Easter Sunday Rant

When I attended the Easter Sunday service today at a church in Xenia, the pastor wasn't my favorite. The way he presented the message seemed to me as a view that followed the "that seems deep but it really isn't, it's just catchy" type of view that our modern society so often falls victim to. In addition to that, there were two times when the pastor said things that I didn't agree with.

First: The first was something that could've been interpreted as offensive, but I prefer to interpret it as the pastor's misinterpretation of the scriptures (or rather the pastor taking an opportunity to follow the mindset mentioned above and say something that was catchy, but not true). He was talking about how the scriptures often mention childbirth as an example of pain (*side note: it is my belief that whenever someone speaks of something of which they have no experience, that there should either be a preface of "I have no experience in this" or that such a topic should be avoided altogether. I usually choose the latter). When he tried to connect it to Jesus in the tomb, he said, "Jesus couldn't be held in the tomb anymore than a woman can hold a child in her womb."

My Response: First off, this rhymes and automatically makes it pleasing to the ears, causing it to become one of those sayings mentioned above (catchy, but not necessarily with any truth behind it, yet people disregard the truth for the "catchiness" of it). Secondly, to address the actual truth behind this- I think these are two different things that shouldn't be connected. The reason I think that the scriptures refer to childbirth pains is that some men (again, I have no experience in this, I'm merely speculating) recognize that childbirth, especially back then, is extremely painful and among their reference for "examples of great pain", that was the most common.

Secondly: The part that irks me the most about his message was actually something that came before the aforementioned comment. The pastor was discussing how some people might view God sending His Son to die on the cross as child abuse. He then proceeded to say, "Is it child abuse if you know you can bring your Son back from the dead?"

My Response: The first thing I usually think about when asked questions like this is to compare other examples and I immediately disproved his view. Is it child abuse if you light your child on fire, knowing that you'll douse them in water in a couple minutes? Is it child abuse to hold your child under water until they drown as long as you know CPR and can revive them? Yes. Of course it is. The end does not necessarily justify the means (that saying isn't necessarily fully applicable here, but it's close). The act of child abuse is not discounted and considered to not be child abuse simply because there was a later act of good will. What I think the keys are here in viewing God's choice to send Jesus to die on the cross are this: God not only sacrificed His Son, He sacrificed Himself ("I and the Father are One" ~John 10:30) and we must be very careful not to apply our human ideas to our non-human God. I will expound upon the second key. "Child Abuse" (even as just a phrase in itself) has very negative connotations attached to it in our minds and child abuse has to do with humans not following human standards. We cannot apply human actions and restrictions to a non-human God (no matter how strange and irrational it may seem). God is not human and He is above our reasoning, of this I am certain. "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord." ~Isaiah 55:8.

Challenge Accepted: Minimalism

I have decided to become a minimalist as much as possible. This is particularly hard for me not because I keep lots of things in the sense that I am a horder, but that I keep lots of things in the sense that I like to "keep my options open". For instance, I may have 3 different apps on my tablet that all do practically the same thing, but I like each for different features. Some apps I even just download once, explore a bit, then never use them again. This can also be applied to other areas of my life. I'm wasteful in some of my food (e.g. I'll buy a dozen eggs only to use half), I don't ever wear some of my clothes, or some books don't ever get read.

I am beginning a mission. I will try to cut out the parts of my life that are not used (or are rarely used) in order to better spread my blessings and wealth to others. I'll get rid of the clothes I don't wear, buy less food (or make an effort to eat more of the stuff I do buy), etc. Books are the only thing I haven't convinced myself to cut out. I'm trying to build a library of books so that I may share it with others and show others my...je ne sais quoi...personality? of books I like.

Along with this will come the Hunter-Gatherer diet and other implementations.

The Hunter-Gatherer diet (also known as the Paleolithic diet) basically states that I cannot eat anything that, bluntly, can't be hunted or gathered. This means any food that is more than one "separation" away from a hunting or gathering state cannot be eaten (e.g. bread, ice cream, cheese, cereal, etc). As some examples, I can eat eggs, milk, nuts, seeds, meat, spices, vegetables, fruit, rice, beans, etc. There is one thing that I am allowing (because I know it to often be healthy and because when I have these meals I often make GORP) and that is granola. Something else that is kinda controversial (in my mind, at least) is fruit juice (apple, orange, etc). The main idea behind the Hunter-Gatherer diet is to avoid processed food.

The reasons for this are four: an effort to improve on my life (physically, mentally, etc), to bring myself into a closer relationship with my Creator, to improve the ideas that others hold of me, and to prepare myself for my hike of the PCT (where the food supply will be restricted to much fewer options).

Philosophy of Vacations

When working tonight I was closing down the SSC and I heard a commercial about vacations. Obviously it was advertising a vacation spot. Spurred by my contempt for things of commerce and the ever-fleeting idea of "I have to have the next great thing", I started to analyze vacations. To me, they often seem like a form of quitting or giving up. "I've been doing this for a while, so I think I need a vacation." You don't need a vacation. You want a vacation. Besides that small grammar fact, does it strike anyone else oddly that vacations are pretty much a "First World Country" idea? Mainly this is because in other countries, it is often the case that working is how you survive. You can't afford to take a day off (no matter what). This is even often true in our First World countries, so maybe I should define this as the idea of the Upper and Middle societal classes.

Our society is so used to being able to give up and quit when we like that our will power and perseverance have lost their strength. When throw in the towel when the going gets tough  and we don't try new things (because if something's too hard for us, how will we ever complete it?).

This is probably just another one of those things where I look upon it in contempt because we use our wealth for things we don't need where someone else could use it for things they do need. I believe an equal distribution of wealth is paramount to any other issue facing our world today.