Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

03 April 2009

do not want

(Cross-posted to LiveJournal)

Didn't lose my phone. It was sitting on my nightstand when I came home last night.

Darn. (I only want a good excuse to get a better phone, and I can't in good conscience buy a new one until this one dies or is lost.)

~*~


Other things I find when I get home: another pamphlet from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They left one at the back door last week, which I noticed and brought inside--because it's wrong to leave litter lying around like that. Then, earlier this week they left a second one in my actual mailbox. I decided I'd just leave it there, as it wasn't high on my list of priorities. Finally, I came home yesterday to find one folded and stuck behind the mail box. Civic-mindedness was crushed by irritation, and so I left the litter there. I'll probably clean it up when I get home if it's not blown away in the meantime.

They're very determined, I'll give them that. But why give the same household the same pamphlet three times over? If I've not read the first one, I'm not likely to perk up at the sight of two more copies. And if I have read the first one, I don't need two more copies, do I?

Does this sort of thing qualify as harassment? I don't think it would bother me as much if they actually came to call when I was home. Then, at least, I could respond in person and scare them away.

Turn the page ...

10 January 2009

re: spoiling the illusion

(Comments from LiveJournal)

Ian: While there is much to be said for the "just add water" nature of the religious social experience, you are almost certainly right that it wouldn't be worth it to pretend. Maybe next time you get invited you should go and not pretend? Though I'd suggest sticking this in your bag, just in case.

Nicole: There are plenty of people I know who are religious without being RELIGIOUS, but (perhaps I am waaay overgeneralizing) it seems to me that the people who socialize based around a religion are... kind of cuckoo. They just (mostly) seem to be more extremist than the non-social folks.

Michelle: Like you, I occasionally toy with going to services once in a while, especially Mass, but for slightly different reasons. For me it's less about the social outlet and more about feeling the sense of drama and ritual that a good religious service can evoke. Also like you, I don't believe any of it, and the truth would come out sooner or later, and probably somewhat destructively.

As far as socially acceptable goes, I think that the Northeast is probably one of the best places to live if you aren't "conventionally religious". It doesn't seem nearly as central to everything as it does in say, the South or the Midwest. So far as I can tell, being a member of a mainline church isn't mandatory for, say, public office, and it's unlikely you would see coworkers and socialize at church on the weekends, and no one really bats an eye at a courthouse/city hall wedding. It doesn't seem to be a mandatory piece of being a part of society up here. Sure, it can help with some connections, but I've found that even conventionally religious up here get a lot less bothered if you aren't drinking the same kool-aid as them.

Also, infiltrating an uber-religious organization quite possibly would be fun in an evil sort of way, but it's not really going to teach anyone anything.

In terms of social output, again, being in the Boston area, there's a lot of that that isn't dependent on religion either. Boston Ski & Sports Club, dances or dance lessons, stitch'n'bitches (Boston has a mailing list), Drinking Liberally... etc. and so on.

Turn the page ...

spoiling the illusion

(Cross-posted to LiveJournal)

I've more than once contemplated rejoining a religious group, if only for the social outlet.

It is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day...

Even now, there's an odd look one receives ... I get it at work sometimes, not from everyone, but from a handful of people. Disbelief? Concern? I'm not sure how to describe it properly. It's the look I get when I decline an invitation to a church gathering, and then let them know why I declined when they ask.

Ambivalence ... nonchalance?

It does seem to be a reaction divided by race. None of my Asian colleagues think it strange (or if they do, they have the good taste not to react); most of my Caucasian colleagues are equally disinterested; it's primarily my Black colleagues that are most visibly taken aback.

So I wonder, as I read the common zealot rant on a message board, as I cross paths with colleagues and the occasional LDS pavement-pounder, Would I be more socially acceptable if I were part of a religious group?

But then I reconsider, knowing exactly how much I'd hate myself--how much I would come to loath the pretense, how much I would resent the people around me (whether they actually believed or were just similarly pretending for the sake of human company). Could I pretend? Oh, I'm certain I could--and quite convincingly, at that. Things move me for many reasons.

The right (or wrong) combination of musical chords can send a shiver down my spine, fictions make me cry or shudder every other day. To achieve the same reaction in any so-called holy place to so-called holy music or so-called holy words would hardly be proof of anything.

Reactions to stimuli.

[Sanity], [sanity], all is [sanity].

It's not to say that I don't think I can believe in things; but many things that were once categorised as beliefs have been moved to fantasy and fiction and intellectual interest. Fairly weighed, nothing "supernatural" makes any more sense than anything else. I guess that's where my mind stops.

It's not to say that I don't think others should believe in things. More [of something--though I'm not sure what, but "power" seems incorrect--] to them, if they can.

But I resent them and I pity them, and I can't make myself feel guilty about those feelings, because I'm almost certain that they feel the same way about me.



Back to the question: Could I fake it? Yes, for a while, but I'd probably self-destruct eventually; and, as is my habit, I'd most likely take a few people with me. People who, in their turn, would resent me for spoiling their illusion.

A more wicked side of me thinks, It could make life interesting for a little while ... Allow the most outlandish thing possible to recruit oneself (something like Opus Dei or equally miserable). Bewilder both friends and family for a good six months. Convince the believers of conversion. And then--leave, to the confusion and disappointment of all.

It's more for self-indulgent fantasy than reality, isn't it?

I'm lonely and bored of being lonely, but I'm also proud--too proud to whore myself to something I don't believe, too proud to keep my opinions to myself.


Maybe tomorrow I'll write out a few of my thoughts on the dichotomy of good and evil in Western literature.

Maybe I'll go see The Unborn instead.

Who knows?

Turn the page ...

30 July 2008

visions of the future

Reading Good Omens--particularly this bit where Aziraphale speaks through the televangelist, informing everyone listening what the apocalypse is really like:

'"Well, nice try," he said in a completely different voice, "only it won't be like that at all. Not really.
"I mean, you're right about the fire and war, all that. But that Rapture stuff--well, if you could see them all in Heaven--serried ranks of them as far as the mind can follow and beyond, league after league of us, flaming swords, all that, well, what I'm trying to say is who has time to go round picking people out and popping them up in the air to sneer at the people dying of radiation sickness on the parched and burning earth below? If that's your idea of a morally acceptable time, I might add..."'

The notion of the Rapture strikes me as the ultimate schadenfreude delusion. Really.

And then happening upon this in my rounds of catching up on the webcomics ...

Married To The Sea
marriedtothesea.com

I'm pretty sure I prefer Mr. Gaiman's and Mr. Pratchett's version of things, but I have a soft spot for Natalie and Drew. And life sucks enough that Republicans would bring about an apocalypse.


It made me think of that magic line from Doctor Who, but I'll mess with it to make it work--

'Don't you think he looks tired?'

And if you can't guess who 'he' is, you're not trying hard enough.

Turn the page ...

12 February 2008

V for ...

Stephen is my hero.



Now I just want a .gif Stephen icon that says, "I teach Sunday School, motherfucker."


Lem leads me to the fun news.

Anonymous vs. Scientology

Turn the page ...

09 January 2008

I am more me

Type summary here.

Everyone's doing this: Belief-o-Matic

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Neo-Paganism (99%)
3. Secular Humanism (80%)
4. New Age-ism (79%)
5. Liberal Quakerism (75%)
6. Mahayana Buddhism (74%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (70%)
8. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestantism (62%)
9. Reform Judaism (60%)
10. New Thought (55%)
11. Scientology (53%)
12. Hinduism (52%)
13. Nontheism (49%)
14. Taoism (46%)
15. Sikhism (45%)
16. Jainism (44%)
17. Orthodox Quakerism (41%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (40%)
19. Bahá'í Faith (38%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (23%)
21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism) (21%)
22. Islam (20%)
23. Mainline to Conservative Christianity/Protestantism (14%)
24. Seventh Day Adventism (14%)
25. Jehovah's Witness (12%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (11%)
27. Roman Catholicism (11%)

I thought Secular Humanism would be at the top of the list, but my ambivalence involving the notion of deity is probably revealed by my answers to a lot of the multi-check questions.

Unitarian Universalism -- The United Church of *Shrug*

As for the Quakers bit ... Yeah, I'm not sure. It was probably the fact that on the "good deeds and compassion" question, I rated my answer as "high." But, on a second round there are other answers I would've listed as "high" that I didn't. Oh, well. I can always re-take the silly thing.

[edit: Re-taken, with no great changes, really. Secular Humanism, New Age, and Liberal Quakers have played musical chairs a bit. Roman Catholicism is still last, in spite of--or maybe because of--its being my introduction to world religion. I also altered the titles, because they were bothering me; some of them are still bothering me. Faiths deserve nouns--not adjectives being treated as nouns.]

Turn the page ...

22 December 2007

if at first you don't succeed

I'll be trying again tomorrow morning.

My flight's scheduled take-off is for 1130 or 1145 with an ETA of 1330 or 1400. Hopefully, it actually happens this time.



I went to see Sweeney Todd yesterday at around mid-day.

I had my doubts about the singing, but I was most pleasantly surprised. The acting talent involved were more than equal to their singing parts. Also, as commented, Johnny and Alan singing a duet:AWESOME.

The colour scheme is typical Burton--varying gray tones with brilliant splashes of colour where they will make the most impact. What sticks out in my mind most is Sacha Baron Cohen's jewel-tone blue ensemble. As per the usual, Cohen makes a hilarious spectacle of himself.

I do have a complaint or two with where they left certain of the story arcs. Benjamin Barker and his wife Lucy have a daughter, and a ship boy falls in love with her, but we don't really see how that turns out. Without giving away more than necessary, Sweeney mistakes her for a boy and nearly kills her, and that's the last we see of her before the credits roll. I just would have been happier to see some kind of resolution there. Granted, I didn't expect any kind of happy Father-Daughter reunion between Sweeney and Johanna--Sweeney is way too far gone for him to resume any normal sort of lifestyle--but I would have like to see how the young romance between the girl and the ship boy turned out.

It's one of Tim Burton's gorier achievements, I must say. To give you an idea, it's rated R, but there's no excessive cursing or sexuality. The rating is specifically due to the violence.

After the movie, I walked down to my office to pick up my pay checks, and talked with the skeleton crew. I had to clear up my time-sheet with Zina, and we got to talking about movies. I told her that I intended to go see The Golden Compass ... Zina's response: "Oh, you don't want to see that! It's all about atheism!"

Yeah, I don't care. That really doesn't bother me.

I went to see it today. And, apart from the mouth-breathing cud-chewers sitting behind me, it was a fun time.

Also, I wouldn't really classify the movie as being "all about atheism." It really isn't. It's more anti-establishment--of all kinds, which I suppose could include religion, government, and society--than atheistic. The movie is really about the individual's capacity for free choice versus outside control over the individual's thoughts and actions; and the message of Christianity places a decent emphasis on making choices, choosing right from wrong, etc. So, I don't know, maybe I'm being naive, but I don't know what the fuss is all about.

It's an exciting, fun movie--and it uses CGI in a way that actually doesn't make me want to kill the producers (please see Zemeckis).

Turn the page ...

25 December 2006

more presents

In which I give a catalog of my haul and the food made and consumed thus far.

No, not really, but close enough.

PREZZIES


I also received $40 from my Grammy, a $50 iTunes gift card, a pair of black pjs from Gap Body, and a navy blue hoodie from AEO (the last two of which I am presently wearing).

On Saturday, we went out to lunch at an Asian bistro down by the ballpark.

In the afternoon I made chocolate-chip cookies. Then, my mom was having issues with the baci and the cookie press, and enlisted my assistance with those as well. We ended up removing the shaper at the end, and (in my opinion) they looked more like what they were supposed to be in the first place.

If you've never had--or made--them before, baci are rather work-intensive cookies; but the product is well worth the effort. We made "Romeo" baci (versus "Juliet" baci). "Romeo" baci have chocolate in the batter, whereas "Juliet" baci do not and are a plain almond or hazelnut flavor. They're baked in halves; then, you paint melted chocolate on the underside of one and stick it to another underside; then, you put them on a plate or sheet and stick them in the fridge until the chocolate sets again. It's a sandwich cookie, but it looks like ball--and more than a little naughty when it's in its halves.

Before baking the baci, we had to let them sit on the sheets for a few hours to set up. So we went to Costco and Kroger during the interim. At Costco we bought 5 lbs. of Australian lamb, two bottles of wine, and a few different kinds of cheese.

Some religious nut had left a fake $20 on a pile of journals with a "call to Jesus" on the inside: "Disappointed? Jesus won't let you down." It was followed by a church address and a number for a hotline. I borrowed my mother's red pen, wrote my own little message on the inside, and put it back where I'd found it. Shit-heels.

My dad wandered off, and my mom and I continued on to Kroger looking for bread and Ballatore. There was wine-tasting going on in the alcohol section, and I tried a merlot while my mom had a shiraz. They were good, but not tempting enough to make us change our planned course. All the bread was pathetic and embarrassing, so my mom said, "Screw this! Let's make our own!" Our cart was conspicuously food-free; we bought two bottles of Ballatore (the regular spumante and the rosso), a six-pack of the peach Bacardi, a six-pack of Mike's hard lemonade, and Dayquil for my eversick father.

When we got home, my mom sent me out to the yard to collect oregano and rosemary, and we proceeded to make garlic and herb baguettes. While they were rising, we finished the baci.

Saturday night dinner consisted of spiced wine, a few kinds of cheese, baguette, and cured ham--with baci, chocolate-chip cookies, and chocolate-covered almonds (because we had to do something with the leftover melted chocolate) for dessert.

Sunday continued the madness of food. Lunch was another simple sit-down with more homemade bread, cheese, and ham. Then, we went out to the Grand Asia Market and Trader Joe's in Cary. And, you know, bought more food. Because we had to.

After getting home again, my mom and I got started on Christmas Eve dinner: a riesling, roasted lamb marinated in too many things for me to list, herbed mashed potatoes, and a vegetable stir-fry. The lamb took nearly three hours to complete, but it was so worth it. I hadn't had lamb in nearly three years, and this was a happy reintroduction.

Today, following the morning's present craziness, we began Christmas dinner: a rose wine, still more bread, shrimp in marinara sauce, and Italian sausage lasagna. I am so damn full; I think I'll be rolling back to Boston after the holiday is over.

Turn the page ...

22 December 2006

Sesame Street religion

[Rather condescending] season's greetings from some puppets at Belief.net.



Yeah. I just don't know what they were thinking. This is more what I would expect to find in my inbox from Fandango.com.

Turn the page ...

06 October 2006

5 year-old born again? sure.

Enjoy the freaks.

Jesus Camp - A growing number of Evangelical Christians believe there is a revival underway in America that requires Christian youth to assume leadership roles in advocating the causes of their religious movement. The film, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady (The Boys of Baraka), follows Levi, Rachael, and Tory to Pastor Becky Fischer's "Kids on Fire" summer camp in Devil's Lake, North Dakota, where kids as young as 6 years-old are taught to become dedicated Christian soldiers in "God's army." The film follows these children at camp as they hone their "prophetic gifts" and are schooled in how to "take back America for Christ." The film is a first-ever look into an intense training ground that recruits born-again Christian children to become an active part of America's political future. (synopsis taken from jesuscampthemovie.com)

This film is very fair with its subject--which I can't imagine was an easy thing to do, as the filmmakers are obviously both worldly and educated. Is it a constant laugh riot? No, actually. It approaches this hyper-conservative evangelical movement seriously and respectfully (which is to be expected, really; how else would you get their cooperation? They don't want to be made to look foolish more than anyone else does). But it has its very ironic moments, and some distinctly uncomfortable moments as well.

To Fischer, I'm split between extreme anger and extreme pity. On a very basic level she admits to the audience that she knows she's manipulating children; but knowledge of that also seems to go directly over her head. Or, more clearly, she's manipulating them, but it's "for their own salvation" or something. Her work with kids aside, she seems like lonely person--she's extremely overweight, well into middle age, and she lives alone--and maybe her perception of G-d fills that gap of loneliness for her. I really don't know.

Actually, even the children introduced are filling some kind of gap with zeal.

Levi, a ten year-old boy with close-shaven hair and a trailing rat-tail mullet, tells Becky that he was "saved" and "born-again" at the age of five. "Why?" she asks. Because, in his words, "nothing was fun anymore." ... A little five year-old for whom "nothing was fun anymore?" Had you exhausted all the outlets? Gone sky-diving and bungee-jumping already, had you? "I am five, and world-weary, and nothing is fun; woe, oh, woe is me!" You little emo yokel, you. Let me tell you why nothing was fun, kid. Your parents probably wouldn't let you play make-believe or watch cartoons because they feared for your soul or some such rot; that is why nothing was fun, not the absence of deity in your life.

Rachael, 7 years-old: "I get picked on sometimes and I don't have a lot of friends." ... Probably because you're trying to convert all of them ALL THE TIME. One scene in the film has them in a bowling alley, and she walks up to this blonde and informs her that the holy spirit wanted her to go say hello and hand her a booklet about her faith. The blonde looks disturbed and dubious (waiting for somebody to jump out and tell her she's been punk'd or something), but she says thank you anyway and Rachael goes away. At the end of the film, during the credits, Rachael and company are in D.C. to speak their pro-life agenda. She approaches these three black men sitting in lawn chairs on the grass.

Rachael: "If you were to die today, do you think you would go to heaven?"
Black man, without pause: "Yes."
Rachael: "Oh. Okay."

Didn't expect that, did you, dearie? She and her little friends walk away, and she says: "I think they were Muslim." ... Come again?

There are so many gem-like moments in this film:

* Some woman carries in a cardboard standee of GWB, and acts like it's really him. "Everyone say hello to President Bush. Tell him how glad we are to have him here today." And the kids play along. And the guy sitting three seats over from me couldn't stop giggling for five minutes, which became contagious and had the rest of us going too.

* Fischer talking about how lazy some people can be--yeah, okay, hun. Go get another Big Mac and shut up.

* Levi, after delivering his own preaching to his fellow youths, visits a mega-church in Colorado Springs and talks to the head minister. And the minister asks if people listen to Levi because of the substance of what he's saying or because of the "cute kid" factor. Levi says he doesn't know. The minister tells him to use the "cute kid" factor until he gets some substance. And Levi doesn't even seem to recognize the insult.

* Parental involvement. They can't get the little slack-jawed inbreeds to do anything on their own, so the parents have to be there. Fischer is in a room full of children and asks them to raise their hands if they believe G-d can do anything. She gets little to no response, and the camera zooms in on a mother with a baby in her lap, and the mother takes the baby's elbow to raise its hand in the air while reaching for her other son to raise his hand in the air, too. Other moments like this follow.

* Expressions of disbelief. This little blond kid (who's never named and always seems to be going through the motions) has the mic and his Bible, and he's addressing the rest of the audience. "I just want to talk about belief, and how hard it is sometimes--and I feel like a fake." And his posture goes down hill, and he sits on the ground and opens his Bible while continuing to muse about the non-presence of G-d, and there's a bunch of junk folded into the pages of the book and a dollar falls out on the floor. ... And because there's absolutely no uplifting resolution to anything he's saying, the grown-ups begin looking fidgety and uncomfortable, and the zany kids look kind of confused.

* Harry Potter. It had to show up in the film at some point. Fischer: "Warlocks should NOT be heroes!!11!" and "Back in the good old days, Harry Potter would have been BURNED AT THE STAKE!" ... apparently not making the connection that Harry Potter is a character of fantasy. Cut to dinner time with kids sitting around talking about the lecture. "My mom won't let me read Harry Potter because there's witch-craft." -- "Yeah, my mom won't let me watch the movies, but it's okay, because I go to my dad's and he lets me watch them!" (followed by uncomfortable silence).

I could go on and on. There's a line through the plot that covers the Supreme Court appointments, the more overreaching effects of the evangelical movement, and the reactions of the more secular middle-ground (and other people who recognize the dangers of intense and unyielding theopathy). It's not intensely entertaining throughout, but it is informative--and important. It's important in the way that secular audiences should know that these people exist (in droves and not just on the fringe) and want to turn back society's progress to witch-burning and religious crusades.

... And then I went and decided to bait people on imdb.com. I'm still waiting for a reaction though; this is rather disappointing.

Oh, yeah. Rachael said something about "Dead Churches" that I think I'll talk about later. It's a very unimaginative way of excluding other Christian denominations from "true faith" in a child's mind--unimaginative, but it works.

Turn the page ...

05 October 2006

life is not the sum of its parts

We're only human.

The United States of Leland - Teenager Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) appears to have everything going for him, including a famous writer father (Kevin Spacey). So, what drove him to kill? It's up to Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a teacher who works with inmates, to discover the anger, frustration and fear lurking beneath Leland's otherwise unruffled surface. Before long, Pearl helps Leland discover the truth about the painful past that led him to his excruciating present.

Gosling was 23 when he starred in this role, and I get the feeling he was trying to go for "quietly thoughtful teenager" but my first impression was "mentally deficient 20-something" because of his obvious physical maturity blended with intentional gawkiness and the inability to enunciate or say the right thing. Going beyond that, the character Leland is a disappointed character. Not disappointing--disappointed. He's unable to look at people and things and situations without seeing misery behind it all, so most of the time he "blocks it out" ... but when he can't "block it out" anymore, he blacks out one day, and kills his ex-girlfriend's retarded brother, whom he sees as the most miserable person he knows. Most of the film I was thinking, Sociopath.

Most of the poor reviews I've seen for this film come from the so-called moral muddle we're presented with. It does leave a lot to think about, much of it unpleasant. There are a lot of moral and theological questionings going on here. Why man creates/needs G-d and the devil (or just good and evil, if you like), why people do bad things at all, how the way people see the universe can have adverse effects on their social behavior, etc. Of course, there's the whole confusion around Leland's murderous act--Was it drugs? A falling out with his girlfriend? Lack of parenting? What made him snap? In the end, we don't really have a clear picture as to the big 'why'--why Leland killed this harmless kid that he obviously doesn't dislike, whom he, in fact, walks home all the time and takes care of better than the boy's own siblings and parents. But then the character was very up-front with the fact that there would be no decent 'why'--bad things happen, people are bastards, and sometimes trying to see a reason is completely futile.

To the other characters, it can't be said that Leland isn't a product of his environment. His father is an emotionally distant, though extremely successful, author who hasn't seen his son for ten years (he sends him an airplane ticket to a different city around the world every year, but he's never there). His girlfriend is an upper-middle-class junkie in reform school who dumps him for another junkie. Her parents basically ignore her in favor of her college-bound sister and sister's boyfriend (who happens to live with them for weird family reasons of his own). The college-bound sister is dumping the boyfriend after her brother's murder, and the boyfriend gets himself arrested so that he can make it into prison in order to murder Leland. Really, nothing is right with any of these people, and you have to wonder if it was much better before Leland's day of blacking out.

The filming is very stark at certain points. While in jail, Leland is wearing an orange jumper; into flashback mode, he's often wearing a hooded sweatshirt of the same bright pylon-orange while everyone around him is in muted gray tones. Ultimately it creates an extreme contrast between Leland and the people surrounding him, physically and mentally.

Message? We're all "only human" and therefore inclined to do wretched things, but hopefully we have the mental capacity to look beyond the moments of misery and not go bat-shit crazy in despair. ***1/2

And then there was Lost, and the Jack, Sawyer, and Kate habitrails--aquarium, primate house, locker room.

I love that people on the boards have started calling the Others' leader Benry.

And what did they do to Kate that she needs antiseptic and looks like she's about to have a break-down in front of Sawyer?

And wasn't the Jack flash-back kind of Dullsville and useless? Yes, he and his wife got divorced, which we already knew must have happened; we still don't know why. Okay, maybe he's the reason his father went back to the bottle after that 50-day sobriety, and maybe that's why Christian was practicing medicine under the influence, and went to Sydney, and died. I still don't think we needed a whole episode for this back story to be told. I hope next week's is more satisfying.

Tonight: Jesus Camp, 7pm, Kendall Cinema, Cambridge, MA ... Because morbid curiosity drives me to free screenings of movies about religious zealots. The WASPs have determined that the best way to fight Middle Eastern religious zeal and the godless ways of the modern age is with their own brand of religious zeal. Fabulous. I can't wait to watch the freaks in action. You know I'll have tons to write about after the fact.

Turn the page ...

06 September 2006

life on an easel

I morph a topic from Shelly into an allegory involving art.

I was thinking about Frankenstein on my walk to work this morning. I got to the point where I took the whole as the obvious allegory of the Big Guy and man between Frankenstein and his monster. Frank (Big Guy) creates something terrible, thinking it'll be great, and not recognizing its horrible characteristics until it's animated and too late (people). Monster is abandoned and behaves terribly (lack of divine influence and free will). Frank's surprised and horrified when monster is no better than its origins would suggest it should be, and decides he needs to get rid of it (the Flood?). It goes about trying to destroy Frank and all his ties (nihilism, atheism).

Why do I think of overreaching metaphors when I'm walking to work? Boredom mainly.

But it made me think of the monster as a piece of art, a failed piece of art--something you'd want to scrap. And perhaps human beings are pieces of art--of a kind. If you're a crap piece of art, you get thrown in a bonfire. And if you're a brilliant piece of art, they'd stick you in a museum with other brilliant pieces of art [of your type]. If you're something in between they might stick you in the basement of the museum for repairs and touch-ups. But the cases of the bonfire versus the museum is obviously after-life. Until then, you're still the misshapen ball of clay or the unfinished work on the easel.

This is okay--but what does the artist want from his art (if anything)? What can a painting possibly give the painter? A painter doesn't require the adoration of its painting. It's there to be pretty, to be amusing. Failing that, it's no good. So if a painting is harmless, but boring, isn't it a failure? Won't it go on the bonfire? Similarly, if I have an amazing painting portraying something that many people find distasteful (CBT, BDSM, snuff, etc.), isn't that worth more than the poster of a "Who me?" kitten? Isn't it more interesting? And isn't it more successful as a piece of art? Won't it end up in the museum in spite of its graphic nature and questionable content? It might not sit next to a Rembrandt, but it'll certainly have a room for it and its ilk.

Put the relative success of artwork aside.

Leave the museum and all the individual pieces of art that may or may not deserve to end up in a shredder. And ask if the painter needs to keep any of them. This is not a symbiotic relationship, and he doesn't need anything in that museum.

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

I say upsetting things. I'm sorry if I'm offensive. I only ask these things with half the impertinence my mother would probably imagine is in them. The other half of me is deadly serious, really wants a good explanation for the sham that I see in religion.

Why would anything omnipotent need us to like it? Worship it? Recognize that it exists? WHY? And, returning to Frankenstein, why create something that is inherently flawed and then punish or destroy it for being flawed? Why create it at all?

I remember saying "Jesus Christ" in an exclamation when I was in middle school or so. My mother slapped me across the face for it. And now I think, if it were as bad as all that, then surely a slap isn't nearly enough punishment. And if I'm right, and it doesn't actually matter to anyone or anything, then she shouldn't have slapped me at all. Right?

Turn the page ...