Change Is A Universal Constant

When are we "ready"?  What ultimately defines us?  Even if we align ourselves with a paradigm, many of us don't ultimately follow every tenet of it; most of us customize, taking what works for us and discarding what does not.  Even if we go with the analogy that Sarah Michelle Gellar's character used in "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer", it falls flat from the whole...

To whit, Buffy said, "I'm cookie dough. I'm not done baking. I'm not finished becoming who ever the hell it is I'm gonna turn out to be. I make it through this, and the next thing, and the next thing, and maybe one day, I turn around and realize I'm ready. I'm cookies. And then, you know, if I want someone to eat m- or enjoy warm, delicious, cookie me, then that's fine. That'll be then. When I'm done."

It's a fine sentiment that puts forward the realization that she's a work in progress, but are we ever REALLY done?  I have to wonder at any one person that stands up proudly and utters the affirmation that they know who they are and that they have "arrived".

Really?  So, you're now going to lie down and die?  Nothing is going to happen to change your world view, your opinions..."you"?

I struggled with the concept of who I was for many, many years...decades even.  As an Aspy and a natural mimic, I questioned what and who I was up until about three years ago...it didn't help that I had friends (and some former friends) that viewed me across a spectrum that included enough personalities, beliefs, and styles that each group never questioned my participation in their little group, regardless of how different it was from another group I'd just been hanging with. To quote my Twitter profile: "To make one Sithspit: Combine hard, soft, nice, nasty, quiet, loud, rum, milk, Jesus, Nietzsche, tender, cruel, love, hate, sweet, and sour. Blend and serve."

I never socialized well as a child; grade school was a special brand of Hell, and children can be far more cruel than people give them credit for.  I never really fit in with anyone, oddly enough, especially considering my later years, but we're getting to that.  When you combine an inability to adapt socially via typical, intuitive human means with a higher than average IQ...there will be problems.  I saw nothing wrong with reading a novelization for "Bring a Book Friday" in school...but when that book is the Star Wars novelization in SECOND GRADE, the other kids tend to look at you like you're a freak.

Which they did.

But over time, since I was on the outside looking in anyway, I had occasion to watch and learn some basic skills by watching how the popular kids acted; my natural talent at being a mimic paid off handsomely in that regard.  When I changed schools my senior year, I applied all I had learned by watching others to my interactions with the new people who didn't already know me, and, with a few minor hiccups, I was suddenly...well, not POPULAR, but ACCEPTED.  Now, some of you especially bright folks are already seeing the pitfall coming, but I'll mention it anyway.

What happens when you build a life out of what you've seen others doing, copying and imitating...?

You end up like I did a few years ago, looking at your life and wondering which parts were you and which parts were just "add-ons", essentially items like clothes to be mixed, matched, and discarded, but not really YOU.

Most men in their late 30's or so have mid-life crises where they try to recapture their lost youth...I spent mine wondering where the facade ended and I began.

So who am I?  What have I become, and what should I have been?  Am I EVER going to be finished and be what I'm supposed to be as an adult?  A father?  A husband?

A human?

Only two people I can think of literally have given me pause in my confusion; when asked what I was, they both just basically said..."You."

It took me a long, long time to accept that; I can be anything to anyone, and have, but the one thing I've learned from John and Jen is this:  Accept myself for who I am, because in the end, I am all and none of those things from my past and present...I'm a blend of them all.  This makes me as unique as anyone, i.e., not at all (what is "unique" when you are ALL different?)...but what it DOES make me is just...me.

Oh, and some of you may have noticed that in the last few years I've become more outspoken about some things, and less concerned with what others think; this is called "I'm content with who and what I am...get used to it, or go away."

I will always be a work in progress; only dead things don't ever really change or grow--you have to be alive for that.  So if I'm living, change is inevitable.  I may never be complete; but I will always be just me.  

And I'm ok with that.

Parallel Spirituality

Many people may remember when I first became a Christian...

I've since apologized for my behavior to them all.

No, I don't regret becoming a Christian, far from it...but I handled it all very immaturely, and I hurt a lot of dear people who deserved better.

On the plus side to this debacle, I learned that there are instances in Scripture that echo each other spiritually vs physically; they parallel each other, where one situation here on our earthly plane will mirror one spiritually, and vice versa.

The link between my earlier immaturity and this example is this: It's not a coincidence that new Christians are referred to as "born again", or "born anew"...and in fact are often called "baby Christians".

Consider this:

Babies are born helpless; they need to be fed, protected, and nurtured.  They're often loud.  They make stinky messes.  They spit up on people.  They can't walk on their own, nor can they even stand alone.  They can't handle real adult food; in fact, not only can't they chew it, they can't break down the stuff for the nutrients with their immature organs...in short, it would kill them to try to handle adult food, among other things.

Now, let's look at a new Christian, generally speaking:

Spiritually, they're helpless...they don't know much about right and wrong from their new world-view; they need more knowledgeable people to nurture them and help them walk through their early days.  They're telling EVERYONE about their new life, whether they want to hear it or not.  They try to "help" people, and often muck things up in their inexperience.  They "spit up" on people, metaphorically speaking.  They need support in their Christian walk, so they don't walk alone.  Paul said that new Christians need "milk", easy teachings to make a foundation, but once they mature need to put that aside and move on to more solid spiritual food, and again he says something like it in an earlier book.

So you can see how one is an example of the other...and it's a fine way to drive home the point that we always have much more to learn!

This being said, here's a point I'd like to bring up as a counter-point to my very first blog post; I realized something tonight that in all my life I never considered...and it also means that I have to admit when I'm wrong.

And that sucks.

Sadly, I'm wrong a lot.  *sighs*

For most of my life I could see no issue with polyamory or polyfidelity; from the perspective I had, it was based in love, and what's wrong with love, right?  I looked at it from a perspective that was distinctly colored and biased from my past experiences in high school and college.

Tonight though I was discussing this topic with a close friend, one of the guitar players in our band, and he made a comment that tripped a memory in my head, and I remembered how Jesus often compares the Christian church (as a body/single entity) to a bride and Himself as a groom, with the goal of illustrating to the Jewish people He was teaching in a way they could identify with.  See, in Jewish culture back then, the groom would go to build a house for his bride, and his bride would wait for him.  The groom's father would be the one to determine when it was good enough, often prompting him to going above and beyond.  As a result, only the father knew when the groom would return, and the bride would have to be ready, because it was ALSO tradition for the groom to come and "steal her away" at some odd hour.  This is exactly how Jesus described His predicted return, so His fellow Jews listening to Him would get the concept.

Now, expanding on that marriage concept, all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments included, God has said that He wants no gods other than Him...really, it's the First Commandment, and it's also the first of the summations that Jesus delivered to the people:  "Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit".  To have another god before Him is idolatry, a big no-no for Christians and Jews.  He wants us separate, clean, and faithful, ready for His return, just like the bride in the example above.

And that's why I "get it" now, that polyamory and polyfidelity are just not right for Christians.  Being an Aspy, just being told something is wrong never works; I have to know why, because every situation is different, and a hard/fast rule doesn't always work.  Knowing WHY helps me to adapt to new situations; it gives me a litmus to apply.

Those relationships are the marital equivalent of spiritual idolatry, in essence.  You're being unfaithful to the ONE you chose to be your mate, in place of all the others you COULD have been with...and that's just not the model.

So kids...choose wisely.  Pick the right one.  It's disrespectful to your mate on many levels; even if it "works" outside of a Christian belief system, once you CHOOSE to be in that system, you're willingly forsaking other gods for the One you chose...and that's how you should choose and treat your spouse, too.

Dogma Sucks

I have a dogmatic question I don’t understand.  Let’s say you have two people involved in some kind of church ministry; both are actively participating in things the Church at large considers sinful.  One person is remorseful and tries without success to change their behavior and is allowed to still take part; the other sees nothing wrong with what they’re doing, and is asked to step down until they see the error of their ways.

The way I’m seeing this, both people are engaged in wrong behavior without stopping…the only difference is in their thought processes, or as the Church calls it, their heart:  So if I’m understanding this right, it’s not sinning that gets you in trouble, it’s the way you think about it?

Please understand...this isn't a facetious question.

There are some things that I STILL don't "get" after being married for 20 years, and my poor wife just shakes her head and tells me, "It's an Aspy (Asperger's) thing; don't worry about, let it go..."

This might could be one of those things.

For example, this one is perfect.  Since I've been a teenager, I've had no moral issues with polyamory or polyfidelity.  While not socially acceptable almost anywhere, there are subgroups in this country and others that not only practice it, but it works for.

However, from a Christian perspective, this encompasses fornication and adultery AT LEAST.   From this Christian perspective, I can understand from reading that it is considered sin.  Jesus corrected the Samaritan woman at the well about her marital screw-ups (gently, of course), and there is the famous story in John 8:3-11 with the woman caught in the act.

Now, toss in my Aspy brain...in every instance where Jesus deals with adultery, it's the WOMAN that is at fault.  It's not until Paul that the issue is brought up in 1 Corinthians and a male is actually specified as the offender.  In every other case, it's generic with no mention of who is at fault, or it's the woman.

So to my Aspy mind, the definition of adultery hinged upon some definition that only affected women, not men.  Plus, it's never said WHY it's wrong...it just is.  Well, why is it wrong?  If a man lives with two women, and they're all in harmony, taking equal burdens emotionally and physically and even financially in the relationship, what's the big deal?  Or a woman with two men?  Or (scandalous thinking approaching!) two bisexual women and a man? Or two bisexual men with a woman?

Aspy's don't do well with "do it because", because when something happens that doesn't fit the precise circumstance, BOOM, confusion and disarray, questions and chaos.  We need to know why, so we can learn to do things when the norm doesn't fit.

I have to say...Christianity SUCKS for Aspy's.  Everyone is always saying, "The Bible says this, that, and the other thing"...ok, fine, that's great until a little digging shows that it either A: Doesn't say that, B: Is taken out of context so it APPEARS to say that, C: Actually means something else because of translation errors, or D: remembered incorrectly so as to say something else.

So then what?  You dig for the truth, and WHOA, it actually means something else!  Great example: Onanism.  What's that, you ask?  Spanking the monkey, jerking off, choking the chicken...masturbation.  The prohibition comes from Genesis, but the early translations were off, and the church leaders, largely uneducated in many cases in those early years of using that newfangled King James Bible, took the passage (heh) to refer to masturbation, focusing on that "spilling his seed" bit.

Let's see it in a more modern translation:  Genesis 38:8-10 "8 Y'hudah said to Onan, "Go and sleep with your brother's wife - perform the duty of a husband's brother to her, and preserve your brother's line of descent." 9 However, Onan knew that the child would not count as his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother's wife, he spilled the semen on the ground, so as not to give his brother offspring. 10 What he did was evil from ADONAI's perspective, so he killed him too."

It wasn't the "seed spillin'" that he was struck down for...rather, it was the disobedience of not doing his directed duty that he was killed for.  At that time, if a man's brother died childless, it was his brother's duty to impregnate that man's wife so as to carry on the family.

Do you have ANY IDEA how much less stressful my childhood and early life would've been if I'd known THAT?  That learning the WHY of it, and not the "Don't do it, and just accept it" aspect?

So, yeah...dogma sucks.