Tattoos, Punctuation, and You

I'm considering getting a new tattoo.

I'm not the type to get ink just because I want ink, though.  I generally want it to have some meaning.  The dragon on my right foot had more meaning 24 years ago when I got it, and not so much today.

The entwined bass clef and treble clef on my left shoulder still has meaning, because music is still very much a part of my life.

The right shoulder is more a bit of a personalized statement and a subtle affiliation marker.

But, it's time to get a new one.

A very close family member has dealt with depression for most of their life.  As part of my family, that's taken a toll on not just them, but on me and the rest of the family as well, but we've endured.  Sometimes, we just took a step back, took a deep breath, and pressed on.

Yesterday, someone posted a link on Facebook that nicely summarized this idea that has kept us all going in a very unique way, or at least I believe it so.

It's called the Semicolon Project, and I heard about it from the blog of a young woman at hpwritesblogs.

It tells the story of depression and how it has affected her life, and how she has learned to cope, deal, and live with it, because it doesn't just "go away"; rather, it's a relentless engine that never quits...but it can be paused.  It's become, for her, her normal way of living.

Now, "normal" is a societal construct that is, ultimately, meaningless. "Normal" is the roughly 90% of humanity between the (again, roughly) 5% endcaps of aberrancy that prevent someone from safely functioning in society...and by that I mean the clinically insane, violent psychotics, serial-killing sociopaths, etc., the ones you can't cure but only lock up for their and everyone else's safety.

Depression isn't as "abnormal" as society likes to stigmatize it; MANY struggle with it to a greater or lesser degree. I don't mean a passing "blue mood", but a real invisible illness that can utterly control and destroy your life. Doubtful? Most people wouldn't know what a CPU is or have even seen one...but many know there's one in their computer. It's the "brain" of the computer. If it has a problem, NOTHING works right, even the physical parts.

That's depression, folks.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it can't break someone down and destroy them, and even those around them when they fall apart.

But it's treatable. Don't dismiss odd signs, or cries for help. "Oh, he seemed so happy!" But after, there's always signs that people ignored, dismissed, or simply didn't recognize for what they were.

Support. Avoid platitudes like, "Oh, it'll be fine", "Just get over it", "it'll pass", or any other such. They. Don't. Help. In fact, don't you think they've TRIED to just get past it?

LISTEN. Absorb what they're saying; you may not be able or trained to fix anything, but you can be there for them to lean on, be a shoulder, be a FRIEND. Don't judge or condemn; if ever "walking a mile in someone's shoes" applied, this is certainly it. If they don't have the strength, lend them yours. It's hard enough living in today's world without adding in something like depression; don't make it harder on someone with it.

Help them take that little "pause", and BE that little "pause" if need be.

I'm going to look into getting one, to remind me to take the pauses I need to continue being supportive for those that need support, and to remind me that sometimes others need that pause too.  If someone is suffering from depression and never speaks to me, if they know of this project and see it it might just be the pause to let them know they're not alone, to take a deep breath, to take a step back, and when ready to press on with the rest of their life.

BEAUTIFUL

Sorry it's been a while.  

Anyway, in a departure from my usual fare, which often veers off into bitching and moaning about how far afield I am from modern Christianity and my woes, trials, and tribulations...in short, the incipient lack of a spine I had eight months ago...I'm going to touch on a subject that's come up a few times in the last week.

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase, "The beauty of a pun is in the oy of the beholder."

No, wait, not that one.  That's Spider Robinson's quote. 

 No, this phrase:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

We all find different things beautiful for different reasons and in different ways, basically.  This isn't just a static condition, either; it changes over time and life experience.  For the longest time, my brother was holding out hope of finding a 4'10" Japanese gymnast with red hair and D-cups; now, years later, he has moved on to "not bony or gelatinous, and not crazy."

The media and Hollywood give us images of tall, rail-thin, boyish-framed females as an "ideal"; history of the last 50 years shows that Twiggy is alive and well in today's models, even if they have to kill themselves to do it, in some cases resorting to drugs, starvation, and brutal exercise to maintain the "ideal" body weight and shape.  And if the model can't fit that, or just doesn't, they'll resort to lighting, camera angles, or just plain Photoshop the fuck out of the pictures.  Check this out:

Why bother with makeup, hairdressing, plastic surgery, and blemishes when you can just take a model CLOSE to what you want and completely redo her in Photoshop?

Anyway, this video also illustrates how the "ideal" is put out there:  If you're not skinny with unnaturally flawless features, disproportionate measurements achievable only by surgery, and the right skin tone du jour, you're not "beautiful".  Teens and adults diet and drug themselves to death, assuming they can't also afford to nip/tuck themselves into caricatures of a human right along with it. 

I've done my best to instill in my kids that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about their looks or their bodies; they'll never be happy if THEY are not happy with how they are, and fuck the world to tell 'em different.

The most important aspect of the "Eye of the beholder" quote is that we're our harshest critics when we look in the mirrors or at ourselves in any other way..."Beholder" encompasses us as well.

The fashion and beauty industries worship symmetry.  What this is teaching our children is that superficial and fake is king; it's teaching them that if they're not perfect they're without value or beauty and are unlovable.  It's teaching them that the opinions of others regarding themselves matter, even to their own detriment.  I'm not saying that we should discard the opinions of others out of hand; there are some people that occasionally have good ideas.

Occasionally.

Sorry, my inner INTJ got loose there for a second.

Anyway, the point is to test the opinion with critical thinking:  Is this position of theirs regarding my body and appearance healthy? Is it even FEASIBLE?  Is it what I want?  Do they have my best interests at heart?

That last one is a BIG one, and the crux of the "beauty" industry; they want to sell you stuff, and they'll misrepresent, mislead, and misdirect you every chance they can if it means a buck.

Now, the flip side to how we see ourselves is how we see others, going back to the "eye of the beholder" thing.

Hey.  I'm a guy.  I check out women.  I think they're beautiful, and I like looking at them.

Personally, I take each woman as an individual; one woman might have appealing legs, or mesmerizing eyes, or a sharp wit, or aesthetically shaped breasts or bum, or completely average looks with a quick wit, humor, and mind.  Every woman is different and more than the sum of her parts.  You'll also note I didn't put boundaries or define my criteria:  I said "appealing", "mesmerizing", and "aesthetically shaped".  These are things that matter to me, subjectively, and can vary and change between each person; one woman's green eyes might look much better in her face than green eyes in another person.  A woman might appeal to me in every way physically, and as soon as she opens her mouth and speaks I lose interest; a woman might be plain and unremarkable, but possess an utterly captivating mind capable of engaging me in conversations for hours and hours.  

There's no one thing, there's no specific group of things...rather, it's an aggregation of several things, a totality, and it varies person to person.  Also, none of this predicates a judgment of something being wrong with them...just not a preference or appealing in this subjective instance to me.  We have to try and see past the facades we construct for ourselves.

Be comfortable in your own skin.  Love people for things that matter, not just some arbitrary criteria like weight, hair color, or BMI...

And that includes yourself.

The Walking Dead

Author's Note: I wrote this a LONG time ago. I've edited it to reflect my current beliefs.

A zombie is a creature that is neither alive nor fully dead, capable of locomotion but devoid of any feeling, emotion, care, or reason, existing with only one primal desire:  Hunger.

Yeah, I know, they're not real.  They're a pop culture myth with roots going back centuries, and very popular these days, but still...not real.  But go along with this as a concept anyway, hm?

People often call them evil; they are certainly not part of any natural order, but evil?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Evil is many things, the easiest and most cowardly philosophically defined as that which is not "good".  But without the ability to reason and to choose any other nature, can they be called evil?  If you call them "evil", then sharks are evil; they are devoid of feeling, emotion, care, or reason, and exist solely as a predator, driven by nothing else than a desire to survive and feed...hunger, if you will.

I give this description because I'm going to make a comparison here that's going to be, depending on your belief or faith, or lack thereof, either entertaining or offensive.

I didn't intend for this blog to turn into one that focused solely on religion and the Christian faith, but with life events that have occurred over the last seven years, it HAS kind of turned out that way.  The incidents, and ideas, have weighed heavily on my mind and heart/soul.  It's been a test of faith for me, unlike any that have happened before, even when I struggled with the very idea that Jesus was the Son of God.

This isn't going to focus on that, though I am willing to discuss it with anyone that wishes.  I no longer call myself a Christian.  

Now, I find myself questioning more than I ever did when I was a Christian; "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", indeed.

Because of this journey, which hasn't been easy AT ALL, I find myself disillusioned by the Christian church as a whole.  "The Church" as an entity is made up of fallible and flawed people, of which I am one.  I make no claims to perfection.  I make no claim to being "good" or especially "Christ-like" in much I say or do.

What I DO say and do is the best I can do.  I do my best.  I try.  I at one time, long ago, accepted Jesus as Savior, and even Lord, though lately it's been more akin to a feudal relationship than the Biblical example of a marriage relationship.  He may be Lord, yes, but I cannot relate to Him.  I believe that ascribing human traits to Him, even though He lived among us, is not only futile but foolish; if I hold to a belief that He is God, then how can my limited understanding comprehend Him as God?  Much of what we know of Him and believe is through the Bible; the church today is built around precepts He taught and said, based on historical record, and by the teachings and letters of those followers that lead the new Christian faith after His ascension.

This is where things start unraveling for me.

First, Christians believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word of God.  I used to believe this as well, but over time and living, prayer and living, living and living, I've run into some snags.  Which version is the Divine inspired Word?  They can't all be; there are contradictions!  Concepts are redefined as newer translations come out, clarifying points and spots; in many ways, this has made some things more clear, but there are still some that are not quite there.  What about those?

The overall compilation (yes, compilation) is a collection of stories, histories, and ideas that have been around for thousands of years.  It is ethnocentric, focused on us Jews as the Chosen People of God, then broadening in the B'rit Hadashah, the New Testament, to include all peoples that believe and accept Jesus, as Paul taught.  The ethnocentrism subtly shifted to the Chosen People now being anyone that accepts Him through belief.  But all of the original authors that are included with VERY few exception were Jews, raised in a patriarchal culture that subjugated women, kept slaves, WERE slaves, and oppressed at every turn.  No one ever questions the unavoidable bias this MUST include.

Why not?

Christians typically view the Bible as LAW, Rule #1 if you will, even when told that it should not be a hard and unyielding law.  They live with the zealot's belief that no other possible avenue could be true; if in doubt, see Rule #1.  "God (the Bible) said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" is a comment I've heard so many times in life.  At one point even I believed that, though I amended it further to be, "If God said it, that settles it."  My belief didn't enter into the equation; after all, if He said it and it was fact, my belief was secondary.

The issue with such unwavering conviction is that if you accept the Bible as Divinely inspired Word, then it must ALL be accepted, not just certain parts.  Christians today use the famed "clobber scriptures" to call down proverbial fire on homosexuals, all the while ignoring the parts that are inconvenient, writing them off as not relevant because the laws have changed:  Slaves, anyone?  Kill all the unbelievers, man, woman, child, and burn their places to the ground?  "Oh, that's Old Testament!"  Ok, let's look at the New then.

The New Testament addresses treatment of slaves, though modern translations have softened that to "servants".  The New Testament says that unless you're a born Jew, and thus a goyim (Gentile) you are only bound to not eat food offered to idols, eating blood, eating something strangled, and sexual immorality.

How very odd!

Ok, the first three are really easy...much of that was culturally based anyhow; food isn't really offered to idols anymore, I'm not fond of eating blood anyway, and what meat is strangled when killed today?  That leaves sexual immorality...some define this as fornication, most leave it as the all inclusive original.

But what IS sexual immorality?  Topless beaches are normal in France.  Here, you'd be arrested and called a sinner for it.  Baptists say dancing leads to sexual immorality, as does alcohol.  Pentecostals believe it's immoral to cut your hair, wear slacks, and wear makeup if you're female.  Even more telling, if you go by what the Bible says is immoral, you'd end up with a society nearly like radical Islam at the worst extreme, but repressive at best.  It's illegal to have more than one wife in most places, and illegal and/or immoral to have sexual relations outside of that single bond...yet most Christians gloss over the multiple wives and concubines many Jewish men had.

Ok, true, but then doesn't that mean the Bible might be wrong?  "Oh, that was then!  That's not acceptable today." So, some things acceptable then aren't today, and some that weren't, are?  Who decides, if the Bible is the infallible Word of God?

Where am I going with all of this?  And didn't this start with zombies?

Well, yeah.  Ok, here goes...

Most Christians follow the Bible without question; it's the Word of God.  They take any message pumped out from a pulpit, accept it, and never question, trusting the Holy Spirit to ensure the message they receive is from God.  After all, even if it SOUNDS flawed like some Biblical contradictions, the Spirit will make sure it turns out ok.  (Actually, I do (did?) believe that to a point...I just don't accept that an all knowing, all seeing God would allow His Divine Word to be so haphazard...since I believe in the infallibility of God, then the haphazard Bible isn't His Divine Word. His Spirit can still use it...God uses cracked pots!  But calling something perfect and divine when it's not denigrates the very all powerful God you claim to worship, as He would not, indeed COULD NOT allow shoddy work to reflect Him.  As the old saying goes, you can't get pure water from polluted sources.  To which the religious zealot then claims the miraculous, and you're just wasting time at that point...you can't convince a fanatic.)

Since they do not question, they follow it to the letter.  Gays are going to hell, masturbation is a sin, drinking is a sin, etc....no compromise.  Very little, if any, reason or logic.

In short, Christians, AS MOST TODAY LIVE, are little more than Walking Dead...zombies.

There's no thought, or at least very little independent thought.  If you aren't like them, they shun you, ignoring you.  Their only focus is their walk with God, much like a zombie ignores other zombies in their pursuit of flesh.  Their hunger for a deeper walk with Jesus often blinds them to the poor, hurting, hungry, scarred, injured, etc at their feet, stepping on them, unseeing.  The typical Church person means well, they really do...but the religion, the rules, the law has leeched all life from their actions (not all...some, like the church I left, actually do a good job for the right reasons).  Even the good they do many times is tarnished because they do it for the wrong reasons; most Christians do good works for reward in Heaven, not for salvation.  

Poor, blind Pharisees.

It's not the work that garners reward.  It's the giving heart, the love, the LIFE from faith and trust in Jesus that allows the same good works to be done, but for the right reasons.  The precious few do works because it's the Life in them that leads them to do good, and the reward they may get in the afterlife is because of the condition of their heart, not the works done for misguided selfishness.

The Bible, THEIR OWN BIBLE, calls those "Dead Works", and spells out the issues with doing works for all the wrong reasons, or having an impetus from the wrong source.

Dead works from dead hearts and dead minds; it's not for no reason I say the Christian Majority might as well be zombies...they're Walking Dead.

The Cult of Personality

One of the things that I try to pride myself on, in the sense of dedication to pursuit as opposed to hubris, is critical thinking.

To many people, critical thinking is a mindset by which you are always critical of things and others to the point of being harsh, or always finding fault; this is akin to shooting someone with a gun and then blaming the weapon for the death...which, ironically, happens all too much.

But I digress...

And a caveat:  I am a Christian and I believe in Jesus as Savior.  I still also believe what I'm about to say, too.

To quote the rather extensive article on "Critical Thinking" at Wikipedia:
"Critical thinking is a type of reasonable, reflective thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what to do. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false."

In other words, when you apply critical thinking to <blank>, you're evaluating <blank> to ascertain at the most fundamental level whether or not said <blank> is "True/False, Right/Wrong, Just/Unjust".  Additionally, whether or not those things apply to YOU and your acceptance (or lack thereof) of the same.

More so, it also infers being able to apply logic, reason, and sense, removing emotionalism from the decision-making process as it applies as an external or internal influence, distilling the process to its most basic foundation.

Bear with me; I'm going somewhere with this.

No, really.

You see, I've been struggling with some uncomfortable ideas and their effect on us as a society, not the least of which is civil rights for gay couples, love/sex/relationships and how they affect me and those around me, etc.  It's led me to go back to my Strong's Concordance, various translations of Scripture, and then to look at society around me; from there, I've begun to have a rather sneaking suspicion that much of what is taught today as scriptural canon often isn't...or is, depending which version of the Bible you use, or which religion you are, or which teacher you have, or...

You get the picture.

In all of this introspection and ancillary critical thinking, a rather disturbing notion arose...consider the two definitions below:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t

I find it disturbing that the definition of a cult, an organization or group that is often derided and scoffed at is at face value very, VERY similar to that of religion, which is often venerated and revered.  Most Christians don't like to be reminded that the Christian faith/religion was considered a cult by their Roman overlords of the past.

So how does this apply today?  Much good has been done in the name of Jesus the Messiah, Yeshua HaMashiach...and much evil has been done in the name of Christendom as well.

When does a cult become an accepted religion?  Or worse, when does an accepted religion devolve into a cult?

"Why...what are your thoughts on this?"

I'm so glad you asked.

Short answer: I don't know.  While comfortably well above the average in intellect and education, I'm not so arrogant or foolish to believe I have all of the answers, but I have some beginning thoughts I'll share.  

A cult, in my thinking, is in line with the definition, but is set apart from a religion in that it's not a framework for defining the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe or sentients.  That seems to be a key difference, at least philosophically.  But from a practical perspective, the devolution of a religion to a cult seems to be at the point where the established teachings diverge from those of the founder/foundation, regardless of the scope or grandiosity of the vision.

And if that doesn't cause you to go, "Whoa, wait, hold on a second!" then you're not paying close enough attention to teachings from and about the Bible.

"If it ain't in red, it ain't what He said!"

"I only follow the New Testament; after all, Jesus put an end to the Old Testament law."

"You have to follow ALL of the Scriptures!"

"Only the King James Bible is the True Word of God."

Etc, ad nauseum...

Today much of what's taught boils down to a cult of personality, where the charisma of the teacher lends importance and gravitas to the teaching more than the substance or impact of the inherent TRUTH behind it...if any.  How, exactly, did "Love your neighbor as yourself" get turned into "Love your neighbor as yourself unless they're gay/black/white/Muslim/etc"?  Oh, sure, they still preach the "Love your neighbor as yourself" from the pulpit...so why do so many Christians end up applying filters and conditions?  

I've been told by people in churches that I was wrong for not wearing better clothes to church; some have even gone as far as to tell me I was in sin!  

CLASSIC lack of critical thinking there.  Bear with me...I know many of you, especially the atheists will cry "Foul" because you're going to say I should first apply critical thinking to the fact I believe in God and Jesus as Savior; I know, it even appears hypocritical.  Here's what I have to say about that...

"Thbbft!"

First, "God so loved the world that He sent His only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE".  Second, Jesus died for ALL sins, for EVERY person, for ALL time.  He sacrificed Himself for me when I was the most repugnant to Him from a sin perspective...so do you REALLY think He cares what I wear to church?

"Oh, but you should wear better clothes out of respect for what He did!"

Oh, right, because outward appearance is such a great measure of the contents of a person's soul and heart...or didn't you read the Scriptures where Jesus condemned those who focus on outward appearances and have souls and hearts rotten as a corpse?  Wouldn't it be a GREATER show of respect to have a clear conscience and heart, to love others in spite of their flaws and faults, just like He did for us?  To not judge someone because of how they're dressed, or how they smell, or...going out on a limb here...who they love?

Yet, people do these things All. Damn. Day. Long.  They have entire campaigns built around them.  They found churches based on differences in Scripture, then foist these beliefs on others as (pun intended) the Gospel Truth...and it's really just their personal belief.

Like Brother Dave Gardner once said in one of his classic rambles, when a character was asked if everyone should do something, and he answered an emphatic "YES!", paraphrased, "That's the root of fanaticism."

This sounds a lot like many religions and denominational offshoots, including the myriad versions of Christianity today.

Or a cult.

Wait...what?

I'm going to start calling people who don't act Christ-like "vampires".

Yes, yes, I know..."glass house/stones", "splinter your eye/lightpole in mine", etc.

It's called a "joke".  Sarcasm...look it up.

Anyway, I'm not really sure where some of the vampire myth specifics started, and frankly I'm kinda sick this morning and...ok, I'm too lazy to look it up.

Happy?  Moving on.

So, I was taking a shower last night and as I was washing myself I had one of those "PING" thoughts; you know, thinking "A" pings to "B" which pings to "C" then pings to "D" and before you know it you're nowhere near where you started, and you're somewhere brought to you by the letters "W", "T", and "F".

WTF?

Kinda like that picture.  Not where I started, but where I ended up...and hey, Katy Perry cleavage.  "C" is good enough for me.

Anyway, I digress...where was I...Oh!  Right.

So, I was showering and I thought about "wood".  Hush. Just...hush.  So, wood jumped to "stake"...again with the hushing!  Stake jumped to vampire, and then vampire jumped to the myth where vampires rise after being dead three days and...and they....wait a second.

That's interesting.  Vampires rise as vampires after dying and being dead three days; Jesus died and rose again on the third day.

Myself: I wonder...are there any other parallels or reversals between the two...?

Apparently, there are if you look.  No, it's not a complete match, but enough to make you wonder if maybe Bram Stoker just said, "Ok, let's take Jesus and reverse everything about him and we'll tie that to the vampire blood-drinking myth, cuz hey...it's always about the blood, right?"

Which brings us to the blood.  Lots of vampiric power comes from blood.  It's what keeps them alive.  Ironically, for Christians, the blood of Christ is what they derive forgiveness from...and since the "wages of sin are death", they also derive life from His blood.

There's power in the blood, indeed.

Vampires take their blood by violent attack and seduction; the whole "volunteering" blood is a recent pop-culture construct, one popularized by television shows such as Buffy the Vampire SLayer.

Yes, the "L" is capitalized...after fucking two vampires, "Vampire Layer" is also accurate.

Buffy and Spike

Buffy and Angel

Buffy and Satsu

Wait, what?  Buffy slept with a Slayer too??  Yeah, in the Official Season Eight comic, Joss had her being all open-minded and experimental.  Get over it.  Like I said...SLayer.

Moving on...
So vampires take blood...but the blood for the forgiveness of Christians had to be freely given by Jesus; He went to the cross willingly, and according to Him, only He could do so. (John 10:18)  So there's a parallel and a reversal with the blood.

Oh, hey, the cross!  As we all know, the cross as a holy symbol is anathema to vampires.  Recently, again via pop culture, it's been expanded to any holy symbol or religious symbol you hold sacred (Cross for Christians, Star of David for Jews, Lightsaber for Jedi, Colander for Pastafarians, Bathrobe and Beer for Dudists)  Some might argue that the Cross is the most effective holy symbol, but it's probably solely because of the prevalence of Christianity and because Stoker wrote it that way.

Vampires are automatically damned.  Do not pass "GO", do not collect 200 blood bags, no reprieve.  I've always had an issue with that one...damnation ultimately relates to a choice on the part of a person, and some people were "turned" (made into vampires) against their will or without a choice.  I think he missed the mark on that one, probably due to lack of theological knowledge if I had to guess, but that's just a guess.  He might've been a Doctor of Theology and just decided to show how horrible vampires were by making them automagically damned.  *shrugs*  It might more tie in with the black/white view that Jesus/God/Heaven are symbolic of all that's "Good", and Lucifer/Hell/Demons being all that's "Bad".  Since vampires are the "Devil's Children", ergo "bad"; and if the Devil can't be saved, then they can't either.  Again, the antithesis of Christ and Christians.

After a short human life, vampires die and are reborn to live forever as minions to their master.  Christians live a short human life, then die to live forever with Christ as God's children, the Bride of Christ.  Christians are transformed, and the Bible promises new, powerful bodies in Heaven.  Vampires are transformed after death (during?) and receive new, powerful bodies on Earth.

Christians are saved from the Grave (death) while vampires are cursed to it, and must rise every night from their grave, and return to it before sunrise, forever UNdead, a mockery of Christian eternal life.

Vampires and garlic, and transforming into bats, wolves, and mist...Stoker was on some really good shit.  Had to be.  Just sayin'.

So, that's all I have.  Sorry it's been so long, and sorry to return with so lame, but I hope you were at least amused and entertained.  Hell, for all I know you all already knew this and are thinking, "Uh...where have you been? That's been pointed out since 'Dracula' was published."

Well, EXCUUUUUUSE ME!

Personal Rant...Feel Free to Skip

Final Notice:  This is a bit more of a personal rant than an attempt at philosophical discussion.  You've been warned.

Christian.

Chris·tian   [kris-chuhn]
adjective
1.  of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: "a Christian faith."
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: "She displayed true Christian charity."

I claim to be a Christian.

I believe Jesus was who He said He was, that He was neither liar nor lunatic, but Lord.

That being said, I'm honest enough to admit I fall short of that ideal virtually daily, sometimes spectacularly...but I try.

What it means to be one has been a topic of debate for centuries, ranging from cool and civil up to hot, violent, and murderously bloody.

Those of us that are on the inside of the Christian paradigm with other believers are often the most vociferous about what it means to be a Christian; sadly, and I'm guilty of this in the past myself, we often will "confront our misguided brethren" in a "spirit of love" to "guide them" into more correct and Biblical thinking and living.

In short, we tell them how much they're wrong and how much our view is right, often with Scripture to prove it...which, ironically, they also have and use.   Even shorter, we beat them over the head with a Bible.

I try not to get into that activity...any more; it's non-productive, almost everyone has different views on what many key Scriptures mean, and living a fully Christ-like life is virtually impossible, except for some folks like Billy Graham, and even he has his share of controversy and unpopular views dating back to the Nixon administration, and I'm sure even he would admit to struggling with living a Christ-like life.

But people persist.  Entire forests have been cut down to produce the paper needed for the various arguments, discussions, debates, reports, research, narratives, opinions, and doctrinal theses, all written to prove a point about some aspect of Scripture and living a Christian life.

My point?

We have differences, even between Christians.  I already pointed out in a previous blog post that even the earliest Church fathers realized this and addressed that what's acceptable for one or some would be a hindrance to others in some cases.

I acknowledge the verses that admonish us to live moral, upright lives free of lust, immorality, and impurity; they're right, good, and goals to aspire to.

But....

WE. ALL. FALL. SHORT.

All of us.  Every person.  Even the most upright and moral persons.  Some pastors take extremes to even avoid the APPEARANCE of being improper.  There's a rumor, which I can't find substantiation of, that the Rev. Billy Graham has an aide go through his rooms while travelling in order to prove that there is no one in his rooms, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and avoid someone being able to make him look bad publicly.  As extreme as that sounds, the Bible does advise ministers to avoid even the appearance of impropriety wherever possible so as to be "above reproach".  I'm sure someone would LOVE to break a story about Billy Graham being caught with someone in his rooms, true or not...bad news sells better than good news.

Anyway, back to the point(s).

1. Fact 1:  Nobody's perfect.
2. Fact 2:  See Fact 1.

Now, that being said, I'm fairly live and let live.  It would be hypocrisy for me to comment on someone else's failings when I'm not perfect either, just as it would be hypocrisy for someone else to deem me unfit to be in ministry with them because my "beliefs are too different" when theirs are equally imperfect, ESPECIALLY when it's pointed out by them that what I do in public isn't privately acceptable or Christ-like, but they do things that aren't publicly acceptable or Christ-like in private...things such as making and liking racially-barbed jokes, like this one.  Is it funny?  Yeah, to a degree.  Is it socially acceptable?  Only in certain specific circumstances.  Is it acceptable to a Christian?

Ohhhh, hey, good question...probably so in the South, especially in private...but what if the general public found out that a ministry group, a bunch of Christians, were laughing at and making racially inspired jokes?

They'd be crucified....so they keep it just between people they trust to "relax" around and "be themselves".

And yet these are the same folks that cut me off for posting a link to a video for the Vegan Black Metal Chef for my friends that are not only vegan, but listen to black metal.  Or posting something "about a demon"...yeah, that's as specific as they got, so it was either Cthulhu/Dagon 2012, Something Positive, Cthulhu at Sea, or the Weeping Angel from Dr. Who.

And, of course, the fact I believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and we have no business legislating it.  The Bible indicates "don't do it" to Christians; it doesn't say "control how others live their lives" or "Jesus voted anti-gay" or "Republicans will go to Hell if they don't vote against gay marriage".  *SIDE NOTE:  Some may find it interesting reading to see what some parties get from Scripture regarding gays and the Bible.

Anyway, the point is, someone (me) has been cut off from a ministry position (my former band) because of unpopular or even non-Christian public views...by people who harbor equally unpopular and non-Christian views in private.

Then they say, "We can still be friends and hang out."

Ok, you've just exhibited world-class hypocrisy and changed my life, and you still want to "hang out"?

Um...no.  

I don't think so.  

Right now, I'm thinking and trying to spend some time praying about what my church future holds.  I spent a long time, nearly 10 years, out of church because of some less than ethical dealings from other "Christians".  I love the church I'm in, and the people are (mostly) genuine.

Hell, even the two that just burned me are sincere and genuine and mean well!  I know they did, and they sincerely have mine (and their's and God's) best interests in mind...I get that, and I even agree with their reasoning from a Biblical standpoint.

But based on their own criteria of "above reproach" and Biblical morality and ethics, they're equally wrong...they're just hiding it in private, whereas I take the "here I am, I have nothing to hide" approach.

This is the fourth time I've been hurt specifically by what amounts to hypocrisy from morally upright and well-meaning "followers of Jesus Christ".  My problem isn't with Jesus.  Far from it.

My problem is with those calling themselves His servants.

I don't know if I'll stay in church.  If I do, I couldn't pick a better one than my current church.  The pastor is the most sincere, good, down-to-earth type person.  When he does chide or discipline, it's always and only from what the Bible says, not his opinion of what's "appropriate".  I just don't know if that's enough, though.  I'm tired of being burned.  I'm tired of being "corrected" by people who are JUST. AS. FLAWED. as me....and I'm not sure I want to be part of a congregation where I now have deep, serious, and personal issues with members of the body.

Oh, I'm going to work on it, get it resolved, and make sure that I remain as much in the right as possible regarding my own feelings and thinking and actions.  Forgive...sure; it's what Jesus wants us to do.  But it's going to be a cold day in hell before I TRUST them again.

So, who IS Christ-like?  Who IS a Christian?  Well, Jesus was; from my position, including myself, no one else is even close...so watch out for the glass walls when you start throwing stones.

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.