Shallowness

Salam malakim. As I'm sure you've all noticed I haven't blogged in a while, partially because I've been working quite a bit as a Butler, partially because my internet has been permafucked for a while and mostly because I've been thinking about quite a bit in a fair amount of depth.

I've been thinking about quite a few things, but for some reason the topic of love and romance has been rather high on my list of thoughts of late, probably due to the fact that quite a few of my friends have encountered love on some level recently.

Anyway, today isn't about that because I have quite a bit of thinking still to do before I can start formulating any sort of theorem on how all the different levels of love fit together, but today I've been thinking about how things in my life have changed of late.

I saw some pictures of myself on the good book today from about 2 months ago, and I looked like shit. Like, I really looked bad. And now I look pretty good I think. So, what's changed?

Well, I got a hair cut. It's not long anymore, and quite a few people think it's cool. I don't really know but I think it looks better. I've got some facial hair but I don't know how much of a difference that has made, but the really big difference is that I've lost a lot of weight. Like quite a few kgs. But the weird thing is that I haven't done anything different, I've just lost weight.

Because my diet hasn't really changed other than I eat more pizza at the moment, I can only conclude that the reason for my weight loss is the fact that I am no longer on my anti depressants.

If you didn't know this, I was on some fairly strong meds and as a result my body decided that it would be wise to pick up a fair amount of weight. It was rather irritating, particuarly because no matter what I did I couldn't lose much weight. Now that I'm off them I feel and look better.

I was talking to a wonderful man the other day, and he too has had some problems with depression. And this man said that he feels much better because he isn't on his meds anymore either. Not that the depressions is any better or worse, but he feels better because he now knows that when he feels shit it's because he feels shit. And if he feels good it's because he feels good. It's not because the meds are regulating his life, or doing anything weird to his body. It's because that's what he's feeling.

And I can identify with that feeling. Yesterday I woke up and felt awful. But I knew that while my feelings were unfounded they were my feelings. Not a chemical induced emotion, but my emotions. And that's surprisingly comforting irrespective of what you are feeling.

So yes, I've lost weight and I feel better about the fact that I look better. But I guess that's almost inconsequential next to the fact that the emotions I feel now are my own, and not because of all the chemicals I am / was pumping into my body to regulate something that no one could explain or fully understand.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the aforementioned wonderful man for being such a great guy and I would like to thank my friends for being great people and encouraging me irrespective of what emotion I'm feeling.

Reasoning

It's not often that I feel this way, but at the moment I would love to say a few things that would not be in line with my principles. In fact I'd love to do a few things that are not in line with my principles too, but I'm more tempted to say than do things today.

Now, the question is then asked, is there something wrong with my principles or with my emotional state? I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer in this case. I have a belief system that dictates how I respond to various situations and for the most part I find that my emotions are in line with this system so when my emotions aren't in line is that a problem?

I don't think so. Just because you feel a specific way doesn't mean you should act on that feeling. So if you feel a specific way and you don't express that feeling are you failing to uphold your integrity? I'm not sure, but possibly.

For me, part of integrity is expressing my feelings and being real about the way I react to various situations. But I suppose expressing yourself correctly and accurately is extremely important, and it's the expression of an emotion that makes a difference.

So, at what stage is your integrity then compromised? I suppose when you start lying. Whether it be to yourself or others, honesty is key. But the truth is that for me I almost feel as if I'd rather compromise my integrity than hurt people. Is that really compromise anyway? If you know the truth and don't share it? I guess it depends on the circumstance and the individual, but I'm inclined to say yes.

That doesn't mean I should run around calling random people cunts, but it does mean that I should be honest with them where possible, and should do it with as much tact as possible. But I'm not entirely sure I should be volunteering this information. If I don't like someone I'd rather just avoid them / ignore them.

I don't really know. At the moment I'm a bit torn so I'll just bite my tongue for now. I'm not at the end of the road yet.

A Quick Rant

So I've written two blogs today about cocks in the world, and I deleted both of them because they end up being rants that were not constructive in any way. I have decided that all I want to say is this: If you are one of the cunts in the world who has mastered the art of pretending to take responsibility for your actions while manipulating people into casting you as a victim, I hope you die in a fire. If you a person who lies about being a friend and then bails when life becomes real I hope you drown in the icy waters. That is all.

Anyway, no that I've had my say, we move onto a topic that I'm sure drives you all mad: Football. Chelsea are playing Barcelona for the second time in 8 days tonight and this time they are playing at Stamford Bridge. Last week, in Spain, Chelsea walked away with what I think was a reasonable result, namely a 0 - 0 draw. I would have preferred a 1 - 1 draw, but by not conceding things are looking good.

Guss Hiddink's squad choice last week did surprise me though. He played a 4-2-3-1 formation with Essien playing on the right wing and Mikel in the holding role. This clearly worked out, but there was very little happening when the team went forward.

I do, however, have an idea as to how they can win this game and it does involve sitting back quite a bit. You see, Barcelona are the best football team in the world at the moment and when they go forward and attack they truly are amazing. So, there is no point in fighting fire with fire. Chelsea need to do something similar to what they did last week, and stifle the opposition's movement. By cutting off the supply from Xabi the team are limited to passing sideways, which means the ball is only going to be fed to Iniesta, Messi or Alves.

So, if Chelsea can play with A Cole marking Messi, Bosingwa marking Henry, Terry marking Eto'o and Alex sweeping up, then the only worry will come from midfield. Now, if Essien can remove Iniesta from the game and Lampard can limit Xabi then Ballack can play in a holding role as well as release Anelka or Malouda for attacks.

You see, with Alves playing at right back, he tends to come extremely far forward. So if Malouda can time his runs well he can get behind Alves and play him out of position, thereby allowing Anelka and Drogba to move inside and create havock for their inexperienced center halves.

All the attacks are going to have to go down the wings for Chelsea simply because central midfield is just too congested, so it's lucky that Malouda and Anelka are both playing really well at the moment.

The only problem I can see is that when Chelsea go forward and attack they are going to open up quite a bit, so I suspect the full backs are going to have to come forward and protect midfield while Ballack will probably have to stay back and make sure that no long balls make it from the box to the forwards.

I suspect that this game will be either a 2 - 1 game or a 5 - 4 game. Personally I'd rather see a 2 - 1 game because it'd be tighter, but who knows. As long as Chelsea go through I'm happy...

Christianity vs The Bible Part 4

This is the final part in my blogs on Christianity and the Bible. Enjoy.

So, of the arguments that I've ever heard I don't believe any of them are relevant. So if there is no valid argument, in my opinion, against swearing is there an argument for swearing? For me, yes. In fact it's quite simple: integrity.

I believe that because Christians believe that they should be "showing the world who Christ is through their lives" they try to project an image of themselves as being perfect people who never falter in any way. But because I don't believe that's the message I should be communicating I don't try to show that to people. I believe that my life is worth more to people when it is shown for what it really is than what I wish it was or what I think it could or should be.

For that reason, when I get frustrated I don't try and show people what I think they should see, I show them what's really going on in my mind. And often that is "Fuck!" I believe that by showing people what's really going on I am not only living a life of integrity, but I am showing more respect toward them. And in my mind that translates to open dialogue, which is the beginning of communication, and that is one of the greatest ways of demonstrating love. Again, this is all my opinion.

The other thing is that any word has an assigned meaning, so if you assign the word "shit" a negative connotation, you will view it accordingly. But if you assign it a neutral connotation, people won't care. Words like cunt and fuck are really just strong words, in the same way that anguish and agony are strong words. So what makes the former unacceptable? I honestly don't know. But I guess that's why we need to spend time talking to people and finding out what people find offensive and what they don't. If someone finds the word "cunt" offensive I won't use it in front of them, but again, this is only evident after a relationship has been established and communication has been started.

Why not just not swear at all? Because I have to have a benchmark, and that benchmark is determined by what I find comfortable. And the truth is that I honestly don't mind talking about anything [literally anything] with anyone. I don't mind swearing, or drinking, or smoking so that's my benchmark. Perhaps I'm too liberal, and perhaps that will change but for now I'm happy with that. If you aren't contact me and we'll chat.

At the end of the day if you are applying Christ's principles to your life with integrity, and to the best of your ability no one can really complain.

Christianity vs The Bible Part 3

Part 3 has arrived, so make sure you know what happened yesterday and then read away.

Another argument against swearing, smoking, drinking or just behaviour that people may classify as "ungodly" is that as Christians we should be showing the world Christ through our lives. Usually the verse which accompanies this argument is Romans 12:2 which states "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

I believe that this argument is half right, but only because it's based on half a verse. The rest of the verse says "...Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."

This argument raises the question, should we be reflecting Christ at all? My answer to that question is: Yes, but not the way most people believe we should. Many Christians believe that we should become like Christ, and that means that we should become little Christs. Doing what he would do in every circumstance and the like. While I believe that is admirable, how much do we really know about Christ? And where do we draw the line? Do we now say that we need to listen to the same music Christ would? Does this mean that because Christ woke up early in the morning we should too?

For me the answer is an emphatic no. We should, however, be changing our belief system to match Christ's belief system. Based on this belief system we can then make decisions which we believe would match God's good, pleasing and perfect will. That doesn't mean that I should have to pray long and hard as to whether I should choose chicken or beef, but it does mean that I should read the Bible, and based on my adopted principles I should interpret Scripture with integrity, to the best of my ability.

Questions like "would Christ say fuck?" are about as relevant as saying "would Christ listen to speed metal?" because I don't believe we should be trying to recreate the man today, but rather trying to stand for the ideals he stood for.

There are a fair number of Christians who have  a big problem with drinking too, but the Bible doesn't actually define drinking as a sin. It does however define it as unwise. And that is something I can wholeheartedly agree on. But why is it unwise? Well, the first thing that jumps to mind is the health factor. The truth is that alcohol is a poison and in large quantities your body doesn't agree.

So if the problem simply comes down to making a wise decision, why is drinking frowned upon, but drinking coffee isn't? The truth is that coffee is about as addictive and about as bad for you in large quantities. Does it really just come down to which one is more socially acceptable? Because if that is the case, then that's an awful argument. If you're prepared to eat McDonald's every day, why aren't you prepared to drink a beer or smoke a cigar.

I'm not saying that excessive drinking should be encouraged, but I am saying that it should come down to a person's choice rather than some random rule that you've decided is Biblical. Excessive drinking or smoking, just like eating McDonald's for every meal, should be seen as an unwise decision made by a person, and that's as far as it should go.

In rare cases I've encountered people who have a problem with Christians going to clubs. Now, the truth is that in one of these cases the man who told me I shouldn't be going to clubs also defined Satanism as having long hair, wearing black, drinking cat's blood and listening to heavy metal. For the most part, the people who draw these conclusions are so conservative they don't believe in different interpretations of the Bible. And in most cases I will hear their argument, and then disregard it without replying simply because they aren't actually open to hearing another view.

But for the record, both of the men who have told me that going to clubs is wrong have used Ephesians 5:1-5 as the basis for their argument. Now, if you remember the context of Ephesians, and you read the text you will quickly find that Paul was speaking to a group of people and encouraging them to ensure that the values and principles from the past were completely abandoned and changed to what Christ's are / were. He's not telling people to avoid sinful environments, but he is telling them to not mix up their past with their future.

Part 4 will be the last part, and will be up tomorrow. Remember, if you disagree or agree feel free to post your views and discuss away...

Christianity vs The Bible Part 2

So, here's part 2. We're picking up where we left off so have a good 'un.

This also means that there is far more emphasis on individual relationships because decisions concerning faith should be made on a personal and individual level. Now, while this may be fantastic on the surface it does bring about some serious problems when it comes down to living this way, simply because every person will have a different interpretation of how to live out various principles, which in turn mandates all Christians to approach each other openly and honestly with the goal of not only sharing one's perspective, but also to hear and consider another's perspective.

Having said that, Christ's belief system isn't a license to go mad and do whatever the fuck we want. On the contrary, it requires a much higher standard be upheld when it comes to studying and understanding Scripture on account of the fact that there is no set way of living.

Ok, so we've established that, in my opinion, Christianity isn't a lifestyle which can be set or dictated by anything. Rather it is the belief and acceptance that Jesus was the Christ, and that the principles that governed His life are the principles that are required to be present in our lives in order for us to be called righteous.

So how does swearing, drinking, smoking or clubbing fit in to this outlook on my faith? And if it does fit in, why are people so upset about it? Well, if I'm completely honest I don't think that most people who complain about swearing or anything else on my list actually know why they believe it's wrong. In fact, I think they just complain because it doesn't match their outlook on what Christianity should be. But these people continue to complain, and pull out scriptures such as Ephesians 4:29 or Colossians 3:8.

Then they move onto Romans 12:2 and Matthew 12:36 and conclude with something like "I'll pray that the Holy Spirit convicts you." So why are all of these things wrong? And why, if they aren't right, am I right? Well, we'll start off my addressing the issues raised by the people who do object.                            

We'll start off with people who object to swearing. In my experience, most people find this to be quite offensive because it is easily noticeable so it is the first thing that people complain about. In most instances the two passages of scripture which are pulled out are Ephesians 4:29 or Colossians 3:8.

Now, Ephesians 4:29 says "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those that listen"

And Colossians 3:8 says "But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander and filthy language."

While at first glance these scriptures both seem to be supporting the no swearing view, we haven't set any sort of historical or theological background. So, before we interpret the above, let's find out what each book is actually about.

Ephesians was written by Paul, and was directed at pretty much all the churches on the west coast of Asia Minor. The Ephesians lived in Ephesus [big surprise] and their church was the largest in the area, hence the name. Now, the area was quite a popular spot for ships to stop off and resupply between Rome and the East, and as a result it had a fairly large variety of people. With this different variety of people came a wide variety of different religious beliefs. This naturally had a very large impact on how people who had lived in the area and had converted to Christianity applied the Bible.

Ephesians is a very general letter which is really just designed to get people to think about their newly gained faith, and how to apply it to their lives. Paul urges the reader to ensure that they have left their old lives behind and have removed all the impurities from their lives. Now I'm not sure how people draw the conclusion that the word "wholesome" means "don't swear" because it's clear that Paul is speaking about building people up, rather than breaking them down. In my mind, it makes more sense that Paul would be referring to breaking people down by calling them idiots than rather than telling people not to use potentially rude language. For me this verse really is irrelevant in the argument, but we'll use some other aspects from the book later.

The next book we encounter is Colossians. Now, the Colossians had lost the plot a bit because they had started teaching a false gospel. In this book Paul is basically trying to correct the Colossians by encouraging them to return to the simple truth of the gospel rather than complicating it.

Now, this verse seems to support the "No swearing" idea quite strongly if it weren't for the fact that this is completely out of context. In this passage Paul is speaking about how the Christians in Corinth spoke about each other. He wasn't saying that you may not have anger, he was saying that you shouldn't speak of each other with anger for one another. He wasn't saying that you may not use filthy language, he was saying that you shouldn't speak in a manner that will bring each other down. Basically he is reiterating what he had already said in Ephesians. In other translations, instead of saying filthy, you would read "offensive". In the context it makes a little more sense.

For me it is quite clear that when read with the full picture, these verses make much more sense, and are speaking of building one another up, rather than banning people from saying specific words.

Another thing that people try to throw in there is Matthew 12:36, or an equivalent, which states "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgement for every careless word they have spoken." At this stage people will try and argue that every word you speak will be brought up and used against you when we enter Heaven / eternal life and we should therefore consider our words carefully. In this case Christ is being quoted so out of context it raises the question, did this person actually read the text in its entirety? Because based on that reaction it's unlikely.

That's the end for today. Part 3 will be up tomorrow.