"Everything has a beginning and an end.

Life is just a cycle of stops and starts. There are ends we don't desire, but they're inevitable and we have to face them. That's what being human is all about."

Reality

If you haven't noticed, I'm not much of a blogger. But some stuff sticks with me enough to find it worth sharing. This is a video I saw back on Easter, I just haven't gotten around to actually posting anything. Anyways... I really like this video. And I think it makes a few very powerful points. The guy is known as Odd Thomas, a rapper with Humble Beast and also recently a member of the group Beautiful Eulogy. In the end, everything becomes black and white. There is right. And there is wrong. You're either saved. Or you're not. You're either in Heaven, or you're in Hell. There's no limbo, no purgatory. And you can't argue or justify who you are or were. A quote from C.S. Lewis repeatedly came to mind while watching this. "Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important." If sin is really sin, there couldn't be more severe consequences. But it's either ignored entirely or viewed simply as something rather inconsequential. Just a "slap on the wrist." Not to ignore God's grace in all of this, of course. But it certainly doesn't make sin any less serious.

You say I'm cheap, I call it being thrifty,

My entire life I've grown up with a natural resentment towards wasting money, or even to spending money in general. I hate throwing money at something that I feel isn't needed or isn't worth it. I'm not exactly sure why... it just seems to be the way I'm wired. One area I tend to never spend money in is food. Unless I really am hungry or it's some sort of special occasion. I just don't see the point. You buy the food or drink, and then a short time later, it's gone. Still in the phase of being a "poor college student" and only working next to minimum wage jobs, I cannot see the point in spending an hour's worth of work on something like a drink, even if it's a good one. Starbucks is pretty much the perfect example. Everything there is rather high priced. It's not that it isn't good, I just don't see how it's five dollars good. Because of this... this scene from Pulp Fiction plays through my head every single time I visit a Starbucks. (Excuse the language...)
I guess this post doesn't really have any point. ...At all. But I don't think one is required after 3:00am.

Opinions are immunity

This is more of a self evaluation and a way to process everything going through my head than an actual post meant to share something. Almost like a letter to myself or something I guess. For some reason it seems like a better alternative to just talking to myself using a .txt document. Feel free to ignore.

It's been two weeks since I opened my release valve wide open and began my recovery from the 2011 fall semester and the last week in particular. Since then, I dove headfirst into comic books,video games, and movies. It's been a great escape and certainly needed to give my brain the time it needed to rejuvenate. But you've gotta come up for air sometime, and ignorance isn't bliss. The city of Rapture isn't the most hospitable place either. The world keeps turning and time keeps ticking. In order to reconnect myself with the real world again, I watched the New Hampshire GOP debate last night. In the last couple of days, finally started looking at candidates more seriously and researching them (actually still researching now as I type this). I've also been made aware of the popularity of Ron Paul, particularly among young people and a lot of my friends, those in facebook land anyway. The more I learn about him, the worse he gets. So much so if I ranked the GOP candidates, he would receive last. Santorum I support the most so far, although he has voted to raise the debt ceiling. Perry has a great record in Texas, with his views on amnesty being my biggest problem so far. Gingrich can be brilliant and especially excels in foreign policy and debates, but also causes concern due to some of his past choices. Romney comes across almost too polished in his debates. His Romney Care he implemented in Massachusetts was actually more or less the blueprint for Obama Care. Paul places fifth due to... well everything except for his financial views really. But his foreign policy is ridiculous and comes across as naive, and the fact that he actually blames America for 9/11 is... sickening.

There's always something wrong in life, it seems. Always something. It's never perfect. Well last night I found out my girlfriend is a big Ron Paul supporter. Surprised? Yeah sure. Not really what I expected, especially after 2 and a half years. But I guess new issues pop up when you go from minor to major and acquire the right to vote. I guess it should have been expected, and rarely do two people see eye to eye on everything. But that big of a difference? Well it's given me a lot to think about, that's for sure. When I learn someone's political views and where they stand, it paints a certain picture of them in my mind. I just have a certain feeling around them after that, whether good or bad. My beliefs in politics is something that has never changed about me, that and my eye color. It's always been consistent. But it's not like I'm incapable of being friends with anyone who thinks differently. But there's a difference between a friend, on facebook or otherwise, and the girl you're dating and potentially going to spend the rest of your life with. I also finally found a friend who does not support Paul. But I was quickly told he's close minded. Doesn't this mean, at least indirectly, that I'm also close minded? I can only assume so. Of course being 500 miles away from home doesn't help anything either...

Lately I've been trying to be more optimistic. It's certainly not something that comes very easy for me, though. Especially with politics and life in general, more often than not, it feels overwhelming. However, I recently ran into Revelations 21, and it has become a source of comfort for me. Five and six in particular stuck out.

-Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.-

What really struck me about this passage was the well-known fact that one day the world will end and everything here will be gone. The majority of what goes on here will be essentially meaningless. It's not that it isn't important, but so much that is important here on earth will have no real impact in eternity. Much like the opening of Ecclesiastes. Still, it's really helped me put some difficult problems into a more manageable perspective. Why so serious? It's too easy to blow things way out of proportion and turn a molehill into a mountain. The older I get, the more I realize how important all those object lessons in Sunday School about putting God first really is in life. It's simple always holds true. If God is first, then any other issue is secondary right? I don't agree with libertarians. But could I live with one? Could I maintain a sincere, intimate relationship with one in spite of obvious differences? My instinctive answer is an adamant "No," because of the difference in world views and beliefs. But maybe it's not a very optimistic look at the situation. Maybe it just needs a different perspective? For starters, a libertarian is better than a liberal. I also think it is better to vote, regardless of the candidate of choice, than to be apathetic and not bother to vote at all. The fact that there hasn't been an issue already after a couple years brings into question how important it really is. And if personal history is brought into consideration, reexamining your beliefs never hurts. However, if someone like Mary Matalin can somehow be with a guy like James Carville, I suppose pretty much anything's possible, right? Or maybe I really have no idea what I'm talking about... I'm not too sure right now. The only course to take seems to be simply be that I'll have to wait and see and... stay positive. After all, nothing's perfect. Anything worth having requires work.

And once again... it's another new year.

And then with thunderous praise and lofty adoration, a second passes by, yet nothing changes.


-Five Iron Frenzy

Jealous Much?

I read this while procrastinating on homework yesterday and just found it interesting, so I figured I'd share it. Another rip from Matt MacDonald's Jet City Filter.

Why We Need Jealousy

I'm in my car yesterday and there's this doctor on the radio talking about a series of research studies he did on relationships. The host asks him about studies on open-relationships of straight people (for those of you who don't know, an open-relationship is one where you get to sow your seed all over town as long as you come home to your main-squeeze), and the doc replies,


"Well, we actually haven't been able to do any studies on them. When we made appointments with open couples it was often the case that they had broken up by the time they were scheduled to come in. So I assume, from that data, that these types of relationships lack stability."


Of course, this is no surprise to us. Anyone who has listened to good 'ol Dr. Drew Lapinsky knows that the best way to get divorced/break-up is to 'de-exclusify' your sex life. That's not morals or religious doctrine talking, that's scientific fact. When people do this, trust is replaced with it's antithesis; jealousy, and jealousy quickly corrodes any healthy relationship.


When the doctor on this program was asked what it would take to have successful, long term open-relationships between a man and a woman he said,


"It would take two very amazing people. It is an amazing person who can resist jealousy for a long period of time."


He went on to say that 100% of gay couples that last 35+ years are open, because they get less jealous and are more honest with each other, and straight couples have a lot to learn from gay couples.


At this point I choked on my Diet Coke.


I'm a pretty liberal guy, and I have close friends who are gay and I love them and they know it. So let me preface this by saying I have no qualms with the stats the good doctor quoted, I'm assuming they're quite true. But I have something to learn from people who don't feel jealousy? Really?


What I have a problem with is the crackpot idea that an exclusive relationship is an antiquated institution, and that in order to be truly enlightened we should be able to do whatever we want and not have jealousy enter into the picture.


Is it really AMAZING when someone's spouse messes around on them and they don't feel jealous? Or is it inhuman?... In my opinion if your spouse is a philanderer and you're not jealous, you need some serious counseling and perhaps a professional to test you for a heartbeat and a spine.


The problem with this post-modern thinking is that the purveyors of it believe they are taking on traditional social structures that are out-dated, like we all should take cues from folks who feel nothing in order to have their cake and eat it too. What people like this doctor are implying is that these folks get to follow every sexual impulse, and thats a good thing because those are natural, where as feeling jealousy is bad because jealousy is primitive. They think they're progressing out of mindless tradition, but I believe they're actually messing with nature.


And when you mess with nature it always ends badly.


The reason we feel jealousy is because it fills the void that trust leaves. Without trust, jealousy enters. We need trust because trust breeds intimacy, and we all long to be intimate, to have our true selves known completely and loved anyways.


We all want to be known and loved despite our faults. This is a primary need for a human to survive, it's the heart of community. This is completely natural and has been for thousands of years. Without jealousy there is no true intimacy because there is no true trust. So why do some think in our modern age that we can rise above it? And more importantly, what are our motives for "rising above" jealousy? I'd argue that they are purely selfish and immoral and damaging to all things pure and good, but that's just me.


Jealousy is natural. You can't breed or train or counsel this out of the human psyche. So contrary to what the doctor said I don't believe I have anything to learn in the way of jealousy, other than perhaps what not to do. It doesn't matter to me that 100% of gay relationships that are 35 years and counting are open.


All that tells me is that they've sacrificed the potential of true intimacy with one person to have plastic intimacy with dozens.


That lack of jealousy comes at too high of a cost. The motives behind such thinking are selfish, and selfishness will quickly make shallow the depth in any relationship. I pity these folks (straight or gay), because they've traded the kind of beauty and depth of true intimacy (that I've personally experienced) for something fast and cheap.


Without jealousy there is no trust, and without trust there is no intimacy, and without intimacy you're just rubbing skin together.


That doesn't seem enlightened to me, it seems entitled. Progressing doesn't happen when you invest in the temporary gratification of impulse. Any Grandpa still married to Grandma with loving kids and grandkids will tell you that progress is the lasting, unspeakable peace that comes from fortitude and integrity.

I just found this today...

I just found out today that Matt MacDonald of The Classic Crime has a blog. I now feel like I have a lot of catching up to do. Anyways... this is just one of his posts that I found interesting and figured I'd share it. I ripped the entire thing from his blog The Jet City Filter. I found the perspective to be quite interesting so I'm sharing it with you.

Profanity vs. Slang

I grew up in a family of ten, so punishment had to come swift for dissenters like myself. The nature of most large families is this: the younger the children the stricter the rules. In my conservative Christian family the rules were especially strict, and when I was young I would get a spanking for even minor offenses like saying the words "shut-up" to my siblings. "Shut-up"(basically slang for "be quiet") was seen as harsh, profane and unruly, and was usually shouted out of desperation in situations where "be quiet" fell on deaf ears. Nevertheless, we were usually spanked if not sent to our rooms for such outbursts of emotional discontent. To my parents credit we were also spanked for saying things like "damn you," which I would usually scream at my older brother after a few hours of torture, at which point he would gleefully tattle-tale, laughing as my punishment ensued. He was a bit of a sadist. The phrase "damn you" is not only a curse word, its actually a curse. The curser is in a sense condemning the cursed to hell. My six year old mind had no idea of the blasphemy I was speaking, but I knew it sounded bad and it seemed to express the fullness of my rage. When our family got older, "shut-up" became a widely used, legitimate reaction towards someone who was purposely being loud or abrasive with the intent of victimizing those in ear-shot. "Damn you," never caught on as an accepted form of expression.

My point is, "shut-up" was slang for something else, something widely accepted, and slang can be adopted (depending on the culture of your community) to express a more intense level of the original words meaning, but "damn you" is just plain profanity, willfully directed at someone with the intent of condemning their eternal soul to hell.

The older I became, the more I travelled, the more people I met, the more cultures I experienced, the more I came to accept certain slang expressions that as a child I would have been spanked for. While in certain company I'd hear these forbidden utterances used for wonderful descriptive purposes and feel no shame upon hearing them. The culture saw them only as expressions to articulate the point. The company, in a sense, can tend to dictate the vocabulary.

I'm not saying that one should not be principled. Sometimes the chameleon strategy will compromise the integrity of your faith and your convictions. Anything that will jeopardize the integrity of your word is not a good thing. For those who have convictions which inspire separate, monk-like vocabularies, I applaud you. I respect conviction. It falls on different people in different ways at different times, and it is key to not disregard it. However, there are certain words that get lumped in with "swearing" or "profanity" that I feel can take on different meanings based on the cultural context in which they're used. These terms I define as "slang," much like "shut-up." I want to break down the difference between "shut-up" and "damn you." I want to try to understand the difference between profanity and slang.

Slang can be defined as dialect, jargon, or colloquialisms (ie "bling" is accepted slang for jewelry). No definition of slang involves blasphemy or obscenity. Profanity, however, is often defined as blasphemous, obscene, irreverent, etc. Language becomes profane when it is used with irreverence towards God, or as a weapon against our neighbor (who God calls us to love). Because of my convictions, I never want to be viewed as irreverent towards God (especially in the company of those who don't believe in God). Regardless of the company I'm in, I want to be known as somebody who takes seriously the implications of using profanity, especially for someone of my faith. For the purpose of examining this topic I will probably use some language that you (the reader) might deem profane, so you should know that I do not use this language with offensive intent, but rather for "research" purposes.

I know there are plenty of verses in the Bible about speaking kindly and non-offensively, so I hope you read this in the humblest of ways. For the sake of "research" I want to break some of these slang terms down, however, I understand there is a chance I will still offend someone. Let's say for a second you weren't worried about your kids hearing a "bad word," or you weren't afraid of your parents finding out you were reading one, or you weren't concerned with what your friends thought about your spiritual life. Let's say for a second you didn't care about all that extraneous shit. Let's just say you really wanted to develop a healthy non-religious understanding of the English language. You'll notice I just said "shit." I said it instead of "stuff." If this blog wasn't about slang, I probably wouldn't have put it there, because it didn't need to be there to articulate my point. I essentially chose to call your worries "shit" instead of "stuff." You probably felt some emotion when you read it. Maybe you interpreted it as an expression of my intense distaste for worry, or perhaps you just felt shock. I'll admit it was sort of exuberantly shocking to write it. What is "shit" anyways? A harsh word for "poop?" An abrupt term for "stuff"? The two words mean the same thing, it's just that one has a more negative, emotional connotation than the other. Veterans don't talk about being in the "stuff" in Korea, because "stuff" can also have good connotations. The Korean War was worse than "stuff." You can get a bunch of stuff for Christmas, or ship a bunch of supplies and stuff to Haiti for relief. Shit, however, is never positive (unless you're from a culture which lacks descriptive terms for good things and chooses to use "cool as shit" or "you're the shit" as positive expressions). Shit is a bad situation. It's the mess an animal makes at your expense. You never step in "stuff," stinky and oozing all over your car door and floor mats. That isn't stuff, that isn't even poop. Poop is something that babies do, or well behaved doggies on walks with their bag handling masters. Shit is the mess an animal makes, its negative through and through, and a very uniquely descriptive word in my opinion. No other word can properly explain the meaning. You can say that someone is lying, or that they are full of garbage, but nothing will interpret better your distaste for lying when you refer to their lies simply as "bullshit."

I know some of you might be flabbergasted already, and might even be more horrified to know that I'm going to bring the Bible into this topic. I've never really had a filter so here goes... Philippians 3:8 says, "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ"

There are a lot of places I could take that verse, but since this is a discussion about language I'll stick to the topic at hand. Paul uses the word "rubbish." Some translations use "dung." In original Greek the word used is skuvbalon. Skuvbalon is used very rarely in popular Greek text and used only in context with emotionally charged topics, usually when the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience. In other words, its a harsh, revolting term for animal excrement, used to disgust the reader. It's slang. Rubbish and dung are words that do not shock or disgust me, however, if the word was interpreted to "bullshit," it would probably be a more accurate translation from the Greek. It's probably closer to what Paul was so adamantly expressing. Rubbish at some point might have meant something terribly revolting in English, maybe dung too... but now they sound like something a British Lord would say after losing money on a horse race. They just can't translate fully the meaning of skuvbalon. Of course, we get the idea of the passage, and I'm not debating the accuracy of the translation... I'm merely saying the original word that Paul used had more revolting and shocking connotations than the "proper English" translation.

Of course, there are certain cultural norms that one must follow. You cannot go around offending people and expect them to respect you and listen to your convictions. You probably shouldn't try using slang with grandma, or at your church, because chances are those folks have pretty strict guidelines against the use of such words. Paul also says, "Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." (Colossians 4:3) So one should never try to be offensive. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't have a stroke every time you hear a slang term in a descriptive context. The motives are rarely defiant... it's usually just cultural differences.

I remember my dad used to pick up a group of kids from the projects and take them to Sunday school. Sometimes I would ride along in the front seat of our Pontiac station wagon as we went to pick these kids up. One day as we exited the station wagon at the church, one of the kids stepped in dog poop. "He stepped in crap!" another kid yelled, and they all started laughing, "Awwww gross! Crap man! It's crap!" I was horrified. "Crap" was a word you could get the belt for in my house. I remember watching my dad, expecting him to get really angry with these kids. He did nothing, in fact, he laughed a little and told the kid to wipe it off before he went inside.

Culturally we used different language, and my dad understood that. He wasn't shocked by it, although if it came out of my mouth it'd be more than a "talking-to" I'd get. We were expected to speak differently in our family and church. Our cultural standard for slang was different, but it didn't make theirs wrong.

So there you have it, my two cents on the functionality of slang, when used in proper context and company I have no problem with it. Now let me tell you how this applies to my current life.

The Classic Crime is a band that tries to play for everyone. We pride ourselves in having a diverse audience of people from all walks of life. Music is a universal language after all, and we never want to form some exclusive, singular sub-culture with our fan-base. We try to attract all cultures. However, sometimes those different cultures clash. Some fans, when commenting on our Facebook or Myspace pages, will say "You guys are fucking awesome!" Sometimes other, more conservative fans will chastise them for their use of "loose language." I feel like the more conservative fans can tend miss the point. The point is that this person thinks we're great. They think we're so great, they're using an extreme word to express it. Perhaps they do not share the same faith, convictions, or doctrine, and perhaps the term "fucking awesome" is used quite frequently in their homes as an expression that is used to refer to something as "extremely good." We don't know, but what we do know is that they aren't saying, "You guys fucking suck!" Which can then be interpreted as profanity because the language is being used as a weapon, or an extreme expression of hatred against us. This, in no culture, can be justified as a useful thing (even though we try to accept those profane criticisms with love as well).

I always read the comments like, "You guys are fucking awesome!" with a clean conscience. Not only that, but I love that those types of people are listening to our music. The words that hurt me are the words that ignorantly and profanely involve God in some way. No matter where I am or who I'm with those words are like nails on a chalkboard. The people who say them never bother me, really, because usually they're folks who have no idea what they are talking about, but their words can tend to make me wince. I believe that God loves us incredibly, so it hurts when someone He loves chooses to use His name as a description for something negative or an attack on their neighbor. This is where words can clash with my convictions. Slang rarely convicts me (and only when used out of context), but profanity always feels icky, in any context. To me, anyways.

Congratulations for making it this far. I hope this post was informative for you, or at least a peek into my "worldly" perspective. The circles I run in aren't the most refined, but I think sometimes refinement is over-rated and holds no "big picture" value. I like to keep company with people who have honest convictions, love without excuses and say what they really feel. With that sentiment in mind, I'll finish this blog.