Mmmm Coffee

I've picked up a new hobby. Well I don't know if you can really call it a hobby because I am poor and can't afford to experiment much. But if I did have the money, it would be my hobby so currently let's just say my hobby is restricted by the rising costs of education. But I've been enjoying going to Whole Foods and trying out new kinds of coffee. I haven't experimented with many types coffee blends to talk about the different flavors I taste, but I just bought a new one (Torreo Colombia Supreme) and it has such a wonderful dark, burnt taste to it. The Allegro breakfast blend is your pretty typical morning cup of coffee, minus the watered down, sour, disgusting taste of a Folgers-type brand. But the Colombia Supreme has a wonderful burnt smell reminiscent of the woods post-rainfall, which comes out nicely in the taste as well. Yum.

First snow of the year

IT'S SNOWING IT'S SNOWING IT'S SNOWING IT'S SNOWING IT'S SNOWING IT'S SNOWING!!! AND IT'S STICKING TOOOOOOOO!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna go buy liquor for my party now :)

Who is God?

And we got on the topic about the nature of God. Austin was basically saying that it we can't even have these discussions we're having before establishing what we mean by God. Who is God? What is God? Well when you talk about God you can't do it from a neutral ground. You talk about God as you understand God. And I understand God as the Christian God. As God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a loving, merciful, faithful, forgiving, just, and awesome God. Austin's contention was that we cannot limit God to our understanding. We can't even approach an understanding of God. He goes beyond anything we can ever know. We shouldn't even try to understand God's character. Not only is His character beyond comprehension but any attempts at comprehension are useless because our human minds cannot even think of any adjectives, any beings, any experiences, anything, any person that could ever ever ever come a tiny bit close to an accurate understanding of God.

So what then? Where does that leave us? For Austin, he sees God as everywhere in everything. It's not anything he can pinpoint or put in a box. God just IS. everywhere. everything. all the time. I do think Austin is right to some extent. We shouldn't presume to think we can know God, and it's far better to have thisunderstanding of God as being everywhere in everything, surrounding us in life than to have a theoretical, Bible-taught understanding of a list of God's characteristics. However, my point of contention was that Austin was pushing against any kind of attempt to understand God even with knowing that one cannot ever get at the heart of who God is. That it's insulting and ignorant even to do so. And I take problem with that because I think it's important to know God as a loving, merciful, just, etc. etc. kind of God. It's really a little bit of both Austin's view and mine that I'm advocating. I disagree that everyone should take Austin's viewpoint because for where he is in his faith, this might be a wonderful way for him to perceive God but that's not true for everyone. And I guess what I'm starting to think of, or realize more consciously, is that I (or anyone else) can't prescribe a certain way of approaching faith. It just doesn't work that way. Sure you can recommend approaches but people's minds just work so differently. Our lives are individually shaped so differently how can you tell someone that THIS is how you need to understand God, THIS is how you're supposed to grow in faith.

And then Austin and I were talking about how we're tired of Christianity being seen as a doctrine of rules and regulations. Things we can't do. Don't drink, don't smoke, don't have sex, don't swear, don't dance, don't party, don't do anything where you might be tempted, don't surround yourselves with "bad" people. All these things and more are not what Christianity is supposed to be about. Even that label "Christianity" is a crutch. It's not about being in a religion with this name attached to it. It's about faith and relationship to God. We're both disillusioned with the church and mainstream Christian society. Notice I say mainstream because I know better than to say that everyone buys into what they've been told and don't seek for themselves. If I did say that, then I would be Dawkins. But we both hate that these rules have become the face of Christianity, so we're both questioning and challenging. Asking what things like honoring God with your body actually means and not what the church has always told us which is not doing drugs and not having sex. And they're all difficult questions. It involves looking at historical context and translations, it involves a shit ton of reading.

BUT THEN we started talking about how important is all this really? This also isnt' what faith is about. And here we diverged a little again because he wants to throw out all these details. Important questions to ask yes, but in the end whatever. And again to some extent I agree that you need to look at the bigger picture. But I also think that your day-to-day life, your behavior, your actions, your thoughts, and your character are all important to your growth as a Christian. Otherwise just do whatever the fuck what you want, ignore what God desires for you in your life, and as long as you have the bigger picture in mind then sweet. But from my point of view as a believer, as someone who believes the gospel message, as someone who desires to know God, then that entails wanting to understand how God wants us to live and how we have to carry this banner for His kingdom. Therefore you can't exactly ignore all these things. Again, it's about a balance between this big picture and little dtails. Rah balances. Or can you ignore them? I dunno. I really don't know what I think.

Because what if you take someone who is from like the Deep South or some other super rural place, and he/she has lived a very full and pious life of child-like faith and has never asked these questions. Is their faith less legit? No. I can't tell them their faith wasn't actually real because they didnt' really understand it and they didnt' question or challenge and they didnt' think. But then why do I need to question and challenge? Cuz I know if I don't then it's not real. Then I'm just blindly following. Like that person who lives in a rural area right? No, not right. Totally different because I can't lie to myself and say that this simple faith I have is real. I know it' snot.I have to understand these things.

Omg my head is going to explode soon.

I need a break.

Worldview

Last Sunday we talked about worldview. You can simplify your worldview to your religion or your political affiliation. Worldview is like a jar of marbles. If you're a Marxist, then drop in some red marbles. And if you're also a Deist, then drop in some blue marbles. And if you also follow a material/money centered life then drop in some green ones. But basically your worldview is a medley of all these things. So it would be incorrect to say that Keller holds a Christian worldview and Dawkins an atheist one. Those are just one type of marble in their worldview jar. They may be the majority of the marbles or they may not be, but they're not the only ones.

Then someone in the group brought up how Dawkins' introduction is very condescending. Put plainly, it's not a nice introduction. It's not even that Dawkins isn't being warm and welcoming; he clearly thinks very little about religious people and that we don't think for ourselves at all. Keller's introduction on the other hand doesn't raise religion or condemn atheism. It's simply a presentation of the statistics and facts from both sides of the argument. (how the church is declining in europe but christian orthodoxy growing, how more people in america are claiming no religion, and so on). Now, Keller wrote his book in response to Dawkins' so that very obviously affects how he writes. He's writing directly to Dawkins' claims and attacks. Now the person who raised this difference noted that being loving is a central part of the Christian worldview, and that is reflected in Keller's writing.

But later when I was talking to Tim about that comment, he raised the point that Dawkins has to write in such a way because he's speaking from an underdog position. And that got me thinking. Is he really? As America is becoming more atheist and less religious, is Dawkins still an underdog? Well if you look at public figures (politicians esp), they all profess some religion. All presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Kennedy being the only Catholic. He also brought up that in the House and Senate there's only one person who publicly declares to be an atheist. I didn't look into this so I can't corroborate this fact. But anyways, even though America becomes less religious, we still want to see the leaders of our country as Christians. Why is that? Because then we know they'll be "good" people? They'll make better decisions? Because it's what our country was founded on? All interesting questions to consider, but I won't consider them here. I'll save it for my head. What I'm interested in, is even if Dawkins is an underdog, is it actually necessary to take on such a demeaning, condescending tone? Does he have to write in that manner in order to make his point? Honestly, I think he could make the exact same argument without his condescending remarks. I'm not going to be so rude as to say this is indicative of the atheist worldview but the guy who brought this up during the discussion wasn't saying that it was - he was saying that this theme of love so central to Christian doctrine is not central to atheism, which probably affects how these two authors approach the opposition. [And yes I know that an atheist can be more loving than a Christian. That there are a lot of Christian assholes out there. I know all this and am not concerned about going into it]. Given all this it might seem that my point is bland, and it kind of is but what an important bland point! The discussion in the group and with Tim just really drew out for me what it means to love others. And personally that's what I'm trying to focus on right now - loving other people through my thoughts and actions, in my relationships, and in my day-to-day interactions.

What else did we talk about? I don't remember. Oh but I had a marvelously long and profound conversation with Austin about God. I was trying to convince him to come to the group and we started talking about our faith and where we were right now in our individual paths. I will continue this in another entry.

Its started...

It's 35 degrees and I'll be wearing my winter coat from now until April. Baaaaaaaalls :(

This is love

...or at least some form of it

1950s housewife

That's what I've felt like these last two days. Yesterday I woke up, went to the Korean market, went to Whole Foods, came back to my apartment, cooked a meal for me and Tim, ate, and cleaned. Today I woke up, made German apple pancake and bacon and toast for brunch, went to the grocery store, went to the liquor store, came back to my apartment, cooked, played piano, ate, and cleaned. I have to admit, it was actually really relaxing to shop and cook and clean. We had a wonderful meal tonight with friends. Tim cooked (and I aided) french onion soup, asparagus risotto, and pasta with homemade pesto (I made this dish!). It was so lovely sitting in our living room with 7 other friends slowly inducing a food coma in ourselves.

As splendid as tonight was, I think I need to start kicking my butt into gear. I haven't had any motivation to do work - I don't even try and fail; I just don't do it. Shameful. Perhaps it's because I don't actually have anything major due until finals. Oh but there's that looming thesis. That thesis with a 1-2 page description and bibliography due in three weeks. Oh dear.

I just woke up from a nap. Yes it's 9:30pm. I think I'll head downstairs and see what's hoppin.

The last 2.5 months

This is what my semester has been like so far:



Dancing and partying with friends.



Making delicious food with my roommates. This night was taco night.



Hanging out in our hallway eating dip and pirate's booty at 2am. And the night is still going.



Wu-Tang Clan represent.



Receiving lots of love from Belgium friends. David, I have no pictures with you!



Seeing my cousin in NYC.



Seeing Tim every/every other week. (such an improvement from once every 2 months. which was my fault. sorry!)


The semester has been amazing so far. I'm so blessed. I've never been happier at Haverford as I am right now. I'm not discounting my last three years which were wonderful as well, but this semester everything has fallen into place perfectly. Friends, school, boyfriend, God (kind of - I'm still working on this). In my fourth year, I feel so much at home here. I've grown tremendously since my freshman year and I can't even put into words right now how much I love being exactly where I am :)

The Dark Night of the Soul

"If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some from of childhood indoctrination. If you are religious at all it is overwhelmingly probable that your religion is that of your parents. If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam false, knowing full well that you would think the opposite if you had been born in Afghanistan, you are the victim of childhood indoctrination." (Dawkins, 25).

Dawkins makes a very true point here - so many of our faiths have only come into being because of the environment we were raised in. But I wonder, is that such a terrible thing? Our lives are formed largely through indoctrination. Indoctrination is the method by which many traditions and values that we hold important are passed on. Education is a form of indoctrination: both the system and what's taught in schools. I don't bring up this example to make the point that education is infallible therefore indoctrination is not a bad thing. That's not my point because clearly there are many faults with our education system and with the material being taught in schools. But Dawkins makes a very strong push against childhood indoctrination and I don't think that's an inherently bad thing - we're taught a lot of things as a child that we challenge later in life. And I know not everyone will challenge ideas they were raised with, but if you raise someone as an atheist then isn't that a form of indoctrination as well? Any belief you hold is embedded in community and context. Our daily lives are constructed around relations: to people, to ideas, to events, to systems, and so on. How do you raise kids without indoctrinating them in some way. Indoctrination has a negative connotation which is why I think a lot of us balk when we hear the word. But family, traditions, culture are all grounded in the idea of passing something on to the next generation.

To switch trains of thought entirely, we also discussed whether or not it's selfish to ask "What does faith do for me?" And this is a question that I've wresteld with for awhile. To always wonder what I get out of faith, how faith benefits me, what faith does for me, how my life is improved through faith, is that not a self-centered way of thinking about faith? And this is what Matt said, which really helped shed light on the whole matter:

No, it's not selfish. This is how many people come to faith in the first place. It improves their lives or they're getting something out of it that they didnt' before. Totally legit reason. Jesus even says in Luke 16 that if you have material gifts, then you should use them to make friends. The point of this parable is to say that this is initally how you may attract friends but it is not what the whole relationship should be based on. I read it as a set up for the "true riches" that come later after you have gained these friends. It's not that you should reject wealth but that you must know how to use it wisely. As with many of the lessons in the Bible, it's about balance and moderation. Applied to faith, when you first come to faith, it is about what it does for you, how it makes you feel. But that's not where it stays: faith is a progression. The early church talks about a phenomena known as the "Dark Night of the Soul," and many religious leaders, and Mother Theresa as well, refer to it. They describe the "Dark Night" as a feeling of aridness in your belief. Dry dry dry dry desert. You don't have the same fervor as you had in the past, you don't feel the same sense of excitement, and you feel like you're not benefitting. This Dark Night is a stage in your growth. It's God's way of "weaning you away" from that those feelings that used to form the foundation of your faith. What God wants, is for us to desire Him for Him alone. Desire Him not for the riches He has promised us or not for the feelings of exuberance we gain from worship and so on. But He wants us to desire Him as God, to desire a relationship with Him for that reason alone of having the relationship. So initially, yes, we ask what does faith do for me. But as God grows us, He starts to pull us away from this dependence on wanting to see effects and evidence. So if you feel as if faith isn't doing anything for you anymore, it's actually doing more than you could understand. So push on; God won't disappoint.

Ok time for philosophy class. By the way, I'm turning 21 IN ONE WEEK BITCHES.

What is happiness?

I've started going to a book study on Sunday nights that is about Richard Dawkins' God Delusion and Timothy Keller's The Reason for God. It's run by two guys from a local church who want to reach out to the local college kids. Our first meeting was really diverse and we had an interesting discussion but I think two of the non-religious people were getting annoyed because they wanted to have a debate. Oh well. This past Sunday, there were only two of us that showed up, and since everyone in the room was Christian we had more of a Christian-slanted discussion. We read a couple paragraphs from the preface to Dawkins' book and the conversation just took off from there.

In the preface Dawkins says "You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." So we asked, what would the list for a Christian look like? "You can be a Christian who is..." And we came up with: justice, love, servitude, redemption, and purpose. You could argue that those things could fall under Dawkins' list - for instance, purpose can be included in intellectual fulfillment. But I think that's stretching it a little, and these are meant to be very broad categories.

Then we started asking "What does it mean to be happy?" Happiness is a word that I never really liked that much but I could never articulate why. What's so wrong with wanting to be happy? Nothing. But is happiness the goal of life? What actually is the meaning of life? It's a question we all laugh at because it's so trite but we also laugh at it because most of us don't know how to answer it. Foucault would essentially say there isn't any meaning because humans can't shape history, there is no such thing as 'human essence,' there are no origins, blah blah blah. But then he also says that meaning is created through relations. The point is, Michel Foucault's ideas are silly and depressing as shit. (I know I'm really eloquent). Anyways, that was just a tangent for me to express my displeasure of writing an essay on Foucault's ideas that I completely disagree with. SO, you have to distinguish between the two kinds of happiness that we're concerned with. Happy can be used to qualify a mood but happy can also mean existentially satisfied. When you first have a discussion on what it means to be happy, you have to make sure that you're speaking about the same kind of happy. We focused on the latter kind because to only want to be mood-happy means you're only living from moment to moment. Pursuing only mood-happiness is a pursual of the next thing that will make you happy. So we finished that discussion pretty quickly and moved on to existential-happy.

What's the difference between an atheist who is existentially satisfied and a Christian who is as well? Take an atheist who has lived a compassionate, fulfilling, happy (both in mood and existence), self-sacrificing, mother theresa, type of life. And then a Christian who is the exact same as that atheist but happens to be a Christian. That atheist could most definitely die a perfectly existentially happy person and never know the Christian faith. Absolutely possible. But a Christian would define true happiness as knowing God and having a relationship with Him. So from the Christian perspective, though this atheist dies perfectly happy with his life, he hadn't actually attained true happiness because he didn't know God. Well how the hell does one tell an atheist "excuse me you think you are existentially satisfied but actually, uhm, you're wrong. you're missing something honey." We talked about how in a discussion like this one, an individual has to be willing to make the jump to thinking about God, to thinking about the possibility that true happiness only lies in God, to put aside his/her own personal beliefs, because if this person is completely closed to the Christian idea, then the conversation basically stops. Both parties have to be willing to entertain the other's ideas. I know it sounds really basic but I think too often people try to have discussions like this purely from one side and then all you have is two people making two separate points to a brick wall. So what's the difference? The difference is that the Christian says that this atheist had never actually experienced true existential satisfaction/happiness.

Then we talked about indoctrination because Dawkins' hates specifically childhood indoctrination. And we also talked about the question"What does faith do for me?" and whether or not it's a selfish question to ask. But now I have to go to cognitive neuroscience, and I will finish this post later.

A fresh start?

So I've decided to give blogging another go. Perhaps it will fail as my study abroad blog did (whoops), or maybe it'll go strong for a few years, as my high school blog did. We'll see. Blogging is quite therapeutic and maybe in these next few months I'll need a lot of therapy. I'm sitting alone in my room on a Friday night while all my friends are partying up campus because I'm the college's biggest grandma. Or because I had the roughest night ever last night and I want to recuperate. To put it as nicely as I can, I took four hits too many and puked all over the Kimmel Center. Shit, I know. Not my classiest moment. In fact, one of my worst moments ever. Ugh, I don't need to remind myself. Although I did have the CRAZIEST dreams during the first half the performance. But still not worth it.

There was a school-sponsored senior party tonight in the dining center. After coming back from abroad I realized that I knew no one at my school anymore, but being in the dining center with everyone in my class really made me feel like I was home. These are the kids that I've been at school with for the last 3.5 years and these are the kids I'm graduating with - in six months. Blows my mind a little bit. Once I graduate I'm never going to have as strong as a community as I have here at Haverford. On election night we were all crammed into my friend's common room watching a tiny television, eating cookies, drinking beer, and then when Obama was declared the winner, the entire school poured out of the dorms and had a party in the street. Only one word can describe that moment: A-FUCKING-MAZING. And that doesn't even do the whole night justice, but for me, that night WAS COLLEGE. This is what college is about. Not exams, essays, gpas, or internships. College is about blowing off those exams and essays to get wasted when America elects the first black president. We made history. And where was I when we made history? Not writing my paper due the next day. I was getting drunk and having a party in the street. YES.

And now I'm going to bed.