I was thinking about something during one of the recent episodes of insomnia which have recently been marauding me. I think it was brought on by the intense, concentrated philosophy we've been covering this semester in both Phenomenology & Existentialism and Modern Philosophy.
This has got a bit of a solipsistic flavor to it, and I know that's been done to hell, so just bear with me.
I was struck with the thought (the honest-to-goodness, permeating thought) that it would be entirely possible for us to be creating our own worlds in terms of challenges and [je ne sais quoi-- that which has been defeated. 'jnsq']. jnsq is the root of what allows us to feel good about ourselves. We can defeat these things because we are, in one way or another, superior to them. For me, excelling in academia has really been the driving force behind my actions since I was introduced to it. I was used to being on top, and when I was in sophomore-(in-college-) level spelling in third grade, I knew that I was destined to kick ass at being intelligent. The jnsqs came easily because I hadn't yet met a peer.
This was the case until just about my sophomore (high school) year, when I started to veer away from my 100s and 99s and chemistry began to kick my ass. Regardless of when it started, or how much it has continued to be the case, the challenges could, feasibly, just be creations of our mind, designed to balance out the positivity. Every time I only barely passed an AP Chem test, I began to hate things more, and I cared less about succeeding and more about self-preservation. Ultimately, challenges could be a result of what we aim to be, which gives us some superficial purpose in this lost world. They're neutralizers for the positive aspects of life. Every time we defeat a jnsq, we're made to feel good about ourselves, but when one of those jnsqs is a worthy opponent, we can say that defeating it makes life worth living.
Or philosophy is stupid, which is just about the route I'm prepared to take.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Power Church!
Now with real lightning!
I'm debating whether it would serve me more efficiently to blatantly display my religious affiliation at the beginning of this post, if I should save it for the end, or if I should mention it at all. I'll keep it out of this for now, since I daresay it will reveal itself over the course of the reflection.
"'All we do on this state is bait. [...] People won't go to church, but they'll come to see us do these crazy things.'"
I read this sentence and wondered why they're making steps to convert people who won't go to church. You have to ponder why those people aren't going to church in the first place. I imagine it's (loosely) for one of two reasons:
1. They honestly aren't religious, and they are well-established in this conviction.
2. They are religious, but too lazy to attend service.
Now, imagine trying to communicate with the first group. These are the haters who have brought down the idea of televangelism (I'm including "parachurches" in this word) such that the ones who practice it must acknowledge how ridiculous they look and excuse it by saying that "'[it's] a bait to hook the people who would never come to a regular church service.'" These people sit at home on Sundays, content with their beliefs, and earnestly mock the people who are giving an effort to try to change members of the first group's minds.
Bad idea. They won't get anywhere.
Consider, then, trying to reach out to the people who are too lazy to go to church. If they believe (I'm talking really believe) that a sky daddy is watching over them and gets to decide whether or not they burn in torturous agony for all eternity, then there's a good chance that they'll be swayed by whatever is put on the television. They'll say to themselves, "Oh, no, it's Sunday. I slept through church. I guess I can make up for it by going next week. Hey, here's a guy who's telling me how it is... he looks ridiculous, but it's nice to see someone really believing in our lord so much that he'll put up with humiliation. These people give me hope." They don't have to like or agree with the things that the evangelist is doing, but they just have to feel guilty that they're not doing the same thing, and they'll likely be motivated to go to church.
And we're talking about the intelligent ones, here. Imagine the family of biblical literalists who attend rallies where the parachurch preachers give sermons and d e m o n strations. This woman is allowed to roam free, allowed to vote, allowed to change the future of this country... or perpetuate its failing values in the name of Christ.
Now, think about THIS with me: Has anyone ever considered that people are basing their lifestyles off of a BOOK? I'll tell you what: SNOOKI "wrote" a book. There is a certain group of people who live by this book, I'm sure. But there are millions of people who are still living by the archaic principles outlined in a text that is thousands of years old. I mean, when you really think about it, that's what they're doing: they're determining how they are supposed to live off of a friggin' book. I'll tell you what, people are just stupid.
Back to the parachurch preachers. According to Mazer's writing, "Their [the "muscular Christians"] ability to break things represents the strength necessary to resist the lure of drugs, alcohol, premarital sex, gang violence and generalised despair."
Wait, wait, wait a minute. "We must resist the lure of gang violence! It's causing our children to be sinners! The only way they can be redeemed is through controlling their strength!" Yes, parents. Gang violence is perpetuated by godlessness. You are so right. In fact, these men who preach such a message should be parading around like heroes, because they are stopping our kids from having premarital sex.
Which is exactly why 1 in 4 women have HPV, right? Because they've been stopped by God.
I can name, off-hand, 10 girls with whom I graduated who have had at least one child, or have gotten pregnant, since we left high school. I would be willing to bet that all of them are Christians, or identify as Christians, because of the area we live in.
On top of that, what kind of message is "SEX IS BAD", anyway? Pushing things underground is just going to make people want to experience those things even more. I mean, come ON. That's a fundamental principle of governing societies. UNSAFE sex is bad. I'll give you that one. So why can't we teach people to be responsible, rather than pushing them away from natural experiences?
Christians should not be running this country, but they are. I take issue with this.
Edit:
I would reflect on the part where Jacobs describes how non-Christians are not real men, and how Christians are the paragon of what it means to be a man, but it's such utter bullshit that I'm not considering it worth my time.
I'm debating whether it would serve me more efficiently to blatantly display my religious affiliation at the beginning of this post, if I should save it for the end, or if I should mention it at all. I'll keep it out of this for now, since I daresay it will reveal itself over the course of the reflection.
"'All we do on this state is bait. [...] People won't go to church, but they'll come to see us do these crazy things.'"
I read this sentence and wondered why they're making steps to convert people who won't go to church. You have to ponder why those people aren't going to church in the first place. I imagine it's (loosely) for one of two reasons:
1. They honestly aren't religious, and they are well-established in this conviction.
2. They are religious, but too lazy to attend service.
Now, imagine trying to communicate with the first group. These are the haters who have brought down the idea of televangelism (I'm including "parachurches" in this word) such that the ones who practice it must acknowledge how ridiculous they look and excuse it by saying that "'[it's] a bait to hook the people who would never come to a regular church service.'" These people sit at home on Sundays, content with their beliefs, and earnestly mock the people who are giving an effort to try to change members of the first group's minds.
Bad idea. They won't get anywhere.
Consider, then, trying to reach out to the people who are too lazy to go to church. If they believe (I'm talking really believe) that a sky daddy is watching over them and gets to decide whether or not they burn in torturous agony for all eternity, then there's a good chance that they'll be swayed by whatever is put on the television. They'll say to themselves, "Oh, no, it's Sunday. I slept through church. I guess I can make up for it by going next week. Hey, here's a guy who's telling me how it is... he looks ridiculous, but it's nice to see someone really believing in our lord so much that he'll put up with humiliation. These people give me hope." They don't have to like or agree with the things that the evangelist is doing, but they just have to feel guilty that they're not doing the same thing, and they'll likely be motivated to go to church.
And we're talking about the intelligent ones, here. Imagine the family of biblical literalists who attend rallies where the parachurch preachers give sermons and d e m o n strations. This woman is allowed to roam free, allowed to vote, allowed to change the future of this country... or perpetuate its failing values in the name of Christ.
Now, think about THIS with me: Has anyone ever considered that people are basing their lifestyles off of a BOOK? I'll tell you what: SNOOKI "wrote" a book. There is a certain group of people who live by this book, I'm sure. But there are millions of people who are still living by the archaic principles outlined in a text that is thousands of years old. I mean, when you really think about it, that's what they're doing: they're determining how they are supposed to live off of a friggin' book. I'll tell you what, people are just stupid.
Back to the parachurch preachers. According to Mazer's writing, "Their [the "muscular Christians"] ability to break things represents the strength necessary to resist the lure of drugs, alcohol, premarital sex, gang violence and generalised despair."
Wait, wait, wait a minute. "We must resist the lure of gang violence! It's causing our children to be sinners! The only way they can be redeemed is through controlling their strength!" Yes, parents. Gang violence is perpetuated by godlessness. You are so right. In fact, these men who preach such a message should be parading around like heroes, because they are stopping our kids from having premarital sex.
Which is exactly why 1 in 4 women have HPV, right? Because they've been stopped by God.
I can name, off-hand, 10 girls with whom I graduated who have had at least one child, or have gotten pregnant, since we left high school. I would be willing to bet that all of them are Christians, or identify as Christians, because of the area we live in.
On top of that, what kind of message is "SEX IS BAD", anyway? Pushing things underground is just going to make people want to experience those things even more. I mean, come ON. That's a fundamental principle of governing societies. UNSAFE sex is bad. I'll give you that one. So why can't we teach people to be responsible, rather than pushing them away from natural experiences?
Christians should not be running this country, but they are. I take issue with this.
Edit:
I would reflect on the part where Jacobs describes how non-Christians are not real men, and how Christians are the paragon of what it means to be a man, but it's such utter bullshit that I'm not considering it worth my time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)