Tired

I recently posted on a blog and noticed that I was completely misunderstood. I do have to admittedly state that I am mostly responsible for that. For the sake of trying to repeat myself and getting myself misunderstood again, I'll simply post what I wrote:

"I once flipped the question, “What would Jesus do?” on it’s head by asking, “What did Jesus do?” and interestingly enough Jesus turned out to be liberal. He gave plenty to the poor (welfare), was against fighting the Romans (anti-war), forgave prostitutes, and didn’t want to kill anyone (not pro-death penalty). As much as I would like to continue believing that Jesus is a democrat and argue for that, I have found more times than not that whenever religion gets its hands on something other than religion it turns nasty. When Christianity has its hands on Science we get heated and angered on both sides. When Christianity had its hands on politics, people died (crusades and inquisitions). Politics is a moral dilemma and so I can see why religion and faith would get involved in this realm, versus science where religion isn’t obviously related. But politics and faith are different in the matter of what is best for our country and what is best when it comes to ourselves and in treating others. Government is about governing and regulating and maintaining laws for its citizens. I feel as though religion should be viewed as governing our own actions and how we treat others rather than controlling or manipulating how others should believe. Maybe it is true that we really can’t control what we believe, but for the most part we can control where we live."

The only thing that I would change about this entry would be that instead of "not pro-death penalty", write anti-death penalty. It just has a better ring to it. I didn't want to put another reply on that blog because I wanted the author of the blog to have a book-end to it, and that I sincerely believe that it would have spun the whole argument out of control again.

In the entry above, I never state that Jesus was or is a liberal. I state simply that Jesus was liberal. This could mean that he was liberal minded, acted in liberal ways, had liberal tendencies, but it does not mean that he was a liberal or a democrat. I also state that as much as I would like to argue Jesus as a democrat, I don't. I've gotten over that phase in my life. Repliers on that blog did not understand that I was trying to differentiate between individual responsibilities and governmental responsibilities. I would even go out on a limb and suggest that I push that beyond the envelope. My focus and my point was to seperate religion and politics more so. Religion is about individual responsibilities, because when it goes big business (or just beyond the realms of religion and faith) everything goes screwy, and fast.

What the whole response to the blog happened to turn into was a talk about abortion and homosexuality. I instinctively choose not to write about such hot topics because I knew it would get all blown out of proportion and was I right. Please, this is what I truly would like to happen and maybe a test for those who can't get past their strong opinions on abortion. Put your personal beliefs and faith at the door. This may sound like the separation of faith and science, but this isn't what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to separate politics and faith, because honestly they shouldn't get confused. Your personal beliefs, faith, and salvation do not interlink with government and regulations. Government is to govern people, not believers, that's what the church is for. If you want to do your whole election and bickering over candidates, do it within your own churches, not out on the public scene, please. When politics come along, forget religion and focus on what positions you are on and why you are on them, let alone what God is personally telling you to conservatively believe. When the election rolls around, vote based on your citizenship, not your Christianity. I truly believe that is what the founders of this country were absolutely and adamantly against when they decided to separate church and state. They noticed the crusades for what they were, and they saw what happens when church is in power. Let's just say that when the church and power mix, they don't make for a good track record.

Flashes

I am currently living with a friend, who is by the way a girl. I've never lived with a girl before but don't imagine it to be all too bad, for several reasons. First, I get along better with females than males. I'm just more sensitive, not in the caring way, but in the way when I get horsed around by men, I don't like it and get offended easily. Secondly, I've almost lived with a girl before. In the late years of high school and the early years of college I had a very serious girlfriend and practically hung out with her every waking moment. We dated for two and a half years and it didn't end well.

Anyway, constantly being around my ex-girlfriend has had more of an influence than I had expected. We broke up three years ago, so you'd think it would be all done and over with, but it isn't. No, surprisingly enough, there is still an effect. I can't really describe it well so bare with me. Ashlie is my roommate and whenever I don't see her and think of her, either back at the apartment or memories of us eating dinner or watching movies and TV, I'll remember her as Heidi, my old girlfriend. Even now as I was writing this email while Ashlie is still asleep, I picture her in the near future coming out, but not coming out as Ashlie, she's coming out of the room as Heidi in my mind, and it's disturbing me. You'd think that after I have realized this, self-professed this strange occurrence that it would go away, but it hasn't. I've told Ashlie about this and she thought it strange as well, but it still hasn't ended. It still hasn't stopped. What do I have to do to end this? How long will it take for me to live with Ashlie for it not to happen anymore? When can I start picture Ashlie as Ashlie and not as Heidi?

Spending time with someone 24/7 has it's lasting effects, and since I hadn't really done it for three years and then all of a sudden thrown back into it, I guess my past had to catch up with me. When in such close quarters and for so long of a period and us both not working, makes any sane person want to strangle the other. Obviously, it hasn't gotten to that point yet, but I'm just curious as to how long this process will need to take before it wears off, because honestly, I can't wait until my mind is fully flushed of Heidi, and I can picture Ashlie with her dreads and all.

He's

I want to first and most importantly state that I am a feminist, as much as I can be entitled, but this is only an example from two situations that occurred personally. So, by no means am I unaware of the implications caused by a male-dominated pronoun.

With that said, the first situation occurred at work conversing with a good friend and we were talking about a band, that will go unnamed. It was then bestowed upon me by my good friend that the lead singer was gay, commented as, "You know, he's gay."

The second situation occurred at church conversing with someone, and we were talking about companies and such, and was told about the CEO of one of the companies as, "You know, he's a Christian."

My first instinct in response to both of these are the same, "Oh, yeah," said with mild surprise. The first can be interpreted as homophobic or something along those lines. The second happens constantly with what I feel like as something that should be more a side note than a main point. One descriptive word should not entail us to judge based solely on that one word. What is the point to describe a person by one word than to make that person painted in a better or worse light. One single word should not make me feel all secure knowing that some CEO is a Christian. So what if he's a Christian, so what if he's gay. Does that define him as a person. What I have also noticed is that we, as society, don't use these descriptive words in reference to political standing or leanings. We don't simply state that he is a conservative or a liberal and leave it at that. The focus of the conversation leads easily into the political background of that particular person. Not so with these two descriptive words. I'm always at a dead loss of what to really say when given this description.

Yeah, okay, he's a Christian, does that mean that's he's good, or better than a non-Christian CEO? Does that mean that he'll run his company ethically and morally right? Does a gay artist make me want to no longer listen to that artist or band? Not necessarily, but this is what these descriptive words want us to think, imagine and judge.

Please, if you are going to describe someone with a single descriptive word, I pledge that you hesitate and consider the implications and motivation behind what you intend to mean. Before blurting out, he's so and so, think and put the words behind the description, and not have an unreasonable assumption made with one word.

Money

There is a commercial from Comcast that is probably entitled, "Everyone loves money". If I could find this on the internet or youtube, I would definitely give you the link, but I can't find it. So, the next best thing is to describe it. There is a heavier set young black man riding a bicycle in his neighborhood and the folks in the neighborhood are all saying "Hey Money, how's it going Money". And he responds with, "Hey, how's it going, what it is bro, what it is". Then, the comcast logo appears against it's black background and it says, "Everyone loves money" getting at the idea that Comcast can save you money and you'll love it. I get the idea behind it, but I feel if there were such a guy in my neighborhood riding his bike at a good pace and saying hey to everyone and nicknamed Money, I would love Money as well. I don't think I'm greedy or love money or as it is commonly known as, "The root of all evil," but this Money, this guy on his bike, him I would love. Just thought I would share.

Sin

Sin: 1. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense. 2. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong. As you may see, there is a connection between this post and the previous one. I absolutely hate sin. Not, "hate the sin, not the sinner" type of sin. I hate the concept of sin. I truly wish that the word, idea, or thought of sin never came into existence. I detest the word and I hate what it does. I like faults. I like errors. I like mistakes. I like lessons. I like mess-ups and screw-ups. I like oopses. I like oches and boo-boos. But sin, sin I hate. Sin leaves you helpless. Sin gives you the feeling of beyond inadequacy. It is stand-offish and disgusting and wants those who are not within the realms of Christian lingo want to puke up snot and smear it all over your face. It is rotten. It demoralizes. It is degrading and it degrades others. It's a word that builds up borders, barriers, walls and obstacles between people. It's unapproachable and disdainful.

The first thing you learn when becoming a Christian for the first time is sin. Where does the Bible begin it's story with humans? Sin. When something is built upon something else, everything is defined in those terms. When the house comes tumbling down, the only thing left standing is the foundation. The foundation of Judeo-Christianity is sin. It is not only a prequel to what is coming up next, sin is it. Sin is where you start from and is the basis for every person who is not a Christian. In a religion that claims to be loving sure does place it's emphasis on an act full of reprehensible, shameful and deplorable feelings. Why would an institution founded on love want sin to be a part of it's vocabulary, especially when it mostly is a foreign concept.

Sin is not a loving word. A loving idea is you made a mistake and you'll learn. Or maybe you'll make the mistake again, but that's okay because you're human. It is not as though because I'm a Christian that all the mistakes I've made I won't make again or will be totally forgotten and because you're unchristian that your mistakes will stay with you forever. Going into the spiel of sin when teaching a Christian to be a Christian is not worth the explanation or the time spent on defining an outdated useless word. If someone is becoming a Christian there must be a reason they are doing so. They know that there are problems in the world. They know humans aren't perfect and holy. People who use sin seem to think that such a detestable word will make grace in comparison look that much better, but it doesn't. Sin sets itself up for failure. Sin makes a person feel worse about themselves when they shouldn't. A person who cuts their wrist will not think of sin as a far-off word that separates humans and God. That person will only take that word to heart and will tailspin into cutting again. What is the purpose and intention for using such a word? To help us realize that we betrayed God? That we, as humans, disobeyed God and are now punished by God until some savior by the name of Jesus comes saves us? Does a word that full of heavy sentiment really need to be used to let us know that we are not gods? A word completely complex in it's history and powerfulness need to be the basis of a self-proclaimed loving religion?

The answer is quite simply no. There is no longer any need and purpose to use this sinful word. Problems are problems, mistakes are mistakes and they may happen again, but beating a dead horse with this idea of sin is not going to help matters. Concentration on a fault or error does not make it go away. Especially when there already is a solution.

What my suggestion is is a new word, for a new concept, for a new idea. A thought or image that sites problems within humans but is not distasteful and abhorrent. I heard a couple of people use this word when I'd been thinking about sin and that word was, The human condition. The human condition is a much better way of explaining sin than sin. Sin is personal, sin is deep, sin concerns only you. Sin is about your disobedience toward God and God’s perfection that you will never live up to. The human condition however is about humanity’s predicament. Humanity’s frailty and problems are the main focus. The underlining human condition truly is the peril that befalls us all. Also, what is more enticing about using the human condition is that it is more encompassing. Sin focuses on the past and does not move beyond that, while the human condition recognizes the past but presents a problem in the present and hopes for the future. The human condition is only a condition; it’s not a disease, cancer, or terminal illness. The condition is the problem of the present and can be changed. The human condition is something we are born with, but something as we are presented with the issue and take in to account and try solving. The human condition has the humility, without the depression and without the hatred. The human condition factors in God with all of humanity born with this condition. The human condition centralizes and magnifies. There are several human conditions, positive ones and negative ones. The human condition of caring, but then the human condition of being selfish. The human condition of having a tendency toward destruction, but then the human condition of being constructive and progressive. The human condition of hope, desperation, empathy, but also of jealousy, anger, and apathy. Sin will always be with us, the human condition on the other hand can change according to how we react to this problem. Sin is central to regrettable unforgettable ugly acts while the human condition is central to being human.

Definition

Welcome to "Philosophy for dummies". Just kidding, but I would like to mention that a good starting point for any philosopher of any kind needs or should or is best to start any theory or philosophizing with a definition. A definition of an important word in the work. A working definition helps build a solid foundation. A concrete setting to your home of theory or theories.

When a definition is at the beginning it sets the mood, and can always be pulled from again when working with the theory itself. When a person gets lost in their own work, they can always go back and see what they're really trying to say, or make a point about. For me, I always lose my head in the clouds, so I know that I need to look back a lot at the beginning of my thesis and realize what it truly is that I am saying or thinking. To make something clear and brilliant. Making something jump out and poignant is my goal every time I write something. That is my absolute goal in anything I do, to make something more clear or more interesting or worth examining. That is the work of the philosopher, that is my work, my hobby, my love, and my every waking existence.

Love

There are three types of love. There may be more, there may be less, but this is what I've come across so far in my travels.

The first everyone knows about, and I'll name it "True Love". This love is spellbinding. This love renders one speechless. This love involves soul mates, one in a millions, my one and only, and the destined One. After the Disney movies, after the crash dates, after the dust settles on the wrong guys or girls, the reality sets in and starts to show a hairline crack in the makeup of this, "True Love". Out of six billion people, and half of them the opposite sex, can there honestly be one for you? There's simply not enough time to go through all three billion people to find this one, but if you did, would there really just be one, or would there be several you could or would fall in love with? I don't fully believe in this type of love.

The next type of love is another one most should be familiar with, "Love at first sight". From the start most don't believe in this, or at least I didn't. I'm reminded of that pick-up-line, "Do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by again?" It makes me laugh every time. Now, I don't fully believe in this love either but there is some truth behind it. Sometimes there is someone who just leaves you with a striking and long lasting impression and that impression isn't only from the attractiveness quality in him or her. Attractiveness is part of love at first sight, but there is something more behind it and beyond it. First hand experience was what made this love more believable.

The last love I only realized a few years ago and when I saw it I was a little saddened. I was watching "Love comes Softly" with my mom. Now, another thing I didn't mention about me, and actually a curse God has placed upon me is my fondness for romantic films aka chic flics. I'm deeply embarrassed by this, but for the sake of this theory will admit it. Anyway, this cheesy hallmark film basically left the impression that any woman who stays with any man long enough will fall in love. The love won't even only be from the woman either, it'll be from the man as well. Take two strangers, lock them in a room together for a year, and eventually they will fall in love, is what this movie left me for a theme. I was crushed and heartbroken, sadly not even from a real girl, but a romantic happy ending film. I tried to come to terms with this new love, and I'm only trying to still piece it together.

Here's what I've come up with, and again it is a work in progress. When I took Sociology in high school we talked about, "True Love" and how it's not really real or true. That there isn't one soul mate out "there" for you. A female student spoke up and said she believed in types. Her thinking was that there were certain types of females who could get a long with certain types of males. Type A girls get along best with type A guys and so on. I didn't know what to think of it then, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. Piece together all the three loves together, "True love" but spilt it a little, add love at first sight character, and add the aging love comes softly theory and what do you have, a love that is partly instantaneous for the pure and simple striking effect, played out through time and only with a certain type of person (you're one type) and you've got something. A love that begins with a sudden push, in the right direction, and nurtured, and you have a love that passes for barely definable.