House of the Holy

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him." (1 John 5:14-15) From what I understand, a prayer is a personal praise or request, intended for an omnipotent being or other consciousness. Is it safe to make this broad assertion for the sake of this conversation, or is it necessary to breakdown the individual techniques, styles, and versions of the prayer concept? I mean, there are people that state prayer to be an internally aimed directive, or a socially-bonding inspiration (see: Jonathan Edwards). Whatever the case, I am going to understand it as a communication to a being or consciousness other than oneself, intended for the sake of personal therapy or miracle. So, what makes a “successful” prayer? When players are holding hands, praying for a field goal that pushes wide-right, is success measured by a miss (see: Scott Norwood)? When someone prays for the well-being of a loved one with cancer, is success the annihilation of the ailment, or is it the process of a relatively quick and painless passing? At Easter dinner, when the family gives thanks for the food before them, no matter how bountiful, is the fact that there is an acknowledgement of appreciation a success?

"We must be our own before we can be another's."

I have heard about and considered the idea that "love" does not exist. Love is a chemical reaction. Love is an emotional crutch that we can liken to anything else that provides us with a security blanket. This basic tenant of the human experience (as well as that of many animals) is a fallacy. I was reading about this idea last night, and at first it came across as crass and overly analytical. It doesn't matter if its a chemical reaction, or if it demonstrates a fault in confidence or character...its still a great feeling, and one that I can't imagine living without. However, if I bounce the initial thought of a loveless existence off my idea of our purpose in this life, which is strictly scientific and evolutionary, I would have to call myself a hypocrite for buying into the drunken euphoria that is our sense of love. Its no different than considering God's existence for the sake of feeling more orderly and purposeful in life. Unconsciously, this is a common occurrence. I can't expect anyone to consider that any of my philosophical ideas hold water if I bend some rules around my logic for the sake of seeming like a good, sensitive guy within the public mainframe. I would be just as guilty of manufacturing the truth-value of a new religion as those who do so with the Bible today. So, I continued reading. As I read on about this idea, it started to open a new train of thought. What was being explained is that real love is not what it is taken for today. Its not the Romeo and Juliet poetry, nor is it the innate love we possess for a relative. Love is not an outward-motioned sentiment attributed to another creature or object. You don't supply love, and you can't make someone happy by loving them. Love is how you feel about yourself and your place in life. If you develop a reliable sense of love from within, your actions are unconsciously loving. If someone else makes you develop your own sense of self-worth and self-interest, you may develop an affinity for that person. You may seek out his or her acquaintance, and may miss him or her when absence. But, this longing and fellowship is not the essence of love. If we reference the love between a couple, or the Romeo and Juliet sense of romanticism, how does this idea of love relate? Its not very complicated. If you have not developed an adequate sense of self-worth, you will develop a sense of love for your partner similar to that of a drug addict and his next fix. You need the chemical reaction, and you need the security. It may not even be that your partner's finest characteristics are tantalizing to you, but rather that your partner has vowed to honor you, be available to you, and adore you. But, that vow may be the result of various factors, including age, family pressure, lust, or community status. This is what makes matrimony so tricky. The smartest and most sincere people can still get caught up in the whirlwind of romanticism. However, it does not mean that this person feels love in its root sense. This is not to say that love cannot develop with your partner, and reach beyond romanticism. Your partner may have the talent and self-assurance to be an example for you, and guide you (even if unconsciously) towards a better, more loving view of yourself and your life. But, what I think what needs to be considered is if the match is such where these pieces fit. I see this philosophy as so basic in structure (love oneself, THEN, love others), but yet so difficult in action. Take another example...your love for a parent or additional relative. Love is assumed, but I see this as a result of the developmental role in your life. Your mother nurtures you, and your father disciplines you...or vice-versa. They have assisted you in becoming who you are. If you like who you are, you assume a responsibility and undying gratitude for their years of service. You are a shadow being raised in their being, and you appreciate them for this. Is this the feeling of love? Its beyond the romanticism that we feel with a partner, so isn't this nearly a tangible and indisputable sentiment? Is it acceptable to consider that you may not "love" your parents? The feeling you have is an appreciation and likeness for their efforts, but you feel love within yourself for it. The internalized sense is love. If you like who you are, they are credited with having created an energy within you that you will never be able to repay. Their duty was to harness the positive in your life, and allow you to proceed accordingly. In essence, what the essay in question did for me was help me accept that love is not a gift that can be given. Its not an connection between two people. Its an unconscious feeling of value that can be attributed to the development and cycling of emotions. You can learn about love from others, but you cannot receive love from others. This does not de-value the love between people (partners or family), but it removes the tendency to rely on others to give it to you. If you take value in who you are, and move forward accordingly, your relationships become easier to understand and foster. If love is taken as a gift that is exchanged, it becomes susceptible to human tragedies and fauts Its an interesting concept. I hope it does not come across as de-valuing love, because that is not my point. My point is that its not a toy. I still say 'i love you' when the feelings are strong. I still fall into the paradise of romanticism. But, maybe we should conceptualize love as an essence that is not to be handled and mishandled. Maybe it can be thought of as the natural perpetuation of goodness. There are no people, places, or things connected to this.

The Long Arm of the Law

I was thinking about the concept of intent recently, and how it relates to crime and punishment. My knowledge on law-making and the justice system as a whole is quite limited, so I speak from a cloudy vantage point.

How important is intent within the justice system? Can it be a damning factor in and of itself when in a court of law? Can it be an augmenting factor when paired with circumstantial evidence? Because intent is not tangible, and the law tends towards tangible proof, what does intent contribute to a case?

Intent carries a heavy weight with me. An action is preceded by intent, otherwise intent does not exist as a precursor to action because its the result of impulse or instinct. On one side, you have an action that is carried-out based on fear, anger, or sheer surprise. In our justice system, it matters not. The action was carried out, and its mindlessness does not deny its repercussions. Intent, however, is mindful. It demonstrates an awareness of your surroundings and the repercussions of your actions. This carries with it a burden. Its not a mistake when an action is intended.

If we agree that intent is deliberate by definition, then we must consider a crime with intent to be the product of a menace to society. If someone desires to kill, and carries out his intent, he demonstrates that he intends to harm, and will do so again if a similar sentiment arises. Intent leads to action, the combination of the two is exponentially damning.

Can we agree to that? Someone intended to kill and did so...its not just murder, its murder with intent.

This leads me to the concept that I am struggling with...without intent, how should the crime be judged? In the case of a murder, its difficult to determine. With intent, the murder is cold in nature, and the verdict is easy. But, what about the drunk driver that kills a sober driver on his way home from the bar? Initially, you may say that the action was still that someone was killed, and it makes no difference that there was not intent because a life has been lost. Understood...and that is how our justice system works in the vast majority of these cases.

Now, what if that drunk driver was a 40-year old married mother of 3 that had a BAC of .08 because her children were out of town staying with Grandma? What if the drunk driver was a first-time offender? What if the sober driver took an illegal turn, or simply a questionable turn, and initiated the action? What if the other driver was not in fact sober, but had a BAC of .04?

I feel that intent must come into play with a heavy hand. Don't play holier than thou with this scenario...we have all driven home "drunk" in our day. Are you a menace to society? Are you a cold-blooded killer? I realize that something tragic and unfortunate has happened, and a family may be losing a major part of their life with the loss of the killed party. But, does that justify ruining another life, or another family? If the intent to kill is not present, where do we draw the line for incarceration?

You can think about in a few ways...if the drunk driver* was hammered beyond belief, and has a history of this action, it may behoove the courts to consider her a menace to society. Intent is implied (and thus the problem of tangibility) because its become apparent that this individual refuses to respect the laws of responsibility and accountability.

But, if history shows that this person has not been a menace, and the intent was to remain within the law's definition of "beyond the limit," then the court MUST look at things with a microscope. Its not good enough to claim that the law is the law, and she was drunk so she goes to jail. According to that logic, you will throw her in prison in the same cell as a convicted murderer who shot someone point-blank, because they both committed the same crime. This is not acceptable. The law is not perfect, nor is it fool-proof. Its a basis, and we must use it as springboard into logical thinking. We cannot deny our ability to use cognition. We cannot point to a static book of laws and convict accordingly. If that is the table at which you sit, you are irresponsible. It is not acceptable to incarcerate for the sake of legitimizing another life's value. I realize that someone very special to another family has died here. But, our justice system should not adopt the "eye for an eye" mentality by ruining another life...especially when intent is not present. If the guilty party has intent, and is considered a menace, we have a case to convict in order to avoid future disasters. However, if intent is not present, its our duty to unravel the onion and get to the core of the crime.

* The term that has latched itself to someone who drives home with a BAC of .08 (or even .06 at police discretion), is faulty. It implies a mis-represented character. The intent of the term was to make the labeled individual feel so dirty and despicable that he or she would not drive again after drinking. Given that roughly 70% of Americans drink (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/people-of-class-drink-alcohol/), its judgemental and likely hypocritical to put on such a facade of classlessness.

The Christian Nation and Altruism

When viewed on a cursory level, the symmetry between Christian values and Republican policy is undeniable. I say this without a shudder despite its encompassing claim, because its calling a spade a spade. When you associate fervently with the Republican party, you are accepting the concept that you will be lumped with the Christian following, even when Christianity does not describe your faith. Politics is constructed on this framework. Groups title themselves in order to gain momentum and strength on generally agreeable theories of government. Individual concepts may be discussed in house, but when presenting to the masses, party lines will generally remain steadfast. As I see it, it should not be a point of contention for non-Christian Republicans, but rather an acknowledgement that demonstrates your intuitive understanding of our religious and political infrastructures.


Going further, the Republican Party is readily perceived as the "patriotic" party when compared to its Democratic and Independent teammates (we are all on Team USA, right?). Proudly sporting the red, white, and blue, nearing the point of entitlement. Perceiving international security as an offensive rather than a defensive, because we know best. Seeing inclusivity as a matter of earning rather than right. Fill in with your own opinions...

...how about: hypocritically alienating all that are not them. The relationship between Republican doctrine and Christian value is peculiar. The Christian philosophy as it relates to Jesus stakes claim in an altruistic lifestyle. It prods all followers to be proactive in their faith, but also be pragmatic in their actions: be Jesus-like. I do not see the Republican/Christian status quo making advances towards inclusivity and connectivity. Again, VERY broadly, I see it quite the contrary. Pro-lifers blame without context. Republican health care speakers desire human prioritization rather than human preservation. Fiscal conservatives emphasize the Patton offensive in the military rather than diplomatic harmonization.

What is Christian about Republican reality? The Party may be Christian, but what about the reality? Privatization reigns supreme in Republican philosophy. Put up the walls and lock the door. The government is good for defense, but should not assist in caring for those in need. They are outside the wall, and its not a concern what happens to them.

If this is a Christian tenant, its no wonder I lost vigor for the faith...its rooted in hypocrisy. Its far from humanistic (keep in mind, its not that these people are bad in nature, just naive in culture), and it breeds a contempt for the less fortunate. This country is FULL of less fortunate. The founding principals of this country were based on the entrepreneurial spirit; the Manifest Destiny. Some people in this country don't thrive in that environment. Some people were born in a world that does not allow them to decipher their strengths. I am a proponent of overcoming all negativity that is presented to me. The reason I adopt this philosophy is because of the building blocks that have strengthened me. Not everyone has those building blocks, and thus its infinitely more difficult to overcome even relatively simple tasks.

I don't want to be Republican if it embodies Christianity. I want to adapt. I want to be circumstantial. I don't want to be static and doctrinal. Look, learn, evaluate, and act...that is doctrinal as I want to get.

The inverse of Republican Christianity is Democratic Agnosticism. There are many holes in this philosophy, as well. However, if we are trending, I would rather trend towards seeking and learning rather than fitting all circumstances into my worldview. I would rather raise too many questions if the other option is to ask too few. I would rather measure twice and cut once, because it insures the pieces fit, rather than forcing a long board in a short bracket.

The Tip-Toe Effect

How do we open the line of conversation about faith and logic in religious thought?

When the subject of religious thought is brought up (as uncommon and unpopular as it may be), its like fingernails on the chalkboard for me to hear: "Well, my opinion is that I have faith. You are entitled to your opinion." Why is this acceptable? You are entitled to your own opinion, because its in your head and nobody can control what thoughts come into your head. But, when the subject is brought into the world of dialog, your opinion becomes reality. Its your brain-child; your opinion takes on life! I do not find it acceptable to make a claim about the purpose of life without the ability to justify your reasoning.

Further, I do not find it acceptable for society to take a sensitive stance on debate/conversation on this subject. It has become the status quo to allow for an arching truth claim, and protect it under the umbrella of opinion. We all realize that there is no way to prove a position on the subject of religion at this point in the game. It would be delusional to suggest such. What not all of us realize, however, is that your level of confidence in your worldview is plain to all when we witness your desire or ability to charge your case. Beyond the topic of religion, I can't think of a claim that does not require evidence. One's comfort in supporting a claim is based on this idea. It can be regarded as insanity to claim something without reason.

Why, then, is it the trend to be supportive of another's opinions if they are not backed with reason? I'm not talking about the bumper sticker that reads "COEXIST" with the symbolic inlay. This is not meant to spark a roadside debate with the driver of the dawning vehicle. In this case, its simply meant to offer religious tolerance as an alternative to religious intolerance; the debate remains, peacefully. When opening the topic of the purpose of life, why is it not standard to state your belief (innately understood as an opinion) and provide evidence for it.


The argument has been presented that our purpose on earth is too "elite" for our understanding, and thus it is acceptable to have faith, and it will all become clear to us upon entering the realm that we are yet to experience. I'm willing to bet that this same ineffability was applied to many concepts that we have today rationalized. For example, imagine if there was not the dedication to the art of flying. Is it right to say that 200-300 years ago, flying was beyond our concept of reality? Was it fantasy? Yet today, it has become a complex and ever-adapting world necessity.

This is not to say that flying and eternal purpose can be deducted along the same path. But, it is to say that we have witnessed the embrace of one formally incomprehensible concept, and yet refuse to make an attempt at the rational sense of another. I refer back to a previous blog of mine that compares the American justice system and religious thought. One is founded on logic and reason, and the other on faith and mysticism.

Focusing again, this alternate realm of existence (Heaven, etc) is held in the highest regard because it is the Emerald City to our yellow-brick road. Well, to open up the line of conversation between faith and logic, we need rationalize our yellow-brick road. We need to stop thinking of the Emerald City as an unimaginable reality, and start translating it into our pragmatic existence. If you are going to "walk with Christ" to the gates of Heaven, I want to see your footsteps. I don't want to hear that you conceptualize your footsteps with faith and hope. You owe us a breakdown of your daily steps if you are willing to claim allegiance to his path. You owe us a peek at the reality of your claim. Spread the word with reason, not with fluffy claims. If your path is not tangible, if you cannot show me your footsteps, if you cannot put your faith into reality, you are no more justified than someone who sits in their room and "prays" about music, and once a week goes to a band shell or bar to "worship" music by playing it aloud. Life is tangible whether you like it or not, and its not acceptable to pull the reality of life into your cloud of irrationality.

Spoiled Oysters

The general population at the college at which I attended was and is very liberal-minded. Green-lifestyles, intolerance of intolerance, etc. For the sake of simplicity, it could be described as a real time Politically Correct University (PCU).

Additionally, throughout my college stint, I visited other college campuses and thus was fortunate enough to experience a wide spectrum of environments (state-school anonymity, pretentious indifference, etc.). As I look back, I am thrilled that I received the education and experience I did at my college, while being afforded the highlights of other schools.


The purpose of me setting the stage like this is to acknowledge that the window through which my worldview and ethos blend into my opinion is not hinged solely on my own campus bubble, or even my own hometown rituals (if you dig further). I pivot from an able-minded perspective, in terms of American culture.

This brings me to my rant. I see a parallel smugness within sects of today's green-living idealists, that is both alienating and hypocritical. Here are a pair of examples...

A)
In college, it was (and probably still is) often the case that the most unkempt and non-conformist students were also the most financially stable. They could have their hair professionally dread-locked in order to speed up the development of the persona that they were trying to become. Living green meant driving the beamer to the Cities to buy the best weed and most expensive "cheap" t-shirt.

Maybe I bought it when I was in college, because my mind was a mixing bowl of ideas and personal maturation, unable decide if I wanted to join or dissolve such groups. Maybe I am being a hypocrite because I am not acknowledging what persona I was taking on through said years, or how I have changed since. Nonetheless, from my point of view today, I recall a smug level of provocation from said factions. Maybe it wasn't smug; maybe it was just the presentation that provoked me. There was very little middle-ground in his or her being. He or she came from a wealthy family on the Upper East side of NYC, but adopted the idea of being a struggling proletariat. Can you do that? Were said individuals moderate versions of Chris McCandless, claiming financial indifference at school but vacationing in Long Island during the summer?

In this example, I may be unfairly judging them by claiming that they smugly provoke judgement. But, the truth is, I felt provoked! I remember feeling a distinct gap in my ability to relate and interact with some of the "filthy" rich and those of more moderate upbringing. It was a gap that I could not be overcome with conversation. I was not rich, and I did not choose to be a hippy. Thus, I just didn't understand. This provoked me, because I saw it as a smug and uneducated jab at my character.

----------------

B)
The second incendiary example is actually the one that got me started on this soapbox in the first place: Whale Wars. Now, THIS is a prime case of smug provocation. Those aboard the Sea Shepherd truly believe that they are justified in their claims that they are peaceful beacons of wildlife preservation. While their cause may be noble, their tactics are subject to question. They throw stink bombs on Japanese whaling decks to irritate the crew and spoil the whale meat. They board said ships with stern notes detailing how distasteful their agendas are and how they are subject to international sanctions if they do not high-tail it back to Japan. In their most recent debacle, they got t-boned by one of the ships by steering their exclusive "bat-boat" into the path of a moving whaler ship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodmAuN7R3U). In adjoining interviews, the captain and members of the crew describe their role in the interactions as "unprovoked aggression."

Reflect on that.

??!!?!?!

Unprovoked? Am I missing something? The issue of right and wrong is not at play here. I am not commenting on the justice of such actions. The Sea Shepherd crew may very well be conducting some sort of vigilante goodwill. The issue here is the delusion that accompanies entry onto the Sea Shepherd, believing that these actions are peaceful and unprovoking. They are hippy pirates! Like Timothy Treadwell, they live in an idealistic euphoria with wildlife, and they let it guide reality. The reality is, they are resting on their haunches of world preservation in order to justify their attacks.

The congruence here is the lack of temperance. In college, it was the rich embodying the life of the poor. With Whale Wars, it is the peaceful waging war. Both scenarios demonstrate a reliance on polar opposites to define their perspective. Did the rich kids not see the hypocrisy in their ways? Do the whale activists not see the hypocrisy in their ways? This concept can permeate into other realms. Can Democrats ever adopt a Republican policy, or does it have to immoderately split down party lines? To put it boldy, think in moderation.

I don't' know.

God for sale!

In a very Seinfield-esque vain, what's with this trend of college football players broadcasting their latest Bible read on their eye-black stickers and/or with magic-marker on their arm?

For instance, let's look at Tim Tebow. I realize that Tim Tebow is one of the most celebrated college football players of all-time, and he is using that platform to advertise his faith because he believes in its importance to eternal well-being. I mean, its not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the athletes or musicians, or any of a number of other entertain professionals hedge from their celebrity status.

My issue in the case of these college athletes lies in the fact that their religious faith and opinions are being broadcast with the perceived intent of spreading the gospel on one of the biggest stages available (televised sports). This is not a Coke billboard, or an All-State advertisement, where our American consumerism benefits. This is a matter of personal values. Why does he think its acceptable to broadcast God like one might broadcast an iHop? Is this the direction we are heading in sports?

Its a two-fold issue for me, Tim. First, how extensively have you tested your Christian faith? Is college football your litmus test? Have the successes and failures of your college football career been guided by Ephesians, for instance? When you post a Bible verse on your eye-stickers, for the world to see, you are grouping yourself with a Christian community. You are acknowledging fully that you believe in God, the Bible, and the spirit of faith. Its not as if you are saying that only that verse is operative in your life.

Enter the recent Comedy Central viewing of "Borat." Recall the Christian church in Texas healing Borat from his agony from finding out that Pamela Anderson is not a virgin? Yeah, that is a Christian community...the one that you are tied to. If I got to sit down with you, and discuss your faith, you would likely separate yourself from this group. However, with your eye-stickers, you don't have that opportunity to specify your faith. Thus, until that point, you have grouped yourself with some version of the tongue-speaking "seizure" victims that feigned their way through that scene. Don't put it on us to dig deeper into what you mean when you advertise your Bible verse...we aren't looking to you for spiritual advice. By bolding wearing these stickers, you are volunteering information that allows us to tie your faith to whatever group we see fit.

Secondly, Tim, while you may think it noble to post your faith like a billboard, your efforts should concentrate on localized disciplining. Attend your Bible groups and your weekly church services. Blog your opinions and your thoughts about the social complexities of faith and service. Allow people to volunteer their time to listen to your cause, rather than choking us with Biblical piecemeal while we eat our wings and drink beer. Its not acceptable to make our college football viewing experience your own personal mission trip. We are already clouded with advertisements. Its NOT noble to bring more attention to yourself with the Bible verses, and then claim that you are simply trying to bring attention to God.

Its my opinion that God would be more impressed with you putting in work for the Holy Spirit via community and local groups. This affords you the ability to explain in detail why you believe what you do, and what effect it has on you.

I wonder if he will be sporting these stickers when he is playing slot for the Jaguars next year...??