet (i.e. AOL chatrooms.) I gained fake internet girlfriends, internet screw buddies (which was done pretty much only by text and imagination...that's admittedly up my alley. I love imagination), and got into porn. I have serious doubts I would have run into porn until I was 16 or 17 if it had not been for the internet, though I may be mistaken because I did discover at one point that my father hypocritically had the same problem I was having. Anyway, a creepy man-person in a pre-teen chatroom asked if I wanted to see Britney Spears naked (this was when "Baby, One More Time" came out) and, of course, I was like yes. Honestly, I wanted to see a number of pretty girls naked. Puberty, people! That started it, and I got caught a month or two into it and it got me in major trouble; but, here is the interesting thing, I got caught in deception and because of general foolishness. What I mean is that I instinctively felt that porn was not a good thing and that it was some how shameful. Keep in mind that I actually received no proper sex talk, and did not know porn existed until my introduction to it by Mr. Creeper. I probably couldn't even have told you what to call the pictures I was viewing. They were just naked ladies and it was awesome. I felt it was dangerous and not good, but I was willing to take the risk at the time.
So, I did get caught a couple of times, but it had already grown into an addiction (especially once I discovered a particularly graphic action that often coincides with anyone's usage of porn. You know the one I'm talking about. I just did not feel comfortable shouting it out.). Also, I never felt good after I recovered from the "high" aspect of porn. I always felt kind of dirty, though that did not last that long because I was a pre-teen who was not as introspective at this point.
Anyway, I bring up porn because it began to surface in my relationship with God and my religion. Repenting became harder (as it will do when you grow more sophisticated as a person) and suddenly I felt distance from God. I had, even throughout the crappier parts of my childhood, a closeness with God. Needless to say, this was horrifying to me, and was horrifying enough for me to be afraid of losing my salvation. This was a novel idea, because a lot of Protestants believed in "once saved always saved." (note: Repentance also likely became hard because I already have trouble recognizing every thought and feeling I have because most of the intense feelings are very deep under the surface) I actually think that "once saved always saved" made me feel as though i did not get "saved" when I was 7, otherwise I felt that I would not be stuck with this addiction that made me feel distant from God. In retrospect, I was not in need of conversion because I truly believed what I had assented to, I just had not realized how intricate it can get (particularly for introspective persons like myself).
In any case, I kept coming back to God. I realized some things about that fact much later, but it was a difficult time for me when I was in binge periods particularly. These are porn binge periods, by the way. I was never much of an everyday porner (ha, porner) and instead periodically had random weeks where I could not get enough of the stuff. I could go months without watching anything. I think this is why it took so long for it to screw with my attractions. I think I would have been more affected had I not stepped up my usage. Had I been able to quit and stick to that or continued 6 month periods between real binges (about 6 months, it varied of course) I would likely not be in my current predicament. I think this mainly because the stepped up usage inevitably lead to changes in what I desired in porn, but more on that later.
Once in high school, my family started church-hopping and trying to find a home-church. This was done because my father left his post as a youth pastor at this Baptist church (he left ministry at this time). We headed into the realm of non-denominationalism, a realm I have come to see as fairly wishy-washy. I realize that they are trying to unify the Church, but I have come to see that unification of the Church is going to require people to come back to Catholicism.
Anyway, in non-denominationalism land I rediscovered my faith in science (for a while, I had decided that if given a choice between the two I was just go with God, because it was an obvious truth to me that we were created. It seemed like people were just trying to destablize things). I began to see that there are many logical reasons for their findings and that they do explain our physical universe very well. So, I started to really question the ridiculousness I was hearing about evolution and other scientific issues (moreso in undergrad). These questions did not solidify until I was well into college and studying the Scriptures and the like, so it seems like this is a good place to stop. In regards to high school, my beliefs were relatively static and I did not have a lot of epiphanies. The biggest thing that happened was that a friend of mine died in a car accident and I discovered how closed off with people I was with anything meaningful. I'm sure that came into play later. Anyway, good night.
While my parents did not take any time to inoculate me against the Church, they expressed displeasure with my research into their ideas (particularly my father). Also, though they did not personally try to "protect" me from the Church, there are often anti-Catholic messages in Protestant Churches (particularly those of the Baptist persuasion). Actually, I noticed that a lot of Protestant preaching consists in citing how wrong other things are, instead of what is right with their religion and why it is. I think a lot of the clergy is taught to be mistrusting of the Church and, thus, so are their followers.
Anyway, this is the first of a series of post in which I would like to trace my own religious history, mostly because I find it interesting and partly because I hate the misunderstandings that I run into when I express my faith. Please keep in mind, that I do not believe I, personally, am always right. Nor will I always behave as I should. However, I believe in forgiveness and the grace to change and strive as best I can at any given moment to be better and let the medicine take its course.
So, now I would like to talk about my religious childhood. Though I would like to first point out that, while in general I do not, I sometimes harbor ill feelings for this aspect of my upbringing. This is for various reasons which I hope to express properly, but I do need that note to be taken, as it is ultimately a distaste and sense of having the full Truth held from me that pushed me in the direction I went.
I became a baptized Christian when I was 7. This was after probably months of questions and deliberations that I posed mainly to my mother (because my minister father was strangely against my desire for conversion) until I was satisfied with the belief system. I had, of course, attended church with my family my whole life until that time, but it wasn't until I was 7 years of age that it begin to settle with me. I started feeling as though what I was being taught was true, and had to find out more specifically what I would be assenting to.
That being said, I was obviously a strange kid. Most kids that age, Catholic and Protestant alike, feel more pressured to come into the Church (however good for them it is) and do not have their beliefs as formed as mine were by the time of my conversion. It's a social thing for a lot of kids, and many take the vows without realizing what they are getting into. Granted, I could not fully understand what I was getting into (i.e. the striving, the difficulties, the pain); but, I had figured out some things: I trusted God, believed Jesus was who he said he was, and trusted what was then the Church for me to lead me in the right way.
Unlike most children, even though I had trouble staying awake sometimes, I was always very serious about faith and matters pertaining to it. I was the kid who actively wanted to read the Bible and enjoyed going to church (I just didn't always have the energy I desired). I remember my attempt to read the whole (Protestant) Bible and how Leviticus crushed me. It was a lot to remember, and I love to read.
What all this signifies is a couple of things: 1. I'm quite serious about religious matters. 2. I am a nerd about religious matters and want complete understanding. 3. I approach religious matters with a serious amount of thought and need things to make sense. 4. I'm a little weird. The latter note was not necessary (i.e. number 4), but it's late and I do not care.
Anyway, I remained devout throughout my childhold, but ran into trouble with a tendency towards sensuality when puberty struck (cause it feels like you just got struck doesn't it? Everything suddenly gets really weird). I fell prey to the early life of the internet (i.e. AOL chatrooms.) I gained fake internet girlfriends, internet screw buddies (which was done pretty much only by text and imagination...that's admittedly up my alley. I love imagination), and got into porn. I have serious doubts I would have run into porn until I was 16 or 17 if it had not been for the internet, though I may be mistaken because I did discover at one point that my father hypocritically had the same problem I was having. Anyway, a creepy man-person in a pre-teen chatroom asked if I wanted to see Britney Spears naked (this was when "Baby, One More Time" came out) and, of course, I was like yes. Honestly, I wanted to see a number of pretty girls naked. Puberty, people! That started it, and I got caught a month or two into it and it got me in major trouble; but, here is the interesting thing, I got caught in deception and because of general foolishness. What I mean is that I instinctively felt that porn was not a good thing and that it was some how shameful. Keep in mind that I actually received no proper sex talk, and did not know porn existed until my introduction to it by Mr. Creeper. I probably couldn't even have told you what to call the pictures I was viewing. They were just naked ladies and it was awesome. I felt it was dangerous and not good, but I was willing to take the risk at the time.
So, I did get caught a couple of times, but it had already grown into an addiction (especially once I discovered a particularly graphic action that often coincides with anyone's usage of porn. You know the one I'm talking about. I just did not feel comfortable shouting it out.). Also, I never felt good after I recovered from the "high" aspect of porn. I always felt kind of dirty, though that did not last that long because I was a pre-teen who was not as introspective at this point.
Anyway, I bring up porn because it began to surface in my relationship with God and my religion. Repenting became harder (as it will do when you grow more sophisticated as a person) and suddenly I felt distance from God. I had, even throughout the crappier parts of my childhood, a closeness with God. Needless to say, this was horrifying to me, and was horrifying enough for me to be afraid of losing my salvation. This was a novel idea, because a lot of Protestants believed in "once saved always saved." (note: Repentance also likely became hard because I already have trouble recognizing every thought and feeling I have because most of the intense feelings are very deep under the surface) I actually think that "once saved always saved" made me feel as though i did not get "saved" when I was 7, otherwise I felt that I would not be stuck with this addiction that made me feel distant from God. In retrospect, I was not in need of conversion because I truly believed what I had assented to, I just had not realized how intricate it can get (particularly for introspective persons like myself).
In any case, I kept coming back to God. I realized some things about that fact much later, but it was a difficult time for me when I was in binge periods particularly. These are porn binge periods, by the way. I was never much of an everyday porner (ha, porner) and instead periodically had random weeks where I could not get enough of the stuff. I could go months without watching anything. I think this is why it took so long for it to screw with my attractions. I think I would have been more affected had I not stepped up my usage. Had I been able to quit and stick to that or continued 6 month periods between real binges (about 6 months, it varied of course) I would likely not be in my current predicament. I think this mainly because the stepped up usage inevitably lead to changes in what I desired in porn, but more on that later.
Once in high school, my family started church-hopping and trying to find a home-church. This was done because my father left his post as a youth pastor at this Baptist church (he left ministry at this time). We headed into the realm of non-denominationalism, a realm I have come to see as fairly wishy-washy. I realize that they are trying to unify the Church, but I have come to see that unification of the Church is going to require people to come back to Catholicism.
Anyway, in non-denominationalism land I rediscovered my faith in science (for a while, I had decided that if given a choice between the two I was just go with God, because it was an obvious truth to me that we were created. It seemed like people were just trying to destablize things). I began to see that there are many logical reasons for their findings and that they do explain our physical universe very well. So, I started to really question the ridiculousness I was hearing about evolution and other scientific issues (moreso in undergrad). These questions did not solidify until I was well into college and studying the Scriptures and the like, so it seems like this is a good place to stop. In regards to high school, my beliefs were relatively static and I did not have a lot of epiphanies. The biggest thing that happened was that a friend of mine died in a car accident and I discovered how closed off with people I was with anything meaningful. I'm sure that came into play later. Anyway, good night.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Something I Do Know
Hello again. I've decided that I do know a thing or two at least, and decided to post it.
My current psychological state is abnormal for me and probably exists due to a number of factors. Most being my fault, because I chose to react certain ways and do certain things. What I am struggling with now, is mainly mea culpa (my fault). So, there's that.
Additionally, I know that it is completely ridiculous to assume that if you do not find love with a certain sex, that the other gender is for you. There are always many reasons why something does not work, and it is rarely is it because this person has a penis or this person does not. What you really love or care about is a person. Their gender, while a part of them, is not the biggest part of them. It is not their entire essence. Human essence is much more complex than that and thus, it is foolish to condense it to their sexual being.
That being said, I'm not really referring to people who find they are not sexually attracted to someone anymore and decide maybe it's because that person is a male or female. Well, not exactly anyway. I think that, when in order, the sexual attraction has a great deal to do with what kind of person your chosen lover is. What attracts you most, if truly in love, is who that person is. The danger here is to go the step many people take and say that this means gender does not matter. But, that goes to far. It skips the fact that men and women do need each other. There is a reason that there are two sexes. There is a reason why, in general, members of each sex exhibit certain traits that the other does not. Sure, there is some overlap, but it remains that sex is a procreative process and is not specifically for our pleasure. After all, there are certain animals for whom sex is a burden (I think cats or something have this crazy penis that rips the female when exiting. HORRIFYING! Also, dolphins are rapists. Yes, I said it.). The fact that we can garner pleasure from it does not erase the fact that, if we couldn't get any pleasure from it, we would still be required to mate and bring forth offspring if we are to survive.
The pleasurable side of sex, in my mind, is a bonus and a gift from the Creator. It is pleasurable because it is good to be fruitful, good to multiply, and good for the two to become one. This was something we were supposed to realize.The fact of the child or of children shows that two have become one. Think about any baby that you have known, say a younger sibling, and how everyone spends time marveling at how they have their father's eyes or mother's lips. Physically, emotionally, and spiritually the child is a representation of the oneness of the parents. Which is one reason why divorce and abusive relationships are all the more tragic. They tear up the child as well as the parents. (I'd like to note that this does not mean the child is a carbon copy of its parents, because they still have their own free will. However, even in having free will they resemble their parents, whatever their choices. You're not your parents, yet you are. But, I digress.)
Anyway, what I'm saying here is that just because you have had issues with boys in the past, if you're a lady, or girls, if you're a man, does not mean that you are gay or a lesbian. It probably just means that you're choosing wrong and/or you need to change yourself and what you are doing. I find it silly that some girls will decide that they are lesbians after a bad stint with men and vice versa. The persons maleness or femaleness will tend not to be the problem. It is usually the person's person, feel me?
Of course, this does not negate the fact that some boys like boys and vice versa. But, I also think that we should not be surprised to see that our broken sexualities manifest themselves differently in some people. The point of sex is still procreation and of two becoming one with its embodiment in a child, but our world and we are fallen. That is why it is not strange that some gay couples want a child. It's part of being human to want that. However, there is an order that has been set up that we should stick to. There was a reason it was set that way. There are many situations where a child is jointly raised by two women or two men, but the guardians are not lovers themselves. The family unit is supposed to be husband, wife, and children. The fact that fallen people have not done well with their own families does not mean that we need to just change the dynamic. The mixed families we have now, even when done well are not what can be called good. They just are. Home is supposed to be eternal. Love is supposed to be forever. Broken families are really just making due. But, now I'm tired. I think I've stopped making sense. I want to end by saying that, one again, this is not written with hatred, but instead with love. I desire that we all get right, and my disagreeing with something is not hatred. The world is tainted, I'm tainted and thus should accept the taint on others. Now, I am babbling, later.
My current psychological state is abnormal for me and probably exists due to a number of factors. Most being my fault, because I chose to react certain ways and do certain things. What I am struggling with now, is mainly mea culpa (my fault). So, there's that.
Additionally, I know that it is completely ridiculous to assume that if you do not find love with a certain sex, that the other gender is for you. There are always many reasons why something does not work, and it is rarely is it because this person has a penis or this person does not. What you really love or care about is a person. Their gender, while a part of them, is not the biggest part of them. It is not their entire essence. Human essence is much more complex than that and thus, it is foolish to condense it to their sexual being.
That being said, I'm not really referring to people who find they are not sexually attracted to someone anymore and decide maybe it's because that person is a male or female. Well, not exactly anyway. I think that, when in order, the sexual attraction has a great deal to do with what kind of person your chosen lover is. What attracts you most, if truly in love, is who that person is. The danger here is to go the step many people take and say that this means gender does not matter. But, that goes to far. It skips the fact that men and women do need each other. There is a reason that there are two sexes. There is a reason why, in general, members of each sex exhibit certain traits that the other does not. Sure, there is some overlap, but it remains that sex is a procreative process and is not specifically for our pleasure. After all, there are certain animals for whom sex is a burden (I think cats or something have this crazy penis that rips the female when exiting. HORRIFYING! Also, dolphins are rapists. Yes, I said it.). The fact that we can garner pleasure from it does not erase the fact that, if we couldn't get any pleasure from it, we would still be required to mate and bring forth offspring if we are to survive.
The pleasurable side of sex, in my mind, is a bonus and a gift from the Creator. It is pleasurable because it is good to be fruitful, good to multiply, and good for the two to become one. This was something we were supposed to realize.The fact of the child or of children shows that two have become one. Think about any baby that you have known, say a younger sibling, and how everyone spends time marveling at how they have their father's eyes or mother's lips. Physically, emotionally, and spiritually the child is a representation of the oneness of the parents. Which is one reason why divorce and abusive relationships are all the more tragic. They tear up the child as well as the parents. (I'd like to note that this does not mean the child is a carbon copy of its parents, because they still have their own free will. However, even in having free will they resemble their parents, whatever their choices. You're not your parents, yet you are. But, I digress.)
Anyway, what I'm saying here is that just because you have had issues with boys in the past, if you're a lady, or girls, if you're a man, does not mean that you are gay or a lesbian. It probably just means that you're choosing wrong and/or you need to change yourself and what you are doing. I find it silly that some girls will decide that they are lesbians after a bad stint with men and vice versa. The persons maleness or femaleness will tend not to be the problem. It is usually the person's person, feel me?
Of course, this does not negate the fact that some boys like boys and vice versa. But, I also think that we should not be surprised to see that our broken sexualities manifest themselves differently in some people. The point of sex is still procreation and of two becoming one with its embodiment in a child, but our world and we are fallen. That is why it is not strange that some gay couples want a child. It's part of being human to want that. However, there is an order that has been set up that we should stick to. There was a reason it was set that way. There are many situations where a child is jointly raised by two women or two men, but the guardians are not lovers themselves. The family unit is supposed to be husband, wife, and children. The fact that fallen people have not done well with their own families does not mean that we need to just change the dynamic. The mixed families we have now, even when done well are not what can be called good. They just are. Home is supposed to be eternal. Love is supposed to be forever. Broken families are really just making due. But, now I'm tired. I think I've stopped making sense. I want to end by saying that, one again, this is not written with hatred, but instead with love. I desire that we all get right, and my disagreeing with something is not hatred. The world is tainted, I'm tainted and thus should accept the taint on others. Now, I am babbling, later.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Romanticism
I fail at short posts...deal with it.
Anyway, I finally came to grips with something about myself. A lot of my failed relationships failed (on my part) from a combination of rabid romanticism, lack of self-esteem, and just liking feeling like I'm all "in love."
I call the romanticism rabid because it has gotten kind of ridiculous (as if the movement was not already a bit ridiculous, but more on that later) how much everyone lifts up Eros, or romantic love. I think it plays into the personality of this sort of love. Eros is the most boastful of all the loves. It is the weakest and most fleeting as well. The oaths one makes while being "in love" can be the most easy to break once the feeling subsides. The fact is, the feeling that inspires you to profess a never-ending love will not last. Sometimes, you will feel very out of love and even entertain those feelings for another person (this is sometimes how cheating happens, though I'd say lust is to blame more than love in most cases or at least the confusion of between the two). Fact.
Now, I've known this for a while, but still have not fully grasped the fact that for any long-term relationship or marriage to work Charity must take its place. This isn't Charity in the sense of someone giving to a less fortunate person, but rather something else entirely. Something, admittedly, I do not fully understand. I do know that Charity is what forces Eros to keep its promises.
I was gonna really write about this...but got distracted and lost my way. I'll try again later hahah.
Anyway, I finally came to grips with something about myself. A lot of my failed relationships failed (on my part) from a combination of rabid romanticism, lack of self-esteem, and just liking feeling like I'm all "in love."
I call the romanticism rabid because it has gotten kind of ridiculous (as if the movement was not already a bit ridiculous, but more on that later) how much everyone lifts up Eros, or romantic love. I think it plays into the personality of this sort of love. Eros is the most boastful of all the loves. It is the weakest and most fleeting as well. The oaths one makes while being "in love" can be the most easy to break once the feeling subsides. The fact is, the feeling that inspires you to profess a never-ending love will not last. Sometimes, you will feel very out of love and even entertain those feelings for another person (this is sometimes how cheating happens, though I'd say lust is to blame more than love in most cases or at least the confusion of between the two). Fact.
Now, I've known this for a while, but still have not fully grasped the fact that for any long-term relationship or marriage to work Charity must take its place. This isn't Charity in the sense of someone giving to a less fortunate person, but rather something else entirely. Something, admittedly, I do not fully understand. I do know that Charity is what forces Eros to keep its promises.
I was gonna really write about this...but got distracted and lost my way. I'll try again later hahah.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Some Thoughts
This should be a short post, but in my researching of some gospel musicians who "struggle" or just accept themselves (and do not think about the very real fact of sin being sin) I came across this website called theologynow. It is apparently an anti-theist/Christian site? I'm still not sure, it seems unclear at times.
In any case, they brought up a recent documentary called "Cause The Bible Tells Me So" and asked the question: Can love between two people ever be an abomination? The answer to that is obviously yes, if you understand that there are inordinate loves or improper expressions of love. You shouldn't love your car more than a person, and you shouldn't love children with romantic interest. These are pretty much agreed upon, and this was once the situation for homosexual relationships beyond pure friendship for much of the existence of mankind. While some cultures have been rather tolerant, no one has really accepted it. People believed in a natural law, and it seemed obvious to them that man and woman needed each other and that that was the only way that life continues to come into the world. Life is good, and a relationship that cannot reproduce is not a good one. It is against life. Before the inevitable objections come up, let me say that a barren woman can still, by some miracle have a child. A homosexual union can never do this naturally.
Now, it is true that science can now produce babies out of nothing, surrogacy, or donated sperm. However, I feel rather dubious about these methods because I have trouble seeing where love comes into the picture of making the child. The ideal is for a man and a woman to become one in love and for that love to produce children to be brought up in love and reproduce for themselves later. It has always been that way for every culture. It's nice that the barren woman can get her own child, but that also makes people with the ability to give an orphaned child a great home less inclined to do so, because there is something about a child being your own flesh and blood. That simply cannot be denied. In the case of homosexual unions, it gives them a chance to have something they cannot have naturally. For the world to continue to have humans requires child bearing and the simple fact is, you need sperm and an egg. It's great that these options are available, but they lack warmth.
This warmth and love that would be absent in a laboratory or doctor's office where the setting will always be less than intimate. I think this matters, while a lot of people will not. However, it seems like common sense to realize that the circumstances behind a birth will affect a child. I have a friend who was the product of a husband raping his wife. Unfortunately for her, after her birth she was often mistreated by her mother because she reminded her, most likely, of that horrific thing her husband did. One could argue that a laboratory or doctor's office are more innocuous, but think about the fact that people are selling their fertility. They are selling themselves, prostituting a gift that was given them. No one asks for fertility in the sense that no one asks to be alive. Sure, it's your body and you can do what you will, but selling one's self (of which the ability to reproduce is always a large part) seems wrong, doesn't it? It's prostitution. The selling of something essential to your humanness for gain. It's safer sure, like making porn, but still prostitution. Just because it's safer does not make it right. The same moral issues arise.
Hmm, this was supposed to be short, but I'm apparently feeling quite prolific. ONWARD, I SAY! Anyway, that applies to the majority of the cases I can think of (because the purchase of the other half of the equation is always necessary). One of the couple can provide one aspect (one woman in a lesbian couple her womb, and one man in a gay couple his sperm) but it, obviously, cannot do it all. They can even take turns, which in itself is kind of weird. Think about it? I mean, woman have joked about it, but think about switch who carries the baby from time to time and how complicated that would have to be (particularly for heteros). That is a funny thought. Anyway, the point is that someone must be bought and I've already given some thoughts on that.
The fact is, men and women still need each other, and that has always been part of the basis for the idea that heterosexuality is good while homosexuality either less preferable or not good. Because we are able to do things more synthetically we think that we have erased that difficult, when we really just created an industry for people to sell themselves. Dubious.
Finally, I'd like to say that this does not come from an realm of hatred. If this writing is stumbled upon, please know that my belief that homosexuality is a sin because it is a disruption of nature does not mean I hate them or want to kill them. I always approach every person with love because we're all sick, to be honest. That is one of the biggest Catholic truths. Christ is the cure for sick souls. Why else compare him to our physician? There are a wealth of metaphors about God and his relationship with us because there are a wealth of ways that he relates to us. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual sinner is this: one's sickness is expressed differently than the other. Make no mistake, it is the same illness; but, just as it is exhibited in our daily lives, everyone is different and will be affected different. There are different cancers, you know. The truest Christian argument against homosexuality is one that keeps in mind that we are all ill, all need Christ, and all will have to give up many a thing to be cured. The diabetic gives up sugary food, the heterosexual becomes chaste, and the homosexual becomes chaste. All are called to chastity, some will just not have the eventual outlet that marriage will provide. For any professing Christians who come across this, keep in mind that you're sick too and you would not be in the Church unless you too needed a cure. Be blessed, everyone.
In any case, they brought up a recent documentary called "Cause The Bible Tells Me So" and asked the question: Can love between two people ever be an abomination? The answer to that is obviously yes, if you understand that there are inordinate loves or improper expressions of love. You shouldn't love your car more than a person, and you shouldn't love children with romantic interest. These are pretty much agreed upon, and this was once the situation for homosexual relationships beyond pure friendship for much of the existence of mankind. While some cultures have been rather tolerant, no one has really accepted it. People believed in a natural law, and it seemed obvious to them that man and woman needed each other and that that was the only way that life continues to come into the world. Life is good, and a relationship that cannot reproduce is not a good one. It is against life. Before the inevitable objections come up, let me say that a barren woman can still, by some miracle have a child. A homosexual union can never do this naturally.
Now, it is true that science can now produce babies out of nothing, surrogacy, or donated sperm. However, I feel rather dubious about these methods because I have trouble seeing where love comes into the picture of making the child. The ideal is for a man and a woman to become one in love and for that love to produce children to be brought up in love and reproduce for themselves later. It has always been that way for every culture. It's nice that the barren woman can get her own child, but that also makes people with the ability to give an orphaned child a great home less inclined to do so, because there is something about a child being your own flesh and blood. That simply cannot be denied. In the case of homosexual unions, it gives them a chance to have something they cannot have naturally. For the world to continue to have humans requires child bearing and the simple fact is, you need sperm and an egg. It's great that these options are available, but they lack warmth.
This warmth and love that would be absent in a laboratory or doctor's office where the setting will always be less than intimate. I think this matters, while a lot of people will not. However, it seems like common sense to realize that the circumstances behind a birth will affect a child. I have a friend who was the product of a husband raping his wife. Unfortunately for her, after her birth she was often mistreated by her mother because she reminded her, most likely, of that horrific thing her husband did. One could argue that a laboratory or doctor's office are more innocuous, but think about the fact that people are selling their fertility. They are selling themselves, prostituting a gift that was given them. No one asks for fertility in the sense that no one asks to be alive. Sure, it's your body and you can do what you will, but selling one's self (of which the ability to reproduce is always a large part) seems wrong, doesn't it? It's prostitution. The selling of something essential to your humanness for gain. It's safer sure, like making porn, but still prostitution. Just because it's safer does not make it right. The same moral issues arise.
Hmm, this was supposed to be short, but I'm apparently feeling quite prolific. ONWARD, I SAY! Anyway, that applies to the majority of the cases I can think of (because the purchase of the other half of the equation is always necessary). One of the couple can provide one aspect (one woman in a lesbian couple her womb, and one man in a gay couple his sperm) but it, obviously, cannot do it all. They can even take turns, which in itself is kind of weird. Think about it? I mean, woman have joked about it, but think about switch who carries the baby from time to time and how complicated that would have to be (particularly for heteros). That is a funny thought. Anyway, the point is that someone must be bought and I've already given some thoughts on that.
The fact is, men and women still need each other, and that has always been part of the basis for the idea that heterosexuality is good while homosexuality either less preferable or not good. Because we are able to do things more synthetically we think that we have erased that difficult, when we really just created an industry for people to sell themselves. Dubious.
Finally, I'd like to say that this does not come from an realm of hatred. If this writing is stumbled upon, please know that my belief that homosexuality is a sin because it is a disruption of nature does not mean I hate them or want to kill them. I always approach every person with love because we're all sick, to be honest. That is one of the biggest Catholic truths. Christ is the cure for sick souls. Why else compare him to our physician? There are a wealth of metaphors about God and his relationship with us because there are a wealth of ways that he relates to us. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual sinner is this: one's sickness is expressed differently than the other. Make no mistake, it is the same illness; but, just as it is exhibited in our daily lives, everyone is different and will be affected different. There are different cancers, you know. The truest Christian argument against homosexuality is one that keeps in mind that we are all ill, all need Christ, and all will have to give up many a thing to be cured. The diabetic gives up sugary food, the heterosexual becomes chaste, and the homosexual becomes chaste. All are called to chastity, some will just not have the eventual outlet that marriage will provide. For any professing Christians who come across this, keep in mind that you're sick too and you would not be in the Church unless you too needed a cure. Be blessed, everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
