Taking a Hypocrite’s Advice

I had another one of those mental dialogues with myself, this time where I am giving advice to somebody. Generally, one of my biggest problems is that I give advice in the first place. I shouldn’t really be doing that, because I feel that right now I feel the motives for my giving advice is to diagnose and correct rather than share a theory and guide. Anywho, what happens in the situation that I give advice on something like….time management? Let’s say that I’m constantly overdue on homework, I get late fees on bills all the time, and I don’t set aside enough time to study for tests. Is my advice still valid?

Well where does the problem lie? Does it lie in the diagnosis and planning of time management, or in my personal implementation of it? I could give very sound advice that, if followed, would be very helpful. Just because I don’t follow it myself doesn’t mean that it’s not good advice. I think that is a reasonable conclusion, and some of you may agree with me. To apply it to something that most of us are more familiar with, the Church setting helps a lot. One word a lot of us associate with Christians, in a cynical view, is hypocrisy. They lecture and judge others, but often don’t meet their own standards.(This is just a crude generalization) But that doesn’t mean that what Christians lecture us about isn’t valid.

A person is not the same thing as what he says. They may correlate with each other, but they are not the same entity. That means the words may have a constructive context although the person may have a destructive context. Do you understand what I am saying?

Just a thought…..(BTW, would anybody like to share their personal definition for hypocrisy? A person’s definition says a lot about not only the word, but the person who defines it.)

What is Truth and What is Theory?

Ok, I lied. I forgot I had a couple of journals saved as drafts. This one is from about two weeks ago.  ***WARNING: Amber Spyglass Spoiler*** You have been warned.

The funny thing about fact is that it’s only accurate when it comes to wordly things, but how many facts do we know when it comes to spirituality? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Yes, we share similar experiences, but similar experiences are correlations. They do not prove causation.

The Amber Spyglass by Robert Pullman

I’m writing this because I just finished reading the Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman. There is a part where the ghosts of the dead are all sent to limbo instead of heaven. Heaven exists, but there is a power struggle happening and pretty much nobody is making it past the “pearly gates”. One of teh main characters possesses a knife that can cut into other alternate universes. He cuts into the land of the dead and crosses the river Styx. He then opens up a portal back to the land of the living on the other side. Ghosts that pass back into the land of the living disintegrate into particles and become part of everything else: the trees, the grass, the air, the ocean. They feel everything at once.

It was a lot like my current definition of nirvana. The best way to explain my definition is through analogy. The traditional idea of nirvana is to snuff out the flame of the candle of your soul. My definition is to have the candle consumed in a conflagration of fire. Better put, it’s like saying that your soul was a shot glass full of water. If you dumped that shot glass into a fish tank full of water, the water molecules that you were composed of would still be there, but now they’re a part of the entire fish tank. They are part of everything else now.

I was going “Yes!” the whole time. “Ahh! This is so beautiful! How can something so profound be a work of fiction!?” And then I realize: how can something so profound as what I believe in NOT be a work of fiction? Pullman came to the same conclusion in a young adult book that I’ve been working at in real life. It brought to light the possibility that I can’t really prove that anything I believe is right.It could merely be a work of fiction. There is no incontrovertible evidence for what I believe in, yet there seems to be a right and wrong in religion.

Christianity, for example, has “facts” to prove its own legitimacy. There is an “authority” that we can refer to in Christianity itself: the Bible. There are doctrines, creeds, historical evidence. Using these as sources of reference, we can establish accepted standards in Christianity. But really, what sound basis are these facts built upon? One has to exercise at least a little bit of faith for those facts to be  legitimized. You have to trust that what the Bible tells you is true. I was under the impression that facts should be able to stand on their own.

I’m not trying to attack Christianity, but I’m bringing this up because I find a lot of Christians that are so cocksure of themselves, of how Chrisitanity, how religion is supposed to be. My most recent example of this was the Lutheran Bible Study. They seem to have all the answers. We were given a list of guided questions at the study, but it really irked me that the vicar had a list of answers. “The Bible says so, so it is true”. “The Bible told us to, so we must do it.” That really gets under my skin.

I want to figure things out, I really do, but I don’t really believe that all my searching will actually direct me to a concrete answer. All I can do is better define what it is I’m searching for. All I can really do is refine my results. Right now I don’t think the truth I’m looking for is attainable, but I’m fine with that. I’m fine with having to answer my own questions. I’m fine not knowing whether those answers are right. Continuing the search gives me something to do with my life.

My Apologies

I’ve been out for quite a while due to a huge workload in nursing school. I’ll be away for, at the most, one more week. Sorry for the inconvenience.

On Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is definitely a lifestyle worthy of respect, in my opinion. However, with many people that I see taking up the practice for the first time, I find that they have a pretty high resolve of inflexibility. I feel like they are only looking at the restrictions and not really looking at why the restrictions are there. If you make something incontrovertibly unattainable, it makes you crave it more. You want what you can’t have. It’s a natural tendency. If vegetarians allow themselves the option of having meat, if they don’t harangue themselves over the occasional consumption of meat, they won’t feel tied to it anymore. I think Awareness by Anthony DeMello said something similar to this. He said a priest that denounces adultery openly and often is tied to adultery for as long as he acts against it. Practicing or acting against something ties you to that action. How much more liberating would it be if you didn’t feel like meat wasn’t an option? How free would you feel to know that you could eat meat if you wanted, but decide to consciously abstain? You are in control of what you do, not the rules. 

I’ve often considered becoming vegetarian myself. Key word: Considered. I like meat too much. Food is my greatest vice. However, from a health standpoint, I’d definitely do it. I’ve at least dramatically cut back on my meat consumption. I’d say around 80% of the people you meet on the street go over on their daily recommended value for protein. Usually it’s 2-3x greater than the daily value.

 

On the topic of giving up meat for the sake of animals’ lives (another motivation for vegetarianism): I’d just like to point out Native American cultures and Jewish cultures both restrict their meat for the sake of animals’ lives. Kosher laws require that the animal does not die of natural causes, and that the death of the animal is quick and painless.They want it to be humane and they want to be considerate of the animals’ comfort. For Native americans, several believed in only taking what was necessary. They believed a certain amount of meat was necessary to their diet, so they always prayed over and thanked the spirit of the animal for giving its body to nourish them and their family. From an ecological standpoint, as well, the killing of animals for food not only nourishes us, but keeps the animal population at a healthy level. Overpopulation could lead to starvation within the group and they would die a slower, more agonizing death.

Here in America, we kill too much. We consume way more meat than we need, so animals’ lives are being taken needlessly. Beyond the overconsumption of America, though, think of death as an essential part of life. Yes, taking the life of something that isn’t directly our right to take is a somber and sorrowful issue, but isn’t there at least SOME reason to it? Do we get mad at other omnivores for taking the life of their prey? We, by physiological and anatomical design, are omnivores. Part of this chain of life allows us, and sometimes urges us, to do things that we might not necessarily see the good in immediately.

To all my vegetarian, and vegan, homies out there: I think you’re doing the right thing. High five.

BTW, I have provided a link to Judaism Kosher laws. I couldn’t find anything on Native American dietary practices though. Bum. If anybody could help me find a link, I would greatly appreciate it along with my fellow readers.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

Expressing My Opinion On Gender Roles

Well, I could tell everybody what they want to hear. “I see no natural difference between man and women. Those differences were imposed upon the genders by society. *spite coming out my eyes, mouth, and ears*” I’d be lying out of my ass if I said I believed that. Instead, I’ll share my personal thoughts on what man and woman are.

I can easily admit that a lot of the differences were influenced from outside sources. They weren’t natural. They came from society, they came from the Bible, and they came from several chauvinistic dickweeds back in the day that could sell a book or two… but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to disagree with them.

These influences manifest themselves amongst the two genders as expectations. Personally, I have a LOT more expectations of my fellow man than I do of ladies. I don’t think I really have the right to determine how the other sex should be. The expectations I have of BOTH sexes is seen in my listed traits of the ideal man and woman

I think the ideal man should know how to dress up, and should do so when (not “if”) the occasion arises. He should train himself to be physically AND mentally fit. He should be well rounded: arts, literature, philosophy, math, the works. He shouldn’t be easily influenced by others; he should be able to make up his own mind and come to his own conclusions. He should always be prepared to provide for his wife and children, even if he doesn’t have to and even at the expense of his own comfort (this doesn’t mean that the wife can’t get a job, too. Back to that later). He should always be searching, always looking for ways to better himself. He should not be afraid of being wrong, and should recognize when he is. He should believe in chivalry, even if it is considered dead. He should develop his sensitive/feeling side. Women are not beneath him. Women are not above him. He should not objectify women. He should have his own values and be his own person.

When I picture the ideal man, I see a healthy, clean shaven man. His age is irrelevant. He wears a three piece tweed suit and patent leather shoes. His stance is forthright and firm. He’s a “renaissance man”. I always get the feeling that he came straight from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. It’s a mix between the antebellum era, the Industrial Revolution Era, and the Roaring 1920s. It’s what I try to be.

For the ideal woman, I always see it in terms of interaction with the ideal man. From the very beginning, I recognize that no matter how much a man may think he knows about women, he really understands nothing. Therefore, he has no right to tell them who they are to be. However, I still have expectations. I expect women to stick up for their rights, not have others defend them. They have the right to do what they damn well please, but they should recognize that they are also accountable. They have the right to get a job, but I expect the man to be able to support the family on his own if the need arises. They have the right to wear whatever they want, but the man reserves the right to have his opinion of what is attractive (and if he is the ideal man, then what he finds attractive doesn’t necessarily reflect society’s view of attractiveness). Each individual woman has the right to determine what is beautiful, and I personally wish that the foundation for their standards of beauty would be themselves. Personally, I like a person who doesn’t think she needs makeup to be beautiful. I’d even go so far as to say that I tend to lean more towards tomboy kind of girls. They seem more in touch with who they want to be, and I find that very attractive.

I can’t really picture the ideal woman. The ideal woman, to me, is defined more by her character than her physical features. I couldn’t even picture her in a certain era like the ideal man, because it just all seems so “plastic”. Victorian corsets, Stepford wives, bobby pins and makeup, etc…okay, maybe the 1920s. I just really love that era. If it weren’t for the following decade, I would have wished to be in my prime during the 1920s. It just seems so classy. Back on topic. I just want the woman to be her own person, but I want her to realize that with the freedom to be her own woman she can’t rely on being a woman as an excuse, either. Women are on the level of men. neither is a higher status than the other. Thus, they should share the same general privileges and responsibilities.

And what about problems with societal expectations on the genders? Women generally complain about how society has told them how to look. They are pressured by men to be the skinny, blond, well endowed, long-legged bombshell. They must wear revealing clothes and seduce the men and they belong at home or in the kitchen. Don’t panic; I’m exaggerating, lol. But you get the picture. 

However, I don’t feel enough credit is given to the pressures put on man. Being a male nursing major (in what is generally considered a female profession) I’m getting quite a bit of social flak. Do you know how many demeaning looks I get, even in my own field? I can barely find a study partner in any of my classes because all the girls are afraid of me. I stood up and asked “Who here does not have a partner?”. A fourth of the hands went up. I asked “Who would like to be my partner?” The hands sporadically crept downward and the girls tried to find partners in each other. Didn’t even get an answer. I think they assumed that I would take over in the study group or something. In general, the pressures I feel are imposed upon me are: I have to lead (in relationships, in business matters, in dancing), I have to take ALL the initiative in relationships, I have to follow a “masculine” profession. People call me feminine or gay because I care about how I look, because I’m not afraid to share my feelings, because I don’t really care for watching sports, because I don’t really care about cars, because I don’t strive to be the leader all the time, because I’m cleanly and organized. It’s not only an insult to me, but it’s an insult to females and gays. I don’t think I could do either of those groups justice anyway, lol.

Using His Name in Vain

Most people are aware of the second or third commandment (depending on which translation you use): “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.” It makes sense, right? Don’t say “OH MY GOD” or “God damn”. You are making a pointless or insincere oath. He wants you to put meaning into His name whenever you say it. Don’t use it so flippantly. At least that’s my take.

However, the word “vain” means more than just useless and ineffectual. Merriam-Webster’s fourth definition of “vain” is: 

4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements : conceited

That’s the definition I’m going to refer to today. One thing that bothers me is when I hear somebody make a reference to God every other sentence. To hear somebody attribute anything and everything that happens to them as either the work of God or the work of the Devil. To put in the token “First of all, I’d just like to thank Jesus Christ our Savior and God the Father,” in every acceptance speech I hear. I just feel like that’s the person saying “Look at me, guys. I’m a Christian. See how good of a Christian I am? I’ve made a reference to Him three times already in this conversation alone.” I just get the notion that when somebody does that, they are putting up a mask because they want to be seen as virtuous. They throw out all these context clues to imply that they are strong Christians. To me, that just turns His name into a buzz word. That’s the last thing I’d want to do.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it’s not “cool” to be public with your faith. In fact, I want to promote that. I’m very open with my faith, and I would like others to feel as free as I am in sharing theirs. I just want people to stop and think before they say His name again. I don’t want it to become used so frequently that it becomes part of the background noise.

Think in terms of saying His name like you would say “I love you”. If I were to say “I love you” to my lover several times every time I met her, it would get old. There is almost no chance that I could possibly mean it with all my heart every time I said it if it was used so frequently. It would become more like a ritual to me, and the meaning would become diluted to the ears of my lover. It would be something she’d expect. She wouldn’t notice anymore if I had said it, but she would notice if I HADN’T said it. It would have become part of my identity to say “I love you”.  I don’t want the term “I love you” to be a part of who I am. I want it to be it’s own voice spoken through me. I want it to have a life of its own. I want her to notice every time I say “I love you”. 

That’s how I want God’s name to be used. It want it to be a treasure to say. I want it to resonate in the minds of others when I say it. I want His name to be an entity of its own, spoken through me. Don’t try to hide your faith, but don’t dilute it, either.