inflammatory statements! audience participation! a disclaimer!

i'm looking for responses on this one. whoever you are, if you're reading this, you now have a moral obligation to respond. ha. (sorry.)

is atheism a religion?

consider:

religion is a universal (or, at least, global) phenomenon. it's occurred everywhere and at all times in human history in one form or another, and it hasn't always -- or, even the majority of the time -- resembled the abrahamic traditions we in the west immediately associate with the word today.

even without searching beyond abraham, we can see parallels in the rising atheist movement to established religious tradition(s). as an educational sidebar, i'll mention here that the purpose of biblical prophecy was not to predict the future, but to assess the flaws of the current situation (religious, or social, or political, or what have you) and deliver the bad news, so to speak. and they tend to do it in rather abrasive fashion. they make spectacles of themselves, harshly criticize the status quo using violent or shocking speech, predict disastrous results to the people's behavior, and generally disturb leaders and otherwise comfortable people -- those who do not think about the consequences of their lifestyles.

christopher hitchens : read an excerpt from God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. that might be enough of a summary. i'll just add that he is mainly a political figure; the involvement of religion in the political sphere is, as far as i can tell, what brought him to it as a subject.

sam harris : i thought about not including him in this section, since he advocates simply not referring to himself as anything because of the cult-like image "atheist" invokes (see here). he is, however, a prolific contributor to the collection of literature growing in popularity among people who identify themselves as atheists, so he gets to be here despite himself. also, the initial speech he references was delivered to the atheist alliance conference... hard to avoid being associated with something if you're preaching to its major congregation.

richard dawkins : affectionately nicknamed "darwin's rottweiler," he focuses on the abrahamic faiths for rhetoric -- see the below quote -- but his actual efforts are more geared toward liberating atheists, via efforts like the atheist bus, scarlet letter t-shirts, etc. his website, at least, puts the most notable effort into creating the culture of atheism harris wants to avoid.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgivng control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

-- from The God Delusion

(not to reveal my slight academic frustration, but for the record, if dawkins is an authority on the bible, i am crown prince sultan bin abdul aziz al saud. please, take his assessment of the hebrew scriptures with a grain of salt.)

in attempting to counteract religion altogether, are atheism advocates such as these three succeeding? or are they actually participating in the establishment of a backlash, non-theist religion? and if they are, aside from being ironic, is that bad?

if atheism is not a religion, what is it? what positive form does/should "the absence of x" take, if any?

do these guys just have huge egos, messiah complexes, and/or bad personal histories with religious institutions? if so, does that matter? they've obviously tapped into something that, aside from pissing a lot of people off, really resonates with a lot of other people.

on a similar note, and to try a different angle...

from the rig veda:

Truth is one; sages call it by various names.

and, from the vedanta society of southern california:

Truth is one, but it comes filtered through the limited human mind. That mind lives in a particular culture, has its own experience of the world and lives at a particular point in history. The infinite Reality is thus processed through the limitations of space, time, causation, and is further processed through the confines of human understanding and language. Manifestations of truth—scriptures, sages, and prophets—will necessarily vary from age to age and from culture to culture. Light, when put through a prism, appears in various colors when observed from different angles. But the light always remains the same pure light. The same is true with spiritual truth.

This is not to say that all religions are "really pretty much the same." That is an affront to the distinct beauty and individual greatness of each of the world's spiritual traditions. Saying that every religion is equally true and authentic doesn't mean that one can be substituted for the other like generic brands of aspirin.

Every religion has a specific gift to offer humankind; every religion brings with it a unique viewpoint which enriches the world. Christianity stresses love and sacrifice; Judaism, the value of spiritual wisdom and tradition. Islam emphasizes universal brotherhood and equality while Buddhism advocates compassion and mindfulness. The Native American tradition teaches reverence for the earth and the natural world surrounding us. Vedanta or the Hindu tradition stresses the oneness of existence and the need for direct mystical experience. The world's spiritual traditions are like different pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle: each piece is different and each piece is essential to complete the whole picture. Each piece is to be honored and respected while holding firm to our own particular piece of the puzzle. We can deepen our own spirituality and learn about our own tradition by studying other faiths. Just as importantly, by studying our own tradition well, we are better able to appreciate the truth in other traditions.

...

"As different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea," says an ancient Sanskrit prayer, "so, O Lord, the different paths which people take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee."

can/should atheism be considered another of these traditions? why or why not?

[disclaimer -- i haven't answered many of these questions myself, so i'm not attempting to trap or trick anyone. if they sound biased in any way, it's unintentional; i'm just still figuring out the language for discussing this. and if you know me, you know i'm not going to be shocked, embarrassed or offended by virtually anything you say in response, short of flat-out insults (see: will secrist, boston, 10/8/2004... smartass). so, fire away.]

here we go steelers, here we go . . . pittsburgh's going to the superbowl

(see #2)

i do miss the line about one for the thumb, but it's a small price to pay for actually getting it.

anyway, here's to XLIII (please note: polamalu's number) and number six on the way.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1


#2


#3


#4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

one bird down, one to go.

a very ominous assignment, with overtones of extreme personal danger

cleanfall was excellent! and the steelers are going to the superbowl! and we have a new president!

moving on.

actually, this is sort of related. excitement, enthusiasm, joy... these are generally good, healthy things. pleasant, for the most part. hype and hysteria -- these are not good things. these are annoying, distracting, abrasive things. also, they are often fake, or at least short-lived. most importantly, excitement and enthusiasm tend to get a lot more done than hype and hysteria, which tend to just lead to backlash when the honeymoon phase is over.

which leads me to this: now that the WOW IT'S THE NEW YEAR hype is pretty much over, i've got a brief bit to say about resolutions.

i never make resolutions by new year's day. this is for two reasons. one, new years eve usually sucks. with very few (and lovely) exceptions, this holiday and i have an extremely poor track record, so i'm seldom in a mood to be contemplative and reasonable. two, and more importantly, just on principle i try to give myself about a week before really settling in on what i'm serious about -- otherwise, getting all caught up in the rush of Starting Afresh, i make very earnest promises to myself that i simply cannot fulfill.

this year, it took a little longer than a week.

don't misunderstand -- i didn't dislike 2008. it wasn't a bad year. but it was, to be blunt, the year i didn't graduate from college; the year i didn't get a job; and the year i moved away from a bunch of people i very much love. without being melodramatic about it, i can admit that it's a bit boring and lonely with all those things piled up together. so settling in on a few solid, doable resolutions took a little more time than it did when i was, i don't know, twelve.

(also, my impulsive reaction when people asked about my resolution was to say, "get my shit together." could have had devastating consequences in the long run. obviously, cleaning up my language and being less flippant aren't major priorities at the moment.)

there are three.

one: i will (continue to) pay more attention to my physical wellbeing. waking up and going to bed at vaguely reasonable hours, exercising (read: walking around squirrel hill instead of driving), flossing. not difficult. four years of acting like i'm indestructible is probably enough.

two: i will read more, and more often. for pleasure, i mean. this doesn't count textbooks and news and things i read to edit. if you're wondering, i'm going to reread house of leaves, followed by the subtle knife, and then... we'll see.

three: i will write more. or create more, or something. translation, painting, whatever. i think part of the reason college has been such a torturous experience is that i've been desperately trying to play academic for the past four years, and i truthfully just don't enjoy it that much. i'm a writer. i've been a writer. i will be a writer. granted, writers tend to be really exquisite liars (and by that i mean we're all in denial), but by not doing what i know i'm supposed to be doing, i've allowed my capacity for writing to atrophy. it's much more difficult now than it was two years ago, let alone four, let alone six. the backsliding stops here.

Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books. Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the book-worm.

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

this whole adventure in blogging would be part of number three, by the way. a small part.

big weekend

terribly important:

a review of cleanfall's debut album, idle talk! they are lovely. if you are in the lancaster, PA area and over 21, you should drop whatever you're doing tomorrow (saturday) night and go to their album release show. 9 pm, lizard lounge (at the chameleon club), $5. most likely, anyone reading this who fits that description already knows about it, but i figure i'm not hurting anything by mentioning it.

terribly audacious:

this coming sunday, january 18, has been declared national sanctity of life day!!!!!!

thank goodness there's a day for it, or we'd just ignore it altogether, yeah?

and now, a sketch i've titled, "if you wanted a national pro-life day, you should have just called it that."

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent.

no shit? not to bomb the hell out of the evildoers? well, um, this is a little awkward... i hope the government's been performing this most basic duty behind closed doors...

My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life

no shit?! great! in what way? tell me more!!!

by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding of abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs.

okay, well, that's a let-down.

from the mouths of politicians, "promoting," "opposing," "encouraging," et cetera are people-pleasing, empty words. they're used to avoid indicating that, while they might wish they could, they either cannot, will not, or don't especially want/care to do anything material about whatever the thing is they're discussing. it's fluff. in the eighth year of his presidency, not many people are looking to bush as a mentor, and that's basically all those words mean.

later on...

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science.

really harness 'em. like, death-grip.

one. two. three. four (which, i'll grant, is by bobby kennedy, but if i can read lew rockwell on a semi-regular basis, we can all can handle this).

by the way, what are "our" values, exactly?

and finally...

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constistution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies

(by which i assume he means, go to church; it is sunday, after all)

and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

if you'd done your "basic duty," sir, this would just be an underscore. as it is, it's one of several last-minute, last-ditch efforts on your part to reclaim some moral high ground, and it's sad.

milk and honey

first, minor things of note:

bob barr, who wrote the defense of marriage act (DOMA), says it should be repealed. now super-new news, and not for extraordinarily noble reasons, but hey.

check out pop damage. they review lovely things. it's pretty and witty and fun-tastic, and i'm doing a little editing for them.

speaking of damage... but i love coffee! uh oh. also, i've been listening to a lot of aesop rock lately, and this makes me thing of that song.


now, more serious things.

over 1,000 palestinians are dead in the gaza strip.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza said 1,010 people have died in the conflict which started 19 days ago.

More than 300 of the dead are said to be children and about 4,700 people in Gaza have been injured.

Thirteen Israelis have been killed, including three civilians and one soldier from rockets fired from Gaza and nine soldiers killed in fighting in Gaza.

by the way, the population of the gaza strip is roughly 1,450,000. same as philadelphia.

as if it isn't enough of a mess, apparently bin laden's still playing with his camcorder.

i went to israel in 2006, during my semester abroad. we flew into tel aviv, which ian (who lived in israel for, i don't know, a while?) once likened to hilton head -- generally far removed from the conflict and violence associated with israel. we took a bus to jerusalem/al-quds and stayed in a hostel in the old city. we explored jerusalem, spent a day in bethlehem and a day in ramallah/al-bireh, and did a little 2-day drive around the west bank, complete with camping out on a cliff. i got to climb all over the caves at qumran, which was kind of life-changingly awesome for me. i waded into the dead sea up to my ankles (i couldn't go much farther or i would have fallen over). i got a tan walking around masada. we had a few tense moments, but they were mainly the result of not being fully accustomed to our surroundings.

we didn't go to gaza, clearly. that would have been a different experience. but after seeing some of the places we went in the west bank, i wanted to.

wherever we went, whether in israel or the west bank, everything was just... awe inspiring. even broken-down neighborhoods where the windows of all the buildings are blown out and garbage is piling up in the streets. i can't really qualify it. i haven't written much about it because words couldn't possibly do it justice. i spent a whole semester in athens, and just five days in the middle east, and they got under my skin equally.

occasionally, since i've been back and it's come up in conversation, people will ask me why the israeli-palestinian conflict is forever ongoing. they'll ask why someone doesn't just stop it. why no one can reach an agreement. now, there are either a million answers i could give this question (not that i actually know what many of them are -- i'm still learning). but i doubt that any of them especially matter. americans' tendency is to try to make logical sense of it, like it's some great rational puzzle that humans' brains just haven't learned to solve yet. it's not.

please bear in mind, i'm playing off of my own observations and responses to the people i talked to there, as well as people i grew up around (by which i mean, squirrel hill jews... orthodox and hasidim).

there's all kinds of rational and/or political discussion circulating on both sides of the table when third parties get involved, but when all the sugar-coating and circular logic is set aside, the big answer to the big question of, "why won't you just put actual effort into finding an actual, peaceful, livable solution for everyone involved?" seems to be, "we just don't want to."

i've heard that as a direct quote from several palestinians, and phrased slightly more diplomatically from a number of jews. and nobody's saying, "we don't want the killing to end," or, "we really like feeling threatened and oppressed and miserable." they're just saying, "we've been fighting over this since i was born, and we're damned well not going to give up now."

i'm not downplaying anyone's personal tragedy, but literally everyone has twenty stories about awful things the other side did. it's been going on for too long now, and in too small a space, for it not to be an intensely personal situation for... everyone.

there's a phenomenon called jerusalem syndrome. i've heard there's a wikipedia page, though i haven't been to it myself (and, apparently, a movie i haven't seen). basically, it's when someone goes to jerusalem and is so overcome with...? the significance of actually being in Jerusalem, i guess? -- that they become delusional. psychotic. display signs of what i can only think of describing as religious mania (like, the real kind, not the kind where americans send their kids to children on fire -- seen jesus camp, by the way?). anxiety. obsession with cleanliness. dressing in white. wandering away from family, friends, tour group, or whatever and street-corner preaching. an australian lad tried to set fire to al-aqsa back in the sixties.

perfectly stable, well-balanced people go to jerusalem and lose their minds. and when they leave, they immediately recover.

i'm happy to say i didn't experience anything so extreme during my visit.

(i'm thinking, right now, of all the emphatic warnings in the bible against growing too attached to the world. about how attachment will distract you from eternal life. how it will damn you. i'm thinking maybe the holy land is exhibit A. and now i'm hoping that doesn't qualify as blasphemy.)

understandably there's been skepticism about some cases, but i want to clarify that i believe jerusalem syndrome itself to be a very real thing. whether it's true psychosis i can't say, because i have no training in that area. but i do know that something happens to people. only, while it's generally recognized as a phenomenon affecting visitors, i think something like it affects the people who live there and have lived there for generations every bit as much. and i don't think it's just jerusalem. it may be the epicenter, but the whole region is ridden with places of historic ethnic and religious significance.

the ongoing recent violence in gaza and along its borders have very real, tangible, news-reportable reasons (for excellent summary, maps, and a timeline of conflict in gaza, check out the region's bbc profile). but at the heart of all those reasons, i think, is something much more basic, inherent, and difficult to address.

these are just a few of my thoughts or opinions on this subject. to do actually address it and do it justice, i'd need a whole new blog. and i intentionally haven't made this a fiery tirade about how palestinians are being systematically exterminated and are getting desperate (though it's true). i'm just reminding myself, as much as anything, that i am a young person, a product of a young culture in a young nation -- a nation which, i'll add, is not a religious state (in theory), nor does it have any extreme religious significance to... well... anyone. if things here can get as complicated, tense, and seemingly irreversible as they sometimes do, it stands to reason that things there would be much more complicated and tense, and therefore even more seemingly irreversible.

from the qur'an:

[ 2:190 ] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[ 2:191 ] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder.

from deuteronomy (hebrew bible/old testament):

[ 7:1] When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you --
[ 7:2 ] and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

i could respond to either of these at great length, but at the moment it just seems best to leave them alone. responsible interpretation doesn't have a thing to do with the present situation, i don't think.

i wish i could wrap on a positive note. rationally, i'm not naive enough to claim that a place with such a rich and lengthy history couldn't possibly wipe itself out. that region has been subject to invasions* and migrations and relocations and wars and natural disasters and on and on since the dawn of time as we know it. maybe it's all building up to something, or maybe this is just another era of a pattern that will continue endlessly. i really have absolutely no idea how to begin to fix this. in my crazy place, though -- in that part of my mind that almost couldn't handle being there, it was so wonderful -- something is telling me that it's too important, too precious, to self-destruct.





*

(extremely) cautious optimism

this one's about pittsburgh. that's going to happen sometimes.

occasionally, when i'm feeling particularly masochistic, i read mayor luke ravenstahl's wikipedia page. it's an incredible collection of summaries of scandals, controversies, and other assorted petty idiocy, all complied into one neat, frequently-edited, long list.

when young master luke stepped in, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (oh yes...) there was hope that, as a 26-year-old, he would help rejuvenate this aging city. he's put more effort into keeping himself young, occasionally at the city's expense.

for the record, when obama visited the city a week before the presidential election and thanked all the various and sundry state/county/city officials, he said ravenstahl's name and the crowd in mellon arena booed. incredibly rude, but then, pittsburghers never claimed to be a polite people.

pittsburgh has elected democrats consistently since 1933, when the republican in office was convicted on 49 counts of corruption and resigned. clearly i wasn't alive at the time, but i'd imagine that was a moment of relief for democrats in town. since then... well, i'm starting to think that if bozo the clown ran for mayor as a democrat in the burgh, he'd breeze right into office without a problem. on one hand, that's not only unhealthy for the city, it's unhealthy for the party. on the other hand, pittsburgh doesn't have much patience for frat boy behavior on the part of their elected officals. it doesn't go unopposed. the opposition just has to come from another democrat.

yesterday, liz emailed me a link to an article about this: councilman [patrick] dowd may run for mayor. a familiar name for people with connections to WT or Ellis around the time i was in high school. add his name to the other two the PG lists: council president doug shields (considering it), and carmen robinson (already campaigning).

i got cynical about politics in 9th grade. one of my most vivid memories from that year is of walking into bruegger's after school, seeing a newspaper in a rack inside the door proclaiming that bush would officially be the 43rd president of the united states, and being overwhelmed by repulsion and sadness. the cynicism was bolstered by his second term, and then by ravenstahl's general nonsense.

maybe i was subconsciously afraid that it's somehow all my fault, since there hadn't been good news since i started voting.

i know all the hype over "hope" has drained the word of its meaning for some people. part of obama's message that got lost during the campaign was that hope is a tangible, practical thing that requires actual effort -- not blind hysteria -- to make it worthwhile. i mention this because while i will always regard authority figures with skepticism, for the first time in a long time i have some hope that maybe, someday soon, every news item i read about each of my elected officials won't be yet another variation on the theme of, "well, he did it again. yes, really." obviously, elected officials screw up. all of them. some more than others. but there's a difference between making unpopular decisions and just being horrible at your job. right?

-------------------

update: what's the most important thing YOU'VE done today? ...sigh.

taking a responsible interest

a while ago luke sent me this: could barack obama be the biblical antichrist?

(SPOILER: no. that's absurd. but read the article to find out exactly why.)

which brings me to a larger point.

it is my firm belief that all persons being raised in the christian faith should have some sort of mandatory religious literacy education. like, say, pre-confirmation. no, that's not a rigid and annoying suggestion, it's just practical. and it's not a new idea.

that's right... don't act like you didn't want a bar or bat mitzvah when you were 13.

what, nobody else grew up in squirrel hill? fine. my point stands. those kids earn it.

if you're going to go about hurling accusations of antichristendom, you'd pretty damn well better have something to back it up. and if you can go to the trouble of reading revelation (note: revelation, singular, not revelations) carefully enough to list the reasons someone could be the antichrist -- not the easiest task -- you might as well go the extra mile and put a little effort into understanding the source material itself. it could hurt, but, well, that's kind of what faith does sometimes. and in terms of christianity, if you're participating in it today, it's a lot less painful than it could be. nobody's putting you into a combat situation involving a lion. man up.

widening the lens a bit further:

a few years ago, stephen prothero came out with a book titled religious literacy: what every american needs to know -- and doesn't. i haven't read the whole thing; most of what i did read was interesting, if slightly preachy. but i agree with the main point: religion is, in one way or another, for better or for worse, an incredibly important factor in today's world. it's always been important, but with national borders no longer playing much of a role in cultural separation (oh, the wonders of the internet), and with... you know... all that iraq/afghanistan/general middle east business (all you need is the gist, right?), it is vastly more important for the average american to have some level of religious literacy.

for an idea of the types of things prothero thinks are important, take the quiz. don't cheat. tell me how you do. (for the record, the first time i took it i missed a few, and wept in shame.)

now, i don't think creation should be taught alongside evolution. i didn't go to public school, so i'm still a little fuzzy on how people want to set up prayer in schools, but i don't think that's a particularly great idea either. i do, however, think there should be a mandatory course of some sort -- a class specifically about world religions, or another class that encompasses the subject of religion -- that addresses the basics of major world religions. what they are, where they're prevalent, what kids have seen or heard about them, and why it's important to know something about them.

i'm not talking about making it personal -- "can anyone guess what religion ahmed's family practices? what about reuben's?" -- or about getting deep into theology. just basic information. that's socially responsible, right?

on a related note: for the past few summers, i and others have given that quiz (very informally) to a variety of kids at camp*. they're such good sports. the areas they have the most trouble with are consistently related to islam. christianity they get. judaism, sure. buddhism, somewhat. most have at least some grasp on hinduism. but islam is a mystery. a big, faceless, dangerous mystery. why is no one giving these kids the tools they need to understand the world in which they're growing up?

for that matter, why aren't people (americans) in general making more of an effort to understand the world we're creating/we've created? there's a scene in the kingdom -- a better movie than the cover suggests -- in which a team of FBI agents who are in saudi arabia are attempting to understand what's going on around them by reading "Islam for Dummies" (or something like it). it's not reality, but it's a little too close.

so here, a humble plea from your friendly neighborhood biblical studies major: educate yourself. make an effort to learn about a variety of religions, and particularly about your own. it will save you and others from embarrassment, make newspapers much more interesting, and generally reduce the level of ignorance in this country. every tiny little bit helps. and the really good news is, educating yourself isn't terribly difficult. to start with, anyway, all you have to do is pay attention.

inquiring and discerning

have you ever had moments when everything gets incredibly clear? when time seems to expand?

if you're ever going to pay any attention whatsoever to the content of this blog, you're going to have to get over any aversion to my deep devotion to the x-files immediately. i'm first to acknowledge the show's many failings (gillian anderson's utter incapacity to simulate CPR, for example) -- when they get it wrong, they get it really, really wrong. but, casting aside the expectation of plot resolve or closure, the questions so many of the episodes pose are not only intriguing, but terribly important. at least, i think so. and this is my little corner of the universe.

before i can think better of it and keep this fact private, i want it to be public-ish knowledge that this blog is named after an episode of the x-files. as with most of the series' best episodes, the plot details aren't really the point. the point is the philosophy. or the mystery. i like that. i'm a details person; i like knowing every tiny little nook and cranny of my surroundings, every tiny little piece of information about my friends and family (and, for that matter, acquaintances and complete strangers), every tiny little specification of how whatever i'm working on can and should be done. the details are what hook my attention most of the time, they are my passion, and they create how i go about my day-to-day. but where the material, practical, solid, earthly world stops and the theoretical, laws-of-humanity, philosophical, theological world -- what some would say "really matters" -- applies, i swear by the big picture. (more thoughts on unity and ultimate reality later... this is Post One and i'm in details mode at the moment.)

my point is, last night i helped katelyn set up some things in her new place, and we discovered lots of shady-looking appliances with price stickers still on them (meat tenderizer, anyone?) and ate sushi on the floor and drank a little wine, and when i got home and parked on the street around 1:45 a.m. no one was out and it was snowing lightly in the way that absorbs sound and makes everything shimmer, like you'd imagine a scene in narnia if the movies hadn't ruined it, and it was maybe one of the most perfect moments i've ever experienced. the details were what set everything up, but at the culmination, all the details dissipated to be replaced by an overwhelming sense of joy, during which my only thought was, "God, how beautiful everything is."

now, depending on your preference, you can take or leave the "God" bit, but my sense is that everyone has moments like that. or at least one moment. my sense is that those moments are important, and that they're telling of us as humans. my sense is that those are moments when our awareness extends much farther beyond ourselves than it typically does (if it typically does so at all).

i'm going to address a lot of things here, just as they pop into my head. that's the plan, anyway. i've got a lot of opinions about things, and a lot of questions regarding things about which i've yet to formulate opinions, and so far as i can tell, there's nothing wrong with inflicting the burden of my rants and inquiries upon the internet. it can handle it.

i've got a phrase in mind as a guiding philosophy, by the way: the subject of this post, "inquiring and discerning." it's religion-related, and i'll explain it later, because i've got all kinds of other thoughts and questions about it, too.

why now, this blog? why public, and not in my own private, hand-written journal? i've got one of those. it's got other things in it. theorizing and philosophizing and theologizing are, i think, best (and most easily) done by rambling at people until they stop you and argue. and what better time for any of this than in the deep, dark midst of everybody's quarter-life crisis? am i right?

but mostly, because it's just occurred to me that everyone and everything around me is in the most delicate of balances. it's one of those things i've known logically, more or less, for quite a while, but just really took hold for me very recently. we ourselves are incredibly fragile, and so are our relationships, our lifestyles, our temperaments. by our very nature, we overlook a lot, and take things for granted -- if we didn't at least some of the time, i believe we'd go crazy. but knowing that fact does make me curious about what i've overlooked, and why.

Scully: What if there was only one choice and all the other ones were wrong? And there were signs along the way to pay attention to?

Mulder: Mmm, and all the choices would then lead to this very moment? One wrong turn, and... we wouldn't be sitting here together? Well, that says a lot. That says a lot, a lot, a lot. Probably more than we should be getting into at this late hour.