Reality, Life and the World - Only a Notion

I have always taken religion with a grain of salt, meaning that I don’t believe that any one religion has it totally right, so everyone is entitled to do what works for them. That being said, I also must say that I am a Christian, and that I fully believe that the religion that I chose and continue to choose is the closest to correct. Or rather, as close as religion can get with all the legalistic and political bull shit that gets in the way.

 

I say all this to convey that I do not believe in religion, because the institution has become so warped that it is rarely about God, but instead how people appear to those around them.

 

However, I believe that faith is vital to existence.

 

Today while listening to Fresh Air on NPR with guest and author Phillip Roth, the question of religion, or his lack of, was broached and he was asked if he ever wished he did have faith. His answer, “I have no desire to be irrational.”

 

Prick.

 

Not that I was totally enjoying his personality before this moment, since he is rather pretentious and dull, but this seemed like a very closed-minded opinion. Even when Teri said that “rationality can only go so far” he still stated that he has “no taste for delusion.” I’m not suggesting that anyone who speaks disparagingly against religion should be ignored and that the knee jerk reaction should be to cover our ears and hum as loudly as we can. Even Jesus spoke against religion. However, the way that Roth speaks about all belief in a higher power as the same as believing in Santa Claus is offensive. And it’s not even the fact that it’s religion, but the whole concept of believing in an idea without concrete facts was unreasonable to Roth.

 

Really, Mr. Roth?

 

Couldn’t it be argued that our entire existence is based on faith? I have faith that my father is my blood relation, though it was never proven to me. I have faith that when I cross the street I won’t get hit by a car. I have faith that what my teachers tell me is true. Do I have proof of any of this? No. And some things I could never really get the necessary proof, but I would go stark mad if I was questioning everything in my life.

 

Not only these very small instances, but how about the elephant? Science. Evolution. Astronomy. Can we honestly prove many of the things we believe to be true? No. We have experiments, hypotheses, and many other ways to test the theories we create, but no one was there at the beginning of the universe and we can't truly know for certain 100% of the things we all believe.

 

So perhaps the faith that gives the rest of us hope and sanity is too much imagination for a pompous fiction author such as yourself.

The utilization of immense expressions appears somewhat unnecessary to me. What does the application of gigantic terms inform the public that the essayist anticipates to examine the alleged editorial or manuscript other than the essayist supposes them to be a certain class of intelligence? This prohibits a total array of populace who are not capable of comprehending the matter the essayist is trying to convey. Particularly employing large terms that are ineffective when one would effortlessly employ an alternative statement that would be satisfactory, not necessarily a diminutive, brainless account, but what could be described as an intermediate expression. How can it classify an individual as uneducated or be judged as deficient of various types of text privileged if each individual could comprehend what the writer has to pronounce?

In his commentary concerning the restrictedness of the Board of Education determining what is creditable and permissible to be educated in the Public School System, John Guillory inscribes numerous oversized terminologies that it is problematic to grasp what he is attempting to disclose. Does he actually require entering pedagogue when he intended educator? Does he require declaring heteronomous when he desired regulation? Or hegemony and bourgeoisie? The efficiency of the hypothesis on the stipulation of literary theory is mislaid as the addressees struggle to identify with the dialect.

I am certainly not hostile to the use of vast vocabulary. I take pleasure in intensifying my terminology with jaw-distorting pronouncements, but I would by no means employ them in order to instigate another to experience the sensation of obtuseness. I do have an inclination to descend into an authoritative language when I suffer from intimidation (during instruction, occupation consultations, or toward a person I would regard as a specialized individual), but I constantly presume that others would distinguish each utterance I utilize. And while Guillory could very well presuppose that his addressees would comprehend each of the terminology he applied, I consider application of immense language whilst a minute one would be sufficient is quite pompous and perchance an indication of a lack of self-confidence. I recognize that academics consider that they possess an obligation to establish their aptitude; however, they in actuality simply appear as ostentatious jack asses.

*************************************************************************
The use of big words seems a little unnecessary to me. What do using big words tell the people you expect to read the said article or book other than you expect them to be smart? That excludes a whole range of people who can’t understand what you are even trying to say. Especially using big words that are useless when one would easily use another word that would be acceptable, not necessarily a small, dumb word, but what could be called a medium word. How can it define an individual as uneducated or be considered lacking some sort of writing elite if everyone could read what one has to say?

In his essay on the elitism of the Board of Education deciding what is worthy of being taught in the Public School System, John Guillory uses so many large words that it’s hard to understand what he is trying to say. Does he really need to say pedagogue when he means teacher? Does he really need to say heteronomous when he means laws? Or hegemony and bourgeoisie? The effectiveness of the ideas on the necessity of literary theory is lost as the reader tries to understand the language.

Now, I am not against the use of big words. I enjoy expanding my vocabulary with tongue-twisting syllables, but I would never use them to make another feel stupid. I do have a tendency to fall into a more professional vernacular when I feel intimidated (in class, job interview, or to someone I would consider a professional adult), but I always assume that they would know each word I use. And though Guillory could very well assume that his audience would understand each of the words he used, I think that using big words when a small one would suffice is rather pretentious and even a sign of insecurity. I understand that scholars feel they have a responsibility to prove their intelligence, but they really just sound like pompous jerks.

Can a Christian be a smoker? So many people in today's society look at smoking as a crutch, a dirty habit that is no longer popular. As shortly as 20 years ago, smoking was not given a second thought. It was common in restaurants, bars, homes, and (God forbid) within 25 feet of public entrances. It was only recently, when studies showing the link between smoking and cancer came to light, that smoking was not allowed in public places.

Does this new outlook on smokers change whether it is "permissible" for a Christian? People have been smoking for centuries, without a second thought. As far as I know, the bible has nothing to say on the subject. If the bible did, would it have said it was wrong? The common view has changed over the years, and now smoking is seen as a weakness. And, yes, it does give people cancer, and it is a horrible habit, but is it wrong? Isn't it a personal choice, especially when out of the area of children and those who don't want to be around smoke? As for myself, I rarely smoke. If I do smoke a cigarette, it is outside away from other people with a few friends. Do I feel guilty about it? Yeah, a little. I am 20, quite old enough, but I would still not want to get caught by my parents or grandparents. Maybe that is just due to the fact that I smoke to feel rebellious, and the sneaking is part of the enjoyment.

My friends that I do smoke with, however, smoke a bit more than I do. Let me just say that when at home watching a movie, there is always at least one smoke break. Now that seems a little excessive to me. The bible does have something to say about that: not to let anything control you. When does having a cigarette go from being an enjoyment to being a necessity to function? Perhaps that is where the addiction line is drawn. So does being addicted to something make you a bad Christian?

What if it is like me, only occasionally? It is not illegal, not addictive, and not generating any additional second-hand smoke. Is that where the line between the bad and good smoker is? Well, that begs the question as to whether smoking is considered suicidal. Do I want to die? No. Do I think smoking will kill me? Well, yes. I don’t think anyone can deny the strong relationship between smoking and cancer, because the warnings are everywhere you turn. Those who turn a blind eye to such warnings are either addicted or just don’t care. For myself, I don’t really care if smoking takes years off my life. I see women in their 80s and 90s and tell myself that I don’t want to be that old. I don’t want to be that unaware of myself and those around me. So a few years off my life is no big thing, especially at this point in my life, when I have never even lied about my age. My view: sure, smoking could kill me, but what won’t? The sun causes cancer, but I am not going to avoid a day at the beach. Does this make me callous and uncaring? Perhaps, and while I only see this effecting my life, it is undeniable that it will affect my possible children and grandchildren, as it would make my time with them shorter. Selfish? I prefer self-interested.

So what is the view of a smoker, then? Suicidal, addicted, murderous, uncaring, and selfish. Goodness, no, that does not sound like a Christian to me. But what is the definition of a Christian? If we use my personal idea, which is anyone who truly wants what Jesus wants (once they know him personally), then a person who isn’t smoking out of suicidal tendencies, or does not wish to corrupt the young with wants of smoking or second-hand smoke, and is only looking for a moment of escape from the pressures of work and life could not be considered evil. There is the issue of addiction, but many people are addicted to many things: porn, food, anorexia/bulimia, or even television. How are those any less detrimental?

Maybe the problem is with society. I wouldn’t dare to try and convert a non-smoker, but neither would I try to convert a smoker. Isn’t that their right? Isn’t that their choice? Not all smokers are each of those other things listed. Should they be punished? Regardless of your thoughts, they are being punished. Forced to smoke away from all those who could be affected by it, outside of bars, restaurants and away from doors. Yes, there are those who want to not be near smoke, but by outlawing smoking in any public place, that gives those who don’t mind or want smoke no choice. Perhaps the answer is bars with smoking and bars without. I can see how this is a form of segregation, but isn’t it less harsh than not allowing any smoke indoors? Even as a semi-smoker (I personally would say non-smoker), when my friends are forced to leave a bar or public place to smoke, I am forced to leave with them if I want to keep enjoying their company. I prefer not to be “persecuted” with them. Separate bars...yeah, sounds like a good idea to me...

This journal is not trying to persuade. It is not meant to change your life, or even to change a single belief. Its only purpose is to make you think twice about what you believe.

Each of the things I will write are not fact. They might not even be what I personally believe. They are simply stretching the boundaries of what could be. Is there anything that is a universal truth?

There is no way to prove a theory. These are only theories, which mean they are not fact. Please don't comment as to why they are stupid, or don't make sense. If you don't like what I am writing, by all means, don't read it. But don't say that so and so disproves my theory with a theory of their own. It is arguing a point which can never be proven. And that is just wasting time.

If anyone does start reading this journal, I think that's cool, and I would love to hear constructive, thoughtful ideas from you. You don't truly know what you believe until you start talking it out. And that is my purpose here.

Thank you.

Monarch