"On the surface of the world right now there is
War and violence and things seem dark.
But calmly and quietly, at the same time,
Something else is happening underground.
An inner revolution is taking place
And certain individuals are being called to a higher light.
It is a silent revolution.
From the inside out. From the ground up.
This is a Global operation.
A Spiritual Conspiracy.
There are sleeper cells in every nation on the planet.
You won't see us on the TV.
You won't read about us in the newspaper.
You won't hear about us on the radio.
We don't seek any glory.
We don't wear any uniform.
We come in all shapes and sizes, colors and styles.
Most of us work anonymously.
We are quietly working behind the scenes
In every country and culture of the world
Cities big and small, mountains and valleys,
In farms and villages, tribes and remote islands.
You could pass by one of us on the street
And not even notice.
We go undercover.
We remain behind the scenes.
It is of no concern to us who takes the final credit
But simply that the work gets done.
Occasionally we spot each other in the street.
We give a quiet nod and continue on our way.
During the day many of us pretend we have normal jobs
But behind the false storefront at night
Is where the real work takes place.
Some call us the Conscious Army.
We are slowly creating a new world
With the power of our minds and hearts.
We follow, with passion and joy
Our orders come from the Central Spiritual Intelligence.
We are dropping soft, secret love bombs when no one is looking
Poems ~ Hugs ~ Music ~ Photography ~ Movies ~ Kind words ~
Smiles ~ Meditation and prayer ~ Dance ~ Social activism ~ Websites
Blogs ~ Random acts of kindness...
We each express ourselves in our own unique ways
With our own unique gifts and talents.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
That is the motto that fills our hearts.
We know it is the only way real transformation takes place.
We know that quietly and humbly we have the
Power of all the oceans combined.
Our work is slow and meticulous
Like the formation of mountains.
It is not even visible at first glance.
And yet with it entire tectonic plates
Shall be moved in the centuries to come.
Love is the new religion of the 21st century.
You don't have to be a highly educated person
Or have any exceptional knowledge to understand it.
It comes from the intelligence of the heart
Embedded in the timeless evolutionary pulse of all human beings.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Nobody else can do it for you.
We are now recruiting.
Perhaps you will join us
Or already have.
All are welcome.
The door is open."
-Unknown
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Letter to the Intelligent
Dear the few people in the world that use their brains,
First, I just want to say, Thank you. Thank you for using your brain. It almost seems as though these days there are fewer and fewer of us that are born with a brain...and even fewer that use it. You are among the elite few that I have met who have a sense of common sense and actually utilize your brain to the benefits of the general public.
You have truly impacted society in a way that all the other idiots of the world will never be able to do so. Your ability to influence people and persuade people to a higher standard is phenomenal. Without the few of us that use our brains I am frightened to even imagine where this world would be.
To have the capacities to be able to just speak with an air of confidence is appreciated by the rest of your scholarly partners. To have the capabilities to address a situation that is detrimental to the other people of this world is admired. To confront others in a polite and respectful manner is valued. To know that you care is appreciated.
We are the elite. Encourage others to use the brain that they might have.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Matthews
First, I just want to say, Thank you. Thank you for using your brain. It almost seems as though these days there are fewer and fewer of us that are born with a brain...and even fewer that use it. You are among the elite few that I have met who have a sense of common sense and actually utilize your brain to the benefits of the general public.
You have truly impacted society in a way that all the other idiots of the world will never be able to do so. Your ability to influence people and persuade people to a higher standard is phenomenal. Without the few of us that use our brains I am frightened to even imagine where this world would be.
To have the capacities to be able to just speak with an air of confidence is appreciated by the rest of your scholarly partners. To have the capabilities to address a situation that is detrimental to the other people of this world is admired. To confront others in a polite and respectful manner is valued. To know that you care is appreciated.
We are the elite. Encourage others to use the brain that they might have.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Matthews
Monday, August 22, 2011
A Taste of Something New*
*could be offensive to some readers
*not appropriate for family (unless it’s my family)
*not supper table discussion material
Faithful followers,
Here we go. You may be wondering what is brewing in my mind this time after having the title’s disclaimers. While, yes, it may be a little provocative I still fully intend for it to be taken very seriously. This is the best medium that I could think of in order to convey my grand idea. What is this idea? Freeballing. Going commando. No underwear. Dangling. Unfurnished basement. Pantyless. You get the point. What in God’s good name does this relate to? Well, it relates to my idea that what is natural is morally good. This also means that what is unnatural is immoral. Once we are able to find true cause and effects and understand the natural nature of our surroundings/actions then we can begin to determine morality.
I asked a couple of avid freeballers their opinions and this is what they said. (Their names will be altered in order to conceal their identity and to maintain their prestigious reputations in a society of such staunch anti-freeballers)
“Freeballing is the epiotme of not giving a fuck. Less laundry, it’s against social norm, there’s just less to worry about in general (except getting depantsed). It’s like 'I’m going to wake up and give zero fucks and my testicles will reap all of the benefits.'” -Ross
“Freeballing (in the voice of Tom Petty) is a way of delivering a swift kick to the groin of Lucifer. He burdened us indirectly with the embarrassment and awkwardness of nakedness and the lack of comfort caused by clothes, specifically undergarments, we say, ‘Take this Satan, I’m not controlled by you. I am free -- I am controlled only by myself and God.’” -Jason
God is not constrained by anything but He follows certain axioms. Within our universe, all evidence points toward a God and a God that works within the Laws of Physics, a moral code, ethics, philosophy, etc. His very nature seems to be natural. He never creates or does anything unnatural.
An example would probably suffice to clarify this point. Let’s look at morality. More specifically, abortion. You know my stance on abortion from my previous blogs but here is one more reason/proof as to why I believe abortion to be morally wrong. Evolutionarily, biologically, psychologically, and chemically we can see that sex is a natural desire and naturally creates life. In the union of man and woman, the sperm and egg collide in the act of intercourse which naturally results in a child. This is a pure example of a cause and effect. Have sex, have baby. This is the natural causation of a child. The word abort means to prematurely destroy something that is already set into motion towards a determined natural end. To abort is to end that which has already begun. Abortion in terms of a pregnancy is to end or terminate the pregnancy. And because the cells are reproducing at a rapid rate as a result of sex and this is the pure cause and effect then we can know that this is a natural transpiring of events and thus is morally wrong. To interrupt this via abortion is to destroy what is natural.
If life is the result of sex and it cannot be altered (naturally) and we are also attracted/have desires to do this action then we must accept the result. It’s my belief that God is perfectly natural. So to alter the order of naturalness is to go against God. I personally want to follow God and grow in holiness the way that He calls me to....
On to freeballing. Freeballing is just natural. We can see with ancient humans, they didn’t wear underwear. To wear underwear is not immoral but not wearing underwear is definitely moral.
On a serious note and more compelling arguments for freeballing: it just feels so good. No constraint. No limitations. Pure freedom.
We can see from the quotes from Jason and Ross that there are several legitimate reasons to freeball:
- less laundry
- stickin’ it to the Man (Hanes, Fruit of the Loom and all other Corporations)
- money saver
- hassle/time saver
- it’s hipster/against the norm
- testicles gain much joy
- by freeballing we apparently kick Satan straight in the balls
- and intrinsically pledge our allegiance to God
- it is overwhelmingly comfortable
- allows for a greater range of motion
Now, a few final words. I endorse nudity 100% as long as a couple of things take place: respect, discipline, honor for the human body. We must maintain control or things will spiral out of control very quickly. But by all means please ditch the briefs; they really do nothing for you.
[The reason that I don’t think it’s immoral to wear underwear is as follows. The development of what is natural can also be considered natural.
Example: a house can seem to be an unnatural and manmade object. But look at the history of architecture, we see that ancient man started out in rock carvings called caves. As intellect developed man was able to create a replica of this cave and eventually called it a house.
This relates because it is perfectly natural for man to roam free of clothing. It is also natural for man to stay warm. I’d imagine that much heat probably escapes from the head, hands and genitals; thus, the creation of undergarments. Over time they then developed into more sophisticated clothing wear. So it’s natural to wear underwear, all you underwear wearers. But it’s also natural to not. That is what my intent was--to bring awareness to your consciousness that it is okay to freeball.]
Cheers!
PS I wish that I could speak on behalf of the other half of my crowd (women) but due to natural restraints, I can't. My sincerest apologies. However, this doesn't mean you don't have to give your input either on how disgusted you are with this post, the validity of this post, your indifference, etc.
*not appropriate for family (unless it’s my family)
*not supper table discussion material
Faithful followers,
Here we go. You may be wondering what is brewing in my mind this time after having the title’s disclaimers. While, yes, it may be a little provocative I still fully intend for it to be taken very seriously. This is the best medium that I could think of in order to convey my grand idea. What is this idea? Freeballing. Going commando. No underwear. Dangling. Unfurnished basement. Pantyless. You get the point. What in God’s good name does this relate to? Well, it relates to my idea that what is natural is morally good. This also means that what is unnatural is immoral. Once we are able to find true cause and effects and understand the natural nature of our surroundings/actions then we can begin to determine morality.
I asked a couple of avid freeballers their opinions and this is what they said. (Their names will be altered in order to conceal their identity and to maintain their prestigious reputations in a society of such staunch anti-freeballers)
“Freeballing is the epiotme of not giving a fuck. Less laundry, it’s against social norm, there’s just less to worry about in general (except getting depantsed). It’s like 'I’m going to wake up and give zero fucks and my testicles will reap all of the benefits.'” -Ross
“Freeballing (in the voice of Tom Petty) is a way of delivering a swift kick to the groin of Lucifer. He burdened us indirectly with the embarrassment and awkwardness of nakedness and the lack of comfort caused by clothes, specifically undergarments, we say, ‘Take this Satan, I’m not controlled by you. I am free -- I am controlled only by myself and God.’” -Jason
God is not constrained by anything but He follows certain axioms. Within our universe, all evidence points toward a God and a God that works within the Laws of Physics, a moral code, ethics, philosophy, etc. His very nature seems to be natural. He never creates or does anything unnatural.
An example would probably suffice to clarify this point. Let’s look at morality. More specifically, abortion. You know my stance on abortion from my previous blogs but here is one more reason/proof as to why I believe abortion to be morally wrong. Evolutionarily, biologically, psychologically, and chemically we can see that sex is a natural desire and naturally creates life. In the union of man and woman, the sperm and egg collide in the act of intercourse which naturally results in a child. This is a pure example of a cause and effect. Have sex, have baby. This is the natural causation of a child. The word abort means to prematurely destroy something that is already set into motion towards a determined natural end. To abort is to end that which has already begun. Abortion in terms of a pregnancy is to end or terminate the pregnancy. And because the cells are reproducing at a rapid rate as a result of sex and this is the pure cause and effect then we can know that this is a natural transpiring of events and thus is morally wrong. To interrupt this via abortion is to destroy what is natural.
If life is the result of sex and it cannot be altered (naturally) and we are also attracted/have desires to do this action then we must accept the result. It’s my belief that God is perfectly natural. So to alter the order of naturalness is to go against God. I personally want to follow God and grow in holiness the way that He calls me to....
On to freeballing. Freeballing is just natural. We can see with ancient humans, they didn’t wear underwear. To wear underwear is not immoral but not wearing underwear is definitely moral.
On a serious note and more compelling arguments for freeballing: it just feels so good. No constraint. No limitations. Pure freedom.
We can see from the quotes from Jason and Ross that there are several legitimate reasons to freeball:
- less laundry
- stickin’ it to the Man (Hanes, Fruit of the Loom and all other Corporations)
- money saver
- hassle/time saver
- it’s hipster/against the norm
- testicles gain much joy
- by freeballing we apparently kick Satan straight in the balls
- and intrinsically pledge our allegiance to God
- it is overwhelmingly comfortable
- allows for a greater range of motion
Now, a few final words. I endorse nudity 100% as long as a couple of things take place: respect, discipline, honor for the human body. We must maintain control or things will spiral out of control very quickly. But by all means please ditch the briefs; they really do nothing for you.
[The reason that I don’t think it’s immoral to wear underwear is as follows. The development of what is natural can also be considered natural.
Example: a house can seem to be an unnatural and manmade object. But look at the history of architecture, we see that ancient man started out in rock carvings called caves. As intellect developed man was able to create a replica of this cave and eventually called it a house.
This relates because it is perfectly natural for man to roam free of clothing. It is also natural for man to stay warm. I’d imagine that much heat probably escapes from the head, hands and genitals; thus, the creation of undergarments. Over time they then developed into more sophisticated clothing wear. So it’s natural to wear underwear, all you underwear wearers. But it’s also natural to not. That is what my intent was--to bring awareness to your consciousness that it is okay to freeball.]
Cheers!
PS I wish that I could speak on behalf of the other half of my crowd (women) but due to natural restraints, I can't. My sincerest apologies. However, this doesn't mean you don't have to give your input either on how disgusted you are with this post, the validity of this post, your indifference, etc.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Something More
Here goes my simplest and most profound blog yet. I'll bet that some of my disciples will be on the edge of their seat to hear my analysis and further explanation of this blog post but I challenge you all to come to your own conclusions. This is an important idea for every individual to explore.
People go hundred of thousands of miles and spend millions of dollars to travel and to see new and beautiful things. Don't get me wrong, I love to travel and see extravagant places but the issue here is that we don't even see the beauty right under our noses: the beauty of the human person.
The human being is the most advanced piece of work known to mankind and yet we look past hundreds, perhaps thousands every day. Not to mention the fact that every human being is specifically created for a very profound purpose that is for a magnificent reason.
My challenge: take this post to heart. Put effort into loving every human being that you come into contact with. They are not just the person that cut you off in traffic today; they are something more. They are not just the person who didn't hold the door open for you even though they were two steps ahead of you; they are something more. They are not just the aggravating person in class that acts as though he/she knows all the answers when clearly they don't; they are something more. They are not just a person who pollutes the air that you breathe while they are smoking; they are something more. They are not just the most inspiring human being that you have ever met; they are something more. They are not just the leader of our country, religion, schools, jobs, families; they are something more.
Imagine the potential if everybody appreciated every other person.
People go hundred of thousands of miles and spend millions of dollars to travel and to see new and beautiful things. Don't get me wrong, I love to travel and see extravagant places but the issue here is that we don't even see the beauty right under our noses: the beauty of the human person.
The human being is the most advanced piece of work known to mankind and yet we look past hundreds, perhaps thousands every day. Not to mention the fact that every human being is specifically created for a very profound purpose that is for a magnificent reason.
My challenge: take this post to heart. Put effort into loving every human being that you come into contact with. They are not just the person that cut you off in traffic today; they are something more. They are not just the person who didn't hold the door open for you even though they were two steps ahead of you; they are something more. They are not just the aggravating person in class that acts as though he/she knows all the answers when clearly they don't; they are something more. They are not just a person who pollutes the air that you breathe while they are smoking; they are something more. They are not just the most inspiring human being that you have ever met; they are something more. They are not just the leader of our country, religion, schools, jobs, families; they are something more.
Imagine the potential if everybody appreciated every other person.
Monday, May 16, 2011
B- in Logic
So after being subconsciously inspired by Sarah G. to eat White Castle after a dreadful day of boredom, I am now in the mood to take my pissed-offness out on somebody in the form of a philosophical rant. I will prelude this blog post with an warm thank you to school, and papers, and finals, and laziness for not have given me the desire/ability to post in awhile. For this, I apologize for failing my devoted disciples.
I will also start out by saying that I got a B minus in logic which (by my standards) qualifies me to make logical deductions and assertions. This last sentence may be illogical in itself and if so then we are in quite the philosophical/paradoxical/logical conundrum. Go ahead, ponder away on that one. Anyways, let us progress with my thoughts.
I just started reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. I think that it’s important to also say that I’m only 100 pages in so I will try and limit my remarks and refrain from drawing conclusions about the nature of this book. My reasoning for mentioning my current read was to state where my inspiration for this post came from which is in regards to atheism and its typically flawed logic. As I said in the above paragraph, I might not be the best but I’m sufficient in identifying faulty logic, misinformed information, and bullshit* opinions. I also should say that this post is not my attempt to convert the atheists of the world but rather to enlighten them on how they should approach me when building an argument.
The first step that I take in deciphering someone’s thoughts especially on a touchy topic is to see if they are respectful. There is a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Ridicule” which is a line of fallacious logic that uses ridicule in order to support a claim that is contrary to the original position on the basis that the original thought is supposedly nonsense. (Example 1: “Josh, God is like a fairy and fairies don’t exist, do they? [the ridicule] Therefore your idea that God exists is preposterous. [the conclusion that is based on the ridicule]”) How does your degrading make my thoughts invalid? If you were to ridicule my position how does that make my position wrong.
Appeal to ridicule is Dick Dawkins’ logical fallacy of choice and should be eliminated from the outset. As he uses ridicule with his philosophy, it is sometimes hard to read with much patience. If one is to assert a certain claim then he/she must eliminate all fallacies. Even though Dawkins includes in chapter two a section which is titled “Undeserved Respect” where he warns his reader of sarcasm, he still owes a certain level of respect for all philosophical positions that aren’t the same as his if he himself wants respect.
Atheists seem to latch on to the appeal to ridicule (which is quite annoying). So you ask yourself, “Josh, aren’t you guilty of logical fallacy right now by saying that because they are guilty then they don’t present good arguments?” If I were to say that Dawkins isn’t making valid points only because he is unable to communicate respectfully, then yes I would be making a fallacy. But I believe that he does make significant claims that should challenge every reader. This blog post was not intended to disprove those claims or to support my own but rather to inform those who aspire for logical arguments to look out against falling to the transgression of the appeal to ridicule or disrespect.
I think that we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was a wise man but when Dawkins quotes him saying, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus,” then I think that we can also agree that something is wrong with his logic. Of course the idea of the Trinity cannot be comprehended but I’m not here to argue for faith. Rather, I am here to say how crazy of an assertion it is to say that when you are having a discussion with anybody who doesn’t believe in the same thing that you do then ridicule is the only way to make any sort of progress. I might only be speaking for myself but when I have a conversation with somebody who talks to me like I’m three, I just want to punch them in the throat. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with me or even if you want to have a shot to convert me to Atheism then talk to me like an intellect and do not degrade my knowledge or beliefs by alluding to God as a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, “Little Green Man”, or “a fairy at the bottom of a garden”. Or to talk on the Trinity and Mary like so, “But it is especially the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The Trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, ‘Queen of Heaven’, a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers.” (all within 70 pages of The God Delusion) Tell me what was necessary about any of this. And how was this at all intellectual? If you want to convert me then present me with evidence that is stronger than my evidence without sarcasm.
I may not have done very well in my Logic course but the first rule of conversation is to not be disrespectful especially in debate. Richard Dawkins, this goes out to you: I’m sure you have very compelling reasons for atheism, I just pray that I can have the patience to read them.
Anyway, this is a promise to my loyal readers, my next legitimate post will not take 3 months to write.
May God bless you for reading all of this. And if you don’t believe in God then I genuinely pray that you have a wondrous day.
*On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt is an excellent short essay
I will also start out by saying that I got a B minus in logic which (by my standards) qualifies me to make logical deductions and assertions. This last sentence may be illogical in itself and if so then we are in quite the philosophical/paradoxical/logical conundrum. Go ahead, ponder away on that one. Anyways, let us progress with my thoughts.
I just started reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. I think that it’s important to also say that I’m only 100 pages in so I will try and limit my remarks and refrain from drawing conclusions about the nature of this book. My reasoning for mentioning my current read was to state where my inspiration for this post came from which is in regards to atheism and its typically flawed logic. As I said in the above paragraph, I might not be the best but I’m sufficient in identifying faulty logic, misinformed information, and bullshit* opinions. I also should say that this post is not my attempt to convert the atheists of the world but rather to enlighten them on how they should approach me when building an argument.
The first step that I take in deciphering someone’s thoughts especially on a touchy topic is to see if they are respectful. There is a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Ridicule” which is a line of fallacious logic that uses ridicule in order to support a claim that is contrary to the original position on the basis that the original thought is supposedly nonsense. (Example 1: “Josh, God is like a fairy and fairies don’t exist, do they? [the ridicule] Therefore your idea that God exists is preposterous. [the conclusion that is based on the ridicule]”) How does your degrading make my thoughts invalid? If you were to ridicule my position how does that make my position wrong.
Appeal to ridicule is Dick Dawkins’ logical fallacy of choice and should be eliminated from the outset. As he uses ridicule with his philosophy, it is sometimes hard to read with much patience. If one is to assert a certain claim then he/she must eliminate all fallacies. Even though Dawkins includes in chapter two a section which is titled “Undeserved Respect” where he warns his reader of sarcasm, he still owes a certain level of respect for all philosophical positions that aren’t the same as his if he himself wants respect.
Atheists seem to latch on to the appeal to ridicule (which is quite annoying). So you ask yourself, “Josh, aren’t you guilty of logical fallacy right now by saying that because they are guilty then they don’t present good arguments?” If I were to say that Dawkins isn’t making valid points only because he is unable to communicate respectfully, then yes I would be making a fallacy. But I believe that he does make significant claims that should challenge every reader. This blog post was not intended to disprove those claims or to support my own but rather to inform those who aspire for logical arguments to look out against falling to the transgression of the appeal to ridicule or disrespect.
I think that we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was a wise man but when Dawkins quotes him saying, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus,” then I think that we can also agree that something is wrong with his logic. Of course the idea of the Trinity cannot be comprehended but I’m not here to argue for faith. Rather, I am here to say how crazy of an assertion it is to say that when you are having a discussion with anybody who doesn’t believe in the same thing that you do then ridicule is the only way to make any sort of progress. I might only be speaking for myself but when I have a conversation with somebody who talks to me like I’m three, I just want to punch them in the throat. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with me or even if you want to have a shot to convert me to Atheism then talk to me like an intellect and do not degrade my knowledge or beliefs by alluding to God as a “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, “Little Green Man”, or “a fairy at the bottom of a garden”. Or to talk on the Trinity and Mary like so, “But it is especially the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The Trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, ‘Queen of Heaven’, a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers.” (all within 70 pages of The God Delusion) Tell me what was necessary about any of this. And how was this at all intellectual? If you want to convert me then present me with evidence that is stronger than my evidence without sarcasm.
I may not have done very well in my Logic course but the first rule of conversation is to not be disrespectful especially in debate. Richard Dawkins, this goes out to you: I’m sure you have very compelling reasons for atheism, I just pray that I can have the patience to read them.
Anyway, this is a promise to my loyal readers, my next legitimate post will not take 3 months to write.
May God bless you for reading all of this. And if you don’t believe in God then I genuinely pray that you have a wondrous day.
*On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt is an excellent short essay
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Inner Workings of My Brain.
1. I love to think.
2. The Disney Classics are the basis of my raising.
3. I will marry a Pocahontas.
4. Allergies suck.
5. I hate sleeping with fans on.
6. I’m more cynical than anything else.
7. I wanted to be a clown when I was 8. And still want to be.
8. There isn’t a mountain that I don’t want to climb. Think about it. Yeah, literally and figuratively.
9. I hate cereal.
10. I will change the world in a very profound way.
11. TV is the enemy of creativity.
12. I didn’t play video games and neither will my children. They will read and play outside from dawn til dusk.
13. I’m not the greatest when it comes to females.
14. I despise funny movies because they are usually not funny. I’m not into stupid humor.
15. Social norms are for idiots.
16. I am not dependent on anybody.
17. Sometimes I like to not see any human being for days on end.
18. The human person is the greatest thing to have ever been created.
19. I’m perfectly comfortable with my sexuality.
20. I write poetry.
21. Macs are nice but not as great as everybody says they are.
22. I absolutely always answer the phone with a smile.
23. School is my greatest enemy yet my ideal job is in one.
24. Plato is my hero.
25. I hate to think....
26. I have a strong urge to canoe the length of the Mississippi.
27. Words I hate: pussy, retard, cunt, New England Patriots, pus.
28. Words I couldn’t hear enough of: passion, chimney, sloppy, intellectual.
29. I chew my pens.
30. I will write several books.
32. I have ADD, hypomania, OCD, and other things. Like legit.
33.Don’t compare me to other people. I can’t stand it.
34. I’m addicted to nothing.
35. Beer is beer. I don’t care if it’s Keystone or Naty Light, I will drink it. Even though I prefer the higher end of beer.
36. I will have a den one day with all leather and a bear rug.
37. I enjoy sports but I don’t understand the hype about them.
38. Girls suck.
39. Roman Catholic to my deepest core.
40. Sometimes I question whether I have a heart or not.
41. I can’t stop thinking.
42. I hate when my bed cover flips off.
43. I enjoy sleeping naked on select occasions.
44. Long hair > short hair
45. My greatest accomplishment in my life up until this point in life was my one point overtime loss in my wrestling match against a Crown Point HS goon.
46. I am meticulously tidy.
47. I was in seminary and believe it to have made the Top 5 list for best decisions that I’ve ever made.
48. I was in seminary and left. I believe it to have made the Top 6 list for best decisions that I have ever made.
49. I very often say things without thinking. Sorry ahead of time.
50. I don’t sing in the shower. I’ve never understood the concept.
51. I should be studying right now.
52. Regina Spektor is my guilty pleasure.
53. I love to buy random instruments: guitar, violin, harmonica, kazoo, and pan flute.
54. I collect hats. It’s quite the impressive collection.
55. If I’ve ever offended you, you are not the first.
56. Pepsi > Coke
57. They should make fire alarms that don’t need batteries. It just seems like a flaw to me.
58. I will have more than 7 children.
59. People seem to ask on a sporadically regular basis what my middle name is. It’s David.
60. I don’t leave a room without turning off the lights and shutting all the doors.
61. The smell of my mother’s perfume is the greatest smell in the world.
62. I hate cutting my nails.
63. If you are still reading, kudos to you.
64. I never change my pillow case because I enjoy the smell of my slobber.
65. Sunflower seeds are the bomb.
66. I don’t floss.
67. I can sleep anywhere.
68. I want to learn fine woodworking.
69. I will not buy deodorant unless it’s the one and only kind that I use.
70. Open the windows and enjoy the fresh air every once in a while.
71. I know love exists but it’s hard to believe sometimes.
72. I thoroughly enjoy cooked spinach.
73. My first legit job was waving on the side of the road in an Uncle Sam costume.
74. Beards make me want to wrestle bears.
75. I want to stop thinking.
76. I hope that you don’t think you know me after reading these because only some of them are true and you just wasted your time.
77. If you think you know everything about me then you don’t know enough.
2. The Disney Classics are the basis of my raising.
3. I will marry a Pocahontas.
4. Allergies suck.
5. I hate sleeping with fans on.
6. I’m more cynical than anything else.
7. I wanted to be a clown when I was 8. And still want to be.
8. There isn’t a mountain that I don’t want to climb. Think about it. Yeah, literally and figuratively.
9. I hate cereal.
10. I will change the world in a very profound way.
11. TV is the enemy of creativity.
12. I didn’t play video games and neither will my children. They will read and play outside from dawn til dusk.
13. I’m not the greatest when it comes to females.
14. I despise funny movies because they are usually not funny. I’m not into stupid humor.
15. Social norms are for idiots.
16. I am not dependent on anybody.
17. Sometimes I like to not see any human being for days on end.
18. The human person is the greatest thing to have ever been created.
19. I’m perfectly comfortable with my sexuality.
20. I write poetry.
21. Macs are nice but not as great as everybody says they are.
22. I absolutely always answer the phone with a smile.
23. School is my greatest enemy yet my ideal job is in one.
24. Plato is my hero.
25. I hate to think....
26. I have a strong urge to canoe the length of the Mississippi.
27. Words I hate: pussy, retard, cunt, New England Patriots, pus.
28. Words I couldn’t hear enough of: passion, chimney, sloppy, intellectual.
29. I chew my pens.
30. I will write several books.
32. I have ADD, hypomania, OCD, and other things. Like legit.
33.Don’t compare me to other people. I can’t stand it.
34. I’m addicted to nothing.
35. Beer is beer. I don’t care if it’s Keystone or Naty Light, I will drink it. Even though I prefer the higher end of beer.
36. I will have a den one day with all leather and a bear rug.
37. I enjoy sports but I don’t understand the hype about them.
38. Girls suck.
39. Roman Catholic to my deepest core.
40. Sometimes I question whether I have a heart or not.
41. I can’t stop thinking.
42. I hate when my bed cover flips off.
43. I enjoy sleeping naked on select occasions.
44. Long hair > short hair
45. My greatest accomplishment in my life up until this point in life was my one point overtime loss in my wrestling match against a Crown Point HS goon.
46. I am meticulously tidy.
47. I was in seminary and believe it to have made the Top 5 list for best decisions that I’ve ever made.
48. I was in seminary and left. I believe it to have made the Top 6 list for best decisions that I have ever made.
49. I very often say things without thinking. Sorry ahead of time.
50. I don’t sing in the shower. I’ve never understood the concept.
51. I should be studying right now.
52. Regina Spektor is my guilty pleasure.
53. I love to buy random instruments: guitar, violin, harmonica, kazoo, and pan flute.
54. I collect hats. It’s quite the impressive collection.
55. If I’ve ever offended you, you are not the first.
56. Pepsi > Coke
57. They should make fire alarms that don’t need batteries. It just seems like a flaw to me.
58. I will have more than 7 children.
59. People seem to ask on a sporadically regular basis what my middle name is. It’s David.
60. I don’t leave a room without turning off the lights and shutting all the doors.
61. The smell of my mother’s perfume is the greatest smell in the world.
62. I hate cutting my nails.
63. If you are still reading, kudos to you.
64. I never change my pillow case because I enjoy the smell of my slobber.
65. Sunflower seeds are the bomb.
66. I don’t floss.
67. I can sleep anywhere.
68. I want to learn fine woodworking.
69. I will not buy deodorant unless it’s the one and only kind that I use.
70. Open the windows and enjoy the fresh air every once in a while.
71. I know love exists but it’s hard to believe sometimes.
72. I thoroughly enjoy cooked spinach.
73. My first legit job was waving on the side of the road in an Uncle Sam costume.
74. Beards make me want to wrestle bears.
75. I want to stop thinking.
76. I hope that you don’t think you know me after reading these because only some of them are true and you just wasted your time.
77. If you think you know everything about me then you don’t know enough.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
What is Love?
First and foremost: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpN60KKBAjc
Love. I believe that there are two levels of love. There is the basic love that can be applied to pizza, kazoos, unicycles, pan flutes, football, sleeping, your parents, friends, and spouse. But this type of love is not enough to carry on a commitment that will last throughout a lifetime. This type of love has a greater chance of leading to false love. I think that a false love would be something like a guilty pleasure. The best that I can define “false love” as is through example. It is something that leads to self-absorbtion and doesn’t complete the person or lead to something that is greater than themselves. An example might be infatuations, obsessions, pornography, alcohol, etc. This type of love lacks one (or more) of the following three things: intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment. These three things are the foundational building blocks of romantic love. If we can define the necessary parts of love (intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment) then we can more accurately define love itself.
There are three vocations: priesthood (included is sister-hood, brothers, deacons, and any other religious life), the devoted single life, and the married life. All three of these require the three elements of love in order to be happy. And this is where romantic love comes into play.
Romantic love fulfills those three things completely. If one is lacking from the beginning of a relationship then that true companionship, relationship, marriage, etc. will likely crumble. It can be restored but that greatly depends on the situation.
Now, what is intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment?
Intimacy, I believe extends past physical contact. Intimacy is a true yearning to be with a person for who they are and not what they look like. This romantic type of love has no basis in physical attraction because your experiences for said person outweighs any physical feature. Intimacy is an attraction to a person because of their vulnerability to you with the trust that they will not be misused. (Thank you Lauren Kissel for your impeccable timing of input) The priest has an intimate relationship with the Sacraments, Church, and the Eucharist. The single life has an intimate relationship with his/her community. The married life, obviously has an intimate relationship with their spouse and children.
Sacrifice is the willingness to replace desires of your personal will with the priority of the relationship. It is also the inclination to have a give and take relationship in which the giving or the taking leads to something more than the individual in the relationship whether it is the Church, the community, or the couple’s children. There are clear needs that must be met in all three vocations and sacrifice is what allows for those goals to be met.
Commitment is passion for the person of affection. If a person is committed then their partner is the highest priority to them. This being said, it is the husband/wife’s job to be committed in getting their spouse to Heaven. Heaven is the ultimate goal. Why? Because Heaven/God is the ultimate form of love. Without Him love does not exist. As stated above, God is love. Commitment is the desire to bring their spouse into complete unity and fullness, which is in God. The priest is committed to his Church. (Fun fact: if within the parish that the priest is serving if one of his parishioners dies and goes to hell then that rests on the priest’s shoulders so he better be committed to getting his flock to Heaven) The single is committed to his/her community. And the spouse is committed to his/her one love and must remain celibate from the other 6.8 billion people except for him/her.
With this all being said, I think that, yes there is a One True Love out there for every person. If God is all-good then He wants nothing but the best for us and will constantly be helping and aiding us to him/her. But there is a catch, we have free-will and are fully capable of not listening to Him and His divine plan. If this is the case then we probably won’t find the winner. But if we are consistently receiving the Sacraments and abiding by the policy of love then God will make it happen because He wants nothing more for us than happiness and for us to be reunited fully with Him by way of man or woman. I do think that there are many people that we are compatible with and that we can make perfectly awesome marriages with but the One True Love will best be able to lead us to God. The saying that “God writes straight with a crooked line” is perfectly applicable here. If I marry my not One True Love then He still desires happiness in my life and will find away to bring me back on track. Anyways, I digress.
Above all, love is a CHOICE--not a feeling. God is love. God chose to create. Because God is love He expects us to love, which means that we must choose God in order to love. In all of our relationships, God must be the forefront/foundation. Feelings and emotions change, that is our nature. Feelings for another person may very well change but love is not a feeling; love is a choice, therefore one cannot fall out of love unless one chooses to. If love is a choice then intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment are also choices. If any of these decisions begin to whither then love begins to become less prominent. Without intimacy, sacrifice, or commitment one can still choose to love but it CANNOT be true romantic love and will often lead to false love.
It is my conclusion that true romantic love is a commitment to your spouse that is like no other commitment for any other human being. Love is the willingness and enthusiasm to sacrifice your own desires for that of which will further your relationship with your spouse and children. Love is intimacy that is based around complete openness and passion for the company of the other. Above all, God created us in love for love. Our sole (and soul) purpose is to love but given that we have freewill, love is a constant choice. Love is not selfish, hurtful, undevout, or a feeling. Love always leads to a greater cause whether it is your husband/wife, your children, your community, your parish, or whatever. But these causes that lie outside of your own personal boundaries all lead to God.
The purpose of dating is to discover the person who can best propel you to true Happiness, aka God. To do this, it is my belief that intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment must be present in all three of the vocations. So in essence, dating is a process of discernment of each vocation. Dating another person is the discernment to see if he/she has the necessary qualities and levels of intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment. The ultimate ends to dating/discernment will lead to ordination, marriage, or a devoted life to God and community. Dating is a test run of the three qualities of love in order to best find where God is calling you to ultimate happiness in this life.
The issue of homosexuality has come to my attention. I will address this in a civil manner. Allow me to preface this by saying that I have absolutely no problems with gays. However, God created man for woman and woman for man. That is what is natural. I do think that two men can be completely happy together. But like I said two sentences ago, God made man for woman and woman for man. I do not believe that a gay will find his One True Love in another man but that is not to say that that man will not bring him closer to God or more joy to his life.
Love. I believe that there are two levels of love. There is the basic love that can be applied to pizza, kazoos, unicycles, pan flutes, football, sleeping, your parents, friends, and spouse. But this type of love is not enough to carry on a commitment that will last throughout a lifetime. This type of love has a greater chance of leading to false love. I think that a false love would be something like a guilty pleasure. The best that I can define “false love” as is through example. It is something that leads to self-absorbtion and doesn’t complete the person or lead to something that is greater than themselves. An example might be infatuations, obsessions, pornography, alcohol, etc. This type of love lacks one (or more) of the following three things: intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment. These three things are the foundational building blocks of romantic love. If we can define the necessary parts of love (intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment) then we can more accurately define love itself.
There are three vocations: priesthood (included is sister-hood, brothers, deacons, and any other religious life), the devoted single life, and the married life. All three of these require the three elements of love in order to be happy. And this is where romantic love comes into play.
Romantic love fulfills those three things completely. If one is lacking from the beginning of a relationship then that true companionship, relationship, marriage, etc. will likely crumble. It can be restored but that greatly depends on the situation.
Now, what is intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment?
Intimacy, I believe extends past physical contact. Intimacy is a true yearning to be with a person for who they are and not what they look like. This romantic type of love has no basis in physical attraction because your experiences for said person outweighs any physical feature. Intimacy is an attraction to a person because of their vulnerability to you with the trust that they will not be misused. (Thank you Lauren Kissel for your impeccable timing of input) The priest has an intimate relationship with the Sacraments, Church, and the Eucharist. The single life has an intimate relationship with his/her community. The married life, obviously has an intimate relationship with their spouse and children.
Sacrifice is the willingness to replace desires of your personal will with the priority of the relationship. It is also the inclination to have a give and take relationship in which the giving or the taking leads to something more than the individual in the relationship whether it is the Church, the community, or the couple’s children. There are clear needs that must be met in all three vocations and sacrifice is what allows for those goals to be met.
Commitment is passion for the person of affection. If a person is committed then their partner is the highest priority to them. This being said, it is the husband/wife’s job to be committed in getting their spouse to Heaven. Heaven is the ultimate goal. Why? Because Heaven/God is the ultimate form of love. Without Him love does not exist. As stated above, God is love. Commitment is the desire to bring their spouse into complete unity and fullness, which is in God. The priest is committed to his Church. (Fun fact: if within the parish that the priest is serving if one of his parishioners dies and goes to hell then that rests on the priest’s shoulders so he better be committed to getting his flock to Heaven) The single is committed to his/her community. And the spouse is committed to his/her one love and must remain celibate from the other 6.8 billion people except for him/her.
With this all being said, I think that, yes there is a One True Love out there for every person. If God is all-good then He wants nothing but the best for us and will constantly be helping and aiding us to him/her. But there is a catch, we have free-will and are fully capable of not listening to Him and His divine plan. If this is the case then we probably won’t find the winner. But if we are consistently receiving the Sacraments and abiding by the policy of love then God will make it happen because He wants nothing more for us than happiness and for us to be reunited fully with Him by way of man or woman. I do think that there are many people that we are compatible with and that we can make perfectly awesome marriages with but the One True Love will best be able to lead us to God. The saying that “God writes straight with a crooked line” is perfectly applicable here. If I marry my not One True Love then He still desires happiness in my life and will find away to bring me back on track. Anyways, I digress.
Above all, love is a CHOICE--not a feeling. God is love. God chose to create. Because God is love He expects us to love, which means that we must choose God in order to love. In all of our relationships, God must be the forefront/foundation. Feelings and emotions change, that is our nature. Feelings for another person may very well change but love is not a feeling; love is a choice, therefore one cannot fall out of love unless one chooses to. If love is a choice then intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment are also choices. If any of these decisions begin to whither then love begins to become less prominent. Without intimacy, sacrifice, or commitment one can still choose to love but it CANNOT be true romantic love and will often lead to false love.
It is my conclusion that true romantic love is a commitment to your spouse that is like no other commitment for any other human being. Love is the willingness and enthusiasm to sacrifice your own desires for that of which will further your relationship with your spouse and children. Love is intimacy that is based around complete openness and passion for the company of the other. Above all, God created us in love for love. Our sole (and soul) purpose is to love but given that we have freewill, love is a constant choice. Love is not selfish, hurtful, undevout, or a feeling. Love always leads to a greater cause whether it is your husband/wife, your children, your community, your parish, or whatever. But these causes that lie outside of your own personal boundaries all lead to God.
The purpose of dating is to discover the person who can best propel you to true Happiness, aka God. To do this, it is my belief that intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment must be present in all three of the vocations. So in essence, dating is a process of discernment of each vocation. Dating another person is the discernment to see if he/she has the necessary qualities and levels of intimacy, sacrifice, and commitment. The ultimate ends to dating/discernment will lead to ordination, marriage, or a devoted life to God and community. Dating is a test run of the three qualities of love in order to best find where God is calling you to ultimate happiness in this life.
The issue of homosexuality has come to my attention. I will address this in a civil manner. Allow me to preface this by saying that I have absolutely no problems with gays. However, God created man for woman and woman for man. That is what is natural. I do think that two men can be completely happy together. But like I said two sentences ago, God made man for woman and woman for man. I do not believe that a gay will find his One True Love in another man but that is not to say that that man will not bring him closer to God or more joy to his life.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
I am NOT Josh Matthews.
The trouble with the world these days is that it’s inhabitants, the rational ones at least, struggle to define what a thing is. Allow me to present this problem to you in a more simplified way:
If somebody were to ask you, “Who/what is Josh Matthews?”
I would expect to hear answers like these:
- he is an idiot
- he is a human being
- he is a philosophy/psychology major
- he sucks with girls
- he likes to hear himself talk
- he is Catholic
- he is a red head
- he is an intellectual
It wouldn’t surprise me to hear many qualities of Josh Matthews. But I am coming ever so close to the conclusion that I am not just Josh Matthews. If you define me by who or what I am then you are doing me an injustice. Likewise, if I were to define you by my experiences with you or even the qualities that you actually do possess then I am not adequately describing your essence and I am being unfair to myself as well. Let us put this example into practical use:
Place yourself in the 1950’s for a moment. Imagine you are an average white male of the times and if I were to ask you what/who is De’shawn Williams then I would reckon that your answer would be that of a typical white male, “A nigger.” This wasn’t so uncommon, as you know. My argument is that if we merely define a man by his skin color then we define ourselves also by skin color. So not only are you degrading De'shawn's worth but you are also claiming that you are no more than a white person. Skin color, in this case, becomes the essence of De’shawn and your own being. You have limited De'shawn and yourself.
Same goes for 1943 Auschwitz, Poland. If I were to ask you who Anne Frank was, I would assume that your reply would be, “A jew.” If this is the case you are limiting Anne to her religious affiliation. By doing so you are disregarding any other quality in which she might possess. You would also be limiting yourself to your own religion.
The above problems manifest themselves in many arenas of today’s society as well: homosexuality, government employees, religion, Middle Easterners, and other prejudices that we might have.
I ask myself, what is it that we should do about this problem. What is the answer to “Who/what is Josh Matthews?” How can we accurately define a person? If we cannot merely limit a person to his/her particulars then how can we tell somebody who another person is? We can tell them what our personal experiences with this person have been like but we cannot claim that these personal experiences are generalizations for how the person always behaves.
These are problems that I am not sure how to address but I do know that these are definitely problems. I am definitely open to suggestions or rebuttals.
If somebody were to ask you, “Who/what is Josh Matthews?”
I would expect to hear answers like these:
- he is an idiot
- he is a human being
- he is a philosophy/psychology major
- he sucks with girls
- he likes to hear himself talk
- he is Catholic
- he is a red head
- he is an intellectual
It wouldn’t surprise me to hear many qualities of Josh Matthews. But I am coming ever so close to the conclusion that I am not just Josh Matthews. If you define me by who or what I am then you are doing me an injustice. Likewise, if I were to define you by my experiences with you or even the qualities that you actually do possess then I am not adequately describing your essence and I am being unfair to myself as well. Let us put this example into practical use:
Place yourself in the 1950’s for a moment. Imagine you are an average white male of the times and if I were to ask you what/who is De’shawn Williams then I would reckon that your answer would be that of a typical white male, “A nigger.” This wasn’t so uncommon, as you know. My argument is that if we merely define a man by his skin color then we define ourselves also by skin color. So not only are you degrading De'shawn's worth but you are also claiming that you are no more than a white person. Skin color, in this case, becomes the essence of De’shawn and your own being. You have limited De'shawn and yourself.
Same goes for 1943 Auschwitz, Poland. If I were to ask you who Anne Frank was, I would assume that your reply would be, “A jew.” If this is the case you are limiting Anne to her religious affiliation. By doing so you are disregarding any other quality in which she might possess. You would also be limiting yourself to your own religion.
The above problems manifest themselves in many arenas of today’s society as well: homosexuality, government employees, religion, Middle Easterners, and other prejudices that we might have.
I ask myself, what is it that we should do about this problem. What is the answer to “Who/what is Josh Matthews?” How can we accurately define a person? If we cannot merely limit a person to his/her particulars then how can we tell somebody who another person is? We can tell them what our personal experiences with this person have been like but we cannot claim that these personal experiences are generalizations for how the person always behaves.
These are problems that I am not sure how to address but I do know that these are definitely problems. I am definitely open to suggestions or rebuttals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)