A pilgrim's progress

Nostalgia time! Today, I wanted to reflect on the years I spent in my church's youth group. I was only there for about three years, but it greatly influenced my adolescent life and the way I eventually formed my identity as a Christian woman. To this day, I do think that the people I spent my time with there and the experiences I had were some of the most inspirational of my youth. Youth group was the first place I felt like I actually belonged, where I wasn't being judged, where I was loved and accepted to a certain degree. Looking back on that time, I see that it wasn't all as perfect as I thought it was. Many of the things I learnt back then I definitely do not see eye to eye with now. Such as the following...

Bullshit things that I believed in as a youth group girl:

1. That Lucy Pevensie > Susan Pevensie.

Because Lucy stays loyal to Narnia and Aslan, while Susan forgets about Narnia, thus growing farther from Aslan. She gets distracted by clothes, boys, and regular things that older girls get into. If you haven't figured it out already, Aslan represents God. You don't want to be known as the girl who picked dresses and shoes over God.

2. That I would one day marry one of the guys from Hillsong United.

It didn't matter that they were quite a few years older or that they lived all the way across the planet in Australia. If you were in youth group, and you were into boys, you probably had a crush on at least one of these guys at one point or another.

3. That Captivating was the best and most accurate book written about women. Ever.

This book told me everything I ever wanted and needed to know about my utmost hidden desires as a woman. That a) I desired to be rescued by a man, b) I desired to be recognized as beautiful in a man's eyes and c) A man is basically also a metaphor for God.

4. That abstinence made me more valuable.

Because a pure body was the greatest gift I could give to my future husband. Besides children. If I had sex before marriage, I would be indirectly cheating on my future husband. It didn't matter if the person I had sex with would eventually be my husband. And since cheating = adultery. And adultery = official sin from the ten commandments, then abstinence = my best bet and only option. 

5. That if I truly respected men, I would dress modestly so as not to provoke them into doing something to me that they would regret later.

Never mind men respecting women. My self-respect as a woman was ultimately tied to how men saw me. My identity, my value, my moral character, even my personal safety, could be measured by the length of my skirt. Short skirts led to sex before marriage, causing not only me to sin, but the boy I was with to sin. My sin and his would be my fault for dressing provocatively in the first place.

6. That boys don't like girls who look like boys.

As a tomboy teenager who was attracted to guys, I was basically fucked.  

7. That I would never fall in love with a woman.

It just wasn't an option and it never actually crossed my mind, despite the obvious signs that pointed at this someday happening to me. If you loved God and you put Him first, then He could help you overcome anything. Even love for the wrong person.

This post might seem bitter, but it really isn't. I loved my time in that church and I will always appreciate the people that I met there. Despite the pseudo brain-washing, youth group did help me come to terms with everything that I wasn't, and everything that I didn't believe in. I thought my journey of self-discovery happened in youth group, but really, it happened after I left.

These idiots

If you are familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, then you probably know what it's like to both laugh and cry at them simultaneously.

Laugh because they are so ridiculous that they couldn't be real.

Cry because they actually are real.

I recently saw this movie called Fall From Grace, which centres around the Westboro Baptist Church. And it gave me so many angry feelings that I just have to vent a little but about this. The documentary is worth a watch. It in no way supports the views of this church, but exposes it for what it is, with opinions from other religious leaders, theologists as well as those who have left the church.

In case you do not already know, the Westboro Baptist Church are a pro-hate, anti-gay, anti-American, anger-inducing congregation based in Topeka, Kansas who have no other skills than that of holding up signs in the middle of the road while screeching incoherently.

Who says flags can't be turned into aprons? This is what you call thinking outside the box.

This old grandma has such style.

Two hands? SIX SIGNS. That's how well they can multi-task.

According to this church, your way into heaven is purely based on how well you can picket, yell at and hate people.

Because clearly, that is what the Bible says. 

Oh gee whiz, I guess I got it wrong the first time around and Westboro Baptist members really know where it's at.

I don't know anymore, but as messed up and corrupted as organized religions like Christianity can be, I don't think the source of it ever said to be annoying, ignorant, bullying, disrespectful, unsympathetic, judgmental assholes. Don't take my word for it, I am not a theologist, but I can pretty much guarantee that Jesus' teachings did not advocate for any of that BS.

It's gotten to the point where I am really convinced that this Westboro group are a social experiment, something that a small group decided to start in order to test the first amendment, investigate society's tolerance for hatred, challenge us to define our own values and our own need for love and compassion as human beings.

I'd like to think that they are a social experiment, simply because I don't want to believe that there are people in the world who are made up of this much stupid.

But then again, maybe I am ignorant in that I hold human beings to too high standards, seeing as we really are capable of failing one another in the most ridiculous of ways. 

What seems incredibly ironic is that a lot of the hatred and destruction that goes on in this world comes from those who kill in the name of some kind of god, as if this justifies the actions, as if dropping the god-reason somehow excuses us from being proper human beings and using our common sense. We say that God is love and love is God and then we condemn and hurt others and then say that we do it out of love.

Which makes absolutely no bloody sense to me, I am sorry. If you shout love and do the complete opposite, I am going to call you a bloody hypocrite.

The first amendment makes what these guys are doing perfectly legal, which is unfortunate. What they are doing  -- picketing events such as funerals, gay pride parades, celebrating tragedies involving the deaths of others, as well as preaching the damnation of all those who do not follow their interpretations of the Bible, is simply nothing but hate speech. Hate speech is not exactly defined and differentiated in the first amendment in the United States in the same way that it is in Canada, and many people, including Westboro, benefit from this.

Let me just say that I think the first amendment is a valuable right. Because just as it allows for the Westboro Baptist Church to act like total morons, it gives us the right to challenge their moronic actions and spit in the faces (not literally) of what they believe in. It raises great discussion on the value of freedom of speech, on the value of learning from others (even those who are douchebags) and the value of really knowing what we believe in and standing up for it. 

Like this kid:

To be quite honest, I think that Westboro are doing it all wrong. If they want to get people to believe what they believe, do they really think that picketing funerals and earning the reputation of most hateful group in America really the way to go about it? I mean, I'm speaking from a detached, logical view here. If you want to gather followers, wouldn't it be a better idea to be more welcoming, more friendly? Wouldn't you use gentler language, wouldn't you pick a better font for your signs? Wouldn't you try to make yourself a little more alluring? Wouldn't you take all the money you have as a church and use it to feed the poor? Wouldn't you try to be a little more loveable?

Then again, what am I saying, they're advocating for anything but love. They represent hate and everything that is ugly in this world, and they physically and verbally embody it perfectly.

Do everything in love. That is all.

HiStory

So apparently the History Channel has this new mini-series called The Bible. Which is dedicated to, surprise, this thing.

I think everyone knows where this is going. I hadn't heard about it until today but the backlash is so amazeballs I just have to talk about it now. Having recently seen the first episode, I think that this series is pretty harmless. It's not as good as actually reading the text itself. But then again, how many picture adaptations of books are actually better than the books themselves? 

Except for this gem, that is:

This one made me want to punch walls.

This one made me want to punch walls slightly less.

There are people on one side saying that this is not history and holy crap, the History Channel has gone downhill and since when did the Bible become relevant and so on and so forth. Then there are other people complaining about how this series is completely inaccurate, bastardized, and spun into some kind of lame Hollywood epic that has nothing against Jesus Christ Superstar (not that anything much out there could beat Jesus Christ Superstar. Like good lord. Such a good musical). I have to admit, I am not an avid watcher of the History Channel, but I never really took it all that seriously in the first place. I mean, I'd watch it occasionally now and then when they broadcast their Ancient Aliens series. Because let's face it, who can resist aliens? 

William Shatner's Weird Or What is also amusing, as it discusses conspiracy theories as if they actually had any legitimacy to them. Also, who wouldn't watch William Shatner in just about, well, anything? And sometimes I tune into Secret Life Of..., mostly because I like the animated sequences and the acting is hilarious and sometimes the historians featured on that show are really attractive and sometimes a lot of gay stuff happens. Not between the historians, but the historical figures. Anyway, that being said, I never really took the History Channel all that seriously. It's history for people who don't have anything else to watch on a Monday evening.

So quite frankly, I don't really know how people thought the mini-series The Bible was going to be different from anything else. It's produced by the same guy who brought us Survivor and who said that he wanted to bring a new kind of Bible education to public schools everywhere. 

The Bible debuted with 13.1 million viewers, making it a massive hit. It consists of 10 scripted episodes, each of which dramatize important plot points and themes of the Bible. The forewarning before the first episode reads, "The program is an adaptation of Bible stories. It endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence. Viewer discretion is advised." No one here is claiming that this series is based on a true story but the Bible can be read as many different things to different people. Upon watching the first episode, it seems like that discretion is quite accurate. The series is a literal translation of the events as they are described in the book. It's like the quickest summary of the Bible I have ever seen. I could get more detail out of a children's version of the Bible, to be quite honest. The series is well done from a technical standpoint though. I'm sure the budget for this was quite hefty as the set design is quite good as is the CGI.

I'll be frank right now, after watching the first episode, it seems like a fairly unthreatening series, and it definitely isn't something people should take personally, whether they are of the Christian faith or not. This is just an adaptation of fables from a religious book. And like any live action adaptation, it has its clichés. There are a lot of white people and a lot of racial stereotypes (as in that, Asian angel ninja) and there is little to no comic relief (which it could have surely benefitted from) and the acting sucks at times but hey, isn't everything we see on television like that to a certain degree? If you find that it isn't true to the spirit of the book or whatever it promises you, then you still always have the book itself. If you find that it isn't true to anything, then it's your choice whether or not to watch it. And if you say that it isn't history, then remind yourself that this is being aired on a television channel that also airs Outlaw Bikers, Counting Cars and M*A*S*H. The stories may not be considered truth to everybody, but it does belong to a culture that has had an impact on history itself. I would have preferred a series on the history of Christianity itself, or how the Bible was written and is now interpreted, as I feel that that would have perhaps been more relevant to a history network than a 10 episode dramatization of Bible stories.

Anyhow, this should be an interesting television series to follow. I'll probably end up watching it in between re-runs of Ancient Aliens.

Welcome Zion

Today's Monday, which sucks. But you know what Monday is? The day before Tuesday! And Tuesday is album release day, my favourite day of the week besides laundry day.

Now, normally I don’t make that big a deal of album release day. But when one of your favourite bands from your childhood releases their first album in two years, making it their sixteenth in fifteen years, it is worthy of some kind of celebration.

The band I’m talking about is one called Hillsong United. And yes, they are what you would call a Christian band.

Christian music is a topic that I’ve always been fascinated by, from its history to its relevance today in both sacred and secular culture. That’s a whole other blog post, but I do find it interesting the way in which non-religious people oftentimes react to the fact that I do listen to Christian music, on top of all the other genres I am obsessed with. It’s not really considered acceptable in any circles except the religious ones, and even though I do somewhat connect with religion, for some reason people seem to think that I only listen to its music in church, and never outside it. This is never true. I listen to Christian music the same way I listen to secular music. I’ll have Bethany Dillon and The Weeknd on the same playlist. Music is music and if I like it, I’ll listen to it, regardless of its genre, how out of culture it is or how badly written it may be (as ashamed as I am to say that).

I remember one time during a university orientation where we were asked to tell the other people in the group what our favourite type of music was. At this time, I was really into Broadway and Underoath, so I told them that my favourite music could be found somewhere between musical theatre and Christian hardcore. I never talked to any of those people again. 

Let me just say that Christian music for me is defined not by any kind of band that sings songs with Christ-related lyrics, but that they are specifically bands that cater to the Christian market. Many bands that are spiritual in their songs would prefer to not be called Christian bands, which is a valid choice and why I only really use the term for those who write music first and foremost for that specific niche of an audience. It’s more a culture than it is a genre, as within it, Christian music does span every music genre in the spectrum from gospel to punk to metal. 

Anyway, like I said, the discussion of all the technicalities of Christian music belongs in a different post entirely on its own. Hillsong United fall into the worship sector, which I like to simply define as music normally sung/performed as an entire congregation, music as prayer essentially. This makes sense, seeing as United grew out of the youth group at the very famous Hillsong Church in Sydney, Australia. United was formed in 1998 as a sister band of sorts to the already established Hillsong Music/Live, which had released its first album ten years beforehand. Today, Hillsong musicians write music and perform for both bands, and there isn’t a clear cut division between United and Live, save for the separate albums that they put out. United’s music are generally more upbeat and experimental, while Live’s are more contemporary and traditional, but both bands do still perform each other’s music under their respective names. Their worship leaders span across Hillsong churches in Sydney, London, New York City, Kiev, Cape Town, Moscow and Stockholm. On top of that, they have released translations of their music in Ukrainian as well as Spanish. In the secular world, they may be considered unknowns, but once you enter any Christian church, they’re everywhere. I was in church yesterday and Dylan Thomas’ name was splashed across the screen. Who is he? EXACTLY.

This is Dylan Thomas.

Many consider them overrated and robotic. They are often criticized for churning out the same music over and over again, and in the same vein, they are criticized for having an identity crisis, of never sticking with one genre and style and being inconsistent in their songwriting. Both of these criticisms are perfectly valid in some capacity. Though they have a talent for churning out some really catchy melodies, their lyrics sometimes tend to fall into cliché territory, making their songs seem vapid. However, I think this is the exact formula that has made their music so successful and marketable -- it sounds good and it’s general and non-threatening enough that anyone could relate to them, no matter where you are in your spiritual life.

Think Taylor Swift only in this case it’s a bunch of guys and girls singing about God instead of Tim McGraw (I actually kind of am secretly in love with that Tim McGraw song, by the way).

Since releasing studio albums on top of live albums, I feel that United have been able to expand their repertoire, exploring different techniques and styles as well as different themes. Their music is still very mainstream and accessible, but there is a new sophistication and maturity to the songwriting, as if writing and recording in studio first allows room for creativity and experimentation. It is interesting because United are definitely first and foremost a live band, and their songs are only really as good as the way they perform them. I saw them for the first time ten years ago, and then again a year after that. The quality of their live performances is definitely one of if not the best I have ever seen, right down to vocal quality, instrumentation and live arrangement. There is an energy to them that not many musicians can pull off, and the crowd soaks it up like it’s the last good life experience they will ever have. If you have yet to see them live, I’d really suggest picking up their Miami concert DVD that they filmed last year. It’s a full two and a half hour concert themed after their last studio album, Aftermath, and it feels like one entire song from beginning to end.

Despite the fact that many people, even in Christian circles, view them as the “uncool” band to like, I really do think that they are talented musicians who know how to reach their audience. They keep spiritual life and experience at the centre of their songs, without seeming pretentious or over the top. Simply put, they write and perform love songs, something that has made them perhaps the most successful worship band of all time. 

Though they have been releasing live albums for over a decade now, some of which are the best-selling worship albums of all time, United didn’t actually enter the studio until 2006 with All of the Above, which some criticized for sounding too professional and lacking the aesthetic feel of a live recording. On the other hand, others were calling it a fun album that took worship songs beyond their genre without necessarily changing the essence of them. Their second studio album, Aftermath, praised by some for its slightly risqué songwriting choices and put down by others for not sounding enough like a Christian album, was released in 2011, which was around the same time they started working on Zion. From what I’ve heard of their third studio album, it’s an admirable step up from what we normally see of them. They’re experimenting with synths and soaring melodies that are sometimes reminiscent of Coldplay. The imagery of some of the lyrics is very beautiful and poetic, and the effective use of repetition and instrumental breaks make the songs highly emotional and reflective. 

In anticipation for the release of Zion, I thought I’d do something I’ve never done before, which is rank the best Hillsong United songs. This was a highly difficult thing to do as there are hundreds of them, not counting the ones written as Hillsong Live. To compress the experience that is this band into a 20-song list was the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do since my Calculus 12 exam, but here it is, in no particular order because I don't hate myself enough to go through that kind of torture:

1. All I Need Is You (written by Marty Sampson) // LOOK TO YOU
2. Take Heart (written by Joel Houston) // AFTERMATH
3. Never Let Me Go (written by Joel Houston) // ALL OF THE ABOVE
4. Desert Song (written by Brooke Fraser) // ACROSS THE EARTH: TEAR DOWN THE WALLS
5. Till I See You (written by Joel Houston, Jad Gillies) // LOOK TO YOU
6. Aftermath (written by Joel Houston) // AFTERMATH
7. Take All Of Me (written by Marty Sampson) // MORE THAN LIFE
8. King Of All Days (written by Dylan Thomas) // ACROSS THE EARTH: TEAR DOWN THE WALLS
9. All... (written by Joel Houston) // TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH
10. Bones (written by Jill McCloghry, Joel Houston) // AFTERMATH
11. From The Inside Out (written by Joel Houston) // UNITED WE STAND
12. Light (written by Marty Sampson) // MORE THAN LIFE
13. Free (written by Marty Sampson) // TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH
14. Like An Avalanche (written by Dylan Thomas, Joel Houston) // AFTERMATH
15. Always (written by Mia Fieldes) // MORE THAN LIFE
16. Deeper (written by Marty Sampson) // LOOK TO YOU
17. Came To The Rescue (written by Marty Sampson, Dylan Thomas, Joel Davies) // UNITED WE STAND
18. Break Free (written by Joel Houston, Matt Crocker, Scott Ligertwood) // ALL OF THE ABOVE
19. Freedom Is Here (written by Reuben Morgan, Scott Ligertwood) // ACROSS THE EARTH: TEAR DOWN THE WALLS
20. The Reason I Live (written by Marty Sampson) // BEST FRIEND

To those getting the album tomorrow, enjoy! I can't speak for everyone but it was definitely worth the two year wait.

Chicken, anyone?

So guys.


I hate to say this, but Tim Thomas is kind of a douche.


I'm not one to judge people, or dislike people, especially if I don't know them personally. But sometimes, when they're hockey players and sometimes, when they're homophobic, I feel like I kind of have to say something.


And Tim Thomas is both of these things.


He is also the goaltender who took the Stanley Cup away from us two years ago.


But that doesn't really have anything to do with anything, although now I actually have a legitimate reason not to like him.


And that legitimate reason is thus:


Tim Thomas expressed his support for Chick-Fil-A.


You know, the fast food restaurant chain that sells shitty chicken and happens to be openly anti-gay.


Tim Thomas' decision to publicly support Chick-Fil-A is bad on many levels.


1. It's morally wrong to not support basic human rights that everyone holds from the moment they are born (this is up to debate though, because morals look different to different people and basic human rights is a touchy subject sometimes. RE: all of human history).
2. Many of Tim Thomas' teammates are pro-equality.
3. Boston is extremely left-leaning.

Tim Thomas just dug a huge hole for himself. Sure, he has freedom of speech. Sure, he has Facebook to practice his freedom of speech. And sure, him freeing his speech does not necessarily make him a bad person.


I mean, I am sure that he is a perfectly decent human being. He sure as hell is a good hockey player.


I have this dilemma, where I'm not sure whether or not I really dislike homophobes, or if I just feel sorry for them.


For one thing, I know homophobic people that I actually like. As in, they're people I actually care for. And nothing they ever say against queer people would ever change how much I care for them. I like to think that their beliefs are a product of their surroundings and upbringing, and that with time, they'll understand. 


It's definitely not in my place though to force them to think another way. I definitely don't have the right or the power to do that. Whatever you believe or whatever your opinion is on a particular subject, is yours. I may not respect your opinion, but I respect your right to have it. I can say what I think on the subject, but I can't expect everything that I say to change your perspective. It would be mighty shitty and self-centred of me to think that.


In similar news, the Jim Henson company severed ties with Chick-Fil-A for its stance against marriage equality, prompting Pastor Kevin Swanson to say outrageously uneducated things like: 


"A Christian perspective ultimately brought the death penalty upon homosexuality between roughly 350 AD and roughly 1850 or so. For about 1,500 years that form of life had pretty much been eliminated except here and there. Of course, now you have a massive, massive increase in this kind of thing."

It would make for such a better argument if some homophobic people actually knew what the hell they were talking about half the time. It would help their case a lot more. Homosexuality isn't something you bludgeon like an endangered animal and hope it goes extinct. 

Radio host Dave Buehner adds:

"Tolerance only runs one direction—you only can tolerate gays, you can’t tolerate those who don’t support gays."

Yeah. Like I said. Education. Get it. Then come back to me with your argument. Also. Look up "tolerance" in the dictionary. Also. I find it really funny when homophobic people accuse non-homophobic people of not accepting homophobic people. That's just homophobicphobic. And that is wrong. Would somebody please think of the homophobes and all the pain they are going through. 

Like bitch, you just trying to make things complicated, are you? I tolerate you, I just disagree with your views. Just because I don't invite you to my birthday party does not mean I'm beating you up in an alley. I still let you have your views though, don't I? COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHIT HERE. According to dictionary.com, this is the definition for tolerance:

1. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

2. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

Me not tolerating you would be me burning your church down or me telling you you can't worship your God or me telling you you're not good enough or me telling you you can't marry your lover because it's not ri - WAIT A SECOND HERE. 

People who are intolerant can't ask for tolerance for their intolerance unless they were being persecuted in the same way that they are doing the persecuting.

And that is not the case in this case, unfortunately. Sorry, Dave Buehner. And even then, they can't really ask for tolerance because it just doesn't look good. Hypocrisy, I mean. Hypocrisy doesn't look good. It doesn't generate sympathy.

It's like saying immigrants to North America are tainting our image, taking away our lands, our livelihood, etc. WELL NO SHIT, NORTH AMERICA.

Also, I can't believe Kevin Swanson is talking about genocide and approving of it, essentially. As a Christian, I don't approve of your attitude, Kevin Swanson. I don't think Jesus ever said kill until there's nothing left, Kevin Swanson. That's what made Hitler one of the most hated people in history, Kevin Swanson. I'll be praying for you, Kevin Swanson.

I don't dislike any of you. I just wish sometimes all the time, that you were more the image of the saviour that you claim to follow. 

The day I disappeared

I was having coffee with a couple friends on Friday and my friend was telling us an interesting story. It went something like this:


FRIEND 1: I knew a girl whose landlords set really bizarre restrictions on her place.
FRIEND 2: Restrictions? Like what kinds?
FRIEND 1: Well, if she was going to take the place, she had to agree to never have any male friends over.
ME: Why is that?
FRIEND 1: I have no idea. It's strange, right?
ME: Why specifically male friends?
FRIEND 1: I'm guessing it was like, an intimacy issue or something? The landlords who owned the house were a gay couple. Maybe they were just protective?
FRIEND 2: Like they didn't want her having sex in their house?
FRIEND 1: Yeah, maybe. I honestly don't know.
ME: That is really strange. But women are allowed over?
FRIEND 2: Yeah.
ME: Why would it even be an issue for them? It's her space.
FRIEND 2: I don't know. Maybe they don't want to hear it because their walls are thin.
ME: Are they uber Christian or something? No sex before marriage type stuff?
FRIEND 2: They're gay.
ME: Yeah, I know. But are they religious?
FRIEND 2: But they're gay though.
ME: Yeah, but you know how some conservative, traditional, religious people are really strict about....
FRIEND 1 + FRIEND 2: No, they're not. They're gay.

There was an awkward pause. In my head, I was going DO I NOT EXIST ALL OF A SUDDEN OR SOMETHING.


So, long story short, moral of the story is: To be gay/queer and to be religious/spiritual/a person of faith - THIS IS NOT A PARADOX. Identifying oneself with a certain religion does not necessarily make one a conservative. Identifying oneself with a certain religion does not necessarily make one traditional. Identifying oneself with a certain religion CERTAINLY DOES NOT MAKE ONE STRAIGHT, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. I know that there are certain people and characteristics we associate with religion (such as political conservatism and strong ties to customs), but these are still blanket notions and stereotypes that don't actually apply to all of us. You could say that I am misunderstanding the definition of religion, that religion is synonymous with conservatism and tradition. But really, I see someone's religion as such a personal experience that I don't think anyone else should have to define it for you.


Your God(s) is/are your God(s), you shouldn't have to be all these specific things in order to believe in your God(s). Belief is separate from all these other notions of religion, you see. Belief in a god/gods does not necessarily have to make you an asshole (even though we have often been associated with these kinds of people). At the same time, being conservative and being traditional does not necessarily make you an asshole. Being an asshole makes you an asshole. I know many open-minded people who are assholes, and I know many close-minded people who are assholes. I also know a lot of good people.


No. Just because I'm Christian does not mean I vote for Stephen Harper. Nor do I take Bill O'Reilly seriously and wear sweater vests like Rick Santorum and have a picture of Kirk Cameron on my bedroom wall.


I listen to the radio and I read banned books and I watch NC-17 movies and I curse like a sailor (only sometimes) and I am semi-familiar with Wittgenstein's philosophies. I also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.


SHOCKER, right? Then again, who said that all Christians fit in the same box? The same people who said that all people fit in the same box. 


I know that many will be ashamed of what I have written in this post, and for that, I am sorry. This is just my perspective on such issues. You will probably think I am totally wrong, and that is a valid opinion. I just don't like being judged based on stereotype and expectation. I'm constantly worried that because I don't fit a mould of a certain doctrine, that I'm just a faker who doesn't actually belong to that doctrine. These are issues that I get anxious about. I'm also worried that associating myself with a certain doctrine with its dark histories would somehow prove the fact that I'm anti-humanist. What I want to get at here is that religion is a human interpretation. But who can say that this interpretation doesn't come from a source that is very real and very present? No one can. You can believe or you can not believe, but either way, we still lose. Our human bodies are Plato's cave, essentially. No matter how much knowledge we grasp, we are still limited to the senses allotted to us by our physical beings. Our physical beings give us religion, they give us science. I am also one of those who doesn't see why science somehow has to trump religion or that religion has to somehow trump science. I never saw them as the same thing. They tell certain truths, yes, but different truths. They are a part of human history and development, and even if you don't believe in one or the other, there is still value in learning both. Why? So we can understand and re-interpret and adapt and develop our arguments and be critical thinkers.

I totally didn't mean to go all philosophical on you there. I just never thought I'd be witness to Queer Christian Erasure but yeah, that's apparently a thing, and I'm glad my friends made me aware of that.

I wasn't angry at them or anything though, I just thought it was interesting the way they processed that part of the conversation. It's strange because queer Christians get crap from both sides: you've got some Christians telling you that you shouldn't be queer because you are Christian, then you've got some non-Christians telling you that you shouldn't be Christian because you are queer. Whatevs, I do what I want.