And now for something completely different... (or, A Confession on God and Destiny)

Very recently I've been remembering certain very striking moments from when I was seventeen and still went to church. This is in part due to some such idiocy my uncle was spewing after Thanksgiving dinner a few weeks back. I haven't been able to get these things out of my mind and I felt the need to share this publicly--for reasons that are beyond my understanding at the moment--rather than in my journal. Forgive me if my thoughts seem a bit scattered, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this.

Probably the one that stands out the most and has created the greatest anxiety in me is from when I was attending some youth church service in the basement one Sunday. During the sermon, of which I literally remember nothing, I felt/heard God tell me that He had big plans for me. What I recall is not just the memory, but the sense of enormity that came with this realization. Now, this scared me then, and, well, it still scared me when the memory so strongly resurfaced again this past month. Why? Because I've been feeling for over a year now like I'm standing on the edge of a cliff waiting to jump. Somewhat of an understandable feeling given that I was about to graduate from university and had to figure out what to 'do' with my life. However, this time the feeling of the abyss came with this memory and the realization that I had to make a decision--and fast--because the edge is fast approaching. I am leaving my job at the end of this year (approximately six weeks from now) and have zero clue as to where I will be next year. Now, I haven't been to church regularly since I was eighteen or nineteen (and even then, I was just going through the motions but my heart was no longer there for so many reasons), but I also have had intermittent check-ups/check-ins with God. In my time away  I have come to certain conclusions about God and what I feel 'Christianity' really is supposed to be (see Repentance and Regret). I know it is not what I ended up with in the year or two before I left church, when I was always miserable and struggling and always without anyone to discuss this with honestly. Everyone seems to plaster a smile on their face and act like life is perfect because God has saved them, but no one talks about the realities of doubt, of frustration.

I was miserable. I know now that I did it to myself (although I feel the church atmosphere did not help). Regardless, I have since been very avoidant of attending church. I fear returning to my private hell. This is where my uncle comes in. We were having a discussion about God after dinner. Both he and my mom attend church, while I do not. I posed a question to my mom: "Do you think God works on you even when you're ignoring Him?" My uncle laughed and asked incredulously, "You're ignoring God?" Well, yeah... kinda. I like God, I dislike church. I've always thought the two go hand in hand and that if I stopped ignoring God, I'd have to actually go back to church which, the longer I'm away, the more the idea becomes anathema to me.

Later on in the conversation my uncle started going on about Jesus returning (and soon). He even gave some idiotic prediction which I had to give a rebuttal to. However, in the process of our argument I got very upset because part of what made me so miserable when I used to go to church was the 'hoping for things unseen', wanting heaven, wanting to go 'home'. I have only this year, after nearly six years away from church, come to a point where I am happy where I am. Yes, I still have dreams of travelling and going to Africa, etc., etc. but I no longer pine away for some 'other' place rather than enjoy where I am right.now. I have peace for the first time since... I don't even know when.

  Anyway, somehow his crazy prediction and my strong reaction against it all only brought everything that has been sitting on the periphery of my life this year right in front of me. I was no longer able to avoid making a decision about God. When I made the decision to end my relationship with my best friend of seventeen years last summer, I felt something I really didn't expect: freedom. I tried to figure out why this was and one of the answers I came up with was that in order for me to change directions (as I so obviously needed to do after hitting my low point weeks earlier), I could not remain friends with her. She was holding me back. She doesn't believe in God, which would not be a problem except that she got very uncomfortable whenever I spoke about God. Not exactly encouraging when I know in my heart that God is still important to me, despite my past and my fears of church. So, I've known for a while that this was something I had to do. It actually goes further back than that, because when I left church it was always supposed to be temporary.

Now, the time had come to make my decision and all I could think of was that 'God has big plans for me'. I also knew that to turn back to God was not going to be a halfway measure this time, not like my previous 'check-ups'. It was all or nothing. Needless to say, while I was agonizing over this I was more than a little bit terrified. I have control issues. I like to have a plan. Or at least know what the plan is. And God wasn't telling.

This internal battle royale also brought up an interesting question: Can you really avoid destiny? And is that even what this is? Maybe I'm crazy, and I'm sure a lot of people will think I am. In any case, I still want to know what these damn plans are and, if it is destiny, well, you can't win against God, so I might as well give in. The big question is, where do I go now?

The Cycle of Violence

Violence breeds violence; and retaliation only fuels the cycle of violence. There is a point where violence is necessary, yes, but if it continues past its purpose, then it really hasn't served its purpose. To stop someone like Hitler, or to end something like genocide takes violence, but afterwards what is left? For a society so ravaged by hate and killing like Rwanda, to continue down that path would be its own destruction. The question is, how do we move on? 

I've been reading a memoir by a man from Rwanda--he fled the country before the genocide, but returned to help rebuild the country--and in his work post-genocide, he came into contact with the mayor of his town who was in one of the prisons Sebarenzi visited. The man was known to have been involved in instigating the killings, but denied it. Sebarenzi gave the man some money for food because he saw what deplorable conditions the prisoners were living in. He says:

It wasn't a heroic gesture. I wasn't trying to prove a point or demonstrate a holier-than-thou piety. In truth, I didn't really think about it at all. I saw another human being in need and offered help--nothing more, nothing less. I knew that regardless of what he had done, I had to help him. I knew that my behavior could not be dictated by his.

He didn't choose compassion, it just happened. But I wish so many more could take his example, myself included. How we act speaks volumes about our character, especially in a situation where the obvious choice seems to be hate.

When it comes down to it, we're all human.

The Right Conditions

Everyone knows that Hitler was an evil guy who killed 6-million Jews, but not everyone knows what was going on in Germany before his rise to power that created the perfect opportunity for Hitler and World War II. Weimar Germany was in a state of total financial crisis and was looking for a scapegoat. There was a long history of violence against Jews before Hitler ever arrived on the political scene. He told people what they wanted to hear... and he followed through, too.

This came up in conversation with a couple of ladies at work recently, one of whom is originally from Britain. She's been following closely what's been happening with the election there and she was telling me that because of the influx of immigrants (and the social stress that's causing) and the financial crisis, plus a charistmatic leader that the conditions are ripe for another Hitler-type leader. The question is, have we learned anything from history?

All it takes is the right conditions, for enough people to look the other way. How often do we stand up to a bully (our own or someone else's)? It's so much easier to 'go with the flow' than to take a stand, but it's not what will stop a bully ...or violence for that matter.

Horrors of History

I'm currently writing a paper on La Amistad, and one of the articles I've read makes a point I want to explore further. It is discussing the unsanitized and realistic depiction of the trans-Atlantic crossing of slave ships and the author, Joseph K. Adjaye, says:

As painful as this episode of the past is, it cannot and should not be erased from historical memory. 

 I think this is true of most horrors to be found in history. I have a personal obsession with the Rwandan genocide and trying to understand that. The atrocities of history need to be remembered and remain horrific and unsanitized to remind us that they are horrors and should not be repeated.

Quincy Adams in the film Amistad: "Whoever tells the best story wins." Oddly true to history, not just the illustrious court case. Another article I just read for the same class was discussing the representations of WWII in works of history, film and fiction. The grittier, more true-to-life representation of war will likely be forgotten because it's not the one the public wants to hear. And yet it is what should be remembered. If we don't remember how horrible these things actually were, then we are more inclined to repeat them. There is a reason people say history repeats itself. It only takes the right conditions...

The Invisible Beauty

I was watching a movie last week that brought up an interesting point. Dennis Hopper's character in Elegy was talking to his friend about how beautiful women are invisible. Ben Kingsley's character disagreed, saying that he couldn't help but notice them because they were gorgeous. Hopper argues that you don't really see them. You see only the outer shell which is beautiful, but the inner person is ignored because of the outer beauty.

There's a certain extent to which I tend to think extremely beautiful people are more inclined to be uninteresting or ugly in their personalities because they've come to take for granted that they can get by on their looks and thus lack personal development. This is why I thought it was an interesting take on beautiful people, it challenged what I normally think... and yet, I've met exceptions to my own 'rule'. Hopper's speech seems to be true, too, when one considers Hollywood. We all marvel at the beauty of the actors we love (and sometimes their talent as well), but do we really know them? Whatever we believe about these beautiful people, we do not actually know them, only our perceptions of them.

Then again, do we ever really know anyone? Everyone gets judged for how they look. Perhaps with the ugly, ordinary or less beautiful people know to look past what they see to the true personality. I've always found that to be far more attractive than however a person may look. Appearances fade, personality does not.

Let me know your thoughts... I think I'm still pondering this one myself.

The Art of the First Impression

The impression we leave on others has always fascinated me, perhaps it's why my favourite game is something called True Colors: a game wherein you have to guess how many people 'voted' for your statement to be most associated with yourself. It's not so much a game of how well people know you, but how well you know how people perceive you. Both being topics that interest me. If you look it up, apparently the game has been butchered into a 'mean-spirited' and not quite as fun a game since it's original 1989 incarnation, but I digress.

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about first impressions. She believes she must make a terrible one because she's never acquired a job where she didn't already know someone currently working there. I have never had a job where I knew someone there beforehand; this may be partly due to the fact that I was the first of my friends to get a job so I couldn't exactly rely on them in this manner. Then again, once they did get jobs I wasn't interested in working where they did, and possibly just not working with them at all (I think having personal space apart from friends or family is a good thing). It's an interesting point though, that we have entirely different experiences with the job market and yet she seems like a friendly enough person.

However, she did make a couple of other statements which made me wonder whether she wasn't correct about her first impression theory. But what is it that makes a good impression on people? She told me she hates searching for jobs (I think most would agree) and the need to pretend you really want to work wherever you're applying, etc. Perhaps I'm not quite as misanthropic as some of my friends and so don't feel quite like I'm 'acting' when I apply for jobs. There is a bit of that inherent in the art of the search, but there's no reason you can't come across as sincere as well. Maybe my friend gives a bad impression because people can see through her feigned interest and enthusiasm when she applies. I know I'm a bit more 'over the top' friendly and enthusiastic than I normally would be in my day-to-day life when I'm applying for a new job, but it goes with the territory. However, I also make a point of genuinely being in a good mood when I go out to apply. I can't 'fake' being nice when I'm in a bad--or even blah--mood, and I wonder if my friend doesn't have the same problem. People are subconsciously aware of a lot more than we realize. Whether you're aware of it or not, when you meet someone you do register their body language and the volumes that it speaks. It's why we make snap judgements on people within 5-7 seconds of seeing or meeting someone.

So, how does one make a good first impression? I'd have to say sincerity plays a large part. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they like 'fake' people. Disagree? Leave a comment and we can discuss.

Repentance and Regret:

"Repentence is not a virtue, that is, it does not arise from reason. Rather, he who repents what he did is twice miserable." -Baruch Spinoza

So what then of the repentance of the Bible? Is it necessary?
There are two definitions given for repentance:

1] to turn away from sin and reform one's life
2] to feel sorry for something done; regret.

But if regret is bad, making us "twice miserable", then why bother. Is it really necessary to 'confess' to God (or man) if we recognize we've done something that we shouldn't have and don't wish to do again. If the recognition and decision/resolve to 'turn away' is there, are confession and repentance not redundant?

I cannot bring myself to agree that I should dredge up old 'sins' and misdeeds deliberately during "prayer time" to confess and repent and ask forgiveness for something that as far as I'm concerned is over and done with and not to be repeated if it can be helped. Isn't it better to live with no regrets (because regret holds us in the past, often to the detriment of our present) but vow to learn from the situations that are now undesirable (i.e. regrets)--I mean, isn't that what regrets are, decisions made that seemed like a good idea at the time, but (for whatever reason) are no longer viewed positively.

The definition of regret is as follows:
regret - to be sorrowful for something that is beyond your control to remedy.

Essentially, regret is a waste of time. It's like the Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the ability to change the things I can, and to accept the things I cannot." If regret is a part of repentance, and regret essentially makes you miserable, then no wonder I was miserable when I was going to church... it's structured into the program! But that's another topic.

We are tortured with regret by constant confession rather than taught to live a life of 'no regrets', which does not mean not living, but rather leaving the past where it belongs--in the past--and learning from your mistakes.

Until next time...

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Art imitating life imitating art?

I know I've neglected this blog for a while, I think I bit off more than I can chew by adding this to my many projects at the moment. The practical has taken precedence over my more philosophical thoughts as of late and, thus, the neglect. However, I was watching what could be called 'ultra-violent' movies last night and I thought I'd throw a commonly posed question out there: Does watching violence make us violent?

I know this has been considered a lot because of the school shootings that have happened in the past ten years. But really, is it just disturbed or violent people acting out or are the video games, movies and music to blame? Perhaps it's a mixture of both, but I do think you have to be a bit more predisposed to violence and hate to act on what you see and imitate it.

I'll admit, I greatly enjoy movie violence at times, Deathproof and Planet Terror being perfect examples of this; however, I'm not a fan of real life violence. I've witnessed two fights--one in high school and one at a concert a year or two ago--and the experience was not something I enjoyed. It made me a bit sick to my stomach. It seems pointless, especially the one that I witnessed in high school which was started by one guy throwing Smarties at another and ended in one of them being punched in the head repeatedly. Where does one logically lead to the other???

Perhaps it's because I tend to make the disconnect between movies and reality that one bothers me and the other doesn't. Movies may be violent, but they aren't real. It is sanitized and safe because it remains on the screen and doesn't disrupt your own life. Real violence doesn't play by those rules, it is disruptive and destructive and utterly unpredictable at times.

Agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts?

What Makes Us Really Happy?

I'm going to take another slightly more personal turn to get at a bigger issue: happiness.

I'm having a great debate with everyone about being 'happier' without my former best friend. I was not unhappy as her friend. Yes, there were obviously issues or else it wouldn't have ended, but they mostly were ignored in the day-to-day of our friendship. But I've been wondering why they consider me happier, because if it's just in the context of my misery and frustration before things blew up, then that is not a true representation of how I typically felt as her friend. I know that I am better off without her, but does being 'better off' equate with being happier than previously? I can't help but say 'No'. It's not always true that you're happier when 'better off'. I have been dealing with a lot of stuff since that point, not all of it has made me 'happy'. Yet I wouldn't return to the relationship ever again. Also, I generally think of happiness as being conditional on some 'happening', and thus, more likely to be fleeting.

However, ignoring my own personal pedantic issues with the term 'happy', it seems that so many people aren't. There is an obsession with pursuing happiness--there are mass amounts of books on the subject, so clearly there is a market there--and yet it seems the lucky few actually achieve it. Why is this? I've clearly got my own theories, but I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.

I've been having a discussion lately that touches slightly on this: the dreaded rat race. How many people hate their jobs or, at the very least, don't love what they do? Society seems to tell us that if we don't accomplish A, B, C and D by a certain point in our lives, we're doing something wrong. But not everyone is designed for the 9 to 5 work-a-day life. Many of the things Western society tells us are important are not very meaningful. So many people lie to themselves to convince themselves that they're happy or will be happy, if only....(fill in the blank); and so many others just lie to others to keep up the façade that they really are happy. If you want proof of this, just check out five-secrets.com. I by no means presume to have a formula for how to achieve happiness, but I do think it's different for everybody. Whatever is important to you, focusing on that will make you happier than you would be otherwise. But life isn't necessarily supposed to be pleasant all the time. Besides, if it was, we wouldn't appreciate how good it really was if it was all good all the time. You would get complacent, apathetic. We need the highs and lows to balance each other out. You appreciate colourful spring more because of the cold, dark winter that precedes it.

I'd love to hear your thoughts...

The Nature of Truth

I've been pondering truth lately. Not in the 'truth is relative' way, but how does one arrive at the truth? Part of this was puzzled over in a religious context, but I think it applies regardless. It seems the only way to come to the full realization of the truth of any given situation or conflict comes from viewing all sides. Otherwise, you are only seeing a fraction of the truth. The reality is the truth is often very complicated. Many things are not black and white. There are shades of gray in many situations.

It always annoys me that people fail to see the other side of things. It all boils down to a refusal to empathize and oftentimes to people's avoidance of conflict. And yet conflict can help bring the truth to light. When it comes to differing doctrinal views within a single religion, it can be a way of teasing out the truth of the issue being debated. However, it seems all too often they choose to break away and condemn the others' views instead of trying to truly understand one another. The same could be said for so many day-to-day conflicts: we so often are so utterly entrenched in our views that we fail to listen to what the other person has to say. Honestly, maybe they have something to say that never occurred to you and might better inform your own views, even if you disagree with the other person.

To take a bit of a tangent, I sincerely believe the truth is its purest form is a radical thing... and also something a great many people avoid. Michael Yaconelli has a fantastic quote in his book Messy Spirituality:

Unfortunately, people can handle the most difficult issues more easily than they can handle the lack of pretending. When you and I stop pretending, we expose the pretending of everyone else.

As a non-pretender, I've found that this is entirely true. People like to be selective with the truth and believe that politically correct and 'not rocking the boat' is the best option. But people--if they are willing to hear it--really appreciate honest truth. It doesn't have to mean you have no tact (as I've been accused of in the past), it means not stroking someone's ego purely out of avoidance of conflict and, if your 'honesty' does not come from a vengeful place, then it will be in the other person's best interests and will help them grow. We all have a blind spot to ourselves. But I digress....

A Definition of "Nice" / "Consider It"

I was trying to think of what to post about next, but it seems life has a way of redirecting your thought processes sometimes. I'm trying to contain a rant, so forgive me if this doesn't come across as deeply philosophical. So, here goes:

There is a girl I know who has a major superiority complex. In keeping with this attitude, she likely believes that we're all too stupid to pick up on this. And yet, no one I know likes her in large part due to her attitude. It's almost palpable at times. I got into yet another altercation with her today--it seems I'm the only one willing to take a stand where she's concerned--and it got me thinking about a couple of things:
1. What is it that makes someone 'nice'?
2. Is common courtesy really such an antiquated notion?


This girl is one of the most talkative people I've ever met. She considers herself to be very 'friendly'. To an extent this is true, but clearly being chattier does not make you a nicer person. Nice people are liked; she is not. But then, what makes someone nice? According to the dictionary:

nice /naɪs/ –adjective
1. pleasing; agreeable; delightful.
2. amiably pleasant; kind.

Hmm, now, to an extent you could call this girl 'nice' with a definition like that, but her niceness is superficial--she's compensating for her air of superiority. I find it interesting that 'kind' is listed as a definition of 'nice', which has a slightly more specific definition:

kind /kaɪnd/ –adjective
1. of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person.
2. having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence.
3. indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often fol. by to).

con·sid·er·ate /kənˈsɪdərɪt/ –adjective
1. showing kindly awareness or regard for another's feelings, circumstances, etc.

And my own personal favourite definition of considerate: you 'consider it', 'it' being another person's feelings. If by the thread of definition, 'nice' people are generally thought of as kind and considerate, thereby making them typically helpful and aware of things/people outside of themselves, then this girl is not 'nice'. This ties well into my issue with whether courtesy is relevant in the present or become an antiquated notion.

The reason for the altercation was over a minor issue, but it was a courtesy and cooperation issue. We needed the same general area and she decided to block my access to the space. I thought perhaps this was due to a lack of awareness (I can forgive obliviousness) and told her I would need to share the space a bit longer and it made more sense for her to allow free access by both of us by simply moving the object she had placed in the way. This would have been no problem, but she argued with me; essentially only to say that her needs were more important than mine. They weren't. We were doing the same thing in the same area, our needs were equal.

Courtesy seems like a dying art almost, and yet it is what makes social interaction a pleasant experience. It's a sign of respect. It makes the other person feel goodand, in turn, yourself. Courtesy is more likely to be reciprocated than initiated, so even if you're selfish, it's in your own best interests because people will generally be nicer and more helpful in return to your kindness. Also, if you're wanting to make a good impression on someone, being 'nice' or courteous is going to help you in that endeavour.

I know a lot of this sounds utterly simple and obvious, but having dealt with this girl and others like her, it proves to me that not everyone understands. Being perceived as 'nice' is somewhat dependent on courtesy and respect. Having a superior air about yourself is not the way to gain friends, but enemies. Humility is underrated, even in the church apparently--because this girl is deeply religious, but not even close to being humble.

I think one of the nicest things people can do for one another is to simply listen to one another. Genuinely listen, not just pretending to pay attention while you wait for your turn to talk.

Agree? Disagree? Want to add your 2 cents? Leave a message.

The Masks We Wear

I've been frequenting www.five-secrets.com recently and its various offshoots on Twitter and Facebook. The interesting thing about sites like this and PostSecret is that when we're stripped of our superficial identifying marks: names, faces, etc. that we're really all quite similar. People respond to the vulnerability shown on these sites, and I don't think it's purely out of voyeurism.

There are a lot of horrible secrets that get posted, yet so often those things we thought we were alone in can be related to by more people than we would ever have expected. I suppose the same could be said for the entirety of the internet, yet somehow these sites seem to have more truth in them. People drop their masks and are completely real, even if just temporarily because they are anonymous. It's a shame that that kind of honesty and vulnerability are seen so rarely in our personal relationships. We're so often afraid we'll be judged, but judging by the reactions on PostSecret there is a lot more sympathy and understanding for a lot of the things we fear to speak aloud. Why are we so willing to divulge the deepest, darkest part of our selves to someone unknown?

And why is it that sometimes we can relate on such a deeper level to someone anonymous than to the ones that are closest to us? I've been carrying on an anonymous email conversation lately with someone and have discovered that this person is far more akin to myself than I ever would have expected, especially because I have gotten the distinct impression in my life that people like this are rare.