Turning Back Around

4 07 2009

I apologize for the lack of updates lately. Between enjoying my summer and lack of inspiration to write a post, I haven’t found much time to write.

Another reason is because my faith seems to be lacking. I think it’s a combination of a few things. For one, I’ve been overexerting myself with all this spiritual and theological thinking alongside a rigorous curriculum at school. I just kind of burnt out and I’ve begun to take time for myself lately. Secondly, I’ve become a little disillusioned  with fellow Christians in my community. The reason I have for joining the church I currently attend is because the pastor had fantastic sermons. Maybe I was caught up in a spiritual rush at the time, because all I hear any more is filler. “Have faith in the Lord. The Devil is trying to tempt us.”

I have begun to realize that sermons should not be my first priority when choosing a church. With effort and a Faith-driven will I can find that truth on my own. What I truly need is a community. Somebody I can share my thoughts with.  Even to find one outside a church where people aren’t spouting out verses for vanity, blindly praising Him for brownie points, or looking to recruit. Please show me that you are Christian in way of life and not words!

I’m looking for something simpler in my faith than I have previously sought after: living my life and being thankful to Him for it. To know that He expects nothing in return, but I shall willingly serve in gratitude, regardless. I’m thinking I’ve been caught up too much in technicalities: churches, denominations, interpretations of the Word. Identifying those differentiations help me to grow, but inevitably reap nothing in the end. I don’t think God notices the difference between a Methodist and a Presbyterian.

I still don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s started to feel like a chore again, going to Church, and that should never happen. Granted, I’m not going to church on the premise that it’s fun to go. It’s because I want to go and I’ve committed myself to it. Right now I’m feeling rather depressed because I’m just wandering around aimlessly again, but I’m thrilled that I’ve got way more ahead of me. It’s galvanizing knowing that you have another challenge ahead of you. Please, somebody, tell me you know what I’m feeling…





The God Box

9 05 2009

A question I usually confront myself with when assessing my religious views is, “What is my God box?” What is a God box? A God box is an individual’s current image of God and everything that God is.  For instance, a simple example would be a God in a toga, who looks like Zeus and lounges on top of a cloud throwing lightning bolts. This God answers your prayers and controls every facet of the universe. Many of us have shared this God box before.  Another God box would be “God is Love”.  In this image, God is more than just a concrete being. He transcends reality and becomes a concept as well. Depending on how you say “God is Love”, this could be seen as a more mature God box. These two examples are what I meant by  ”God box”.

My God box is constantly under evaluation, constantly evolving. Currently I see God as many things: He is the omnipotent father of all things, He is the historical/spiritual Jesus, and It is a spiritual entity that is nebulous in nature and can only be described by what It is not. This could be referred to as the Trinity. My God box is meshed with the concepts and realities of Allah and Buddha, not because I extract what I like from each religion to make my own “cafeteria-style” religion, but because I see how they are the same.  I say He is Love, but I don’t say it like others usually do. My image of God is One who does not do what you ask of Him. He helps you, but not in the way you often want. His will is beyond our will, implemented on behalf of not only our own sakes but everything else’s.

The best way to describe it is the will of a doctor and the will of a patient. We ask the doctor to cure us of our ailments. He cuts us up, he tears things out, he gives us pills. We go through all this invasive treatment with promise of feeling better… and at the end of the day we still feel nauseous and dizzy. Our sutures burn with pain, our insides are roiling inside of us, and the adverse effects of the medication makes us feel even worse. “How does this make me feel better?” the patient asks. The patient and the doctor shared the same goal in curing an ailment, but there was a difference in wills. The patient’s will was to be comfortable. To FEEL better. The doctor’s was to actually fix the problem. The patient was looking for instant gratification while the doctor was addressing the immediate medical priority AND the long term health of the patient. The doctor’s will may not be immediately inherent, but when you stand back and look at what all is going on and also realize that he is not just diagnosing you but hundreds of others don’t you think that what the doctor provided the patient was ultimately more beneficial than what was asked for? Trying to keep myself from writing a novel of a blog, this is the best I can describe what I see God as right now. There’s so much more to God than what I can describe at any point in time.

That’s what determines the scope of my God box: my ability to intuit God. My God box only exists to break God into digestible, bite-size pieces. It’s like a television, which is only capable of showing you what is able to fit onto film. What you see on the screen implies so much more, but you are not able to experience it in its entirety. As time passes, my God box seems to grow bigger and bigger to accomodate for my rapidly expanding image of God, and with each passing evaluation He becomes harder to contain into a box. My God box becomes more strained as I stretch it out. So what is going to happen when it reaches it’s limit? Is it going to halt in it’s tracks? Or is it going to split at the seams and bottom out? Is it going to be too much for me and I’ll just give up on it all? The problem becomes more than just being able to find out what God is. It also becomes an issue of preparing myself to experience more of what He is. It becomes an issue of my integrity as a vessel for God.

And after all that is said and done, after we have established a God box…what does it matter? What was it’s purpose? All we did was construct an image of Him, we never found Him. Wasn’t the God box constructed to help us see God in His entirety? How does it do that by cutting it into pieces? How does it help us see the big picture when all it is capable of doing is showing us a small window into what God is? How can we know who God is by making up our own idea of Him? One thing we must be aware of when constructing this God box is that what we see in it IS NOT GOD. It is our projections that we place onto what we believe God is. What we see in the God box we are more than willing to name God Himself. As DeMello said in Awareness, “people fall into idolatry because they think that where God is concerned, the word is the thing.” We construct a description of who we think God is then we fall into the rut of worshipping that, forgetting that it was only a guess at who He is. DeMello wrote about how he was confronted by a world-renowned scripture scholar. “It never struck me that I had been an idol worshipper all my life! My idol was not made of wood or metal; it was a mental idol.” DeMello reminded his readers that those that had constructed their own mental idol were the more dangerous idol worshippers because “they used a very subtle substance, the mind to produce their God.”

Maybe I was never meant to contain God in a box. Maybe I wasn’t meant to contain Him within me, this body serving as a Temple. How could all of what God is be within me? Maybe I’ve been using the wrong word this whole time. I’m not a vessel, I’m a conduit. I am a channel through which He flows through. Right now, the God box seems irrelevant. My experience and my ideas of God right now have surpassed any words that I am capable of expressing right now.  Right now it doesn’t feel like I could fit what I’m feeling inside a box and I’m all the better for it.





Manhood Survey

20 04 2009

So I finally read The Oracle, the university newspaper at TTU. The editorial editor wrote an article on manhood. I saw nothing that had to do with manhood, just a lot of blaming man for the horrible world we live in, making good vs. evil a black and white issue, and discriminating against homossexuals. Regardless, I think you guys should read it. I’ve provided a link here: The World Sucks, It Is Someone’s Fault.

What does “manhood” look like? What does it mean to be a “real” man? What does it mean to be a manly man or a man’s man?

Manhood looks different with each person, specific to each man, because it’s more about what he does and less about what he looks like to others. For this reason, I don’t like the terms “manly man” or “man’s man”. Those type of men are trying to find affirmation based upon the regards of other men. I think it’s mindless. A real man isn’t defined by how he interacts with others; he defines himself.

What are some of the key attributes or characteristics of a “real” man?
A real man should always be searching, always looking for ways to better himself. He shouldn’t be afraid of being wrong, and should recognize when he is. Women are not beneath him, nor are they above him. He should not objectify women, either. Most importantly, a man should have his own values and be his own person. Sir Richard Francis
Burton put it perfectly: “Do what thy manhood bids thee do,/ From none but self expect applause;/ He noblest lives and noblest dies /Who makes and keeps his self-made laws.”

What does true manhood look like in the home and at work? What is the proper role of a man in the home, at work, and in the community?
I think a man should never make expectations of others that he wouldn’t fulfill himself. He should help out his own family and, while holding his family to a high standard, he should hold himself to a higher standard. That being said, housework isn’t something to be delegated to wives only. HELP HER OUT A LITTLE!  If he’s letting society determine what is right for him to do or not do, then he’s not thinking for himself. Work is not life, it’s just an aspect of it. It shouldn’t keep a man from spending time with his family or work on his own goals. However, work shouldn’t be seen as a vehicle for making money. He should apply himself to his work. Same with the community: he should apply himself for the benefit of others, not himself. The key here is balancing all these aspects of life.
When does a boy crossover and become a man? Is there a particular age or set of events that mark him as a man?
Manhood is relative to each individual, I’d say, so there is no specific age range or set of events that mark him as a man. Nor do I think it’s a singular event where one minute you’re a boy then BAM you’re a man. It’s a progression that lasts until a man dies. I do think, however, there is a landmark along the way from which it’s almost impossible to regress from. It’s seen as a series of intuitive leaps and personal experiences. He finds something he’s passionate about and he acts upon it. His vocabulary increases dramatically, he suddenly finds the right words to describe precisely how he feels, and he becomes more in touch with himself, distinguishing his neuroses from his true thoughts. He becomes a man because he becomes himself, finally knowing who that person is for the first time.
What events and/or people have shaped your thinking on this subject? If there is a particular person or two that have shaped your thinking, what was it about them that left an impression on you?
A close friend of mine from home, Bethany Herron, asked me one night what church I went to. I didn’t go to one at that time. I considered myself a Christian, but along with not going to church I didn’t do anything else with my Christianity. I was stagnant, content with where I was, content with saying I believed in Him and leaving it at that. That called me to get up and do something about it. It also made me look at other aspects of my life where I was content. Was I stagnant in other parts of my life? If I considered myself to be a man, what was I doing to establish and improve myself as a man?
I’m not saying Christianity is what makes someone a man.I’m not even saying religion makes someone a man. I’m saying Christianity is what helped make ME a man. Allah, Buddha, or lack thereof are just as capable at doing this. Ultimately, the man is responsible for making himself a man.
Are there any essays, books or other literature you’ve read that give you insight or clarity?
Currently reading Awareness by Anthony DeMello, which helps you observe yourself and how you look at others
Emerson’s The American Scholar. The thinking man vs. Man Thinking is something I believe every man should be aware of.
Beyond that, it’s what you’re most passionate about that determines what literature can serve as a gateway to insight. Mine was The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.




A Collection of Thoughts: Christianity

11 04 2009

I’m so tired mentally, it’s been hard keeping up with the regular blog posts lately. I just don’t have the drive to write anything that makes me think. It’s the most inconvenient time to feel that way, as I’m being confronted with several issues that are calling for my attention: Christianity, responsibility, self control with alcohol, my views on sex, and generativity.

3076_1072596532432_1151709340_30192689_5421042_n.jpgConcerning my Christianity, a lot of my concern has been sparked by my recent inconsistency with going to church. I just feel so guilty, whether it’s for rational or irrational reasons. Why am I feeling so guilty? I’ve been putting it off because with nursing school and personal time and my philosophy group and home errands all vying for a slot in my weekend schedule, Church gets put on raincheck. A lot of the guilt comes from my mother telling me how I would go to hell for not attending Church. Attending Church seemed to be the way she gauged how good of a Christian somebody was. Bleh, I hate that feeling, but it’s ingrained in me pretty deep. An extra kick in the balls came when I drove by a mob right off of Dixie St. near South Patio of Tennessee Tech, where I go. Sticking out of the mob was a huge banner saying “Turn to Jesus or Burn in Hell”. A head-turner, but what piqued my interest was the fact that some of my militant atheist friends were in the rabble. I parked nearby and walked over to see what the hell was going on.

Turned out there was an evangelist by the name of John making some pretty condemning statements and there were people gathering around, some yelling back at him. Initially, I was rather disgusted with what he had to say. He was spouting nothing but hate and damnation in the effort of scaring people into Christianity. Where was that going to get someone? What is the quality of faith of a Christian guided by fear? John was playing on their fear of death, on their fear of hell and damnation. Sometimes, I wish heaven and hell had never been mentioned to humans because I think it skews the true motives of a Christian. The ultimate goal of Christianity shouldn’t be a reward/punishment complex.

So there he was, shouting the Gospel as he saw fit, ignoring “foolish questions” and speaking over them. The opposing side wasn’t squeaky clean either. Students were spitting at his feet, blowing smoke at him, flashing porn, exercising their poor understanding and recognition of logical fallacies (quick note: pointing out a contradiction that has no relevance to the argument has not made anybody look smart since the sixth grade). There was even a point near the end when some of the students came back with posters saying “Honk if you love beer”, “Honk if you love porn”. I didn’t know what to think other than both sides were being idiots. Other than that, I felt pretty conflicted on how respond to it, if at all.

What I saw was a lot of fear and hate. Hate in John’s words, fear in his avoidance from certain confrontations. Hate from the spiteful students, and fear from those who continued to spite him. Fear from the Christian students who had felt that same way I had felt to some degree. They tried to confront him, tried to tell him that there were those who believed, to which he replied “I’m not here for you, I’m here for the unsaved. If you believe, then go and tell them the Truth,” to which they retreated a few feet and prayed. I chose to abstain from the prayer because I wouldn’t have been praying for the right reasons. It wouldn’t have been for John, it wouldn’t have been for the “unsaved”, it wouldn’t have been for God. Rather, it would have been at God asking for him to forgive me, to wash my hands of all that toxic feeling. That wasn’t the time to be thinking about myself, I thought. Instead, I kept on listening to John and to the few sincere questions that were asked and he would respond to amidst all the jeering and honking.

I don’t know about anybody else who was there, but I felt the love that had come from him. Beneath his vanity and his hate and his fear, there was a lot of love in what he had to say. If any of you remember my blog a while back about hypocrisy, this is a shining example of that post. Most of what John said may have been skewed or out of context, but it wasn’t entirely untrue. There was a teaching value to his words. To the best of his abilities and understanding, he was trying to help others, although not entirely for their sakes. In his eyes, by spending his money on a banner, by driving out two whole hours, by standing up to the heathens, the smokers, the prostitutes, the Sodomites he was a warrior on behalf of God. That was how he showed God his love.

And don’t think he wasn’t listening to those jeers. Don’t think he didn’t notice the spit at his feet. He was fighting back the look of defeat near the end and the only way he could hide it was by being more resolute. By making more accusations. He had to keep that warrior spirit in the face of evil. He wasn’t going to concede forfeiture. Down to the minute he left he was preaching, as flawed as everyone thought it was. In some ways it was noble, despite the foolishness of it.

Three days later I’m still trying to figure out what to think about it all. He might not have won over any Christians, but he kept me thinking in a time when I was staggering in my Christianity so I hope he didn’t leave feeling that he had failed in his mission.





Anger Vs. Drama

8 03 2009

My philosophy group was having a discussion over How to Be An Adult by David Richo, PhD. I have yet to read this book, and I’m not in a big hurry to read it any time soon, but the topic of anger and how it differs from drama surfaced. What is this difference?

From what I understand, drama is linked to past experiences. For instance, a man might be sensitive to the word “whipped” or “tool”. If he is associated with either of those words, he may blow up because of his severe aversity to those words. This may  be due to a previous relationship or experience where he felt like he was being used. He may have been in a relationship where his opinion was void and his partner made all the decisions, and any similar situation may remind him of that negative relationship. Thus, his expressed anger would be a reaction to that past experience, not a present situation.

When a person feels offended or slighted due to a perceived similarity to this past experience, they manifest aggressive or passive aggressive behaviors. Aggressive anger is where you are considering your own feelings but are inconsiderate of others’ feelings when expressing your own. Passive aggressive is slightly different from aggressive in the fact that the passive aggressor is too afraid to address the other person for fear of a confrontation.

Drama is an exaggerated and inappropriate reaction towards a percieved offense, often fueled by an underlying fear that can be tied to a past experience. Once this reaction is expressed there is still a negative residue left behind, otherwise known as a grudge. The dramatic person chooses to hold on to the past experience because he or she feels that there is a payoff for holding on to it. Example: I could choose to hold onto my middle school years, a time when I was constantly bullied, because I believe that by holding onto it others would feel guilty for me and show me pity. I would be considering pity as a surrogate for love. My payoff would be that pity/love.

If I had dropped that drama, if I stopped referring to my middle school years, what cause would I have to be angry? Holding onto my middle school experiences produces unnecessary anger. That is what I understand drama to be.

Anger, on the other hand, I believe to be severely misunderstood or at least in need of redefining. I believe anger is anchored more in the present than drama. Anger, to me, is a feeling that expressed assertively. That means, the person who feels offended expresses his anger appropriate to the action that offended him. In expressing his anger, he is considering himself but considers the feelings of others while expressing his own. I believe expressing anger is necessary because each person has the right to consider his own needs and wants. A person is not wrong for asserting their own rights.

Once the anger is expressed, it dissipates for good. There isn’t any ill will to hold on to. It’s in the past, and is no longer applicable to present situations. Isn’t that a beautiful thought: living in the present? Living in the past or dwelling on the future only brings up drama and anxiety. Do you need either of those to improve your quality of life? What benefits are there to dropping these frivolities?





On Nonduality

2 03 2009

I was rereading Being Peace by Thich Nhat Hahn with my philosophy group when a friend of mine posted to our email listserv about her confusion over the concept of self-compassion in nonduality in response to Hahn’s quote, “If you cannot be compassionate to yourself, you will not be able to be compassionate to others.”  Here was what she had to say:

To me, compassion requires a separate entity that acts as the object receiving the compassion.  I looked up the definition, and compassion is ’sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.’    Compassion comes from compati, meaning ‘to suffer with.’  But if there are not two, there can be no ‘with,’ there is only one ‘nondual’ thing, and that is everything; therefore compassion and sympathy are impossible.

And here was my response:

I think you saw compassion as distancing because the definition used the word “sympathy” as opposed to “empathy”. Whereas empathy is where you feel what the other person is feeling, investing themselves in you, sympathy implies at least some degree of objectiveness or disinterestedness. It is my impression that the accuracy of words is something that is important to you right now. I.e. there is a difference between the words “beautiful” and ”pretty”. If my supposition is true, then that could be a big factor as to why you can’t fully make the concept of nonduality your own. Here we have a concept called nonduality claiming that we only perceive that there are dichotomies, and we are working on dichotomizing the building blocks of communication: words.

Even though I don’t fully grok nonduality, myself, I’ll try to explain what I can understand about it. I think what the concept of nonduality is trying to say is that we are not different from each other, we are not separate. However, we do not exist as one being. We are all connected. We are part of a cycle. Each individual is not separate; he is part of something bigger. He is part of a circuit that could not exist without him. He can not exist as his own separate entity, because if the circuit cannot exist without him, likewise he cannot exist without the circuit. So we do not exactly exist as one; we exist in relation to each other and all compose a sum greater than its parts.

In terms of an analogy, a picture I get of the compassion/nonduality complex is like the body. The heart pumps oxygenated blood to the extremities of the body. From the cor of the body to the fingertips and toes. Like compassion, the heart is affecting something beyond itself. It is supplying oxygen rich blood to the limbs. However, it must also supply oxygen to itself (coronary arteries). If it cannot supply oxygen to itself, how can it supply oxygen to something distal to itself? You must start at the center before you can radiate out. This applies to both the heart and compassion. Furthermore, on the theme of “oneness”, the heart and limb vascularity are both apart of the same system, connected in a continuous loop….I’m not too happy with my own analogy but I think it does its job well enough.

On another, complementary level the dichotomy of self/nonself does not exist in the concept of nonduality. Having said that, reevaluate what TNH said: “”If you cannot be compassionate to yourself, you will not be able to be compassionate to others.” Also, with the concept of nonduality, does the dichotomy of duality/nonduality exist?

Personally, I just can’t make this concept mine at this time, and I’m fine with that. I think I resent the concept for reasons I’d have to sit down and think about, and I’m not about to make something I resent a fundament of my life. I’m not going to try to make it mine because Thich Nhat Hahn said I should. I might never make it mine, but if I do one day, I will make it mine because I chose to, not because a monk, regardless of his wisdom, told me to do so.





Taking a Hypocrite’s Advice

24 02 2009

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?

23 02 2009

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

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.





On Vegetarianism

3 02 2009

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.




Vent: Hitting the Critical Point of Sociability

29 01 2009

I think I’ve hit my threshold for people at the moment.I feel like I’m a balloon that’s been filled too full of air and all of a sudden I’ve popped from all that built up pressure. As soon as I got home, I just flopped over into bed and felt like rolling up into a ball and dying. I wouldn’t have minded if a plane fell from the sky and crash-landed on my house, crushing me underneath. I feel mentally and physically drained, tense all up and down my back. My heart is trying to beat out of my chest and my stomach is thrashing all about inside of me right now. 

Standing back and looking at why I have only so much tolerance for large groups of people, I’m starting to see into why that threshold is there in a first place. After spending so much time around so many people, ironically, I start to feel more alone than ever. I’m a “one-on-one” type of person. I connect best with people when it’s just one person at a time. Really, since the New Year started, I haven’t had the chance to build a personal connection with anybody. Lately, it’s been more of a cocktail party kind of mentality. I wander around, spend a few minutes with this person then a few minutes with that person. I’m constantly moving from one person to the next. In a way, that’s really overwhelming for me. There’s all these people, but I’m not really getting deep with anybody. I’m just uncovering a bit of what’s on the surface across a broad expanse of people. I’m not taking time to sit down with anybody in particular. After so much of that, it just feels like I’m in a room full of cardboard cutout people. I feel alone.

I forgot what it was like to have a truly deep conversation. To truly connect with someone. To just share the carpet with somebody, lying on my back, and stare at the ceiling as I talk about nothing in particular. To just float along with nothing to anchor me to the earth but the voice of the other person, something cardboard cutouts can’t do. 

I used to spend time like that with Amanda all the time, back when I wasn’t bogged down with nursing school. She’d call me up around 2 in the morning and we’d walk down to the Bryan Fine Arts and lie on the benches in the lobby and ramble about life. To me, that’s what life is all about. Bethany coming over this weekend reminded me of that; what it was like to take time and sit down and appreciate life. Truthfully, I was a little sour from the philosophy meeting I was at tonight. I was spending time with her at my house, but I left a little early so that I could prepare for leading a discussion on Siddartha, since I had committed myself to it. The discussion never happened and Bethany left for home before I got out of the meeting.

I’m over it now. I spent plenty of quality time with her as it was, so I can’t really complain. Just a few minutes lost isn’t going to kill me. If she hadn’t decided to randomly pop up this weekend, I probably would have gone insane from nursing school. I think I’ll finish off this post with some of the things this week that have helped me to appreciate life in this stressful time: Mary Ellen’s MAGIC cookies, cooking chili with Justin, protecting Bethany from the zombies at the deserted Cookeville Mall, sitting out on the deck in the morning and sipping tea, miscellaneous hugs.

Ok, time to sleep. Night.