I just thought I'd write down some of the things I think about. It might be fun, and I may learn from it. None of this is original. Most of it has been dicussed around the dinner table at home. Even if we haven't, somebody else has, I'm sure. But some people may not have talked about them or heard of them, so here's some things to think about. If you have anything you think I should know or think about, let me know by e-mail.
List of topics:
What is truth? Have you ever thought about the fact that a person's definition of truth depends on how they define truth? Did you know that to say truth is subjective, or as my friend says, "perception," is a very funny thing? Think about it. If you say that it is subjective, your statement therefore is subjective, and so is everyone else's. Therefore, you cannot get upset at someone else who says truth is objective because you don't believe in an absolute truth that says truth is subjective. Not only that, but if someone challenges your belief that truth is subjective, your arguement seems foolproof, because if it's all one's perception, it's just their personal belief so you don't have to listen to them anyway.
I just realized... someone who believes in relative truth wouldn't bother to look up "truth" in the dictionary. It wouldn't mean anything because it's just another person's perception. That's the scary thing about believing that there is no objective truth. You can never doubt yourself, so you will never be forced to change! How safe! How convenient!
Unless one believes in absolute truth (objective truth), one cannot believe in God. A belief in God relies on and requires a belief in objective truth.
Agnosticism: the belief that one cannot possibly know if there is or is not a God. It comes from the Greek "gnosis," meaning knowledge, and the prefix "a" which means "no" or "not." The word means "no knowledge." This really works very well for Americans today. If one believes that one cannot know God's status, there is no point in arguing about it or contemplating his existence. "After all," an agnostic would say, "what's the point? Because you can't know, all the thought would be fruitless." Another way of avoiding using an intellect that would bring you closer to a God you don't really like very much. A way of avoiding change and of avoiding what we Americans have been taught violates our freedom -- all those silly "religious rules." Agnosticism combined with nihilism (belief that nothing matters), and relativism (there is no truth, it's just personal opinion, personal truth), is very hard to defeat. It has everything necessary to repel any attack on its validity. (But, of course, it says there is nothing valid or invalid.)
I have a friend who really likes this group, so I looked them
up. I found the lyrics to all their songs. Interesting. It's
depressing, really, but there are some very interesting songs,
too. Maybe there is hope for the band, and maybe hope for my
friend? Take the song "Believe," for example. If you
leave out the first verse and the "dear" in the chorus,
it could really be a prayer to God. "i want to believe in
you and i heard you/ your song you sing a truth there's no other/
i want to believe in you." That's really how some people
feel, I'm sure. I've felt a little like that at times. My prayer
at the Elevation is always "Lord, I believe! Help my
unbelief!" I wonder if some atheists and agnostics ever wish
they believed. Someone once said "I know I'm not where I
would be if I still belived in God." I wonder if that
implies some sort of regret at not having Faith.
But back to the SP thing. "Bullet with Butterfly Wings."
Why would someone insist that they cannot be saved? Maybe it's
because they don't want to be saved. Like how a greedy man never
wants to be saved from his wealth. "Destination Unknown."
This song could have gone in the right direction, but instead of
looking to God for answers, the speaker gives up. Apathy. Oh, how
I loathe it! "Glynis." How can you believe in one love
when you don't see any point to life? "I Am One."
Somebody really doesn't understand Christianity. I noticed this
about SP: they constantly use religious imagery, but they use it
incorrectly, distorting Christian beliefs to make them sound
sick, unclean, perverted. "Not Worth Asking." If all
those questions are worthless, then the answers are worthless.
And because the answers would tell you about yourself, others,
and the truth, what they are saying is that those things are
worthless. It's a wonder SP has survived this long. If life is as
worthless as they make it out to be, why haven't they committed
suicide yet? (Yes, I know that's harsh. I'm not saying they
should, just that it would be the logical conclusion to all their
"thinking.") "Quiet." A fascinating song. It
has some very interesting ideas in it, but the problem is the
same. They know what they need, but are too apathetic to do
something about it. However, it does come close to really calling
people to do something about their life. "Suffer."
Probably the best song of theirs, but it still has that
fatalistic attitude. They seem to recognize salvation by Christ,
but also reject that salvation, saying that it cannot save them.
Some people interpret the "unforgivable sin" as the
denial of God's power to forgive.
I only picked what I thought were the best of Smashing Pumpkins'
songs. Most of them made very little sense or were about some
girl who had rejected the speaker.
I find myself needing to take a position. Do I want a boyfriend or not? It's a hard question in some ways. How many girls have never wanted a boyfriend at some point? We tend to have this idea that "if I don't have a boyfriend, I'm not a very pretty girl or I'm not an enjoyable person". One thing about having a boyfriend that struck me extra hard today at school is what other people assume a boyfriend and girlfriend do. Examples are holding hands, kissing, cuddling, and sometimes even sex. I don't want that, really. I want to have a friend that I can share my faith with, and who can help me grow in my love for God. I also want someone who will help me model Christ and the Church. I guess what I really want is a possible husband, not a boyfriend. Maybe someone can make such a person their boyfriend without other people assuming something immoral there, but I don't think I have that gift. So no, I do not want a boyfriend. Now I can honestly say that when someone asks me about it. I don't want a boyfriend. I want a friend in Christ who will teach me God's love.
And I know it can happen that way, too.
In English, we read the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the teacher said she had never been satisfied with the father's response to the elder son. I really wasn't able to convince her that his response was a good one, perhaps because I have struggled with it myself. After some more thought, I realized an interesting thing about the story, or rather what it causes us to feel. Could it be that the reaction we have to the father's response is the real purpose of his response? That feeling that the father owes the son is very like so many Christians' feelings toward God. Haven't we all heard someone say, "Why is God punishing me? I've been so faithful, followed all the rules!" One example is Job, from the Bible. This poor guy is so misinterpreted! When God lets the devil cause Job pain, Job gets very self-righteous. This is the response we often have to problems we have. Sometimes we do see people who are new to the faith and wonder why they have it so much better than us, or why their faith is so firm when ours shakes. And then there's the convert's problem with the father's promise. They might feel a little uncomfortable that they have been given so much even though they came in late. Maybe they feel guilty. Maybe they have that feeling we get when someone gives us a gift on a holiday when we completely forgot to get them one. They may feel that they don't deserve something equal to someone who has been faithful their whole life. This should prove to them all the more God's infinite love, but it probably makes them feel especially indebted to Christ.
I was reading from one of Paul's letters the other day, and it caused me to wonder if I would have been very miserable if I had lived when they firmly believed Jesus was coming back immediately. Would I have been more holy, closer to God than I am now? Would I be even more upset when I made mistakes? I already tend to beat myself up over small faults (often for very good reason). Would I do so even more if I was alive then? But then I was also thinking "Don't we still believe Jesus could come at any moment?" How would the world be different if we still had that sense of urgency? Do I have that idea of Christ's immediacy? I think I have some of it, maybe, but not nearly enough. Also, why did we lose that idea? Maybe because it's taken so long (of course, "I call all times soon" -- Aslan) for Him to come already. I also wonder if someday as this attitude continues to fade, people like Chuck Smith will cease to make end-times predictions. Maybe the reason Chuck Smith is so successful is because he has instilled that "fear" of the second coming in his followers. Why have we lost that?
I was thinking today about my vocation. (I'm still not sure what it is.) I know how much I would like to be a married person. It seems like such a beautiful sacrament! I would very much like to make a marriage work, and I definitely have the desire for a companion, someone to support me in my love for Christ, and someone for whom I can do the same. But then I was thinking about what Merton said to the novices about the desire to want to be married. It's something that monks have to deal with, so probably sisters and nuns do, too. So I wonder if my strong leaning towards marriage is what God is asking me to control, and give up marriage for life as a sister or nun. But then I do remember that Dad pointed out that Merton was talking to a group of people who had already made the commitment to be single, which I haven't. Dad also reminded me, probably coming largely from C. S. Lewis, that right now, at this moment, I am being called to the single life. And being called to do my Physics homework. :)
I don't fully understand why we can't keep the Holy Eucharist in our homes. Not that we've asked or anything, but I highly doubt they'd let us. It would be awesome, though - to have Jesus with you in the flesh whenever you want! I would love it! Some of my closest experiences of God have been when I'm able to just sit with him in the chapel, knowing he's only a few feet away. I wish he could stay in our house like that. But I do see why the Church would be uncomfortable with it, and I can kinda see the theological problem with it. The fact is that Jesus is just as present in everything else as in the Eucharist. I don't really understand this very well, but I hope that someday I will. I think the reason it is so much nicer to have the Eucharist there is because it's tangible.
The was an article in the paper today on a transsexual. My thought is that is seems to me that a lot of the problems we've been having with sexuality in this way is partially caused by fear. In this particular case, the poor man had finally accepted his masculinity and gotten married and had children when some doctor came out with a book that "validated" transsexuals. When the man found out about the book, all his previous problems came back and he left his wife and daughters to become a "woman". This sounds very suspicious to me. As a child, his mother was so afraid of her son being effeminate that she chose to eliminate any physical contact she had with him, so he was starved for affection. She also watched him like a hawk lest he do anything not "macho". This seems unfair to me, and not because she wasn't "respecting his gender of choice" or any junk like that. To me, it looks like she caused his problems. I know I'm a girl (and I'm not referring to physical characteristics), but sometimes hearing all the pro-homosexual propaganda makes even ME uncertain. How would someone who doesn't have the family support or self-confidence I have be able to deal with that? It would be an awful burden! Especially because it's gotten to the point that if anyone says they are straight, everyone tells them that they just haven't come to terms with their real sexuality! It's terribly frustrating! Dad pointed out that it's also probably very convenient for some people to change their gender. If you've got a man who's brilliant with computers, no one really cares. But a woman? Suddenly they're hailed as a genius, going beyond the restraints others have put on them because they are a woman, hailed as a champion for women's rights! (Which is actually a bit of an insult -- to say that when a woman is good at those things, she's somehow special because women aren't inclined to do that sort of work?) And there are also ways that it's probably easier to be a woman, especially if you lack certain things, like a uterus. But anyway, it just seems to me that society itself is actually causing the misery of these poor people.
I should probably clarify that I do not believe that anyone should deny someone a job or friendship because they have chosen to change their sex. They are still images of God, and should be loved and respected. Also, I am aware that there have been genetic problems with some people, such as having chromosomes X, X, and Y. (A normal person will have only two chromosomes, either XX or XY.) However, these are rare and it can be proved that they have a special problem that they have to deal with. There are also people who are trying very hard to live with their homosexuality. I greatly respect those who have acknowledged their homosexuality but have chosen to still live according to the Gospel. I really can't express how much I respect that. It is even more wonderful to me because they are told by so many people that they don't need to remain chaste or single. My main frustration is with those people who have declared homosexuality something normal, or those who drive others to doubt their sexuality.
I'm reading C. S. Lewis' The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. I just finished the one on Membership, and one thing made me think about the way I've been thinking. Lewis used the example of pegs in their places. People tend to look at the square peg and try to find a square hole. We try to find where we fit in God. However, this isn't the actual reality of things. God doesn't find room for us. Instead, we have to change ourselves to fit in him. So we should be trying to grind our corners down until we fit in the circular hole we're supposed to fit into. I was realizing that I have been forgetting that partially. Especially with trying to discern my vocation. I've been focusing too much on where I would best fit in God's plan, forgetting to remember that I have to change myself, or rather, let God change me. That's another thing I've been doing wrong. Instead of letting God change me, I've been getting frustrated because I haven't been able to do it on my own. It's a problem with pride, and I need to refocus my attention to working and praying on this. If you're reading this (as you must be), I'd really appreciate it if you'd pray for me that I will learn humility. Thanks. :)
I thought this passage interesting for two reasons. One is that the angel told Mary that she would be called blessed. the woman in the crowd says to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed." That prophesy of sorts was fulfilled before most people knew much about Jesus' conception. The other thing I thought interesting was Jesus' response: "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." It's interesting to me because some people's faith is manifest almost solely in a devotion to Mary, and do not observe the word of God. It also occurs to me that at the time, to say that someone's mother was blessed like that was probably more a comment on the actual person. Jesus' response seems to anticipate an obsession with the mother. However, it also makes me wonder if Mary maybe did experience some special treatment or weird behaviors toward her because of her relationship to Jesus.
Another thing that strikes me as I type this in is that this is yet another occasion where Jesus states the need for action. I really don't understand how Protestants can read the Bible and still insist that all that is needed to go to heaven is to "proclaim Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior." Over and over again, Jesus and the Apostles tell us that action is a vital part of loving God. Faith is also essential, but as Paul says, it can't be all that sincere without good works. Also, people criticize the Catholic Church for being so harsh on people who don't agree with her teachings (Christ's teachings.) Considering that Protestants say that unless you confess with your lips and believe with your heart, you cannot love God, they are the ones being harsh on people who don't believe in God, and maybe haven't even had the chance to. Not only that, but it's rather hypocritical to claim "sola sriptura" and teach something contrary to the Gospels.
People talk a lot about how other people see them, or why they shouldn't care what other people think of them, and how people are wrong about who they really are. We very seldom compare who we actually are to who we think we are. Some people just don't evaluate themselves, so they don't really know anything about who they are, or they may have a few vague ideas of who they are or who they think they are. Some people think they are someone they are not. Others know who they are. I was thinking about this the other day when I had an urge to write a poem. (I don't write poetry as a general rule.) As I was writing it, I thought it strange that I was, because "I didn't seem to be the kind of person to write poetry." Now, if I was writing poetry, I should have concluded that I am actually the kind of person that writes poetry, or that I do not dislike poetry as much as thought I did. Instead, I was surprised and almost disgusted with myself, until I reminded myself that there is nothing wrong with writing poetry and realized that I did not know myself as well as I thought. So now I need to find out where my self-perception is different from who I really am. Do I really like to read as much as I think? Am I really as aggressive as I think I am? What about pride, generosity, honesty, modesty, and strength? Do I really see myself as I am, or how I want to see myself, or how I don't want to see myself, or how I've just decided I must be for some reason? I just remembered something Dad told me - that we must constantly be reevaluating who we are because we are constantly changing. Perhaps some of my ideas of myself are left over from when I was twelve, or even younger. And even the ideas I had then may have been wrong.
One of my classmates is an agnostic. He says he can't believe in God because there is no physical evidence of him. (There is if you consider the existence of matter as proof of a creator, but he doesn't accept this arguement.) So he says that based only on physical evidence, he cannot conclusively say that God exists. It has occurred to me, however, that based solely on physical evidence, one cannot suport agnosticism. Agnosticism means that one cannot prove two conjectures: that there is a God and that there is not a God. Based on only physical evidence, and assuming that Jesus was a liar or insane, atheism could be proven true. The only physical aspect of God is Christ, and if Jesus was not justified in calling himself divine, then there is no physical evidence of God. So my classmate would be forced to be an atheist if he refuses to accept non-physical evidence. However, the hope for him is that he will recognize the absurdity of his desire to believe in a God and see that this is because there is a God.
In religion class, we had a substitute teacher come in and talk to us about marriage, focusing on the compromises we will need to make regarding roles. That's not all that important to the above question, but it's the cause of the question. This man told us that love is just a feeling. This really bothered me, for two reasons. One is that the definition for love is "wishing nothing but good for another person". Now, can't one be angry with someone, but still want good for them? Sometimes my dad is unhappy with me because he wants good for me. This man says he doesn't always love his wife because sometimes he is mad at her. Maybe he doesn't, but I think it's definitely possible. The second reason "Love is just an emotion" bothered me was that "God is Love". If God is all love, and love is merely an emotion, God would be nothing but an emotion. Emotions are neither good nor bad in themselves. A God of emotion would not be a good God, but just neutral. Emotions are also transitory, so a God who is love could not really be a God. He would pass away. I've been told that love is a decision. It may not be a conscious decision, but I think it is a lot more like this. Someone may decide to love because of an emotion, but the emotion is not love. It's funny, but in my most clear-headed and child-like moments, I often make conscious decisions to love. For example, at some point I decided that I would always give my grandpa a hug when I saw him, regardless of my discomfort, because I hoped it would convince him of God's love, so he would pay more attention to God, and maybe become Catholic. At seventy-six, he is unlikely to convert, but I hope my love can benefit him in some way anyway. That doesn't seem much like an emotion to me, espeially when I am embarrassed and get dandruff on me hugging him. :)
Talking about the Fall in The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis says of the first sinner(s): "They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives." I love that! It puts the original sin of choosing self over God so perfectly! The two things a sentence needs are a noun and a verb, and even the verb is really about the noun. We didn't want to be (still don't, for that matter) adjectives that were unnessesary, whose whole purpose was to express God in some way. As Merton would say, I was made to show the Carrie-ness of God. Trying to come to terms with this, I felt the urge to say (and did think, to my embarassment) "but I don't want to be just an adjective!" Shocked, I realized that I was yet again disagreeing with God. He said that "it is very good" when he created us, so there must not be anything bad about being an adjective- there must be something very wonderful because God creates only wonderful things. Imagine if we didn't have any adjectives! "The lady went into the house" is very plain, and doesn't really tell you much about the lady or the house. "The grandmotherly lady went into the cozy house" says a little bit more, and starts to evoke some kind of response from the reader. It's still nothing to seeing the grandmotherly old lady with the grey hair and a white shawl over an old-fashioned periwinkle dress stroll up to the little cottage with warm sunshine dancing on its thatched roof. And even then, I'm not a very good writer! In the hands of a master novelist with all the adjectives in all the languages at his or her disposal, that simple sentence could become something really beautiful. God tells Moses "I am," but he also created the whole world to give details, adjectives. We may not be the center of the universe like we'd sometimes like, and we need to learn how to be humble adjectives, modifying the one Noun as best we can, but it doesn't mean that we are unimportant, even if we're a very simple, silly adjective like "big."
Learning can be painful. But I guess "no pain, no gain," right? Why do human relationships have to be so difficult? I know… the Fall. I guess one of my big problems is fear. I'm afraid of being hurt, and it clouds my judgement- makes it hard for me to see things as they are. Instead, I jump to conclusions- different ones for different moods, even about the same thing. I can't seem to ignore my emotions and my self. I let myself be blinded so I won't be hurt. It's really pointless, though, because if I'm going to be hurt it will happen anyway. Or if everything is actually good, I could avoid all the anxiety by not worrying all the time whether he/she likes me and instead just enjoy their company. I do and don't do far too much because of fear. I won't go to a water park because I'm afraid, uncomfortable running around in a bathing suit all day. I suspect I didn't go to prom because I was so afraid of being asked and afraid that if I went, someone at home would criticize me for going. I'm afraid that if some people knew what I think, I would be rejected, even as a daughter. Most of my fears aren't really rational. Dad might not like me very much at times, but I know intellectually that he loves me and would never actually turn me out unless I had done something very drastic to say I didn't want to live at home. I know intellectually that nothing really bad would happen if I went to a water park, and that I shouldn't worry about it anyway because I need to trust in God. I know that there isn't anything inherently wrong about prom, and that if someone gave me a very hard time at home, it wouldn't really be their place. (Maybe a little hard time would be.) Maybe fear is really rooted in selfishness. I suppose anything that strips us of our free will or our ability to reason is caused by putting love of self over love of God. So I guess I've been asking largely the wrong questions. Forget the issue, just think about what I need to please God. I've gotten so messed up these past months, or maybe even the past two years. I need to return to God… learn how to think again, instead of just be governed by emotion. Have God on my mind and be talking to Him instead of being worried if I'm loved, liked, attractive, irritating, stupid, etc. Of course, I know in my head that if I do succeed in placing God truly first, everything else will fall into place. I will know I'm loved by God, good people will like me, good men will find me attractive despite my physical appearance, I will mellow out, sin less, and so be less inconvenient and irritating, and my mind will be sharper as my intellect becomes less dimmed by sin. It's just hard to put what I know into action because I'm so bogged down by my existing problems. First step: prayer.
Talking to an aquaintance tonight, I got the very interesting comment, "You're both <race> Catholics." We were talking about the friends we had, and what common bond we shared with them. For me, the people who I am closer to are the people with whom I can share my faith. This aqauintance made that comment out of the blue, and it bothered me. I was raised that the racial background of someone doesn't matter, and if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't be discussed. I also realized that it really annoyed me that this person had linked "<race>" with "Catholic". I think it's because distinction between races really doesn't belong in the Church. There is a real problem in some parishes with the different groups that have to share the facilities of the Church and the time of the religious and priests. The fact is, we are all the imago dei, and should be trying to love and be considerate to each other, not vying for attention, money, or resources. Instead, we should be working together to make things easier for everyone. If the *** community needs to use the prayer center, and the ### community is done with it, I don't see why *** can't use it and respect ###'s property, and ### can't trust *** and share their space. Jesus welcomed everyone, even the Caananites, and he told us to forgive and be patient. Of all places, and of all people, shouldn't the Church and the Catholic people be able to do this?
To be fair to the person who made the comment, for whatever reason, he has rejected the Church, so I can't expect him to understand what the Church ought to be like. The fact is, like most young people, he just says whatever comes to mind, whatever he hears on the Simpsons or from his peers that he thinks is funny. It doesn't excuse him, but remembering ought to make me more forgiving.