Morality in Marriage?

Okay, so recently one of the authors I think very brilliant in all things literature, John Green, recently posted a blog in response to the question, "Do you believe in saving sex for marriage?"  Although it won't stop me from thinking he's a very good author, I very much disagree with the conclusion he presented.  Here, I'd like to respond to that enumerating why I disagree with his logic.  You can see the original blog post he made here.  I will write this blog as if talking directly to the author.

First, John, I'd like to address your struggle with definitions.  This is a very large part of philosophy.  We can't really define anything, can we?  It's very hard to assign specific meanings to anything, especially in the contex you were doing in your blog.  For instance, what is a bed?  Is it something you sleep on, or does it by definition have to be a piece of furniture with some sort of padding on it?  Does a sleeping bag or an air mattress or a normal mattress standing on its own amount to a bed?  In third-world countries, when a child sleeps on rags in the corner of the floor, can this be considered a bed?

Just like the words you expressed difficulty defining, every other seemingly simple thing can present a problem when coming up with a stable, specific definition.  However, in order to function in a civilized manner, society has to form some sort of generalized definition for each word it creates.  Thus Dictionary.com defines "bed" as "a piece of furniture upon which or within which a person sleeps, rests, or stays when not well," "marriage" as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."  Thus, marriage is not defined as either legal commitments or religious ceremonies.  Those are simply the means.  The marriage is the commitment.

 And yes, sadly many marriages do end in divorce.  But for something to have ended it must have existed, so your logic is somewhat of a contradiction.  It was meant, maybe, to be life-long, but sadly it doesn't always turn out that way.  Regardless, since people whose marriages end in divorce were legally and socially considered married when they had sex, it cannot be considered immoral.  Besides, nobody can see into the future, and they can't be held morally responsible if they suddenly can't be defined as having been married at any point in their lives because they divorced.

Anyways, John, I think as a general operational definition, we all know what "sex" is defined as, and I'd say that's the first option you put up.  That doesn't make everything else you put up there moral outside of marriage, but we're not addressing that right now - we're addressing (as I see it) the meat of the definition, what most people perhaps loosely define that word as.

Because of all this, I think your reasoning is flawed.  I see how you got there, but I believe it's flawed all the way.  Of course, people are free to make their own decisions, and I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do.  But I do have my own opinion, and that's that sex outside of marriage is plain-and-simple immoral.  I hope you understand why I've come to my conclusion, whether you agree or not.

In any case, it's sad to me how many people agreed with your post.  I guess people particularly in this age group have to agree with it, really.  As commonly stated, people will rarely do anything they know without a doubt is wrong, and therefore they're always trying to justify themselves to themselves.  It's part of being human.

With that said, John Green, I hope you will see my books on shelves one day, as well.  Hopefully they, too, will present the deeper meaning many contemporary books lack, and help people truly look in and discover themselves - the good and the bad.  Until then, I'll just continue in my own search.

Thanks for reading (even if you didn't),

Emily

P.S. And John?  Should you miraculously read this, a response of some kind would be appreciated!  I'm not the final source on anything (Obviously)!  So yeah. xD  Discussion makes the world better.  Oh yeah.  That was a super intelligent unequaled quote by M-E me.  Yeah. xD

Misquoting people

Lately, I've seen a lot of instances of people being misquoted, and to me, it's really annoying.  Whether it's a case of deliberately misquoting someone or doing it out of ignorance, I don't believe it's ever acceptable.

For instance, today I was looking up whether or not Ernest Hemingway was an atheist for a quiz (don't worry it's open-book, so we're aloud to look around).  In doing so, I came across this page.  The person asking the question quoted Hemingway as saying, "All thinking men are atheists," and then asked everyone whether or not they thought that was true.  The answer that was chosen as the best one just killed me.

This person quoted Thomas Jefferson (much worse of a guy than his status as a "founder of America" would permit us to speak of).  Anyways, the quotes by Thomas Jefferson included "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies," "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." and, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."  These quotes were obviously meant to prove he was atheist, and therefore strengthen the argument that all thinking men were atheists.  But this person for got one very important thing.  Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.

 Note that Deism still boasts a belief in God, just not a believe in the divinity of Christ, or his ability to perform miracles of any kind.  You have to be somewhat thick to overlook this.  I mean, Jefferson was the author of The Jefferson Bible, a version of the Bible which omits any reference to Jesus as divine, takes out all the signs and miracles he performed, and switches other things around for no perceivable reason besides.  But the fact is, he still believed in God.  He wasn't an atheist, he just wasn't a Christian.  His failure to be either may be worse, but that's not the point.

And that's not the only time I've come across people being misquoted to be atheists.  A few months ago, when I was looking for a specific quote by Victor Hugo that I remembered but couldn't find in the book, I was shocked to find some quotes by him that were interpreted as atheist when they actually weren't. Such as:

"In every village there is a torch; the teacher, and in every village there is an extinguisher; the priest."
"Every step which the intelligence of Europe has taken has been in spite of the clerical party."


Etc.  The fact is, Victor Hugo was a Christian.  I have read both these quotes in their context in his book, Les Miserables, and they were written well after he had become a Christian - somewhere between the death of his daughter and his return to France after his exile.  What Hugo meant to convey through these quotes was his lack of faith in the clergy and others who saw the church as a source of power, not his lack of faith in God.  His poem "A Villequier" (written while he recovered from the death of his much loved daughter at nineteen), proves that quite clearly.


It's true that there are a significant number of "thinking men" that have been atheist.  Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) was not quite atheist, although he was often accused of being such, Emily Dickinson, Hemingway, and a bunch of other people I'm forgetting.  However, there are a lot of people that were Christians or Deists (Victor Hugo, Thomas Jefferson, T.S. Elliot, Charlotte Bronte, most of America's other founders, etc)  Alexandre Dumas' book The Count of Monte Cristo seems to suggest he's Christian, but The Three Musketeers doesn't so much, I can't find anything in his biography that confirms either one (his lifestyle certainly doesn't).  Of course, some of these people converted from atheism to Christianity, such as Victor Hugo and T.S. Elliot.  The fact is, someone's intelligence doesn't have much at all to do with whether they turn out a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim.  It's about what they're raised as and, ultimately, what they decide for themselves.


Just a few thoughts that don't all have anything to do with the title. xD

Gulliver's Travels Review

Okay, so I've just finished Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift.  I actually really enjoyed it!  However, anyone who's considering reading this should be forewarned of a couple things!

This book was written in 1726, and it's a very complex political allegory.  That doesn't mean it's inaccessible, but if you want to read this, you should be aware that it's just complicated as freaking heck.  I mean, if any of us were born in eighteenth-century Britain, I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem! xD  But sadly, I find the population of that description much depleted.  Just by a little. xD

Anyways, so unless you have a thorough understanding of eighteenth-century Britain and the political situations that were going down at that time, you're going to need a very well annotated version!  Barnes & Noble classics are always good - they give you the bare necessities in footnotes, and if you need more by the end (like me) you can always go back and read the introduction you inevitably skipped out on at the beginning.

Despite not being "in" on all the cracks Swift was making at people left and right, I still thoroughly this book!  To be honest, I don't think you could call the plot thrilling - it was, of course, written from the point of view of the fictional character, Capt. Gulliver, as if it were Gulliver's accounts of his travels upon his final return.  The style is very matter-of-fact, and it mostly gives a very precise account of what occurred during Gulliver's "travels."  So if you're not used to that sort of style, that would definitely be a drawback, and you might want to forgo reading this one. xD  But really, it is a good book, even if it is too complex for the common man to understand! xD

Okay, so next up is Arabian Nights!  I hope these reviews are helpful!

A Choice: Society or God?

Nowadays, there's only a certain belief system you've got to follow.  If you don't follow it, society won't only condemn you as ignorant and contemptibly old-fashioned, but heartless, narrow-minded, hateful, judgmental, stubborn, arrogant, and/or an inhibitor of progress.  These are only some of the qualities that may be assigned to you if you depart from the belief system that's generally accepted today.

To be considered one of the "moral" and "upright" people in society today, you must (1) Not only accept all those who are homosexual unequivocally, but also believe in the strong morality of homosexuality, such that you would be one if only you were "born" that way, (2) In the serious nature and existence of global warming as well as the strong necessity to reverse it (which, even granting its existence, doesn't by any means imply human causation of the effects, and without that assurance the idea of reversing it is laughable) and (though this isn't nearly as bad as the others) (3) Evolution is real and all the physical evidence supports it, so anyone against it is just believing in unproven fantasies.

Honestly, under normal circumstances I wouldn't care what the heck people thought was a good opinion and what wasn't, except that now you see Christians trying to reconcile what society says they should think with what Christianity (or, more accurately, God) says they should think.  Well, I've got something to say to you!  If you have to adjust your Christian beliefs to conform to society's expectations of you, you've got your priorities all mixed up!!  GOD should be your priority - it doesn't matter what other people think!  People who are trying to conform to society's expectations of them are boarding a sinking ship!!

The fact is, if you're doing that already, later you're going to have major problems!!  It's going to get hard, people are going to think we're altogether horrible people for being the way we are.  It's okay.  But we've got to stand strong.  Honestly, until a couple of weeks ago I used to inwardly sigh and roll my eyes when people have said "the end times are coming fast, they're almost here."  I thought, "Wow, they've only been saying that every century for the past 21 centuries!!"  Seriously, though.  God woke me up, and he really shook me up in the process!  It is coming soon.  Whether it'll be in my lifetime, I don't know!  However, I know it's coming, and I think it'll be here within a few generations at most.

I just look around me, and I see so many Christians trying so hard to live up to society's expectations of them, but that priority has got to go!  You'd best kill it completely, because if you keep reconciling your beliefs with society's skewed view of morality, you're going to find yourself in a trap.  As society's morals get more and more skewed, and their opinions more and more reprehensible, you're going to have to make a farther leap to get to a point where they won't toss you aside as ignorant or narrow-minded.  However, they'll be just tiny baby steps.  You'll just take one little one so they won't reject you, and then one small other one when the time comes, and another one.  Soon enough you'll be across the street, with God waving at you from a distance and a bus passing between you.  Please don't let that happen to you!!  You have to be willing to take some disgusting junk for God!  I mean, for now it's easy.  People are just like, "Oh, please.  You believe that?  Psh."  Later it will be much worse.  Don't be afraid.  God has his expectations of you too, and if to keep up with them you have to be hated, disdained, mocked, laughed at, or even physically beaten, you have to be willing to do it!!  The worst anyone can do to you is give you death.  They give you death and you gain the world.  They are powerless.  The end.

Obama

I'm sorry, I've had a lot to write about the last couple of weeks, but I haven't had much time to actually write about it. xD  So here's what's on my mind now!! xD

I just made it through part of MSNBC.com's intervew with Ms.I'm-the-first-first-lady-who's-actually-ridiculous-enough-to-become-a-fashion-icon and my opinion of her just completely died.  Admittedly, I didn't have an opinion about her before because I don't give a rats hindparts about her, but now I absolutely have no respect for her whatsoever.

During the interview (and I didn't watch much of it, I skipped through the beginning junk about Egypt and on to the interesting questions) the man questioning her asks her if Obama has changed at all during the two years since he became president.  Her answer: no.

This answer is a bunch of hog vomit for a very clear, indisputable reason: there is not a single person on this freaking earth that goes a full two years without changing.  Period.  If this goes for a normal person who's just moseying their way through life (and it does) it goes for some idiotic guy that's become president during that time as well.  If you're going to lie, you might as well buck up and do it well, saying he's changed for the better or some junk like that.  But she doesn't even know how to lie.  She's spewing out this nonsense that anyone with half a brain can perceive as false.

And honestly?  Do you really think we're that stupid?  All you have to do is look at a picture of him then and another now!! xD  Seriously!!  I'll do it for you!!!  *ahem*

Obama then (January 2009):

Obama now:

If you want to see the pictures I could have picked that are worse, here they are:  1, 2, & 3.  Doesn't he just look like his eyes are sunken in, almost like he has some sort of terminal cancer??  You can't tell me that man's the exact same as he was before. xD  I'm not buying it!! xD  And that's just the first recent one I found, there are a ton worse than this one!  Now, I'm not saying he's worse than before.  He just looks plain freaking unhealthy, and despite how much I disagree with him, I do feel sorry for him!! xD  But he needs to not lie, and his wife needs to stop lying, too!  You know, you'll get a lot more out of the American people if you tell them the freaking truth.  For the most part, they can tell when you're lying to them.  Honestly. xD  I can't freaking stand the man.  You've got to be a snake and sit there saying "oh, the American people'll get it soon," etc. when you are in the very act of trying to flatter them into your opinion!!  Rat!!

The Portrait of a Lady

Okay, so I've just finished The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James.  I actually really liked it! xD  But whether you like this book or not highly depends on your personality.  I'll try to review it to the best of my ability here. xD

Anyways, so at first I didn't like it that much, I'll admit that. xD  I don't really know whether it was because I just had so many other books to read, that Henry James has too much description, or a combination of the two.  but just short of halfway through I decided to start cheating a bit. xD  By cheating I mean nothing more than skimming, though it could be counted a horrible sin for an English major! xD  Either way, once I began to skim it was much more enjoyable.

Despite the fact that Henry James does go a bit overboard with the description, his characters are phenomenal.  Although in many books characters pretty much follow a general mold (otherwise known as archetypes), Henry James' characters are quite outside of the standard.  When I say this, I mean it in the best way possible.  You won't find an exact reproduction of these characters unless they're somebody else's versions of his original characters, and maybe even that doesn't exist.  In any case, James' characters are entirely unique, and entirely set apart from anything I've ever seen before.  Isabel is independent and fancies herself very knowledgeable, but she blinds herself to the real character of a man who should never have fooled her.  Ralph sees everything, and his cynical approach on life makes him one of the most endearing characters in the bunch, but Casper Goodwood follows close behind with his seemingly futile devotion to Isabel and his rash pursuit of her.

If you read this book, though, there are some things you should be aware of.  They are (1.) Don't hate me for the ending, I didn't write it xD, and (2.) Be prepared to skim through the description.  I don't know too many people who'd want to wade through all the description.  If you want to, be my guest.  But be forewarned that not all of it's strictly relevant or really necessary to the story.  But some of it is, so you just have to be sort of careful what you skim and what you don't. xD

On the whole I really enjoyed this book, though, and I give it four stars out of five! xD  I could've stopped in the middle because of the description, but the truth is I couldn't!  No matter how much the description annoyed me, I was just too devoted to the characters by then!  Skimming, I guess, is almost a compliment for me in this case.  I loved the characters so much I couldn't stand it!!  And normally I hate skimming!

Oops.

I know I haven't posted in a long time.  I have a lot to do, and it's really hard to keep up with this, my schoolwork, and my own personal expectations of myself (20 pgs of for-fun book per day, two Logos readings to catch up, and this blog if it's even possible).  So yeah.  It's pretty freaking crazy.  But I'm really gonna try to keep up with this blog.  It's just really hard for me to stay motivated, for one because I don't think much of anyone reads it, and for two because whenever I post on it I lose so much sleep it's unreal!  And I never had that much sleep to begin with, being a college student!! xD

Anyways.  So, y'know that Logos thing I mentioned earlier?  I realize you probably need a definition on that.  Logos is the Greek word for exactly that, word.  It's the title that's been given to our Church-wide reading of the Bible.  There are daily readings, and since I'm behind (I started late) I've been trying (key word being trying) to read two per day to catch up.  This doesn't always work out. xD  But I have been trying!!

So my readings today include part of the story of Joseph, as did yesterday's.  The result is a new theory, which I actually think is really likely to be true.  I encourage everyone reading this to read Genesis 37-42, purely 'cause that's how far I've gotten into Joseph's story so far.  At the very least I would like you to read Genesis 37:12-36 and Genesis 42:21-25.

Now, Reuben has pretty much always been my favorite of Jacob's sons.  I mean, Joseph's pretty awesome and all, but Reuben's the one that tries to save him despite all his other brothers.  Reading this for Logos has really convinced me that Reuben and Joseph had a special relationship.  I mean, Reuben really tricked his brothers in a way.  Convincing them not to kill Joseph but to leave him for dead, Reuben planned to go back to the pit and rescue Joseph, bringing him back to his father Jacob safe and sound.  I can imagine his stomach tightening as his brothers threw Joseph down the pit, knowing that Joseph had no way of knowing the plan Reuben had to rescue him, and knowing how betrayed Joseph must feel.  He must have been anxious to return after his brothers left, so he could make amends with Joseph and his beloved younger brother could know that he never really meant to do him harm, and the devastation he must have felt (and indeed, that the Bible describes him as feeling in Genesis 37:29-30) when he discovered Joseph was gone, and would never know of his good intentions.

Then, you must think also of the consequences Reuben would have faced if he succeeded in his plan.  Can you imagine how much his brothers would have hated him for saving Joseph underhandedly and saying to Jacob, "Here, here's Joseph back, no thanks to those creeps, they tried to kill him."  For one, I don't really know what the legal system was like then, but some of his brothers might have been put to death for that bit.  If not, they would hate him for all eternity.  And we've just seen what they prefer to do to people they hate.  He must have really loved Joseph to undergo that sort of thing for him.  He must have been full of resolve, since he not only considered doing this, but actually went back to the pit and would have pulled his brother out had he not been long gone.

Then, of course, there's the second bit I recommended to you.  During the famine, when Joseph has risen to power and is selling Egypt's grain to those that need it, who shows up but his brothers?  Not surprisingly, they don't recognize him.  He's probably all done up in Egyptian make-up, and he's at least thirty-seven by now, anyway.  So he pretends not to recognize them either, and does what any bitter man who'd been sold by his brothers into slavery would do, and accuses them of being spies.  So his brothers, having no reason to believe he was anything more than a normal Egyptian (which isn't really an accurate descriptor, since he's in control of the world's supply of grain and the Pharaoh's probably just in de Nile - haha I'm so funny - that Joseph was more powerful than him anyway) and not realizing he could speak Hebrew, thought they were safe talking amongst themselves in their native language.  Now you may turn to Genesis 42:21-25.  They sort of not-so-internally panic.  They figure this is their recompense for selling their brother as a slave.  Despite the fact that Joseph heard this, he didn't respond at all until Reuben says his bit.  When Reuben rebukes them, giving them a basic "I told you so," and telling them they should have listened to him when he said to do nothing in ill blood towards Joseph, that's when Joseph reacts.  After having his cry (which sounds more pathetic than it actually is), he gives them a freaking ton of grain, and you've got to remember, grain is gold at this point.

Really, I think that Joseph reacted in this way, and at the moment he did, because he had thought for all that time that Reuben had had a part in the betrayal.  For him to cry like that, his years in Egypt, although successful, must have been full of the underlying torture that the brother he loved so much could have betrayed him like that.  I can really see the sunset conversations the two might have had in the desert.  Reuben was so much older than Joseph, probably twelve years at least, he probably admired him.  I think it's difficult for us sometimes to view the people in the Bible as just that, people.  People not unlike those today.  The Bible has a habit, particularly in the Old Testament, of giving people's actions and rarely their reasons.  I think it's easy for us to assume that they were just perpetually divinely influenced.  But that's clearly not the case.  David made his mistakes, Saul made his bigger ones, and Sarah is absolutely a horrifically accurate illustration of the stereotypical old, bitter, shrew wife (or spinster) of today.

I guess the moral of this blog is, ancient people are people too! xD  And hopefully that use of the present tense is accurate for all of them!

Y'know what?  We're doing this thing we call Logos for my church, and it's where we read the entire Bible with manageable day-by-day readings.  And I actually noticed something a few days ago that I'd never noticed before.

When I read the story of the fall, I've always imagined that Eve was off on her own when the Serpent came to her, picking apples and possibly shining them every so often with her then-nonexistent sleeve so she could see her face better.  However, this appears not to be the case.  In Genesis 3:6, the Bible says "she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

Everything I thought I knew about that story is a lie!! xD  Adam was there throughout the entire conversation between Eve and the Serpent!  The wuss!!  He not only remains completely silent throughout the entire exchange (so much so that it's easy to overlook his presence), but he actually falls for the trick same as Eve, but since she took the first bite he blamed it on her, and because God happened to have made Eve for him, on God Himself!!  I bet Eve didn't talk to him for a week, and thus began the world's first marital problems!  I mean, obviously they eventually got over it, or we wouldn't have seen Cain and Abel, but I just can't imagine them speaking to each other for a while after that!

xD  I wish we would view people in the Bible more as real people like that. xD  I mean, I have a lot of trouble sometimes - some of them are just incredible.  Like David having so many chances to kill Saul (who was tried to kill him for no good reason, by the way), and he never did.  When Saul eventually died, I believe it was because he fell on his own sword (on purpose, of course, the equivalent of today's bullet to the head).  I just think that's a massive amount of mercy, there.  Would I be capable of the same thing?  I honestly don't know!

I'm sorry I didn't write a blog yesterday!  It was 1:30am, and I'd gotten a total of four hours the night before, had a filling, and spent half the day smiling the lopsided smile of a llama. xD  At the end of the day, after staying up later than I wanted to so I could post some discussion stuff for a few classes, I knew anything I spat onto my blog would more resemble vomit than actual words, so I figured I'd skip out.  I sort of stand by my decision, since I was about to die on the spot, but at the same time I hope I can avoid stuff like this in the future by getting a decent amount of sleep. xD  I really do want to keep this up daily.  I'm doing a failure job of it so far, though! xD

Anyways, so I kinda wanted to talk about something that's not really a major "oh my gosh we need to solve it now!" problem, but it's still kinda irksome (yes I use that word in casual sentences, it's awesome) to me.  Also, I believe it's been covered in pretty much every cliche teen romance movie in existence in one way or another, but hey, I won't let that stop me.

The thing is, today's society is so obsessed with appearances.  To that effect, it's kind of naive of us to suspect it to have been different in the past, but we do take it to extremes nowadays.  At least back in the day, it was the appearance of propriety, and the appearance of being acquainted with the day's most fashionable clothing (a minor offense these days).  Now it can go from anywhere from guys only liking girls with the right hairdos to women being so obsessed with how they look that they have plastic surgeries, some more ludicrous than others.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal.  Obviously, back in the medieval ages they thought that if a person were ugly, they would inevitably have a horrible personality, and if they were pretty, an amazing one.  Now, for the record, I don't believe in ugly people.  I hear so many tales of their existence, but to date I've seen no proof.  I tend to be of the opinion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.  Hopefully you know what I'm referring to. :D  However, even when speaking of people that are plainer than others, I have found it is normally the complete opposite.  I mean, obviously not all plainer people are angelic and not all pretty people are horrible.  In fact, I wouldn't even say the majority of pretty people have horrible personalities.  However, I think that being plainer sort of gives a person perspective.

Somebody who's pretty and knows it, for instance, may hold themselves to a higher standard, and be more arrogant.  Somebody who's plainer probably isn't going to have a bloated pride.  They've got more chance of being humble.  They'll have personality standards, of course - I have personality standards!  But they won't be as "ohmahgosh, you're not popular/pretty enough for me."

Not to refer to literature, which is always sort of inevitable with me and mah issues, but Jane Eyre had no delusions about her lack of particularly striking beauty.  It made her, too, more humble.  It wasn't the only thing that contributed to her humility, but it was a portion of it nonetheless.  Because she knew she was plain, she turned down the jewelry Mr. Rochester offered her as the future Mrs. Rochester.  She said they would be wasted on her.

Additionally, when Mr. Rochester suffered the crippling burns in the fire that led to his blindness and the deformed face, he also had to learn to submit to others' leadership, something he would have scorned to do before.

Not only does beauty change a person's perception of themselves (and thereby, in some cases, their behavior) but it also changes the way other people perceive them.  Some girls can have the most despicable personalities and guys are either totally blind to it, or they're willing to overlook it all for their mere beauty.  Today I finished a piece by Henry James for American Literature class called Daisy Miller: A study.  It was about thirty-five pages, and the entire thing is about this girl who has absolutely no sense of right and wrong, and is completely apathetic that she indulges in foolish behavior which eventually gets her killed.  This poor guy sees nothing but her beauty.  His aunt sees right away that the girl's an absolute mass of impending disaster.  The guy knows better, he really does.  But every time he starts to go in the right direction and has momentary doubts about the absolute flawless morality of the girl, his brain turns off after an almost perfectly timed interval of five seconds and he just thinks: oh, look, pretty!  -.-  COME ON!!!

Really, I think that's what the whole piece is about.  Sometimes we're so blinded to people's real personality just because they're pretty and we therefore want to believe the outside reflects the inside.  The plain girls normally have their priorities more in order.  They realize that they have better things to do than wake up three hours earlier than they need to so they can straighten their hair and apply an obscene amount of make-up.  They realize that anybody who's worth their time won't care whether they've spent three hours and five hundred dollars on their hair.  Sadly, this doesn't mean that they're necessarily secure with how they look.  The truth is they're not plain.  Everyone's naturally beautiful.  The only difference is that some people spend a long time making themselves prettier.

Ahhh!!

I tried to post yesterday, and it wouldn't let me!!!  I sat there for like, two hours (trying to read for class at the same time) trying to get it to load, and it wouldn't!!  I attempted so many devious ways to fix it, but none of them worked!!  Ahhh!! xD  I was upset at first that I'd already missed a day, but now I'm kind of glad.  I didn't really have anything to post yesterday anyway, and I really want this to be a meaningful blog. xD  I don't want to talk about my life; my life is boring! xD

Anyways, what I want to talk about today is just the general American Superiority Complex.  I hate it!!  Honestly, we're taught in school that America is sooo awesome, and we're sooo perfect, and sooo much better than other countries.  But seriously, do you think we'd think any different if we were born in France, or Italy, or Germany?  The fact is: we wouldn't.  That leaves about two possibilities.  Either we're completely wrong about America being so superior to other countries, or (get this) every country could have its own thing to be proud of.  I don't see why that's so blasted difficult to believe!!  Honestly?  America's made a ton of mistakes, especially for its short time on the map.

When we learn of horrible things like the Trail of Tears and all the terrible things that happened especially to African American women during the times of slavery, we just shake our heads and say, "Wow, we really messed up then.  Good thing we've got things together now!"  WRONG!  We absolutely do not have things together.  When you hear something on the news every week about some corrupt politician stealing money, having an affair, or worse, you know we've got trouble.  There are not enough of them to cause that much trouble!  Not to mention people even thinking of burning Korans at a Christian church!  What is wrong with the world?!  And of course, corrupt politicians isn't limited to the United States, but it'd be naive to think that we're incapable of making as gigantic mistakes as we did with the Trail of Tears and the Japanese concentration camps.  Regardless of popular opinion, we're not some unified angel who knows no sin.

What really gets me is we freak out at other countries for the same things we're guilty of.  Hopefully you've been reading up till now and understand that I'm verbally beating up the Americans for their unlimited arrogance.  Well, guess what they hate the French for, among other things?  Arrogance!  Now, how exactly does that make sense?  Well, it's well beyond me.  Honestly.  Oh, and let's not forget that it's mostly the Parisians who hate Americans, and otherwise it's different.  The people I don't understand is the French people who like Americans.  What's to like?  We've got our heads so far up our butts we can't see daylight, and honestly, we hate a country and then expect them to bow down to us in eternal gratitude for our very existence anyway?  What the heck?!?  AMERICANS, YOU DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an American.  And I'll admit to even loving the principles upon which America started.  But now you might as well take the rotting remnants of those principles and cast them on a fire as scrap wood.  At least then they'd keep at least one person warm.  Just now nobody cares about them at all, why can't we just put them out of their misery?

Really, I don't see what's so hard about sacrificing a little of our overblown pride to admit that hey, other countries are awesome too.  They all have something genuine to be proud of, though it may be different from what we believe we have to be proud of.  For France it's beautiful art and literature, as well as a history of cultural pioneering, and actually successfully playing nice with the Indians.  For Italy it's gorgeous and ingenious architecture, Rome, and all the mythology that goes along with being at the heart of the Roman empire.  For England it's a carefully-preserved monarchy and long-enduring traditions.  For Spain its vibrancy, fiestas, and consistently joyful spirits.  If we'd throw aside our nationalistic tendencies (which are virtually useless anyways) maybe we'd open our eyes and see that.  After all, we are all people, no matter where we happen to have been born.  Can we please just focus on this for a while?  Thanks.  After all, as Victor Hugo so truthfully says:

"Civil War?  What does that mean?  Is there any foreign war?  Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?"

Haha, I love being an English major. xD

Alright, so I learned a new word today.  xD  It's exiguous.  xD  It means "scanty, meager, small, slender" (quoted from Dictionary.com). xD  I think that's one of the weirdest words I've seen so far. xD  That's going on my list of strange nearly-useless words along with palmiped.  xD

 Anyways, so I guess I'm gonna sort of pick up where I left off... at 1:30 in the morning. xD  Yes, the time thing lies... I can't figure out how to change it, which is sort of good so that way the dates aren't messed up and I can really say I posted one per day and never missed one.. xD  Hopefully!  If all continues to go according to plan. xD  I have so much freaking work it's unbelievable... so much reading.  But yeah, I'll get over it.  Moving on!

So as I was saying, I noticed some symbolism in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets that I hadn't noticed before! xD  This just makes me excited.  Muhahaha! xD

Yep, so obviously I explained to you (whoever you ominous yous are) yesterday the symbolism with the snakes and old Voldie being Satan and whatnot.  If you've seen the Harry Potter movies, and in particular the second one, you'll hopefully be familiar with the plotline.  If not, I'll do my best to explain it to you, in connection with the symbolism.

Now, if you've noticed Voldemort shows up to reap destruction on people in many different forms.  In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, this form just so happens to be the seemingly innocent schoolboy, Tom Riddle, who comes out of a diary initially to kill all the Muggle borns. xD

Okay, so the unsuspecting Ginny gets ahold of the diary.  She's clearly going through puberty and has nobody but a bunch of unsympathetic older brothers to talk to.  That kind of stinks, doesn't it?  Not for long!  She finds the diary and life just gets better.  She has a friend to talk to - all she has to do is write in the diary and Tom Riddle writes back.  He's very understanding of all her problems, and really helps relieve the stress by being there to listen.  He's an absolute godsend - or is he?

Weird things start happening to Ginny.  Things are written on the wall and she has paint all over her.  Hagrad's chickens are killed and she has feathers all over her... she's starting to look very guilty.  It may have taken a while, but she finally realizes that she's gotten herself in immense trouble.  What seemed so right before isn't right at all!

She tries to get rid of it, of course.  She attempts to flush it down a toilet, which doesn't really work at all.  Next thing she knows a friend has it... Harry Potter.  "Well, that's not right!" she thinks, "That's a horrible thing, Harry shouldn't have that!"  She couldn't know that Harry was using it for a good cause.  So naturally, she steals it back.  Except this time she's in over her head.  Well, again.  She's taken miles underground where her once-pretend-friend Tom Riddle drinks her soul to gain power.  Or something along those lines anyway.  If you didn't read my last blog, you are now permitted to look at the title.  And it's our beloved Harry himself who has to save her in the end.  Does this sound like anything to you?  Maybe I should make this painfully clear.

This is meant to show how Satan, who comes in many forms, can appear quite innocent.  He may simply wave to you as you spit on your neighbor's lawn in disdain or give you a hug as you satisfy your pride with a sharp retort.  Besides that's not such a bad thing to do, is it?  At times, Satan can feel like quite a friend.  But in the end, he never is.  In the end he'll lead you on a severely unpleasant journey that only Jesus himself can save you from.

Now, I understand how some people may think that this proposal is positively ridiculous, but it's not!  I didn't just pull this out of a hat.  I first noticed the Christian symbolism in the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One.  I tried to explain what I thought I saw to my family on the way back from the movie theater, and as they were, understandably, skeptical, I looked it up when I got back, hoping I could be right.

There is, in fact, an article that not only cites a book by a man who has written several books on the Christian symbolism behind Harry Potter, but also quotes J.K. Rowling.  When asked if she was a Christian, she responded: "Yes I am.  Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books."

Again, I'm not making this up!  I haven't yet read the books by John Granger (that would be the man I mentioned earlier) explaining his findings as far as the Christian symbolism in Harry Potter, but I would like to eventually.  First, though, I want to read all the Harry Potter books and see how much I can find for myself.  Then I'll read his to see how much of my ideas corresponds to his, how much I missed, and even if (who knows) I found something that he missed!  Hey, it could happen!

Besides, I am kind of disappointed in the way Christians treat Harry Potter, and particularly the fact that J.K. Rowling says people seem to be upset about the fact that she's a Christian.  Honestly, you should never be upset about anyone being a Christian, period.  I don't care if you disagree with the ideas you think they're promoting.  I don't care if you think they're a lying cow.  You need to shove it up your backside, if you want an honest answer.  There is nothing you can do that should cause you to be more ashamed of yourself than to desire that somebody go to hell.

Even if you disagree with the way J.K. Rowling has chosen to get her Christian principles across, it's irrelevant.  At least she's getting them across.  And if you think that this whole thing I've been shoving down your throat is a bunch of nonsense, that's fine.  But you have to admit, the entire Christian faith is about taking something evil (i.e. human beings) and making them good.  Even if you think Harry Potter is somehow inherently evil, I really hope you don't think your God is so small that He can't make it something truly powerful for Him.

That's why I've spent so much time trying to make what I feel about the symbolism clear.  I really think it's something real, and it's being kept so horrifically in the closet!  I want people to know about this!  It can't do any good if nobody knows about it!

So yeah.  Sorry if I seem kind of uppity throughout this blog. xD  I've had an interesting but awesome day. xD  Ha, see you tomorrow, I have no idea what I'm going to talk about!!

Harry Potter = Jesus?

One of the things I'd really like to change the way people think about is Harry Potter.  I mean, Christians think it's horrible and you'll probably die of a horrible disease if you read it (or at least that's how they treat it, in all seriousness, despite how ridiculous it sounds) and nobody sees any Christian elements to it.

Now, I know that it sounds sacrilegious to some to say that Harry Potter (you know, that serious that's supposed to be all demonic) could have any foundation at all in Christianity, or even that it has a sprinkle of it buried deep within.  But really, I don't think the Christianity in it is all that deep into it - people would see it if they'd just open their eyes.

I've only read the first two of the Harry Potter books to date, but really, that's far and away enough to see the symbolism in it.  Think I'm crazy?  I hope you'll agree by the end of this blog!


The fact is, in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets there's a remarkably accurate parallel between a situation Harry finds himself in and one of Jesus' experiences from the Bible.  It's not a very well known story, so that may be one of the reasons nobody seems to have really noticed it.  However, it is very real and (I believe) very intentional.

Anybody who's watched the movies knows that Voldemort keeps a snake around to do his dirty business.  I mean, Voldemort, is himself a snake.  The slitted nostrils, the white skin, the Parseltongue - it's kind of hard to deny.  It's fairly obvious that Voldemort represents Satan, right?  I'm sure if you don't agree with it yourself you can at least see where I'm coming from.  That makes his little pet snake (and all other snakes besides) demons.  He can talk to them through this handy little trick called Parseltongue.  "But hold on a minute, so can Harry.  Well how the heck does that make sense, Emi?  You've obviously made some horrendous mistake.  If Harry and Voldemort have the same ability then they can't be symbolic of the figures you just accredited them to, can they?"  But they can.  The distinction lies on how they use their ability.

This comes to play when the scene I mentioned surfaces.  This is when Harry first discovers his Parseltongue ability.  He's learning how to duel when Malfoy sets a snake on him.  However, the snake soon turns on one of the students watching the mock duel.  Harry tells the snake to leave the student alone (which it does) and only realizes later that the words had been in a different language.  Since he has this "gift," the other students begin to believe he is the "heir of Slytherin" which is reportedly reaping havoc in the school.  The exact quote from Chapter 11 is "He's a Parselmouth. Everyone knows that's the mark of a Dark wizard. Have you ever heard of a decent one who could talk to snakes? They called Slytherin himself Serpent-tongue."

This incident's biblical equivalent takes place in Matthew 12:22-32.  A demon-possessed man is brought to Jesus, and Jesus casts the demons out and heals him.  But the Pharisees accuse him of being Beezlebub, "the prince of demons", since he can command the demons and they will obey him.  Sound familiar?  It should!  The exact same thing happened to Harry freaking Potter.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Still not convinced?  All I've got to say is HA!  I'm not even finished.  Even as I wrote this I noticed some more symbolism that I just hadn't seen before.  Maybe I'll tackle that tomorrow.  You just never know.  :D

About me

The thing anyone reading this blog should know about me is that I am, first and foremost, a Christian.  I won't be apologetic about it, but I'm also not the kind of person that's going to flaunt my faith to make people think I'm some sort of saint either.  When I talk about God on this blog, which I most assuredly will, it will be because I'm really thinking about Him, or about the world, or everything.  It won't be because I'm trying to impress a group of Christian friends with my holiness.  If there's one thing I want to be in this life, it's genuine.  I don't know about everybody else, but what I do know is that I'm a real Christian, and I'm not even going to make any calls on the authenticity of anyone else's faith - I don't believe that's my right, and from the outside looking in, I don't think I could make an accurate call if I tried.

Besides that, I'm just a regular English major.  I'm pretty boring.  I'm really obsessed with classical literature - for some odd reason I just love it. xD  I'm currently reading The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James.  To be honest, it's not the greatest I've ever read so far.  I'm on page 26, and we'll see, but it might become one of the few books I actually put down before finishing.  That's not necessarily because it's that bad, but I got a bunch of books for Christmas that I can't wait to read (such as The Canterbury Tales, Guilliver's Travels, Arabian Nights, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc).  So really, it's more about me trying to swallow this just before getting to all that good stuff than the book itself. xD

Other than that, there's not much to say about me.  Again, I'm a fairly boring person.  But I do have some good ideas, I hope, so I'm really kind of excited to share them if anyone's listening, to see what everybody thinks of them.  Some of the things I say won't necessarily be popular, but that's not what I'm about.  I want to tell what I perceive to be the truth regardless of consequences, even if that's all I ever do in my life.  So I guess for me, the more hatemail the better.  Hate away. :)

New Years Resolutions

Alright, so I wanted to start off by talking a little bit about me and why I'm starting this blog in the first place.  One of the biggest things I want to make clear is that I'm not starting it for attention.  I refuse to be one of those people who flaunt their wit (even if it's not something to be proud of) in everybody's faces, and complain about things purely to make themselves look better, etc.  To be honest, though, I'm making this blog for purely selfish purposes.

I started a journal about a year ago.  I'd tried this several times before, but never really kept up with it.  In my defense, this last journal worked a lot better than the ones preceding it.  But still, it took me about three hours just to write all my thoughts down (yes I think too much).  Then I just ended up staying up ridiculously late, because I felt obligated to finish a journal once I'd started it.  So freaking  annoying!  That absolutely didn't work, and it'd be just weird to type it up on Word and save it.  Soo... this is one solution.

The reason for the original journal was not the traditional "I'm going to talk about my hyperactive emotions and teenage problems."  The purpose of that was more to talk about (yes, I know I'm a dork) my outlook on life, human beings, etc.  The freak stuff.  The reason I did this is because I have a lot of ideas, and again, I think a lot.  If I just think about it and don't write it down, I forget it.  If I post it as a Facebook update, not only do I have to comment on my own status to get it all in, the weeks pass and eventually you couldn't even get to it if you wanted to, and it's lost in the immense universe of cyberspace.  This is bad.  I'm a writer (or at least hope to be) so my ideas are my livelihood.  So I need a way for me to be able to look through my thoughts and my considerations, and voilà, there they are.  This provides that. :D

 Another thing is because I want to be able to write reviews of books I've read right after I've read them, so I can look back on those as well.  Obviously, the best way for a writer to learn how to write is to read the books of the people who have it all figured out!  So yeah, obviously I'm doing that, but I want to make sure I don't mix them up, and I have at least a little review of each book I read from here on out, and I won't confuse myself. :D  I'll probably do this some with movies as well.  Normally, though, I won't do that unless a movie gets me thinking and I really feel like spilling my beans about it. xD  But that doesn't happen often.

So there you go.  I have purely selfish reasons for starting this blog.  I don't really care if anyone reads it... if they do, that's great, but it's not a big deal for me.  This is just part of my learning process, for me.  In case anybody is reading this, though, I'll be writing some about myself tomorrow.  I know I said I would today, but my gosh!  I can write up a storm when I get going, and this is already immensely long! xD  I'm going to try to write on this every day.  At least that's the plan now!  We'll see!