Me: (to Jonah) Looking good bubba.
Val: Wait what? What did you call him?
Me: Huh?
Val: Our children are not "bubbas".
Me: I don't... what?
Val: Do not call our children "bubba". They are not "bubbas".
Me: I was being affectionate, not assigning a nick-name.
Val: Be affectionate with other words.
Me: Me calling our 21 month old son bubba casually once in the kitchen is not going to turn him into a fat unshaven hillbilly in greasy overalls.
Val: Yes. Yes it is. No "bubba". We have no "bubbas" here.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Cromanga-what?
Val: How the job hunt going?
Me: It's... going.
Val:
Me: It's going.
Val: You need to hunt. Hunt! You are a hunter, so hunt! Me, I'm a gatherer- I need to shop. Let me be a gatherer! Hunt!
Me: OOOOOOkaaaayyyyy....
Me: It's... going.
Val:
Me: It's going.
Val: You need to hunt. Hunt! You are a hunter, so hunt! Me, I'm a gatherer- I need to shop. Let me be a gatherer! Hunt!
Me: OOOOOOkaaaayyyyy....
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Dream Journal: Reoccuring Nightmare
As stated previously I rarely remember my dreams, to the point where I don't know if I even have dreams most nights. There is one dream that I remember clearly to this day however. It is a re-occurring nightmare that I have had three times in my life. The first two were when I was very young (roughly 4 and seven) and the most recent was when I was in college. It was exactly the same each time I dreamt it, and here is a description of it for prosperity. Like most dreams it is hard to describe completely. Even if it could be described fully the description still wouldn't be that scar, but it was very scary for me to experience. This is a nightmare, and one that affected me enough that I remember it clearly years later. But as nightmares often are, it hardly seems scary in the telling. For those of you who believe you have the knack of dream interpretation, dig in, and feel free to leave your hypothesis in comment form.
It is night, and there is a violent thunderstorm raging across the sky. I'm in an airport. This airport is on an island in the ocean, the whole island being a plateau with sheer rock face all around. The airport covers the top of the plateau, so that it seems that the outer walls of the airport turn to rock that descends into the sea. The sea is whipped into a fury, and waves rise up to crash against the airport in explosive slaps. I am inside in a large room where people come and go. The walls are completely glass windows streaked with a constant torrent of rain, and the dark view of the outside stands in sharp contrast to the floor and ceiling which are white. The storm and thunder are muted inside the building but strangely the people make no noise as they move around me, all in a hurry to be somewhere. I am young, about four years old (the age I was when I first had this dream I think) and I have been separated from my parents. I lost them, or they left me in the movements of the throng. I look around with a sense of displaced shock and then accept the fact that my parents are not around. I find myself staring at the window, watching with unease the flashes of lightning that reveal the violent rolling of the dark sea. To the people around, moving purposefully across the white floor, I seem to not exist. I am not an obstacle, point of interest, or out of place. Suddenly I am aware that I have some one's attention, I can feel the focus of their eyes between my shoulder blades. Slowly I turn from the window and gaze back into the milling people. As a few of the throng moved a man is revealed. While the other people have a washed out look to them -severely muted colors- this man is in full color. He is wearing a disheveled tan trench coat. He is staring right at me. He has reddish hair that at one time was combed back but now has untidy strands sticking out. His face is gaunt and he is so fair that his skin is almost transparent. When I say gaunt I don't mean skull like, but like there is not an ounce of wasted flesh on his head (If I had to cast this dream using actual celebrities I would use William Atherton who played Environmentalist Walter Peck in Ghostbusters). But the most striking, unnerving, and compelling feature are his eyes. He is slightly bug-eyed, they stand out of his face more than they sink beneath his brows, and neatly bloodshot- the veins are clearly defined without any redness of the whites. The center, the irises, seem to glow slightly with an inner light; not an actual glow but just a fierceness of color, that color being a swirling of red green and yellow. I am frozen by those eyes and a wave of fear chills me from the inside out. I think to myself his eyes are the color of madness. He extends his hand, beckoning me towards him and I get a sensation of wrongness from him; he is unnatural. The room is full off washed out people, constantly hurrying about all around us and yet there is a feeling of intimacy as if he and I are the only ones in the room. None of the others acknowledge him or me. He speaks, his voice sounds like granite shot through with neon, a baritone registered upward by insanity, and the pitch of his voice is unstable. His words are slow and drawn out, his mouth opens fully with each word, his lips never collapse to cover his teeth. He says, "There's something I want to show you." I know that whatever it is I don't want to see it, and I know I'm going with him. The dream shifts.
I am outside the airport. The storm that was muted inside the building rages around me in full fury, the wind and constant pounding of the waves is a constant cacophony that assaults my senses. Red haired madness man is there leading me, and behind me are two large broad shouldered men in dark clothes that I somehow know work for him. Their features are non-descript, cast in the darkness of the night. We are on a path that is cut out of the sides of the plateau, spiraling around it beneath the airport. I can see clearly, it is lit with the dark blue light of a cloudless night with a full moon in spite of the massive storm rending the heavens above me. We press on through the rain, leaning into the wind, feet gaining firm purchase on the packed dirt of the path. Occasionally a wave crests the side of the path drenching us further and pushing us up against the rock face. We continue on and eventually the path dead ends at a wooden shack made of old weathered ill-fitted boards. Red haired madness man turns to me, eyes burning, hair plastered down on his skull, rivulets of rain running off of his face. He reaches out a skinny hand and points to the shack's door and says, "In there"; his insane voice clearly audible through the roar of the storm. Slowly I move towards the shack. The door opens for me. Inside is a stone altar and I lock eyes with a glowing yellow skull sitting on top of it. Lightning flashes, there is an immense crack of thunder, and then...
I wake up.
It is night, and there is a violent thunderstorm raging across the sky. I'm in an airport. This airport is on an island in the ocean, the whole island being a plateau with sheer rock face all around. The airport covers the top of the plateau, so that it seems that the outer walls of the airport turn to rock that descends into the sea. The sea is whipped into a fury, and waves rise up to crash against the airport in explosive slaps. I am inside in a large room where people come and go. The walls are completely glass windows streaked with a constant torrent of rain, and the dark view of the outside stands in sharp contrast to the floor and ceiling which are white. The storm and thunder are muted inside the building but strangely the people make no noise as they move around me, all in a hurry to be somewhere. I am young, about four years old (the age I was when I first had this dream I think) and I have been separated from my parents. I lost them, or they left me in the movements of the throng. I look around with a sense of displaced shock and then accept the fact that my parents are not around. I find myself staring at the window, watching with unease the flashes of lightning that reveal the violent rolling of the dark sea. To the people around, moving purposefully across the white floor, I seem to not exist. I am not an obstacle, point of interest, or out of place. Suddenly I am aware that I have some one's attention, I can feel the focus of their eyes between my shoulder blades. Slowly I turn from the window and gaze back into the milling people. As a few of the throng moved a man is revealed. While the other people have a washed out look to them -severely muted colors- this man is in full color. He is wearing a disheveled tan trench coat. He is staring right at me. He has reddish hair that at one time was combed back but now has untidy strands sticking out. His face is gaunt and he is so fair that his skin is almost transparent. When I say gaunt I don't mean skull like, but like there is not an ounce of wasted flesh on his head (If I had to cast this dream using actual celebrities I would use William Atherton who played Environmentalist Walter Peck in Ghostbusters). But the most striking, unnerving, and compelling feature are his eyes. He is slightly bug-eyed, they stand out of his face more than they sink beneath his brows, and neatly bloodshot- the veins are clearly defined without any redness of the whites. The center, the irises, seem to glow slightly with an inner light; not an actual glow but just a fierceness of color, that color being a swirling of red green and yellow. I am frozen by those eyes and a wave of fear chills me from the inside out. I think to myself his eyes are the color of madness. He extends his hand, beckoning me towards him and I get a sensation of wrongness from him; he is unnatural. The room is full off washed out people, constantly hurrying about all around us and yet there is a feeling of intimacy as if he and I are the only ones in the room. None of the others acknowledge him or me. He speaks, his voice sounds like granite shot through with neon, a baritone registered upward by insanity, and the pitch of his voice is unstable. His words are slow and drawn out, his mouth opens fully with each word, his lips never collapse to cover his teeth. He says, "There's something I want to show you." I know that whatever it is I don't want to see it, and I know I'm going with him. The dream shifts.
I am outside the airport. The storm that was muted inside the building rages around me in full fury, the wind and constant pounding of the waves is a constant cacophony that assaults my senses. Red haired madness man is there leading me, and behind me are two large broad shouldered men in dark clothes that I somehow know work for him. Their features are non-descript, cast in the darkness of the night. We are on a path that is cut out of the sides of the plateau, spiraling around it beneath the airport. I can see clearly, it is lit with the dark blue light of a cloudless night with a full moon in spite of the massive storm rending the heavens above me. We press on through the rain, leaning into the wind, feet gaining firm purchase on the packed dirt of the path. Occasionally a wave crests the side of the path drenching us further and pushing us up against the rock face. We continue on and eventually the path dead ends at a wooden shack made of old weathered ill-fitted boards. Red haired madness man turns to me, eyes burning, hair plastered down on his skull, rivulets of rain running off of his face. He reaches out a skinny hand and points to the shack's door and says, "In there"; his insane voice clearly audible through the roar of the storm. Slowly I move towards the shack. The door opens for me. Inside is a stone altar and I lock eyes with a glowing yellow skull sitting on top of it. Lightning flashes, there is an immense crack of thunder, and then...
I wake up.
Dream Journal: Zombies
I so rarely remember anything about my dreams that I feel compelled to mention the stuff I do remember.
Last night's dream went like this:
Most of the world was turned into zombies. Not shambling undead thirsting for "braaaiiiinssss"; these zombies looked like people and moved like people except for 1) they relentlessly tried to infect the un-infected, 2) could infect you simply by touching you, and 3) the irises of their eyes were completely black. They did not seem to have high thinking, just ran around in search of the un-infected.
So the few survivors that my group was aware of were holed up in my paternal grandmother's house. In real life she is deceased, and the house in my dream was not her actual house, but according to dream logic it was and had always been her house. In short it felt like her house even though the floor plan and decorations were different.
So this group was only a handful of people, I wanna say eight but definitely less than twelve. We had some kind of barricade around the house. We also had a bunch of round black pellets, about the size of a coffee bean, that when you threw one at a zombie, it burst into a small thin black cloud roughly as big around as a basketball. The struck zombie would then fall over dead. No blood or explosion or anything, just kind of collapse and become inert. Part of the dream involved me defending the barricade but no more that five or six zombies would approach at a time.
I don't remember who was in my group specifically except my grandmother was one, and one was an amalgam of my son Jonah and my brother Daniel about the age of three or four. I remember having a conversation with one of the guys in the group who was having a spat with one of the girls, and explaining to him (from an authority position) that he had to make up because for all we knew this was it and nobody else was alive so we had all damn well better get along. This conversation implied that, while it hadn't happened yet, the group was going to have to split up into mating pairs at some point.
Then my grandmother had a big meal laid out on a table in the kitchen with a large bird (turkey?) as the main course, and we all sat at the table to eat. I remember thinking that Jonah/Daniel was asleep in his bed at that time. There was a new girl who had recently found the sanctuary of our group and she complained about the meal and I thought "really? The world may have ended and your complaining about a huge thanksgiving-esque meal?"
This dream had a yellow feel, and the events were tinted yellow. A good portion of it I had an observational view, i.e. I did not see through my eyes but saw it as a really intimate small theater stage view, though there were portions that were first person perspective.
And those are the details that I can remember about my dream.
Last night's dream went like this:
Most of the world was turned into zombies. Not shambling undead thirsting for "braaaiiiinssss"; these zombies looked like people and moved like people except for 1) they relentlessly tried to infect the un-infected, 2) could infect you simply by touching you, and 3) the irises of their eyes were completely black. They did not seem to have high thinking, just ran around in search of the un-infected.
So the few survivors that my group was aware of were holed up in my paternal grandmother's house. In real life she is deceased, and the house in my dream was not her actual house, but according to dream logic it was and had always been her house. In short it felt like her house even though the floor plan and decorations were different.
So this group was only a handful of people, I wanna say eight but definitely less than twelve. We had some kind of barricade around the house. We also had a bunch of round black pellets, about the size of a coffee bean, that when you threw one at a zombie, it burst into a small thin black cloud roughly as big around as a basketball. The struck zombie would then fall over dead. No blood or explosion or anything, just kind of collapse and become inert. Part of the dream involved me defending the barricade but no more that five or six zombies would approach at a time.
I don't remember who was in my group specifically except my grandmother was one, and one was an amalgam of my son Jonah and my brother Daniel about the age of three or four. I remember having a conversation with one of the guys in the group who was having a spat with one of the girls, and explaining to him (from an authority position) that he had to make up because for all we knew this was it and nobody else was alive so we had all damn well better get along. This conversation implied that, while it hadn't happened yet, the group was going to have to split up into mating pairs at some point.
Then my grandmother had a big meal laid out on a table in the kitchen with a large bird (turkey?) as the main course, and we all sat at the table to eat. I remember thinking that Jonah/Daniel was asleep in his bed at that time. There was a new girl who had recently found the sanctuary of our group and she complained about the meal and I thought "really? The world may have ended and your complaining about a huge thanksgiving-esque meal?"
This dream had a yellow feel, and the events were tinted yellow. A good portion of it I had an observational view, i.e. I did not see through my eyes but saw it as a really intimate small theater stage view, though there were portions that were first person perspective.
And those are the details that I can remember about my dream.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Far from Samurai
"The way of the Samurai is found in death." - The Hagakure
I first read the Hagakure after seeing the movie Ghost Dog, where it features a prominate role. Reading it was an enlightening experience. The above quote is the first sentence, and the one that stayed with me through the years since I read it. I find it an extremely calming idea, and not a week goes by where I don't quote it to myself at least once. I am not a fatalistic person by nature or by religion so the quote would seem to contradict my personality; but instead it forces a perception shift, my brain changes gears and -this is the calming part- drains my emotions away.
Let me explain.
To me this is a statement on the inevibility of conclusion, specifically the conclusion of life in death. Most of my fears, concerns, hopes, and beliefs in regards to death concern after death. I have died. What now? The first sentence of the Hagakure does not evoke these things for me because it does not address after death. It simply references death. What it means to me is that to be a Samurai one must accept what one cannot change or control, and focus on those aspects of life that one can control like dignity and honor.
In moments when I find myself getting frustrated, worked up, or otherwise emotionally agitated, I take a deep breath and think "The way of the Samurai is found in death." I focus on the words for a few seconds, ignoring all else, and I find myself calm and emotionally detached. It does not work all the time, but it works most of the time.
The obvious criticisms of this are 1) that's not how that passage is meant to be interpreted, in fact what Jake's saying doesn't exactly make sense with the text, 2) emotional detachment isn't neccesarily a good thing, and 3) Jake's crazy and thinks he's a mideval japanese warrior.
Number 1: Interpretation
When I first cracked open the Hagakure and read the first sentence I put the book down and spent the next hour thinking about it. It was just one of those things that resonated with me. As I read the book about every other paragraph I repeated the first sentence to help put what I was reading in the context of it's opening statement. I have found that in most philisophical works at some point the author summarizes the basis of the piece in one sentence (ex. - I think therefore I am). Once located this sentence can be used to frame my thinking as I absorb the author's words. Remember the kid's game Telephone? Everyone sits in a circle, and a whispered message is sent around the circle and the group compares the final version with the original version. In the case of the Hagakure I unknowingly played a game of Telephone with myself and lost. By the end of the book I was saying, "The way of the Samurai ends in death." This is obviously a different statement with a different meaning. The meaning of this final statement, "The way of the Samurai ends in death" literally sang in the recesses of my mind, whereas the original and correct statement, "the way of the Samurai is found in death" had simply made me thoughtful. After creating "ends in death", and interpreting at least the latter part of the Hagakure with it in mind, it was cemented in my head and now felt right whereas the correct statement felt wrong. When I realized what I had done I corrected the words but could not correct the meaning. So I say "found in death" but hear "ends in death."
Number 2: Emotional Detachment
Something I find myself struggling with from time to time is apathy. In a cerebral sense I know that I care or that something is important but I just can't muster the motivation to do anything. The reason that I cannot summon this motivation is that I just don't feel like it. The topic is emotionally dead to me. If we truly observe the situation however, it is revealed that when I feel unmotivated is always when I am dealing with something that creates a high amount of anxiety for me. We're out of money and I have to find a job. The medical bills need to be paid, but that leaves nothing for groceries. It is no coincidence that both of my examples have to do with money; lately (the past 2 years) most of my anxiety can be traced back to money issues. In these cases I get worked up and I worry and I get tense and then I'm lethargic. I know I need to deal with it ASAP, it's just that right now I just can't bring myself to do it. Suddenly we see the truth. This apathy is a defense mechanism. A coping tool my brain pulls out to keep from popping a valve. I would venture to say that this is not an uncommon problem, that most people out there feel that way at one time or another. Having all "been there" it makes perfect sense that a sense of emotional detachment would be viewed as a negative thing, because this type of emotional detachment, this apathy, is the first example that springs to mind.
The emotional detachment that focusing on "The way of the Samurai is found in death" brings to me is different however. This is a sense of calmness. When I choose to use this phrase for this purpose, usually I feel as if my brain is running screaming in forty directions at once. Focusing on the "way of the Samurai" phrase calms me down and makes me feel as if my brain is walking in one straight path. With this mental sensation comes an emotional detachment. I'm aware of my concerns, worries, and feeling I just don't access them. I don't neccesarily feel robotic, but I do find myself thinking in simple "If...Then" statements. The world is translated into symbolic logic. A = B. B does not = C. I have found this state of mind to be invaluable.
Number 3: Jake's crazy and thinks he's a mideval japanese warrior
Okay, so I'm a fantasy buff. Fantasy novels, fantasy video games, role playing games; I love it all. Since the games in particular allow you to choose a fantasy archetype to play, I feel it's worth noting that I gravitate towards warriors. Oh sure, I'll play the others: the wizard type, sneaky rogue type, holy man - they're all fun for me. But the ones I tend to identify with are the warriors. And yes, I'm geek enough that I own several swords; but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know how to use them. They're just cool to have. If someone breaks into the house I have an axe handle under the bed - I won't be reaching for my replica gladious or my dueling saber.
From a philosophy stand point where I find similarities between myself and Samurai, and a mideval european knight for that matter, is in having a code of honor. The honor ideas for the Samurai and knight are easy to find so I won't go into it here; instead I'll focus on my own ideas of honor as they apply to me. I go out of my way to avoid betraying anyone. I have never cheated on anyone I dated. While I can't say I have never cheated in games, I haven't since I have become an adult for certain, and don't remember ever cheating at any game in High School. Like anyone I tell the occasional lie, but I'm very picky about what I lie about and to whom. I keep my word. Anyone who knows me will tell you I seldom make promises, because 1) I feel that it devalues my standard statements, that the extra qualifyer of "I promise" becomes needed for belief, and 2) it almost physically hurts me to break a promise, even if it could not be helped. There is no "acts of God" clause when keeping a promise is concerned. I will do anything I can to avoid breaking a promise. Finally, I will go to bat for my friends. While I have a large amount of friends, there is a smaller number of good friends that I will go out of my way to support without any reasons needed.
I believe in consequences. Anything that you do, any action or inaction has consequences. Some of these consequences are good, and some are bad, but the world is full of cause and effect. And you should accept the consequences before you act (or choose not to act), even if the consequences turn out not to be what you thought they were. A = B. Sometimes I will do the wrong thing, and do it deliberately, but I only do so because I have considered the consequences and consider it worth it.
All of the things I have said resonate with the honorable warrior ideal. So no, I don't think I am a mideval Japanese warrior - but if I had lived in mideval Japan I probably would have been.
Having said all this, I'd like to talk about "cross vision". To my knowledge I have never really meditated. I have friends who meditate and endorse the benefits of it. The books I read are filled with characters who meditate and thus are better at whatever it is they are supposed to be good at. But I personally have never meditated to my knowledge, and would not know how to go about meditating in the first place. I guess the effect Hagakure sentence has on me would be the closest thing to it that I do. That and "cross vision".
"Cross vision" (it's not an actual thing, just how I'm choosing to describe it here) works like so: I focus on the image of a cross in my mind (I'm Christian and the cross shape is religious in this instance). While I can do this with my eyes closed most often I have my eyes open. The cross imagined is really a mental outline, not a solid or opaque object. Like a tracing of a cross. Then I look at the world, whatever is in my field of view, through the cross. When I do this my thoughts fall into place like Tetris blocks and I see the world in terms of logic and morality. There are a few problems with "cross vision". If I do it in the wrong mood, I can feel rightegeious while doing it, and not in a good way. Second, it only applies to the here and now. I can't seem to do it while playing memories in my head, or thinking about the future. It only seems to apply to my field of vision.
So there you go. More "insight" into how my "mind" works. Trust me you're a better person now.
I first read the Hagakure after seeing the movie Ghost Dog, where it features a prominate role. Reading it was an enlightening experience. The above quote is the first sentence, and the one that stayed with me through the years since I read it. I find it an extremely calming idea, and not a week goes by where I don't quote it to myself at least once. I am not a fatalistic person by nature or by religion so the quote would seem to contradict my personality; but instead it forces a perception shift, my brain changes gears and -this is the calming part- drains my emotions away.
Let me explain.
To me this is a statement on the inevibility of conclusion, specifically the conclusion of life in death. Most of my fears, concerns, hopes, and beliefs in regards to death concern after death. I have died. What now? The first sentence of the Hagakure does not evoke these things for me because it does not address after death. It simply references death. What it means to me is that to be a Samurai one must accept what one cannot change or control, and focus on those aspects of life that one can control like dignity and honor.
In moments when I find myself getting frustrated, worked up, or otherwise emotionally agitated, I take a deep breath and think "The way of the Samurai is found in death." I focus on the words for a few seconds, ignoring all else, and I find myself calm and emotionally detached. It does not work all the time, but it works most of the time.
The obvious criticisms of this are 1) that's not how that passage is meant to be interpreted, in fact what Jake's saying doesn't exactly make sense with the text, 2) emotional detachment isn't neccesarily a good thing, and 3) Jake's crazy and thinks he's a mideval japanese warrior.
Number 1: Interpretation
When I first cracked open the Hagakure and read the first sentence I put the book down and spent the next hour thinking about it. It was just one of those things that resonated with me. As I read the book about every other paragraph I repeated the first sentence to help put what I was reading in the context of it's opening statement. I have found that in most philisophical works at some point the author summarizes the basis of the piece in one sentence (ex. - I think therefore I am). Once located this sentence can be used to frame my thinking as I absorb the author's words. Remember the kid's game Telephone? Everyone sits in a circle, and a whispered message is sent around the circle and the group compares the final version with the original version. In the case of the Hagakure I unknowingly played a game of Telephone with myself and lost. By the end of the book I was saying, "The way of the Samurai ends in death." This is obviously a different statement with a different meaning. The meaning of this final statement, "The way of the Samurai ends in death" literally sang in the recesses of my mind, whereas the original and correct statement, "the way of the Samurai is found in death" had simply made me thoughtful. After creating "ends in death", and interpreting at least the latter part of the Hagakure with it in mind, it was cemented in my head and now felt right whereas the correct statement felt wrong. When I realized what I had done I corrected the words but could not correct the meaning. So I say "found in death" but hear "ends in death."
Number 2: Emotional Detachment
Something I find myself struggling with from time to time is apathy. In a cerebral sense I know that I care or that something is important but I just can't muster the motivation to do anything. The reason that I cannot summon this motivation is that I just don't feel like it. The topic is emotionally dead to me. If we truly observe the situation however, it is revealed that when I feel unmotivated is always when I am dealing with something that creates a high amount of anxiety for me. We're out of money and I have to find a job. The medical bills need to be paid, but that leaves nothing for groceries. It is no coincidence that both of my examples have to do with money; lately (the past 2 years) most of my anxiety can be traced back to money issues. In these cases I get worked up and I worry and I get tense and then I'm lethargic. I know I need to deal with it ASAP, it's just that right now I just can't bring myself to do it. Suddenly we see the truth. This apathy is a defense mechanism. A coping tool my brain pulls out to keep from popping a valve. I would venture to say that this is not an uncommon problem, that most people out there feel that way at one time or another. Having all "been there" it makes perfect sense that a sense of emotional detachment would be viewed as a negative thing, because this type of emotional detachment, this apathy, is the first example that springs to mind.
The emotional detachment that focusing on "The way of the Samurai is found in death" brings to me is different however. This is a sense of calmness. When I choose to use this phrase for this purpose, usually I feel as if my brain is running screaming in forty directions at once. Focusing on the "way of the Samurai" phrase calms me down and makes me feel as if my brain is walking in one straight path. With this mental sensation comes an emotional detachment. I'm aware of my concerns, worries, and feeling I just don't access them. I don't neccesarily feel robotic, but I do find myself thinking in simple "If...Then" statements. The world is translated into symbolic logic. A = B. B does not = C. I have found this state of mind to be invaluable.
Number 3: Jake's crazy and thinks he's a mideval japanese warrior
Okay, so I'm a fantasy buff. Fantasy novels, fantasy video games, role playing games; I love it all. Since the games in particular allow you to choose a fantasy archetype to play, I feel it's worth noting that I gravitate towards warriors. Oh sure, I'll play the others: the wizard type, sneaky rogue type, holy man - they're all fun for me. But the ones I tend to identify with are the warriors. And yes, I'm geek enough that I own several swords; but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know how to use them. They're just cool to have. If someone breaks into the house I have an axe handle under the bed - I won't be reaching for my replica gladious or my dueling saber.
From a philosophy stand point where I find similarities between myself and Samurai, and a mideval european knight for that matter, is in having a code of honor. The honor ideas for the Samurai and knight are easy to find so I won't go into it here; instead I'll focus on my own ideas of honor as they apply to me. I go out of my way to avoid betraying anyone. I have never cheated on anyone I dated. While I can't say I have never cheated in games, I haven't since I have become an adult for certain, and don't remember ever cheating at any game in High School. Like anyone I tell the occasional lie, but I'm very picky about what I lie about and to whom. I keep my word. Anyone who knows me will tell you I seldom make promises, because 1) I feel that it devalues my standard statements, that the extra qualifyer of "I promise" becomes needed for belief, and 2) it almost physically hurts me to break a promise, even if it could not be helped. There is no "acts of God" clause when keeping a promise is concerned. I will do anything I can to avoid breaking a promise. Finally, I will go to bat for my friends. While I have a large amount of friends, there is a smaller number of good friends that I will go out of my way to support without any reasons needed.
I believe in consequences. Anything that you do, any action or inaction has consequences. Some of these consequences are good, and some are bad, but the world is full of cause and effect. And you should accept the consequences before you act (or choose not to act), even if the consequences turn out not to be what you thought they were. A = B. Sometimes I will do the wrong thing, and do it deliberately, but I only do so because I have considered the consequences and consider it worth it.
All of the things I have said resonate with the honorable warrior ideal. So no, I don't think I am a mideval Japanese warrior - but if I had lived in mideval Japan I probably would have been.
Having said all this, I'd like to talk about "cross vision". To my knowledge I have never really meditated. I have friends who meditate and endorse the benefits of it. The books I read are filled with characters who meditate and thus are better at whatever it is they are supposed to be good at. But I personally have never meditated to my knowledge, and would not know how to go about meditating in the first place. I guess the effect Hagakure sentence has on me would be the closest thing to it that I do. That and "cross vision".
"Cross vision" (it's not an actual thing, just how I'm choosing to describe it here) works like so: I focus on the image of a cross in my mind (I'm Christian and the cross shape is religious in this instance). While I can do this with my eyes closed most often I have my eyes open. The cross imagined is really a mental outline, not a solid or opaque object. Like a tracing of a cross. Then I look at the world, whatever is in my field of view, through the cross. When I do this my thoughts fall into place like Tetris blocks and I see the world in terms of logic and morality. There are a few problems with "cross vision". If I do it in the wrong mood, I can feel rightegeious while doing it, and not in a good way. Second, it only applies to the here and now. I can't seem to do it while playing memories in my head, or thinking about the future. It only seems to apply to my field of vision.
So there you go. More "insight" into how my "mind" works. Trust me you're a better person now.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Thoughts on Original Sin
Originally posted on Facebook May 11, 2009
The Pastor at the Church I attend has started giving the congregation “Action Items” during his sermons. Basically it’s a broad task he wants us to do or think about between Sundays, presumably to encourage people to incorporate faith into their lives beyond just attending Sunday morning services. One of these “Action Items” (two weeks ago I think) was to do something uncomfortable on behalf of our faith. This blog is in response.
I have been accused occasionally of withholding my beliefs from people in the course of philosophical/theological discussions (From here on out I’m just going to call it theology. It always ends up being about morality or mortality when it’s philosophical, which in turn always takes us back to the question of God.). There is a lot of truth in this accusation. Basically the intention behind my questions and statements in these discussions is often to find out why the participant believes whatever they believe while revealing as few of my own beliefs as needed. Sometimes I’ll even play devil’s advocate and discuss from a position I don’t actually support in order to more fully understand what is being presented to me. Frequently I find myself most interested in the ideas I flat out disagree with. There are several reasons why I do this. First, I don’t want my opposite to modify what they are saying based on their perception of what I believe. Second, I don’t want my opposite to feel challenged. Often a simple statement is taken to mean “you’re wrong”. In a sample discussion, if my opposite states that they are Buddhist, and I follow by identifying myself as a Protestant Christian, the words “I’m a Protestant Christian” are not an attempt to invalidated Buddha and the 2500 years of tradition he inspired. I have simply made known the beliefs I subscribe to. The biggest reason behind my reluctance to boldly make statements of belief is by far the most embarrassing however. I’m loosely known by some for being “spiritually strong”, “wise”, or “smart”. And the truth is I’m just a big idiot.
My spiritual journey (please forgive the pop-psych term, it’s just an accurate way to describe it if a little hokey) has been an extremely organic process, which to use the journey metaphor has been less like the famous walk in the sand and more like stumbling through a forest at night. Every so often, just when I think I’m doing well, I break my face on a tree. Or, to describe it another way, though I am secure in my faith as a Christian I feel like a caveman in a modern day Caribbean resort. I know I’m in a wonderful place but if it’s not a rock or a stick I really don’t understand it. The worst part about all this is the “What was I thinking?” moments. You know what I’m talking about. You’re in a discussion, firmly defending a statement in spite of numerous appeals to your sanity, and then two days later you’re in the bathroom on the commode and intelligence finally catches up with you. One day you are stanch in you own cerebral superiority, the next you think the toilet paper is staring at you like you’re an autistic chimp in a Mensa conference. Not a pleasant feeling. There are few things in life as disheartening as appalled toilet paper. Or there is this wonderful conversation:
“Wait a minute. When we were talking two months ago, you said this. In fact you pretty much convinced me of it.”
“Wait, I said that?”
“Yeah, you did.”
“Oh yeah, I did. Yeah, I was wrong. Really really wrong.”
I have had to eat so much crow in my life I should publish a cook book.
To sum up this extremely longwinded introduction, I’m gonna spill some of my beliefs about Original Sin. I hope Mike will accept this as my something uncomfortable, because as I write this I feel a little uneasy about the exposed vulnerability that comes along with it.
Before I dive into my theories and arguments, I feel the need to identify some basic core beliefs that may (or may not) put my positions into perspective.
1) I believe the God originally described by the Hebrews is the only God, and the creator of all existence.
2) I believe that Jesus, in his time on Earth, was more than just an enlightened Rabbi, but had a divine aspect and his actions continue to affect us on a spiritual level.
3) I believe that Man as a species is imperfect, and the sole identifiable perfection is God.
I’m not asking my audience to believe in these three statements, in fact I suspect that some of you emphatically do not (and some of you don’t believe these statements went far enough), but from here on out this blog will be written with the assumption that these three things are facts that are understood.
The first thing I would like to express about Original Sin is my frustration with the conversation I have most frequently encountered: the literalness of the Apple Story. It seems that when most people wish to dive into the topic of Original Sin the foremost thing they wish to do is defend or detract the actual tangible historical existence of Adam, Eve, and a ridiculously nutritious apple (Gen 3). While I tend (I guess) to lean more towards the mythological interpretation and I’m willing to make allowances for the literal interpretation (leaving it open for possibility), the truth is I really don’t care. I find the discussion to be a pointless exercise because in my opinion, by engaging in this discussion, the participants are choosing to ignore the purpose of the story. It is my belief that the purpose of this story, and it’s presence in the Old Testament, is the presentation of the concept and theme of Original Sin. This has value regardless of the literalness of the story and should not be over shadowed by other details and interjected meanings. For example take the focus of Eve as downfall of humanity thereby associating the feminine gender with temptation and evil. I want to pay this idea only cursory attention, but I’d like to point out that in the Old Testament Eve is not described as tempting Adam into eating. It merely says she offers and he eats (Gen 3:6). No, the temptation described is that of the Serpent tempting Eve into eating, the Serpent being referred to as “he” and later being associated with Satan or the Devil, the penultimate personification of evil who I would like to add is also masculine (Gen 3:1-7). Ultimately, whether you choose to use this story to vilify the fairer sex or not, something everyone gets out of this story is that things changed for humanity once Adam and Eve tasted granny smith.
Okay, so having eaten the apple what are the consequences? God makes the serpent a snake, gives women birth pains, and man now has to work for his dinner (Gen 3:14-19). But what I’m interested in is the fact that the apple comes from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and that Adam and Eve have been told (before they have their famous afternoon snack) that if they eat of it they will die (Gen 2:17). Now at the end of this story, when God is kicking mankind out of Eden, he mentions that one of his motivations for doing so is to prevent them from nibbling at the Tree of Life and therefore gaining immortality (Gen 3:22-23). From this we can see that Adam and Eve are not immortal, have never been immortal, Apple of Knowledge or not, and were not intended to be immortal at this time. So why the threat of death, why is Adam told that if he tastes the Apple he will die? He clearly does not die as a consequence of his tasting the Apple and neither does Eve; instead he lives to a ripe old age of 930 before passing of presumably natural causes (Gen 5:5); a fact that comes as no surprise given her established mortality. I think instead the consequence of eating the Apple was knowledge of the fact that she was to die. It’s the awareness that her presence on earth was temporal that God warns her against.
So why is this knowledge an issue? One of the central questions that almost all religions are forced to deal with, and in some cases one could argue were created to deal with, is what happens when we die. Is it over? Do you just cease to be? For me nonexistence is a horrifying possibility, one that has kept me awake more than one night. As thinking self-aware creatures we want to believe that something comes next, that there is something after we die, a way for our cognation to continue. Faith provides an answer, an assurance that there is more. Unfortunately for many, myself among them, even in possession of strong faith there are moments of doubt. And the problem with doubt is that it’s corrosive to faith. And that is what I think God was warning against. Adam and Eve, mortal as they may have been, did not have the burden of the knowledge of their death. Because they did not have that burden they had no reason to question faith. No basis for challenging God. Of course, the fact that he is described as walking around with them in the Garden helps too. It’s kind of hard to question the existence of God when he’s standing right next to you.
So what else came about from the Apple? Genesis states that having eaten the Apple, Adam and Eve have knowledge of Good and Evil. As someone who loves learning new things at first glance this seems to be a benefit. Great, we know new things. The more I think about it however, the more I realize that this knowledge is not a benefit at all. I think it’s worth clarifying that the Apple did not grant free will. Adam and Eve were created with free will, or else they would not have been able to eat the Apple in the first place. No, what eating the Apple did is put free will into perspective. All of a sudden, Adam and Eve have the understanding that there is Good and there can be Evil. It’s the awareness that we have the ability to be wrong. There is now a qualifier attached to free will. Again what this does is introduce doubt. Having the understanding that any decision that you make could be incorrect destroys the stability of your world. All of a sudden you find yourself questioning you actions and your words. Did I do the right thing? Was that the right thing to say? This also leads us to question others. Can I believe him? Because there is still the possibility that he could be wrong. Not terribly upsetting when applied to a used car salesman, but when applied to a preacher, a father, or even worse the Apostle Paul, Moses, or Isaiah this possibility can be earth shattering. This is the Original Sin, the consequence: doubt. Where before there was no need to question, absolute confidence in the path we were on, now we call everything into question. The world becomes filled with maybes.
I believe in a universal morality. The world is black and white. The problem is, now that this sin, this doubt is part of humanity, we see grays. We have lost the ability to separate the blacks from the whites in our perception. This is our imperfection.
So how have we as mankind tried to deal with this imperfection? We demand proof. Show me where it says that in the Bible. No, no, you’re not pregnant until you pee on a stick and it changes color. Where is the mathematics that supports the existence of gluons? This desire for proof is understandable, even appropriate because we are fallible. People make mistakes, and unfortunately there is no shortage of people who will deliberately mislead others, so caution is a natural response. The problem is when this desire for proof extends into spiritual life. No, I can’t prove the existence of God with a slide-rule. I have no lab tested empirical evidence that Jesus walked on water. A great number of people react to this lack of empirical proof with dismissive skepticism. It’s very easy to state: there is no spiritual anything. Because we can’t make God jump through a hoop like a trained monkey he must not exist. It is interesting to me, as someone who believes in the existence of God, that dealing with people who take the dismissive skepticism route never causes me to question the existence God. You think it would. We’ve all been in situations where someone else’s doubt infects you. You’ve got the milk jug halfway to your lips (because cups are for sissies) and someone says, “What’s the expiration date on that milk?” and you freeze. It’s perfectly understandable. But when I’m confronted with someone who demands proof that God exists all I feel is frustration. It’s pretty easy for me to show someone that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. When they insist that 2 + 2 equals yellow I got nowhere to go with that.
In my time talking to intellectuals and idiots alike I have never run across a person who will deny that humanity is imperfect. Everybody can at least agree on that point. The problem usually comes with what that imperfection entails. By admitting that we are imperfect, we are admitting that not only do we have the ability to be wrong but we also have the inability to fully understand creation. We’re never going to get it all. There are aspects of reality that we can never know fully and in some cases at all. In spite of how we may evolve, or how powerful a computer or tool we create, or how long the collective has to ponder we will never have all the answers or all the questions. Ask any current astronomer why the universe is accelerating and chances are he’ll open his response with a sigh. As any physicist if the laws of quantum mechanics can be applied to pyramid building and he’ll more than likely throttle you. These are mysteries that we may resolve in the future but at some point we reach the boundaries of human capability. Outside of those boundaries, is God. We will never fully grasp the concept of God, it’s just too vast and on too many levels and in too many directions for use to get anything more than just a piece of the whole.
This limitation on humanity is not something that is easy for us to cope with. History and modern science is filled with examples of mankind balking its perceived limitations. We don’t have wings, but we decided we were going to fly. Sure enough that’s what we did. We are bound to the earth. At least up until we finally figure out rocket science, then we’re out to the moon baby. And when it comes to knowledge we follow the same path of determination. Why is the sky blue? I’m on it. I’m gonna get this figured out. Got it! It’s all about light and refraction. The difference is on the physical side we are willing to accept our limitations. We’re never going to build a device that lets us journey into and then out of a black hole. It’s not happening. Likewise we’re not heading to the center of the sun anytime soon. And you know what? We’re okay with that. Ask what was there before the Big Bang, or even what triggered the Big Bang, and you run into a limitation that’s a little harder to accept.
Unfortunately the easiest response to this knowledge limitation when applied to God is denial. Occam’s Razor buddy – God simply does not exist. To the people who have firmly made this decision there is no issue. To the people like me who have firmly rejected this decision there is no issue either. It’s those people in between. Those people who don’t want to accept this decision but quietly fear that it’s true. Doubt again proves to be our undoing. (By the way, take Occam’s Razor and go back to the Big Bang questions I mention. See? God’s around after all.)
Ultimately, based on the ramblings above, I believe that Original Sin boils down to the doubt brought about by our knowledge. With free will I believe we’ve always had the ability to turn away from God. Doubt gives us a reason, a motivation to do so. Because of this I wonder if the death that God warns Adam of in Genesis Chapter 2 is actually a spiritual death; creating the temptation to turn from God. We’ve all heard stories of tests of faith, and perhaps you as an individual have had an experience that you have identified as a test. A trial for what you believe. Like when Indiana Jones steps off the ledge towards the end of Last Crusade, just hoping that there is going to be something solid under his feet. Some of you have had moments like that. If it weren’t for doubt, there wouldn’t be a need for tests of faith. We would all just get it. For me personally, every moment is a test of faith. Every moment of my life no matter how dull or mundane calls me to put my faith in something I cannot control, something I cannot prove - God. I wish I could say that I passed all tests, but I don’t. Pass or fail though, I believe I’m on the right path. And I believe that simply being able to recognize that I failed a test of faith gives me hope that I’ll pass the next one.
That’s what I have to say. I know it was hardly complete or even fully explained, and I may have lost some of you on some sudden turns, but this was just intended to lay out some beliefs not serve as an example of sanity or coherence. Okay, let’s see if I met the criteria here: Uncomfortable to write – check. Written with the intention to share part of my relationship with God – check. Feel vulnerable and exposed by the end of it – check. Made an ass out of myself – double check. Made firm statements that I may completely reverse on in the future – check.
I’m not gonna apologize for my beliefs or for wanting to share them with you, but I will apologize if I came across as preachy or foaming at the mouth. Mine is an arrogance that is hard to conceal, but I try to make the effort.
The Pastor at the Church I attend has started giving the congregation “Action Items” during his sermons. Basically it’s a broad task he wants us to do or think about between Sundays, presumably to encourage people to incorporate faith into their lives beyond just attending Sunday morning services. One of these “Action Items” (two weeks ago I think) was to do something uncomfortable on behalf of our faith. This blog is in response.
I have been accused occasionally of withholding my beliefs from people in the course of philosophical/theological discussions (From here on out I’m just going to call it theology. It always ends up being about morality or mortality when it’s philosophical, which in turn always takes us back to the question of God.). There is a lot of truth in this accusation. Basically the intention behind my questions and statements in these discussions is often to find out why the participant believes whatever they believe while revealing as few of my own beliefs as needed. Sometimes I’ll even play devil’s advocate and discuss from a position I don’t actually support in order to more fully understand what is being presented to me. Frequently I find myself most interested in the ideas I flat out disagree with. There are several reasons why I do this. First, I don’t want my opposite to modify what they are saying based on their perception of what I believe. Second, I don’t want my opposite to feel challenged. Often a simple statement is taken to mean “you’re wrong”. In a sample discussion, if my opposite states that they are Buddhist, and I follow by identifying myself as a Protestant Christian, the words “I’m a Protestant Christian” are not an attempt to invalidated Buddha and the 2500 years of tradition he inspired. I have simply made known the beliefs I subscribe to. The biggest reason behind my reluctance to boldly make statements of belief is by far the most embarrassing however. I’m loosely known by some for being “spiritually strong”, “wise”, or “smart”. And the truth is I’m just a big idiot.
My spiritual journey (please forgive the pop-psych term, it’s just an accurate way to describe it if a little hokey) has been an extremely organic process, which to use the journey metaphor has been less like the famous walk in the sand and more like stumbling through a forest at night. Every so often, just when I think I’m doing well, I break my face on a tree. Or, to describe it another way, though I am secure in my faith as a Christian I feel like a caveman in a modern day Caribbean resort. I know I’m in a wonderful place but if it’s not a rock or a stick I really don’t understand it. The worst part about all this is the “What was I thinking?” moments. You know what I’m talking about. You’re in a discussion, firmly defending a statement in spite of numerous appeals to your sanity, and then two days later you’re in the bathroom on the commode and intelligence finally catches up with you. One day you are stanch in you own cerebral superiority, the next you think the toilet paper is staring at you like you’re an autistic chimp in a Mensa conference. Not a pleasant feeling. There are few things in life as disheartening as appalled toilet paper. Or there is this wonderful conversation:
“Wait a minute. When we were talking two months ago, you said this. In fact you pretty much convinced me of it.”
“Wait, I said that?”
“Yeah, you did.”
“Oh yeah, I did. Yeah, I was wrong. Really really wrong.”
I have had to eat so much crow in my life I should publish a cook book.
To sum up this extremely longwinded introduction, I’m gonna spill some of my beliefs about Original Sin. I hope Mike will accept this as my something uncomfortable, because as I write this I feel a little uneasy about the exposed vulnerability that comes along with it.
Before I dive into my theories and arguments, I feel the need to identify some basic core beliefs that may (or may not) put my positions into perspective.
1) I believe the God originally described by the Hebrews is the only God, and the creator of all existence.
2) I believe that Jesus, in his time on Earth, was more than just an enlightened Rabbi, but had a divine aspect and his actions continue to affect us on a spiritual level.
3) I believe that Man as a species is imperfect, and the sole identifiable perfection is God.
I’m not asking my audience to believe in these three statements, in fact I suspect that some of you emphatically do not (and some of you don’t believe these statements went far enough), but from here on out this blog will be written with the assumption that these three things are facts that are understood.
The first thing I would like to express about Original Sin is my frustration with the conversation I have most frequently encountered: the literalness of the Apple Story. It seems that when most people wish to dive into the topic of Original Sin the foremost thing they wish to do is defend or detract the actual tangible historical existence of Adam, Eve, and a ridiculously nutritious apple (Gen 3). While I tend (I guess) to lean more towards the mythological interpretation and I’m willing to make allowances for the literal interpretation (leaving it open for possibility), the truth is I really don’t care. I find the discussion to be a pointless exercise because in my opinion, by engaging in this discussion, the participants are choosing to ignore the purpose of the story. It is my belief that the purpose of this story, and it’s presence in the Old Testament, is the presentation of the concept and theme of Original Sin. This has value regardless of the literalness of the story and should not be over shadowed by other details and interjected meanings. For example take the focus of Eve as downfall of humanity thereby associating the feminine gender with temptation and evil. I want to pay this idea only cursory attention, but I’d like to point out that in the Old Testament Eve is not described as tempting Adam into eating. It merely says she offers and he eats (Gen 3:6). No, the temptation described is that of the Serpent tempting Eve into eating, the Serpent being referred to as “he” and later being associated with Satan or the Devil, the penultimate personification of evil who I would like to add is also masculine (Gen 3:1-7). Ultimately, whether you choose to use this story to vilify the fairer sex or not, something everyone gets out of this story is that things changed for humanity once Adam and Eve tasted granny smith.
Okay, so having eaten the apple what are the consequences? God makes the serpent a snake, gives women birth pains, and man now has to work for his dinner (Gen 3:14-19). But what I’m interested in is the fact that the apple comes from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and that Adam and Eve have been told (before they have their famous afternoon snack) that if they eat of it they will die (Gen 2:17). Now at the end of this story, when God is kicking mankind out of Eden, he mentions that one of his motivations for doing so is to prevent them from nibbling at the Tree of Life and therefore gaining immortality (Gen 3:22-23). From this we can see that Adam and Eve are not immortal, have never been immortal, Apple of Knowledge or not, and were not intended to be immortal at this time. So why the threat of death, why is Adam told that if he tastes the Apple he will die? He clearly does not die as a consequence of his tasting the Apple and neither does Eve; instead he lives to a ripe old age of 930 before passing of presumably natural causes (Gen 5:5); a fact that comes as no surprise given her established mortality. I think instead the consequence of eating the Apple was knowledge of the fact that she was to die. It’s the awareness that her presence on earth was temporal that God warns her against.
So why is this knowledge an issue? One of the central questions that almost all religions are forced to deal with, and in some cases one could argue were created to deal with, is what happens when we die. Is it over? Do you just cease to be? For me nonexistence is a horrifying possibility, one that has kept me awake more than one night. As thinking self-aware creatures we want to believe that something comes next, that there is something after we die, a way for our cognation to continue. Faith provides an answer, an assurance that there is more. Unfortunately for many, myself among them, even in possession of strong faith there are moments of doubt. And the problem with doubt is that it’s corrosive to faith. And that is what I think God was warning against. Adam and Eve, mortal as they may have been, did not have the burden of the knowledge of their death. Because they did not have that burden they had no reason to question faith. No basis for challenging God. Of course, the fact that he is described as walking around with them in the Garden helps too. It’s kind of hard to question the existence of God when he’s standing right next to you.
So what else came about from the Apple? Genesis states that having eaten the Apple, Adam and Eve have knowledge of Good and Evil. As someone who loves learning new things at first glance this seems to be a benefit. Great, we know new things. The more I think about it however, the more I realize that this knowledge is not a benefit at all. I think it’s worth clarifying that the Apple did not grant free will. Adam and Eve were created with free will, or else they would not have been able to eat the Apple in the first place. No, what eating the Apple did is put free will into perspective. All of a sudden, Adam and Eve have the understanding that there is Good and there can be Evil. It’s the awareness that we have the ability to be wrong. There is now a qualifier attached to free will. Again what this does is introduce doubt. Having the understanding that any decision that you make could be incorrect destroys the stability of your world. All of a sudden you find yourself questioning you actions and your words. Did I do the right thing? Was that the right thing to say? This also leads us to question others. Can I believe him? Because there is still the possibility that he could be wrong. Not terribly upsetting when applied to a used car salesman, but when applied to a preacher, a father, or even worse the Apostle Paul, Moses, or Isaiah this possibility can be earth shattering. This is the Original Sin, the consequence: doubt. Where before there was no need to question, absolute confidence in the path we were on, now we call everything into question. The world becomes filled with maybes.
I believe in a universal morality. The world is black and white. The problem is, now that this sin, this doubt is part of humanity, we see grays. We have lost the ability to separate the blacks from the whites in our perception. This is our imperfection.
So how have we as mankind tried to deal with this imperfection? We demand proof. Show me where it says that in the Bible. No, no, you’re not pregnant until you pee on a stick and it changes color. Where is the mathematics that supports the existence of gluons? This desire for proof is understandable, even appropriate because we are fallible. People make mistakes, and unfortunately there is no shortage of people who will deliberately mislead others, so caution is a natural response. The problem is when this desire for proof extends into spiritual life. No, I can’t prove the existence of God with a slide-rule. I have no lab tested empirical evidence that Jesus walked on water. A great number of people react to this lack of empirical proof with dismissive skepticism. It’s very easy to state: there is no spiritual anything. Because we can’t make God jump through a hoop like a trained monkey he must not exist. It is interesting to me, as someone who believes in the existence of God, that dealing with people who take the dismissive skepticism route never causes me to question the existence God. You think it would. We’ve all been in situations where someone else’s doubt infects you. You’ve got the milk jug halfway to your lips (because cups are for sissies) and someone says, “What’s the expiration date on that milk?” and you freeze. It’s perfectly understandable. But when I’m confronted with someone who demands proof that God exists all I feel is frustration. It’s pretty easy for me to show someone that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. When they insist that 2 + 2 equals yellow I got nowhere to go with that.
In my time talking to intellectuals and idiots alike I have never run across a person who will deny that humanity is imperfect. Everybody can at least agree on that point. The problem usually comes with what that imperfection entails. By admitting that we are imperfect, we are admitting that not only do we have the ability to be wrong but we also have the inability to fully understand creation. We’re never going to get it all. There are aspects of reality that we can never know fully and in some cases at all. In spite of how we may evolve, or how powerful a computer or tool we create, or how long the collective has to ponder we will never have all the answers or all the questions. Ask any current astronomer why the universe is accelerating and chances are he’ll open his response with a sigh. As any physicist if the laws of quantum mechanics can be applied to pyramid building and he’ll more than likely throttle you. These are mysteries that we may resolve in the future but at some point we reach the boundaries of human capability. Outside of those boundaries, is God. We will never fully grasp the concept of God, it’s just too vast and on too many levels and in too many directions for use to get anything more than just a piece of the whole.
This limitation on humanity is not something that is easy for us to cope with. History and modern science is filled with examples of mankind balking its perceived limitations. We don’t have wings, but we decided we were going to fly. Sure enough that’s what we did. We are bound to the earth. At least up until we finally figure out rocket science, then we’re out to the moon baby. And when it comes to knowledge we follow the same path of determination. Why is the sky blue? I’m on it. I’m gonna get this figured out. Got it! It’s all about light and refraction. The difference is on the physical side we are willing to accept our limitations. We’re never going to build a device that lets us journey into and then out of a black hole. It’s not happening. Likewise we’re not heading to the center of the sun anytime soon. And you know what? We’re okay with that. Ask what was there before the Big Bang, or even what triggered the Big Bang, and you run into a limitation that’s a little harder to accept.
Unfortunately the easiest response to this knowledge limitation when applied to God is denial. Occam’s Razor buddy – God simply does not exist. To the people who have firmly made this decision there is no issue. To the people like me who have firmly rejected this decision there is no issue either. It’s those people in between. Those people who don’t want to accept this decision but quietly fear that it’s true. Doubt again proves to be our undoing. (By the way, take Occam’s Razor and go back to the Big Bang questions I mention. See? God’s around after all.)
Ultimately, based on the ramblings above, I believe that Original Sin boils down to the doubt brought about by our knowledge. With free will I believe we’ve always had the ability to turn away from God. Doubt gives us a reason, a motivation to do so. Because of this I wonder if the death that God warns Adam of in Genesis Chapter 2 is actually a spiritual death; creating the temptation to turn from God. We’ve all heard stories of tests of faith, and perhaps you as an individual have had an experience that you have identified as a test. A trial for what you believe. Like when Indiana Jones steps off the ledge towards the end of Last Crusade, just hoping that there is going to be something solid under his feet. Some of you have had moments like that. If it weren’t for doubt, there wouldn’t be a need for tests of faith. We would all just get it. For me personally, every moment is a test of faith. Every moment of my life no matter how dull or mundane calls me to put my faith in something I cannot control, something I cannot prove - God. I wish I could say that I passed all tests, but I don’t. Pass or fail though, I believe I’m on the right path. And I believe that simply being able to recognize that I failed a test of faith gives me hope that I’ll pass the next one.
That’s what I have to say. I know it was hardly complete or even fully explained, and I may have lost some of you on some sudden turns, but this was just intended to lay out some beliefs not serve as an example of sanity or coherence. Okay, let’s see if I met the criteria here: Uncomfortable to write – check. Written with the intention to share part of my relationship with God – check. Feel vulnerable and exposed by the end of it – check. Made an ass out of myself – double check. Made firm statements that I may completely reverse on in the future – check.
I’m not gonna apologize for my beliefs or for wanting to share them with you, but I will apologize if I came across as preachy or foaming at the mouth. Mine is an arrogance that is hard to conceal, but I try to make the effort.
25 Things: Stupid Meme
Originally posted on Facebook February 5, 2009
1
My claim to fame at the age of 7 was biting the heads off of live cicada to the amazement of my peers. If you roll your tongue back in your mouth before biting you can't actually taste anything. The trick is to spit the head out before relaxing your tongue. Thank you, there will be another show at 11. Tip your waitress.
2
When I was younger I thought of myself (and believed I was viewed as) someone with strong leadership qualities. Somewhere along the way I think I lost that. Maybe it went away because skills no longer exercised are lost. Maybe my friends (old and new) just don't need to be led, and because it wasn't needed in my social life I let it atrophy in other aspects of my life as well. Eh. Maybe growing older doesn't always mean growing better.
3
Bureaucracy is the bane of my existence.
4
Contrary to my reputation as a (supposed) womanizer in college, I have always been blithely unaware of when a woman's interest in me is romantic instead of amicable. Luckily I'm happily married so this is no longer an issue.
5
If it weren't for spell check in Microsoft Word no one would ever be able to read anything I write. Including my name.
6
Correct spelling is the last bastion of the elitest nazi bastard.
7
I have never been able to do a cartwheel. Ever.
8
I have a significant hearing loss in both ears, and am supposed to be constantly wearing hearing aids. And should have been since the 8th grade. It's hereditary and degenerates overtime; my hearing is much worst now that when I was in high school. Still don't wear my aids tho.
9
I have always been a prolific reader and consequently I think in vocabulary that nobody really uses. This is incredibly embarrassing for me because 1) I was teased about it a lot in elementary school, and 2) I am horrible at pronunciation due to a) my hearing loss and b) nobody really uses these words anymore in common speech.
10
I live constantly in a semi-frustrated state because I cannot grasp that the world is not consistant. Examples - 1) pronunciation. Why can't the french have their own stinking alphabet? like -que. WE HAVE A "K" PEOPLE. If you want to have a "k" sound use a frickin letter K or at least spell it out k-a-y. Q-u-e makes a "qwa" sound as in quest. IT SHOULD ALWAYS MAKE A "QWA" SOUND. And another thing, if it's gonna be que = "kay" what the hell is with Albuquerque? Example 2) I tickle my son under his chin and he laughs. And then sometimes he doesn't. What the hell is with that? He should either NEVER laugh when I tickle under his chin, or ALWAYS laugh, even if he's bleeding profusely from both legs.
Okay, maybe I went a little overboard with number 10. I'm not always so rigid. It's just that sometimes my brain gets stuck in "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C" mode.
11
I daydream constantly. I've died millions of different deaths. I've been the hero, the villain, the flunky. I've slain dragons, solved crimes, and routed galatic armadas. I've seduced thousands and been seduced to boot. I've committed the most heinous of crimes and performed the most noble acts of self-sacrifice. So if it looks like I'm off in my own little world, rest assured there's nothing little about it.
12
From the age of 5 until sometime in middle school I wanted to be a preacher. Then I pursued a degree in acting. Now I'm focusing on achieving a career in teaching. Of all the careers and jobs I identified with and wanted and pursued, it never at any point occurred to me that my all time favorite job would be fatherhood. And the one that I am the most proud of.
13
There is an enjoyable and very publishable novel locked inside my skull.
14
There are probably publishable poems already written and collecting the electronic equivalent of dust on my harddrive.
15
When I read my wife will ask me something, causing me to look up from my book and respond. Then I return to my book and have to spend 5-30 seconds finding my place. Just as soon as I find where I left off Valerie will ask a follow up question. This cycle repeats until I put the book down because I have read the same sentence 40 billion times, been "reading" for half an hour, and not progress one single word in my book.
16
I re-read the same 15-20 books every year. They never get old.
17
My kids are almost too cute to be believed, and too mischievous for the condition of my heart and arteries.
18
I cannot remember the last time I cried for any reason other than cutting onions.19While my geekness is pretty obvious, I still tiptoe around the fact that I have played Dungeons and Dragons weekly for the past 15 years and counting. Likewise the exact amount of Magic the Gathering cards I own will most likely be a secret I take with me to the grave.
20
That being said, I am one of the best Dungeon Masters you are likely to meet. Modesty aside and all that.
21
I can't beleive I spent an hour and a half writing this stupid inconsequential list.
22
The words in my head come out much faster than I type. This causes me to leave out letters (the "this" at the beginning of this sentence was originally "tis") or accidently reverse them, forcing me to stop every five or so words and back up and correct.
23
Much to my wife's dismay I am very entrenched in linear thinking.
24
I'm more comfortable camping in the woods than I am pretty much anywhere else.
25
While I wrote this, as is my habit, I had a Microsoft Word doc open for the sole purpose of hiding my atrocious spelling. As I wrote a word that I knew I misspelled, I typed it in the Word doc and let spell check correct it for me. These are the words I had to spell check "bureaucracy, existence, exercised, blithely, embarrasssing, pronunciation, Albuquerque, heinous, pursued, occurred, publishable, equivalent, sentence, mischievous, and inconsequential." Atrocious I can spell without a second thought, but sentence I have to spell check (I keep wanting to spell it scentence). I tell you, the crosses I have to bear.
Anywho, there's my 25 thingys.
1
My claim to fame at the age of 7 was biting the heads off of live cicada to the amazement of my peers. If you roll your tongue back in your mouth before biting you can't actually taste anything. The trick is to spit the head out before relaxing your tongue. Thank you, there will be another show at 11. Tip your waitress.
2
When I was younger I thought of myself (and believed I was viewed as) someone with strong leadership qualities. Somewhere along the way I think I lost that. Maybe it went away because skills no longer exercised are lost. Maybe my friends (old and new) just don't need to be led, and because it wasn't needed in my social life I let it atrophy in other aspects of my life as well. Eh. Maybe growing older doesn't always mean growing better.
3
Bureaucracy is the bane of my existence.
4
Contrary to my reputation as a (supposed) womanizer in college, I have always been blithely unaware of when a woman's interest in me is romantic instead of amicable. Luckily I'm happily married so this is no longer an issue.
5
If it weren't for spell check in Microsoft Word no one would ever be able to read anything I write. Including my name.
6
Correct spelling is the last bastion of the elitest nazi bastard.
7
I have never been able to do a cartwheel. Ever.
8
I have a significant hearing loss in both ears, and am supposed to be constantly wearing hearing aids. And should have been since the 8th grade. It's hereditary and degenerates overtime; my hearing is much worst now that when I was in high school. Still don't wear my aids tho.
9
I have always been a prolific reader and consequently I think in vocabulary that nobody really uses. This is incredibly embarrassing for me because 1) I was teased about it a lot in elementary school, and 2) I am horrible at pronunciation due to a) my hearing loss and b) nobody really uses these words anymore in common speech.
10
I live constantly in a semi-frustrated state because I cannot grasp that the world is not consistant. Examples - 1) pronunciation. Why can't the french have their own stinking alphabet? like -que. WE HAVE A "K" PEOPLE. If you want to have a "k" sound use a frickin letter K or at least spell it out k-a-y. Q-u-e makes a "qwa" sound as in quest. IT SHOULD ALWAYS MAKE A "QWA" SOUND. And another thing, if it's gonna be que = "kay" what the hell is with Albuquerque? Example 2) I tickle my son under his chin and he laughs. And then sometimes he doesn't. What the hell is with that? He should either NEVER laugh when I tickle under his chin, or ALWAYS laugh, even if he's bleeding profusely from both legs.
Okay, maybe I went a little overboard with number 10. I'm not always so rigid. It's just that sometimes my brain gets stuck in "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C" mode.
11
I daydream constantly. I've died millions of different deaths. I've been the hero, the villain, the flunky. I've slain dragons, solved crimes, and routed galatic armadas. I've seduced thousands and been seduced to boot. I've committed the most heinous of crimes and performed the most noble acts of self-sacrifice. So if it looks like I'm off in my own little world, rest assured there's nothing little about it.
12
From the age of 5 until sometime in middle school I wanted to be a preacher. Then I pursued a degree in acting. Now I'm focusing on achieving a career in teaching. Of all the careers and jobs I identified with and wanted and pursued, it never at any point occurred to me that my all time favorite job would be fatherhood. And the one that I am the most proud of.
13
There is an enjoyable and very publishable novel locked inside my skull.
14
There are probably publishable poems already written and collecting the electronic equivalent of dust on my harddrive.
15
When I read my wife will ask me something, causing me to look up from my book and respond. Then I return to my book and have to spend 5-30 seconds finding my place. Just as soon as I find where I left off Valerie will ask a follow up question. This cycle repeats until I put the book down because I have read the same sentence 40 billion times, been "reading" for half an hour, and not progress one single word in my book.
16
I re-read the same 15-20 books every year. They never get old.
17
My kids are almost too cute to be believed, and too mischievous for the condition of my heart and arteries.
18
I cannot remember the last time I cried for any reason other than cutting onions.19While my geekness is pretty obvious, I still tiptoe around the fact that I have played Dungeons and Dragons weekly for the past 15 years and counting. Likewise the exact amount of Magic the Gathering cards I own will most likely be a secret I take with me to the grave.
20
That being said, I am one of the best Dungeon Masters you are likely to meet. Modesty aside and all that.
21
I can't beleive I spent an hour and a half writing this stupid inconsequential list.
22
The words in my head come out much faster than I type. This causes me to leave out letters (the "this" at the beginning of this sentence was originally "tis") or accidently reverse them, forcing me to stop every five or so words and back up and correct.
23
Much to my wife's dismay I am very entrenched in linear thinking.
24
I'm more comfortable camping in the woods than I am pretty much anywhere else.
25
While I wrote this, as is my habit, I had a Microsoft Word doc open for the sole purpose of hiding my atrocious spelling. As I wrote a word that I knew I misspelled, I typed it in the Word doc and let spell check correct it for me. These are the words I had to spell check "bureaucracy, existence, exercised, blithely, embarrasssing, pronunciation, Albuquerque, heinous, pursued, occurred, publishable, equivalent, sentence, mischievous, and inconsequential." Atrocious I can spell without a second thought, but sentence I have to spell check (I keep wanting to spell it scentence). I tell you, the crosses I have to bear.
Anywho, there's my 25 thingys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)