So, yeah, I haven't stayed away have I? Well, I guess I am not going to, but these posts are going to be significantly shorter than usual and more ad-libbed.
Anyway, I've been trying to figure out if I'm being a bad catholic somehow because I generally fail to make the Sign of the Cross before praying. Actually, that isn't wholly truthful because I do make the sign of the cross in the presence of other Catholics or before I pray the rosary while I exercise. I just don't make the Sign of the Cross clearly before I pray over my meals, or when I am in the presence of my non-Catholic Christian brethren. I do tend to do either a mental Sign of the Cross or a mini-sign with my thumb on my forehead, but those just seem lacking to me now.
My excuses are basically "I don't want to stand out," "I don't want to appear presumptuous ," or "I don't want to deal with an apologeticx argument now."
So, since most of my excuses sound pathetic when I voice them, I figure I've got to step up and step out. However, before I deal with my excuses in particular, I think you might agree with the question "why should I care?" Really, doesn't everything come down to that? As in, what's the point? Truly, if there is no reason then well... there is just plain no reason, right?
The point then of the Sign of the Cross is what? Okay, are you ready for the cookie cutter answer I've known since I was little but have been unable to explain for so long? The Sign of the Cross is the simplest profession of faith in the form of an outward sign used to mark myself as in accord with Christ's church and in communion with all of Christianity. Yeah, cute, eh? My issue has always been with what does that exactly mean? Moreover, how would I explain it to a hostile crowd that would see accord with the church as something that mindless sheep do.
The thing about having something bother you interminably is that you think about it and anytime you encounter anything related to it, it sticks. I use this approach to thought when I'm studying Japanese by creating a state of preoccupation with the language. However, I digress. Anyway, my search for information on the Sign of the Cross has been scattered at best but my thoughts on the Sign of the Cross seem to have come to a boiling point tonight and no amount of forced necessity concerning schoolwork or Japanese can seem to yank me away from expressing my thoughts.
The Sign of the Cross is significant, plain and simple. What other belief system has such a defining characteristic? Besides, the action mirrors that of the great commission, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matt 28:19 RSV That however, only deals with the form of the Sign of the Cross. The form, by the by, is very simple:
In the name of the father (Touch one's forehead)
And the Son (Touch one's chest)
And the Holy Spirit (Touch one's left and then right shoulder)
Amen (typically: fold one's hands together)
I guess you could say, the Sign of the Cross is used to log in or to log out of prayer. Why? I don't know, but it seems fitting to open and end with a fiat.
There are apparently variations that are concerned with whether you touch with your index finger, your middle finger, your thumb and forefinger together, your thumb, index and middle finger together to represent the trinity, etc etc etc. I've come to the conclusion that that part doesn't matter so much, besides its not like any of the variations previously mentioned are truly substantial matters. For personal significance, I like taking the three fingers together to represent the trinity and then, per what seems to me to be a Hispanic tradition, I kiss the three fingers at the Amen part. Especially if this action is accompanied by a genuflection, it just seems more reverent to me. I really only would use that form in a church though because it would seem excessive any other time.
So, then, because I know I haven't answered anywhere near well enough the questions that would be raised with regard to the scriptures, I must continue. First of all, it doesn't appear to be contradictory to scripture to me, so I would have trouble understanding any opposition to anything so hardcore as an external sign accompanying faith, but then again, I am the Catholic talking now. So, the best directly Biblical comparison that I can give besides the great commission is that of the seals on the foreheads of the many saved in the Revelation of John. (7:3, 9:4, 14:1 for those who want to check) However, yeah, that is a somewhat weak argument for the Sign of the Cross, but on the other hand, anything evenly slightly positive for it is far better than the negatives I have been unable to find.
Allow me for a moment to step up my explanation a notch. The Sign of the Cross is first of all, a lowercase-t tradition which means it is not doctrinal, but like the convention of chapters and verses in the Bible, it too serves a purpose. When one performs the Sign of the Cross one affirms their faith in the living God, recalls their baptism, reveals their connection with Christ's church and awakens one's senses to be better attentive in prayer. In essence, it makes you accountable.
Which, of course, brings me all the way back around to my first thoughts: Do I fail?
I don't want to stand out
Just remember the nail that sticks out gets hammered down is a prevailing notion that I have been steeped in because of my connections with Japanese culture. This excuse just smacks of my Japanese-ish side horribly. I never actually noticed till now, that when you think about, that statement is horribly accurate. How do you think the Church grew in the early days? The blood of the martyrs acted as seeds for the faith of many. They stood out and got hammered down, but what happened? More rose to take their places, and more will if it happens again.
"I don't want to appear presumptuous"
Actually, I don't have a strong argument against this one. Why? Well, because this is a rational fear that my ego will get in the way and I will be making the Sign of the Cross just so I can proclaim my own righteousness. That would be an epic fail and a good reason for me to actually not make an outward sign.
"I don't want to deal with an apologeticx argument now."
1 Peter 3:15, I think I quoted this in a previous post, but pause for a second to think about it. "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;" RSV Yeah, so I guess, what part of always don't I understand? I guess I need more faith and a willingness to trust the Lord so that I won't get tongue-tied.
I guess, I will be using the Sign of the Cross more frequently from here on out. Ooh, maybe I should start saying it in Japanese. I might then have the gumption to do it.
父と子と精霊のみなによって、アーメン。 だって日本語のほうは短いとは思わないの？
Go and Set the World Ablaze.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Archbishop George Lucas
Just some notes from a FOCUS event with Omaha's archbishop.
- Favorite Saints: St. Joseph and St. Matthew
- When asked what book he thought we should read he responded with: Well, of course, The Bible! He gave an anecdote on how when he blesses little kids Bibles that he likes to tell them that the blessing won't be activated until they open the book. Of course, that is not entirely the way it works but it's probably a good way to motivate kids to read their Bibles.
Go and set the world on Fire, ya'll. ^_^
- Favorite Saints: St. Joseph and St. Matthew
- When asked what book he thought we should read he responded with: Well, of course, The Bible! He gave an anecdote on how when he blesses little kids Bibles that he likes to tell them that the blessing won't be activated until they open the book. Of course, that is not entirely the way it works but it's probably a good way to motivate kids to read their Bibles.
Go and set the world on Fire, ya'll. ^_^
Saturday, October 31, 2009
My path
What.. What. . Wait? when did this happen? When did November creep up on me??
Sorry guys, I won't be posting anything in my blog area until after the JLPT test in December. Why? Because I am that serious about passing it that I will probably be cutting out any and all semi-necessary activities to study for it... which is bad because I just found out Saturday that I have enough willpower to study until I literally fall asleep in mid-sentence. @_@
I'll have to figure out some way to inject more energy into this body of mine.... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, no?
Also, please pray for me that I might get accepted by JET. I am applying to work in Japan starting next summer and yeah, the cut-off date is in November. Between that and the typical school stuffs are going to be classified as essentials just so that I actually remember to work on them.
So, in my absence...
Go and Set the world on Fire
Sorry guys, I won't be posting anything in my blog area until after the JLPT test in December. Why? Because I am that serious about passing it that I will probably be cutting out any and all semi-necessary activities to study for it... which is bad because I just found out Saturday that I have enough willpower to study until I literally fall asleep in mid-sentence. @_@
I'll have to figure out some way to inject more energy into this body of mine.... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, no?
Also, please pray for me that I might get accepted by JET. I am applying to work in Japan starting next summer and yeah, the cut-off date is in November. Between that and the typical school stuffs are going to be classified as essentials just so that I actually remember to work on them.
So, in my absence...
Go and Set the world on Fire
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Secularism
So, what is secularism anyway? What is particular to French Secularism?
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.
Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.
Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.
My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.
Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.
My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.
Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.
Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.
My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.
Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.
My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Alice and Christopher West
To start off with, this whole situation initially confused me as well, but I figured that sorting through it in words would be helpful.
First off, Exhibit A:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=2 May 7, 2009
Actually, you don't have to read that because, in fact, I find that article horribly offensive because I've read some of Christopher West's books, and even been to a talk of his (if I remember correctly). However, the ABC news piece takes snippets of what Christopher said in an interview and then twists them by putting a very scandalous spin on his beliefs. Despite the negative patterns of this interview, West is really just awesome when it comes to making Catholic teaching relevant to our current generation. Why then does this article exist? My assessment would be simply that he is too pure to notice when he is being led to the slaughter.
Now, Exhibit B:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950 May 12, 2009
First off, before I get started on my commentary, note the date. This interview with Alice Von Hildebrand occurred right after the above ABC post which I found offensive but (Thank God!) knew enough about Christopher West as to not be scandalized. Alice's harsh critique of Christopher West, if it is truly a reaction to the ABC article, and there is evidence that it is, then I would conjecture that she is knocking down little straw men instead of constructively critiquing West. Now let me add one more piece of relevant information. She does claim to have read the following.
Exhibit C:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928 May 9, 2009
This article is concerned with West taking the opportunity to try and set straight some of the sensationalizing that occurred in the ABC interview.
Now, before I continue, you may be wondering who Alice Von Hildebrand is, aren't you? Well, she is the wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a renowned advocate of purity. Not having read either of their books, with the exception of skimming Alice's "The Privilege of being a woman," I really can't comment any further. Except to say that they are both on the same battlefield for purity as Christopher West and have their own unique approach to teaching it.
See http://www.hildebrandlegacy.org/main.cfm?r1=1.00&ID=1&level=1 for more information.
Now, let me call your attention back to exhibit B. I was really disappointed in this article. Alice starts off by saying that she "knew the gist of the Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body." Additionally, I was disappointed to note that I could not find her mention anywhere how extensive her knowledge was of Christopher West's materials. So, it struck me that she was likely not actually qualified to be making any remarks on the matter. When you are critiquing someone who is an expert on something extensive like say the Theology of the Body (a series of 129 sermons given over a five year period) and you only get the "gist" of the thing, you have no right to give definitive remarks. It only creates unnecessary turmoil from within the Church and extends from a lack of charity.
Actually, the thing that bothered me the most was that she attacked his reverence. If her reaction was to the ABC article, then yes he did appear irreverent, but that was hardly a good presentation of West. In fact, I would say he is rather reverent and on the very same side as Alice. A fact, which might have been communicated during his two-hour interview but not in the seven-minute regurgitation.
The impression I get is that Alice and her husband's works are geared for those ready for an intense, highly conservative approach to God and sexuality. They are like the howitzers of war, the enemy can't even get close and the user has to already be strongly entrenched on their side to properly utilize them.
Christopher West's materials are more like the everyday Ak-47's, grenades or flamethrowers of war that are used in the everyday grind. He simply brings the content to the world in which the world can relate, and his materials are in the middle of the conflict on the front lines.
My overall summary is simple. These two are together in the same war fighting on the same side with no time for this sort of dissonance. I see their two approaches as different, not contradictory, but even quite possibly complimentary. I would say Christopher West is seeking to be a different face for the world. An approach best summarized in the immortal words of St. Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor 9:22
For those who want to see the entire Theology of the Body talks, I give this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
First off, Exhibit A:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=2 May 7, 2009
Actually, you don't have to read that because, in fact, I find that article horribly offensive because I've read some of Christopher West's books, and even been to a talk of his (if I remember correctly). However, the ABC news piece takes snippets of what Christopher said in an interview and then twists them by putting a very scandalous spin on his beliefs. Despite the negative patterns of this interview, West is really just awesome when it comes to making Catholic teaching relevant to our current generation. Why then does this article exist? My assessment would be simply that he is too pure to notice when he is being led to the slaughter.
Now, Exhibit B:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950 May 12, 2009
First off, before I get started on my commentary, note the date. This interview with Alice Von Hildebrand occurred right after the above ABC post which I found offensive but (Thank God!) knew enough about Christopher West as to not be scandalized. Alice's harsh critique of Christopher West, if it is truly a reaction to the ABC article, and there is evidence that it is, then I would conjecture that she is knocking down little straw men instead of constructively critiquing West. Now let me add one more piece of relevant information. She does claim to have read the following.
Exhibit C:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928 May 9, 2009
This article is concerned with West taking the opportunity to try and set straight some of the sensationalizing that occurred in the ABC interview.
Now, before I continue, you may be wondering who Alice Von Hildebrand is, aren't you? Well, she is the wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a renowned advocate of purity. Not having read either of their books, with the exception of skimming Alice's "The Privilege of being a woman," I really can't comment any further. Except to say that they are both on the same battlefield for purity as Christopher West and have their own unique approach to teaching it.
See http://www.hildebrandlegacy.org/main.cfm?r1=1.00&ID=1&level=1 for more information.
Now, let me call your attention back to exhibit B. I was really disappointed in this article. Alice starts off by saying that she "knew the gist of the Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body." Additionally, I was disappointed to note that I could not find her mention anywhere how extensive her knowledge was of Christopher West's materials. So, it struck me that she was likely not actually qualified to be making any remarks on the matter. When you are critiquing someone who is an expert on something extensive like say the Theology of the Body (a series of 129 sermons given over a five year period) and you only get the "gist" of the thing, you have no right to give definitive remarks. It only creates unnecessary turmoil from within the Church and extends from a lack of charity.
Actually, the thing that bothered me the most was that she attacked his reverence. If her reaction was to the ABC article, then yes he did appear irreverent, but that was hardly a good presentation of West. In fact, I would say he is rather reverent and on the very same side as Alice. A fact, which might have been communicated during his two-hour interview but not in the seven-minute regurgitation.
The impression I get is that Alice and her husband's works are geared for those ready for an intense, highly conservative approach to God and sexuality. They are like the howitzers of war, the enemy can't even get close and the user has to already be strongly entrenched on their side to properly utilize them.
Christopher West's materials are more like the everyday Ak-47's, grenades or flamethrowers of war that are used in the everyday grind. He simply brings the content to the world in which the world can relate, and his materials are in the middle of the conflict on the front lines.
My overall summary is simple. These two are together in the same war fighting on the same side with no time for this sort of dissonance. I see their two approaches as different, not contradictory, but even quite possibly complimentary. I would say Christopher West is seeking to be a different face for the world. An approach best summarized in the immortal words of St. Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor 9:22
For those who want to see the entire Theology of the Body talks, I give this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
Friday, October 23, 2009
Momentous Decisions
As we all know momentous decisions are not to be made lightly. In fact they are quite the opposite, and since I have a few that I have to make here shortly, I've been trying to map out the various levels/stages/components that are key to a momentous decision. Before writing any further though, I must be acutely clear that what I am about to outline is concerned only with momentous decisions.
Normative Alliance
The decision should lead you down a path that is both right in means and end.
~if the end is not good, i don't know why you do it anyway.
~if the means are not good, you should bide your time and choose a different approach.
For example, if you wanted money and since money is not necessarily a bad thing, the ends are not bad. Although, sneaking into and stealing from someone would not be a good means. It would be better actually if you got a part-time job.
Emotional Preparation
If there is something causing you to worry about it, until a solution can be found, one should wait.
If you can't solve it on your own you should find a trustworthy friend to talk with.
Clarify Goals
Write out what you plan to do, that way if you ever have doubts you can recheck you math so to speak.
Decision Time
When it comes time for the actual decision to be made, make it unwaveringly. Being nervous is okay but you should appear calm.
Sticking with it
Stick with it, until you have thoroughly thought through reason as to why it doesn't work. Although, if you have already done the above things well, you should be able to proceed without looking back.
Religion/One's belief system
If what you believe is related to this at all, you should pray about it, or do whatever is most appropriate to your belief system. Me? I'd pray, maybe say the rosary.
I think that if you do all of the above you can approach your momentous decision without any worries. I'm still researching this though. Actually, I think that this sort of approach is quite relevant for vocational discernment.
省略：
正しさ
結果的にと行動的に正しいと思わない決定しないほうがいいです。
～結果的には正しくなければどうしてやろうとするがわからないです。。
～行動的には正しくなければ我慢して別の行動捜したほうがいい
例えば金がほしかったら金は別に悪いものでもないから結果的には問題ないんです. もし自分が決めた行動は誰かの家を忍び込んで盗むと言う事だったら多分バイトとかしたほうがいいですよ。
心構え
悩みまだあったら解決できるまで進まない方がいいです。
ちょっとした一人で考えてから自分が解決できなかったら信頼できる友達に相談したほうがいいです。
はっきり見える目的
自分の目的を紙には長く説明して書きなさい。 そうすれば決定の行動の悩みがあったらいつでも参考出来る物があるよ。
決定する事
決める時ちゃんと自信を持つしかないです。 ちょっと緊張してもいいけど冷静に行動したほうがいいです。
頑張りぬかないように
決めてから考え直してもいいけど立ち戻るまえに熟思した方がいいです。
でも基本的に上の事をちゃんとしたなら「決して立ち戻るな」のほうがいいです。
信仰
自分が信じる事「例えば宗教とか」によってふさわしい行動したほうがいいです。 たとえばロサリオを祈ります。
上の事ちゃんとするなら重要な決定したら心配しなくて言いと思いますよ。 でもまだ調べ中です。
Addendum:
With regard to momentous decisions, I have figured that the section with regard to sticking to it, is probably better classified as “Flexibility.” After all, once a decision is made, the path that it goes down still is new. So, as one heads down the path, no matter how much they might have planned or known ahead of time, new things do occur and might happen. When such situations arise they must be dealt with an open mind. Which is to say, per Chestertonian logic, that opening one’s mind is in the capacity of shutting it on something solid.
ちょっとした考え直した事があります。 ”頑張りぬかないように”と言いたいけど伝えたい概念はちょっと違います。 基本的にはどんな流れは現れても適用としなければなりません。 英語でいうとyou must be flexible. または柔軟な姿勢で取り組むことが大切です。 アルクのお陰でその文章が分かってきました。
Normative Alliance
The decision should lead you down a path that is both right in means and end.
~if the end is not good, i don't know why you do it anyway.
~if the means are not good, you should bide your time and choose a different approach.
For example, if you wanted money and since money is not necessarily a bad thing, the ends are not bad. Although, sneaking into and stealing from someone would not be a good means. It would be better actually if you got a part-time job.
Emotional Preparation
If there is something causing you to worry about it, until a solution can be found, one should wait.
If you can't solve it on your own you should find a trustworthy friend to talk with.
Clarify Goals
Write out what you plan to do, that way if you ever have doubts you can recheck you math so to speak.
Decision Time
When it comes time for the actual decision to be made, make it unwaveringly. Being nervous is okay but you should appear calm.
Sticking with it
Stick with it, until you have thoroughly thought through reason as to why it doesn't work. Although, if you have already done the above things well, you should be able to proceed without looking back.
Religion/One's belief system
If what you believe is related to this at all, you should pray about it, or do whatever is most appropriate to your belief system. Me? I'd pray, maybe say the rosary.
I think that if you do all of the above you can approach your momentous decision without any worries. I'm still researching this though. Actually, I think that this sort of approach is quite relevant for vocational discernment.
省略：
正しさ
結果的にと行動的に正しいと思わない決定しないほうがいいです。
～結果的には正しくなければどうしてやろうとするがわからないです。。
～行動的には正しくなければ我慢して別の行動捜したほうがいい
例えば金がほしかったら金は別に悪いものでもないから結果的には問題ないんです. もし自分が決めた行動は誰かの家を忍び込んで盗むと言う事だったら多分バイトとかしたほうがいいですよ。
心構え
悩みまだあったら解決できるまで進まない方がいいです。
ちょっとした一人で考えてから自分が解決できなかったら信頼できる友達に相談したほうがいいです。
はっきり見える目的
自分の目的を紙には長く説明して書きなさい。 そうすれば決定の行動の悩みがあったらいつでも参考出来る物があるよ。
決定する事
決める時ちゃんと自信を持つしかないです。 ちょっと緊張してもいいけど冷静に行動したほうがいいです。
頑張りぬかないように
決めてから考え直してもいいけど立ち戻るまえに熟思した方がいいです。
でも基本的に上の事をちゃんとしたなら「決して立ち戻るな」のほうがいいです。
信仰
自分が信じる事「例えば宗教とか」によってふさわしい行動したほうがいいです。 たとえばロサリオを祈ります。
上の事ちゃんとするなら重要な決定したら心配しなくて言いと思いますよ。 でもまだ調べ中です。
Addendum:
With regard to momentous decisions, I have figured that the section with regard to sticking to it, is probably better classified as “Flexibility.” After all, once a decision is made, the path that it goes down still is new. So, as one heads down the path, no matter how much they might have planned or known ahead of time, new things do occur and might happen. When such situations arise they must be dealt with an open mind. Which is to say, per Chestertonian logic, that opening one’s mind is in the capacity of shutting it on something solid.
ちょっとした考え直した事があります。 ”頑張りぬかないように”と言いたいけど伝えたい概念はちょっと違います。 基本的にはどんな流れは現れても適用としなければなりません。 英語でいうとyou must be flexible. または柔軟な姿勢で取り組むことが大切です。 アルクのお陰でその文章が分かってきました。
Sunday, October 18, 2009
So... I'm troubled, who doesn't have worries?
This is going to be me rambling something horrible so be forewarned.
Its really just the simple things that get us down right? I mean, I think that I shatter my core system nearly every week or so. Then I stare at the ground and begin to pick up the sharp pieces. It starts off with me getting cut on something like this: "Why am I alive?" and slowly as the pieces are re-assimilated, reborn or left behind, the inquiry degrades to such questions as "What's my purpose in life?" or "What's the point of school?" If I don't have a succinct answer or something that I can dig up quickly through some logic or inspiration, I start from scratch.
Some pieces of the old me are simply left on the ground and treated as only a memory, but I believe it is through this search that I am finding out some answers.
However, no, I don't claim to have any of the answers. In fact, the only thing I can tell you are possibly some things that aren't true. Its one thing for me to identify the broken discarded pieces of self, also known as failings, than it would be for me to express what the ideal "me" is. I mean to extrapolate this towards my search for truth. I'm not some all-powerful soothsayer, some grand philosopher king, some thrilling theologian, or some sort of expert on the Bible, but I take what I can and do with what I can in my limited space and time.
Perhaps the only wisdom I have stumbled upon, and that is only because I haven't found it false yet is that there are shards of truth in everything. It is just a matter of reaching in and getting your hands dirty in the things of this world. Then and only then do you experience the truth by cutting yourself on it.
Take the Halloween season for example. We, Catholics, tend to prefer All Soul's day which falls the day after Halloween and is a celebration of all those holy men and women that have gone before us. On the other hand, Halloween, the secular holiday, is sometimes frowned upon for its glorification of the morbid. I like to look at it a slightly different way. It is only through passing through the dark of Halloween that we emerge to the light of All Saints Day and All Soul's Day. Which I suppose leads to my justification for dressing as a vampire.
Vampires, in the old Bram Stoker sense, and not in the style of Twilight, Blade or even the original I am Legend sense, actually serve as to remind us of God much like the gargoyles of old served to remind us of the hideousness of sin. Vampires, you see, in the true sense are cursed beings for their offenses to God. They are therefore not wholly unlike us in our slavery to sin. In fact, their abject abhorrence for all things holy to the point of them incurring fatal wounds is still a nod to God's power.
At least when you compare them to most modern depictions of vampires that dumb down the whole vampire mystique to often nothing more than a genetic mutation or disease. Really, it is horribly disappointing as a reflection of how much so our culture has become obsessed with science to the point of our entertainment lacking any sort of spiritual mystique. Not to deny the specific rationale of science, but could one say that denial of the spiritual is irrational?
Now that I've digressed totally, let me clarify one thing. I have worries, and I think I can come up with rational answers to them which is not wholly a bad thing. What I am having trouble remembering to do is to drop everything of my own and remember the lesson of Peter walking on water. Look at God, focus on God and the maelstrom that is the world around you will matter not. I pray that someday I will be able to leave my worries at the altar and move on.
I leave you with my ramblings.
Go and set the world Ablaze!
Its really just the simple things that get us down right? I mean, I think that I shatter my core system nearly every week or so. Then I stare at the ground and begin to pick up the sharp pieces. It starts off with me getting cut on something like this: "Why am I alive?" and slowly as the pieces are re-assimilated, reborn or left behind, the inquiry degrades to such questions as "What's my purpose in life?" or "What's the point of school?" If I don't have a succinct answer or something that I can dig up quickly through some logic or inspiration, I start from scratch.
Some pieces of the old me are simply left on the ground and treated as only a memory, but I believe it is through this search that I am finding out some answers.
However, no, I don't claim to have any of the answers. In fact, the only thing I can tell you are possibly some things that aren't true. Its one thing for me to identify the broken discarded pieces of self, also known as failings, than it would be for me to express what the ideal "me" is. I mean to extrapolate this towards my search for truth. I'm not some all-powerful soothsayer, some grand philosopher king, some thrilling theologian, or some sort of expert on the Bible, but I take what I can and do with what I can in my limited space and time.
Perhaps the only wisdom I have stumbled upon, and that is only because I haven't found it false yet is that there are shards of truth in everything. It is just a matter of reaching in and getting your hands dirty in the things of this world. Then and only then do you experience the truth by cutting yourself on it.
Take the Halloween season for example. We, Catholics, tend to prefer All Soul's day which falls the day after Halloween and is a celebration of all those holy men and women that have gone before us. On the other hand, Halloween, the secular holiday, is sometimes frowned upon for its glorification of the morbid. I like to look at it a slightly different way. It is only through passing through the dark of Halloween that we emerge to the light of All Saints Day and All Soul's Day. Which I suppose leads to my justification for dressing as a vampire.
Vampires, in the old Bram Stoker sense, and not in the style of Twilight, Blade or even the original I am Legend sense, actually serve as to remind us of God much like the gargoyles of old served to remind us of the hideousness of sin. Vampires, you see, in the true sense are cursed beings for their offenses to God. They are therefore not wholly unlike us in our slavery to sin. In fact, their abject abhorrence for all things holy to the point of them incurring fatal wounds is still a nod to God's power.
At least when you compare them to most modern depictions of vampires that dumb down the whole vampire mystique to often nothing more than a genetic mutation or disease. Really, it is horribly disappointing as a reflection of how much so our culture has become obsessed with science to the point of our entertainment lacking any sort of spiritual mystique. Not to deny the specific rationale of science, but could one say that denial of the spiritual is irrational?
Now that I've digressed totally, let me clarify one thing. I have worries, and I think I can come up with rational answers to them which is not wholly a bad thing. What I am having trouble remembering to do is to drop everything of my own and remember the lesson of Peter walking on water. Look at God, focus on God and the maelstrom that is the world around you will matter not. I pray that someday I will be able to leave my worries at the altar and move on.
I leave you with my ramblings.
Go and set the world Ablaze!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)