I am a Totalitarian Part 1: Democracy Sucks

You know, I’ve heard people say, “In a perfect world, Communism would be a great form of government, but the fact of the matter is...it’s not a perfect world. So Communism doesn’t work.” It’s funny that people say this who live in a so called Democracy. And let me tell you something about Democracy: “In a perfect world, Democracy would be a great form of government, but the fact of the matter is...it’s not a perfect world. So Democracy doesn’t work.”

Democracy is probably the stupidest, most inefficient government available.

Look at it this way. Let’s take an imaginary guy who works at an imaginary job. I think we’ll call him Mark. So Mark works in his boring cubicle, and he’s 100% certain that there are better ways to run this company. It’s so inefficient and wasteful and all the employees hate their job. Furthermore, his boss is an idiot. (Or so says Mark...who knows...maybe his boss is an idiot, maybe not). Next door to Mark’s cubicle is Chris. And Chris is an idiot (at least in Mark’s opinion) and has no business working at McDonalds, much less this workplace. On Mark’s other side is Bennie. Now Bennie’s not an idiot, but he is incredibly lazy, and Mark is constantly having to pick up the slack for him. Then there’s Kathy, she’s a vindictive bitch who wants everybody to be just as miserable as he is. Sure, there’s a couple cool people at the office, but for every intelligent, hardworking employee, there’s about 5 total goons.

Let’s say Mark’s boss oversees 40 people. So let’s switch up their workplace and call it a democracy. Suddenly, all the employees get to vote once per year to decide who their boss is. And that boss must put all major issues to a vote. How much do you think anyone there would accomplish? How likely do you think it is that the right person would be chosen to be the boss? Sure, Mark’s a discerning, intelligent guy...but most of his coworkers...not so much. Furthermore, don’t you think the sales department will vote to give everyone in the sales department a raise (to the detriment of some other part of the company?) but luckily...the sales department won’t win because the accounting department is actually the largest department...so they pretty much run the show -- giving themselves raises and almost always picking the new boss from their own ranks. I’m pretty sure this would descend into insanity until eventually someone came out on top and declared themselves the new, permanent boss. It could happen in many different ways:

Perhaps the sales department doesn’t like what the accounting department is doing, teams up with the human resources department and votes in a new boss, who then creates a motion to make himself the permanent boss, which is promptly voted into existence by the sales/HR union.

Perhaps the smartest folks in the office (from many different departments) realize that they have the best ideas and start meeting together to discuss these ideas. They eventually form a committee...and the boss takes notice of their ideas and commitment and starts favoring their opinions over the opinions of the masses. Soon, all the new bosses are chosen from the ranks of the committee until eventually it’s decided that one member of the community is the smartest with the best ideas, and is elected permanent boss.

Or conversely, people realize that the committee should just be in charge without a boss.

Another option is in a year following having a great boss, a turd is elected. Uh oh...what do we do? We’re stuck with this guy for a year! Well...not if we stage a coup and reinstate the last boss.

It would happen. It would happen because on the large scale democracy doesn’t work. It’s too flawed because humanity is too flawed. Allowing people to govern themselves would not work.

People have said over and over that democracy only lasts as long as it takes for one group of people to realize that they can vote themselves all the money and power. That happened hundreds of years ago in America. The best example of democracy that anyone has seen in the last decade is a little show called “Survivor.” Each week, they chose one person to eliminate from the group. One person that is either holding the others back or becoming too powerful. One by one, they are all eliminated until all the power and all the money goes to one person. And how much do they get on that show? A million bucks? And what are there, thirty contestants? A million dollars split thirty ways is still a heckuvalot of cash. Is it totally implausible that all thirty of them get together and say, hey guys...let’s decide on an order to vote each other out and then the guy (or girl) we chose to win just splits all the money with all of us evenly.

I bet you just thought “that would never happen.” And you’re very very right.

How is that not happening right now in America? The conservatives vote to decrease taxes on the rich -- flatten out the tax bracket so that everyone carries a similar share of the weight. It makes sense, we all live here. We’re all enjoying the same freedoms. Why not everybody pay the same amount? But then the liberals (representing the poor) say “wait wait wait! They have WAY more money than us! You should tax them more because they can afford it and we can’t. You’d be breaking our backs and they would barely notice! And hey, that makes sense too...so cough it up rich guys. But the rich guys say, “Woah, woah, woah! We worked hard for this money! The reason we have more money is because we busted our ass while those poor guys were goofing off!” Something like the story of the ants and the grasshopper if I remember my childhood correctly. And the poor counter with, “No! You’re able to make more money because you had more opportunities in your life. Either you got lucky or your rich parents helped to ensure you would follow in their rich footsteps.”

Gah! Holy crap! I don’t know which way to think anymore, do you?

Historically, democracies are pretty new. America was the first official democracy, starting in 1776. Other nations have followed our brilliant example and the world is becoming a far better place as a result.

Oh, wait? We weren’t the first democracy? Greece and Rome were democracies? Huh...well how’d that turn out for them?

The Greeks were conquered and the Romans democracy...well, some guy just kinda declared himself Caesar and that was the end of that.

People are just too greedy and selfish to rule themselves. People need to BE ruled in order to stay in line. People will always try to make a mad-grab for power. ALWAYS. If power is distributed perfectly evenly, it will take people a millisecond to start grouping themselves into larger and larger cliques so that they have more power and influence. Likely, those groups will continue and continue conglomerating until you’re left with two opposing factions. Within each of those factions, many people will be clamoring to rise to the top and become the more influential person within that faction. The leaders of both groups will concurrently be attempting to reduce their opponent’s ability to take part in decision making and reduce the likelihood of their own party members of ever switching sides.

Does that sound familiar? Yup, you guessed it...I was talking about “Survivor.”

Thank God we don’t live in a democracy.

On Love (Part 10): Loves does not boast

Love does not boast, or in the Message translation “Love does not strut.”

I’ve been worrying about doing this one for a long time.

How exactly is this is different statement than “Love is not proud?” They seem, if not the same, at least similar...to the point that I don’t know what new ground can be covered here that I wouldn’t already tread in talking about love not being proud...but recent events in my life have caused me to come back to this one, and I think I see a few differences.

Recently, my buddy Canada has gotten onto a few online dating sites and has somewhat encouraged me to do the same thing. But the idea is so repulsive to me. It seems like a sign of desperation. “I can’t get girls on my own, so I’m going to go online.” and of course, I want everybody to know that I CAN get girls on my own! I, of course, am horrifically proud.

So, I will describe the process:

Step 1: Canada wants me to see some girl he’s been talking to, so he allows me to peruse his own profile, logged in as him. There’s all these cool questions you answer. And you can look to see what other people’s responses to the same question was. And hey, some of the people who answered these questions are pretty cute.

Step 2: I wanna answer those questions. It’s almost like a quiz. It’ll be fun.

Step 3: I can’t use certain functions of the site without putting up things like a picture and a profile...so...fine, I’ll do that.

Step 4: Oh my gosh. It is so fun to look through different girl’s pictures and see what they’re like and stuff...like a fly on the wall.

The End. I’m not dating anybody on the site, I have no intention of ever dating anybody on the site. I say this as a disclaimer because I am horrified of the idea of looking like some lame-o who goes online looking for girls.

So...to continue the story, I’ll switch topics for a moment.

I went with my friend Esther to a club a couple of weeks ago. If you’ve never been to a club, allow me to describe it to you -- women wearing revealing clothes and men all over them. Clubs exist to be a place where men and women can meet. You don’t go to a club to dance. I mean, I suppose SOME people do. The majority go either to find a mate or to find somebody to sleep with -- which is basically the same thing, right? Finding a “mate” is just finding somebody you’re gonna sleep with for the rest of your life.

We treat it like it’s the more honorable objective, and it is the lesser of two evils. But, as always, the lesser of two evils is still evil. One doesn’t go to a club looking for a friend. One doesn’t go to a club looking for someone to be there for and comfort and give a neck rub even when you’re tired of giving neck rubs. One doesn’t go to a club looking for someone to do the dishes for or buy food for when they’re hungry.

When a secular guy walks into a room of 15 people and is immediately only aware of the 3 most attractive girls and ignores everyone else so that he can attempt to flirt with those three girls and try to sleep with them, we call that objectifying women.

When a Christian guy walks into a room of 15 people and is immediately only aware of the 3 most attractive girls and ignores everyone else so that he can try to discover whether or not one of those three girls might be compatible enough to be his wife...we somehow call this honorable. How is it any different? In my opinion, he has objectified those women. They are objects to him. Objects that are only as valuable to him as their ability to improve his life.

And when some other guy walks into that same room and ignores the same three attractive girls because he knows that there are a few people in that room that can help him to further his career, is he not also objectifying? And don’t we all do this every single day? Every single time we walk into a room? We instantly identify (or quickly try to pinpoint) the people in the room that are the most likely to improve our lives. We objectify everyone around us.

I am the center of my own universe and every single other person’s value is dependent upon what they can bring to the table.

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

I do think that this is all tied to boasting. And I’ll get to the point soon enough.

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

The concept of God being disgusted by sin and unable to look upon it has always been so foreign to me. It’s almost like that old expression: “If God is all powerful, can he make a sandwich that’s so big even He can’t eat it?” How can an all powerful God require us to cleanse ourselves of sin before we can be in His presence? It’s a nice idea and all, but how can it really be true?

I’ve heard the analogy before that a man has a very nice house and it’s very clean. His children go outside to play and it’s been raining. He tells them to be careful and not play in the mud. But of course, they’re children...so they play in the mud (duh). But his house is very clean. And if he lets them in muddy, then they’re going to get the whole house muddy, and that would be gross, now wouldn’t it? So he requires each of them to wash off the mud before they come inside.

I like this illustration because it makes me picture Jesus and a big fat guy standing outside with a hose (and probably a cigar in his mouth). And it’s a nice illustration. It clears up a few questions, but it does not clear up God’s inability to stomach the presence of sin. I mean...if it’s like mud, then, well...it’s just mud. What’s the big deal?

A new guy walks into that same room of 15 people. This time, the guy is me. A fat girl walks up to talk to me -- she’s younger than me, and also unattractive, so I’m uninterested right off the bat. She doesn’t really have anything to offer me in the way of finding a mate or improving my standing in the film industry. As she starts talking, I find her to be a bit annoying, so I wander away from the conversation. There is nothing abnormal about this exchange, and I’m certain that no onlooker would think I was a bad person for walking away from the conversation. But God, knowing my heart and knowing my mind would almost certainly be disgusted. I guarantee you that had this girl been attractive, I would have put up with her annoying conversation a while longer. And it’s because I’ve objectified this girl -- she has nothing to offer me. She is an object, and this particular object has absolutely no value.

God loves me because I am his son and I am special and unique and wonderful. He also loves this girl because she is his daughter and she is special and unique and wonderful. God knows my heart. He knows all the subconscious workings of my mind and he knows that I have just deemed one of his most precious creations as being utterly worthless.

We are so totally disgusting. I kind of feel disgusting. As always, I say all this only knowing that I do this. Maybe you are better people than me, but something tells me every single person does this every single day.

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

Now that we’re all on the same page, I’ll get back to boasting.

I know that I’ve said that I wanted to try to stay away from dating relationships and marriages in doing this whole “On Love” thing, because it’s so much more than that...but I think for boasting, the process of finding a mate gives the best and clearest example.

What are you looking for in a mate?

That special man or women you’ve been dreaming about your whole life -- what sorts of qualities do they have?

I would argue that everything you just thought of is bullshit. You’re looking for someone who will make you look good.

Why do men value physical beauty so highly? It seems that’s the only important criteria in looking for “Mrs. Right” (or do you say Miss Right?...I’m actually not sure). When I was at that club, the men seriously outnumbered the women, yet all the ugly and average looking girls were all along. But the attractive women had 2 or 3 guys glued to them. Why? Honestly, I think the answer is simply that this is what society tells men is important. Men want to appear powerful, and you look powerful by landing a hot babe. Now, if you’re a Christian or a moral person, that manifests itself in landing a hot wife. If you’re some wild child bachelor stud...you’re going to sleep with a long string of hot girls...proving over and over that you’re more powerful than those silly moral people by being able to “get” more than one hot girl.

And for that sort of guy, it seems that the ultimate victory is to have a threesome. Why? What is so appealing about that? I really think it’s just because it’s so hard to convince women to do it (this is an assumption, I’ve never actually tried). Only a really awesome, really powerful guy could convince two girls to have sex with him at the same time. THAT is the appeal -- it’s an ego stroke. And the guy knows that he’ll be able to boast about it.

And for those Christians with hot wives...? They’re not boasting, right? I’d argue that their wife allows them to boast without verbalizing it (and therefore coming off boastful). Men think that way. We see their hot wife, and we think, “Wow! She’s hot! Good for him!” We’re impressed, and he wants us to be. Few guys think, “Wow! She’s a phenomenal artist! He’s so lucky!” And I think that is why looks are so important to men... it’s all for the purpose of looking powerful: boasting.

For women, it’s different, but the same. Women seem to be attracted to powerful men -- whether that manifests itself in money, talent, charm and charisma, or political power depends on the woman. Now, some would argue with me (and have) that this is more of a primal factor -- it’s leftover psyche stuff from back in the days when women needed a powerful protector for their child. And it’s a valid idea, but I think it’s bogus. I think it’s all about what other women are impressed by. If your friends all think guitarists are SOOO hot...just listen to that beautiful music he’s creating! Chances are, you’re going to want to date a musician. Because that’s what’s harder to get. That’s what makes you awesome. If your friends all talk about a guy who will really take care of them and dream of living in a nice big house and having 2.5 kids and a nice car and a dog, and maybe live on the lake, chances are you’ll end up wanting those things too...to impress your friends, and you’ll look for the kind of guy that can provide you with those sorts of things.

You see, I think we’re all just objects to each other. Your mate (at least during the choosing process) is just a means to an end. You want to impress your friends, or show off some aspect of how awesome your life is to prove those jerks from high school wrong. Right? It’s just your sinful nature...it’s not something you think about often, but I bet it’s that creepy voice in the back of your head that’s shouting at you “No! Not him! (or her) You can do better!”

If I believe myself to be a 9 on a scale from 1 to 10, I’m going to want to date a 9 or, ideally a 10...because getting a 10 proves that I’m actually a 10. I will not date a 1-6

and the chances of me dating a 7 are pretty slim too. 8’s are the people that I’m kind of attracted to, but really...I feel like I can do better. It doesn’t matter where I ACTUALLY fall on this scale (as if there were really a scale). What matters is that I believe that I’m a 9...and I will therefore date (or court if you’re a Joshua Harris fan) accordingly.

I think this is why breakups hurt so badly. If two people are not compatible, in an ideal world, they would realize this, acknowledge it, and move on, happy to have helped each other get a slightly better indication of what they are looking for in a spouse. But the reality is, I’m pretty sure no one ever breaks up for such noble reasons. People break up because they think they can do better. They have finally realized that they’re girlfriend or boyfriend rates below them on the scale, and it’s making them look bad.* And we instinctively know it, don’t we? When someone breaks up with us, it makes us feel worthless. We feel like we’ve been objectified and determined to be an object without value. Sadly, it’s likely true. But I suppose there’s comfort to be taken in the fact that “It’s not you, it’s me” really is true -- it’s the one doing the breaking that is shallow enough to think such thoughts.

And this is why I’m embarrassed to admit that I signed up for a stupid dating site. I don’t think I could ever bring myself to actually date a girl from a dating site. I instantly think, “people WILL ask how we met, and I’ll either have to lie or admit that we met on an online dating site and they’ll immediately assume that I was desperate and couldn’t get girls.” I’d much rather them look at my wife and go “wow! dude!” and then give me a high five. That would stroke my ego a bit more.

Who we date and who we marry says a lot about us. And for the most part, I think is says that we human beings are awful, shallow, petty, boastful creatures. Again, I come to the conclusion that we are unable to truly love one another, no matter how desperately we may try.

You do not love an object.

And the harsher reality is that boasting influences far more of our lives than just who we mate with. When I wake up in the morning, I eat breakfast because I am hungry. Then I shower. Do I shower in order to be sanitary? Or do I shower so that people will know that I am not gross? And why is not showering gross? In most of Europe, people shower once a week. Weekly showers are all that’s really necessary...but in America, we shower daily because of shampoo ads. Decades ago, shampoo companies started marketing campaigns suggesting that people shower more so that they could sell more shampoo. You can have better looking hair when it’s clean, you see.

Next I put on my clothes. Now, why on earth would I need more than a few pairs of clothing? Sure, I need different clothes for different occasions, and I need something to wear while other clothes are being cleaned...but I imagine I wouldn’t look very cool if I wore the same one t-shirt every day. And looking cool is awfully important to me. And there are people who buy more and more clothing of increasing value in order to look more and more posh. That way, they don’t have to SAY, “I have great taste.” They can SHOW you that they have really great taste. They are wordlessly boasting.

Boasting informs far more of your decisions that I think you realize. I know it informs almost every single decision I make. We are prideful beings. And furthermore, we are fearful creatures. We’re scared that people will discover how wretched we really are. Boasting hides that. Boasting, as it turns out, isn’t rooted in pride nearly as much as it’s rooted in fear.

And how sad is it that you initially chose (or will choose) who to spend the rest of your life with in part because you were trying to boast?

We’re incapable of loving, because we’re incapable of making even the most important decisions without asking that demon called Boasting what his opinion on the matter is. How does one even stop doing that? Certainly not by writing a blog on the subject -- I’ll let you in on a secret. Posting a blog on anything is a big, loud, obnoxious, bragging yell out into an endless sea of faceless people you’d like to impress.

Maybe go hang out with someone you’re not trying to impress. Start praying in closets, and don’t tell anyone that you’re doing it. Stop showering. Stop buying clothes. And when people ask you why you smell bad and dress poorly, just shrug and say “sorry.” Although, if you do that, you’ll be doing it alone, cause I don’t want anybody to think I’m some kind of weirdo living out in the wilderness eating locusts and honey.

I suppose you could always just enter into an arranged marriage...but honestly, I think that too would only be entered into (in “civilized” Western culture) as a way to boast about how virtuous and unshallow** you are.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh?

And of course, I don’t suggest that you go off and marry the fat, ugly, annoying girl from the illustration. Just...know that love doesn’t boast. Love is patient and kind and all of those other things. Love listens to God. And yeah...I do think there’s at least one person in all of human history who chose his wife for non-boastful reasons. Hosea. And, sadly, I’m pretty sure the last thing any of us want is to end up like that guy.

*I realize that there are other possible reasons for breaking up, but this is a pretty major one, and it suits the point I’m trying to make best.

** Yes, I know unshallow isn’t a word, but it gets the point across better than “deep” does.

Two Friends (Part 3): Mad Mix again

I am a shitty guardian angel.

A friend of mine died today. We can argue all day about responsibility and whether or not there was anything I could do to have stopped this. I've forgotten what fake name I made up for him last time, so I'll just use his real name...he wouldn't have objected. Brandon, as I think I said before, was addicted to pills. He was also horribly depressed. I still haven't heard whether they think it was accidental or a suicide, but he overdosed this morning.

Canada -- I wouldn't expect this entry to be edited. I also wouldn't expect it to be very focused.

About seven or eight months ago, I was introduced to a woman. She'd had a hard life and had been treated badly by her former husband. I reached out, with mixed innocence. I helped her. I talked to her about God, Jesus, the church -- all these things she already knew about, but had slipped her mind as things got worse and worse around her. And I loved her...not in the romantic way, but in the agape way -- granted, in such a miniscule variation that only a heretic could call it Jesus-like. I listened. I talked her through a few difficult situations, and I like to think that I was a blessing for a while there. And then, I screwed it all up. My own desires (desires for her...or if you want to talk philosophically -- some sort of screwed up, sinful desire to fill some sort of void in myself with Hollywood-ized romance) got in the way of actually loving another human being in a self-sacrificial way. Love became want, and wanting ends in hurt. I unravelled her.

Less than a week after the implosion, Brandon called me -- out of the blue. We prayed on the phone together for almost an hour. I admitted to him the kind of screwed up, out-of-whack, adulterer I had become and suddenly a bond formed that had never been there in all the years we'd known each other and talked about movies, work at Olive Garden, and whether or not the movie K-Pax sucks.

This man, older and more accomplished than I am, looked up to me. We started praying together often. He would tell me about his troubles and I would pray for him. I would pray for him.

I prayed for him.

I prayed blessings on him. I prayed that things would get better. I prayed that God would help him with his addictions. I prayed that his money issues would get better. I prayed that his work situation would improve. I prayed that his love life would improve. And I prayed that even if none of those things changed, his outlook would.

I prayed those things. I prayed them every day. And so, so fervently. So why is he dead now? How could he have overdosed? Don't my prayers accomplish anything?

My friend Canada says that he's stopped praying "that God's will be done." Because he thinks it's stupid. He prays for specific things and crosses his fingers that that also happens to be what God wants. I don't remember whether I prayed that God's will be done in Brandon's life. If I didn't, should I have? And if I did, was that stupid and I should have prayed for a long healthy, happy life for my friend?

My friend is dead. I feel like writing that sentence over and over down the page so that the weight of it will be clear, but the fact of the matter is -- whenever I hear that someone has died who I didn't really know that well, or care that much for, I simply pause for effect and say something to the extent of, "wow...that's really horrible." I then wish to move on to another subject, but I know I should wait long enough to pay the proper respect and not come off like some unfeeling sociopath. You don't know him, so all my words fail to convey the proper weight. I'd do better to write a screenplay about a wonderful, charming, funny character and then kill them off midway through the finale -- right when it seems like they're getting better. At least then it would be a character you've grown to love and care about.

But at least you could rewind the movie.

I could have done something about this.

"There's nothing you could have done, Austin. This wasn't your fault," you say.

But there was. Brandon thought of me as his mentor. He thought of me as his guardian angel in a lot of ways. I was helping him. And I hurt right now.

Brandon was my second chance. And maybe that's selfish of me to be thinking that right now, but it's what I'm thinking. After the girl...I was introduced to someone else whom I could help. This time, it was a guy, so romanticy feelings couldn't get in the way. But I still got distracted. I got busy, and I lost touch slowly over the last few weeks.

A few weeks ago I went over and recorded a few acting bits his newest album. He wanted me to play his psychiatrist...lecturing him mildly for his abuse of pills, and trying to help him clean up. I was really excited to help. I really loved that guy. Or do you say love -- in the present tense -- even after someone is gone?

I honestly don't know what to say. The writer in me is frustrated that this doesn't all tie up neatly to make an interesting point or provide some poignant reflection on something stupid. "How my life has improved and I have become wiser following the death of a screw up."

I'm mad at myself for spending so much time talking about myself instead of making the story about him. I'm also mad at myself for forcing myself not to make this a list of Brandon's 1001 amazing qualities because I feel like that would be cliche.

Brandon was a better man than a large percentage of the people I know. He was a better Christian than 90% of the Christians I know. He's literally one of the best rappers I've ever had the privilege to hear. He's one of the most honest people I've ever met.

And I feel like I could have prevented this, and didn't...even though I know that's a cliche thing to say.

On Love (Part 9): Love Always Trusts

Love always trusts. I’ve heard that this means you should always trust your significant other. This kinda makes me want to punch people...and their significant other, just for good measure.

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

In Paul’s little list of “what love is and isn’t” there’s a few articles at the end that don’t make any sense. One is “love always trusts.” But what does love trust? A lot of Bibles translate this as “Love trusts God always.” But if Paul had meant that, why wouldn’t he have just said that? He leaves it so much broader than that. Am I supposed to trust everyone and everything? That seems...dangerous is probably the most accurate word.

Furthermore, “always” is a pretty strong word. It’s easy, for example, to trust your husband or wife not to murder you in your sleep. It’s a little harder to trust them not to cheat on you. It’s even a bit harder to trust them to not hurt you deeply. And then we start talking about people we don’t quite know as well as our husband or wife. Is it easy, women, to trust the man lurking in the alleyway who begins to follow you as you pass by? Is Paul asking us to trust in this way?

And it makes me wonder...where does sin begin? What is the root cause of sinful behavior? What causes a person to sin? I’ve heard it explained so many ways...among them, a lack of trust in God. God will take care of us, we know this, and yet, we behave as if it isn’t true. Because we cannot trust...at least not fully. Even with a husband or wife, it is phenomenally difficult. With an invisible deity that 16% of the world’s population believes is about as real as the tooth fairy, it becomes even harder.

I’m coming to the conclusion lately that trust and desire are closely tied together. I’ve already explained that I believe that it is wrong (sinful) to want what you do not have -- I believe (for now) that this is true in every single instance. If I want food but none is provided for me, I am wrong, and my next course of action -- if devoted to acquiring food -- will be a sin of commission. This goes on and on to anything I could want. I want privacy, but my roommate does not leave -- sin. I want sex but am not married -- sin. I want fame, but am not famous -- sin. And every attempt to get that which one does not possess and is not being provided is sinful. That is what I believe. Of course, this means I go on sinning at least three times per second and am possibly the greatest hypocrite you know...but I believe it all the same.

But why is coveting sinful? Why am I forbidden daydreaming about the things I believe will make me happy?

I have a few theories...none especially solid, but all interesting (at least to me):

The first is that the desire of something one does not have causes us to do harm to others. If I want something that does not belong to me, the implication is that it must belong to someone else and the only way to acquire it would be to take it, either by force or coercion. Either way, we hurt others in the process...except where the item becomes provided for us immediately after the wanting of it.

The second is that this mental attitude assumes that things can provide happiness -- that happiness is external and joy is brought about through the acquisition of goods. I can’t think of a more harmful attitude to have. The feeling only lasts a short time before it dissipates and we are left assuming that something else must be the thing that will bring us lasting happiness.

The third is that it displays a lack of trust. If I trust that God will take care of me, then I need nothing more than what is provided for me. If I trust all of humanity, then I have no need of items to protect myself and my possessions. I am left naked, possessionless and perfectly content to be that way -- it sounds a bit like the Garden of Eden, in fact.

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

There’s this guy named William Roberts. You may not have heard of him before. He does research within an extremely narrow field that doesn’t really seem to apply to much of anything -- how animals perceive time. Furthermore, he’s frequently attacked on the basis that it’s extremely difficult to prove any of his hypotheses without stepping into the mind of an animal.

But to over simplify Robert’s years and years of research -- the answer to the question is: animals do not perceive time. They live in the present and have no concept of the past or the future. So you say, “but then how do dogs learn how to do tricks? That proves that they can remember.” Well, no, not really, because there are two types of memory: episodic memory and semantic memory. To explain: you remember how to walk, but I seriously doubt you remember the day you walked for the first time. You remember how to talk, but you can’t recall in vivid detail the day you spoke your first sentence. This is semantic memory at work. You remember how to do something, you remember the stimuli, but as such a young child, your episodic memory isn’t quite working yet.

Episodic memory allows me to remember what I had for breakfast. It allows me to recall a progression of events -- breakfast happened before lunch, both of which happened after I woke up this morning. The theory is that animals have no such ability. They exist in the now. They carpe the diem every single diem because they have no concept of saving anything until tomorrow and they have no concept of what happened yesterday.

Now, this research is pretty controversial, with tons of people pointing out alternative theories that Robert’s hasn’t taken into account. The biggest arguments are generally for animals like dogs, cats, dolphins...the smarter animals, and the ones with more “personality.” Robert’s counterpoint, of course, is that people merely anthropomorphize their pets, projecting human-like personalities and cognitive abilities onto their “friends.”

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

It’s interesting to me that the first sin was the biting into the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before we sinned, we had no concept of what sinning was. We had no concept of what it meant to defy God. We were naked, possessionless and blissfully ignorant.

It was the act of learning the difference between right and wrong that signified the leap into wickedness. And on top of that, it was Adam and Eve’s lack of trust in God to take the very best care of them.

People are starving in this world. Extremely conservative estimates suggest that the Earth can support a population of 16 billion people. The current population is 6.6 billion, and yet 13% of the world does not have enough food to eat. There is more than enough food for everyone...the problem is those of us who hoard food, to make sure we have enough to survive tomorrow, causes others in the world to not have enough today.

It occurs to me that Jesus’s parable about the man who stores up all his wealth in a barn is not just about hoarding vast amounts of wealth. It’s not just evil to swim through your money bin like Scrooge McDuck, it’s also evil to save a penny -- taking more than you need betrays a lack of trust. Perhaps I’m too much of a purist. Perhaps I’m irrational. My mother tells me it’s important to have a certain amount of money saved up in the case of an emergency. She wants the best for me, and she only tells me this to teach me to be responsible with money and to protect myself as best I can from danger. She loves me and doesn’t want to see me get hurt. But she is an American. She has lived too long in this country and has been, in my flawed, egotistical opinion, become sucked into the debauchery and the me-first attitude of commercialism.

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

The funny thing about William Roberts’ research is that he did this little study with gorillas. When offered the choice of one banana or two bananas the gorillas chose two bananas. When offered two bananas or three bananas, they chose the larger number...up to a point.

When offered ten bananas or twenty bananas, the animals chose ten bananas. More would be beyond their needs. Without any comprehension of the past or the future, the gorillas have no need to save up bananas to eat later. And yet...in the wild, bananas are always provided for the gorillas.

You say, well, what if there’s a drought, and the bananas do not grow? If the apes were as smart as we humans, they could protect themselves from such things. Yeah, maybe...but you can’t protect yourself from everything. You will die eventually...and whatever way it happens, it will probably be painful and terrifying. The apes, unlike you, are not afraid to die.

And so, I wonder if it is, in fact, our human ability to mentally time travel that causes us to sin. We can comprehend the future, and it is this comprehension of the future that urges us to cheat, lie, and steal to get ahead. I wonder if the “knowledge of good and evil” that the fruit provided was simply the ability to form episodic memories.

Jesus says “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?...So do not worry for tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry for itself.”

It’s beyond your control anyway. So why not just trust. I have a feeling we’d all be happier that way. And I’m pretty sure love is impossible without trust.

Only, I’m pretty sure it’s impossible for someone like me to always trust. Oh, curse that Paul and his impossible standards. I suppose if we want to actively love those around us, one of the things we should be striving for it an animalistic mentality...blissfully unaware of the pains and pleasures of our past and the worries of the future.

The Tao of Stitch

I'm lost.

There's this stupid Christian thing we do, where we admit to being lost one time and from then on we become "found." It's the act of admitting that we're lost that causes us to be found. It's the act of humility which gives us something to be proud of ourselves for.

I was listening to a Rob Bell sermon explaining that the beatitudes aren't something we're supposed to strive to achieve. When Jesus says "blessed are the poor in spirit," he isn't saying that we should all try to become poor in spirit. Poor in spirit means morally corrupt. It's not a good thing to be. And yet...they are blessed. Because God loves us and we're his family. Even if we're morally corrupt. Even if we're heroin addicts, child molesters, Klan members or Adolf Hitler...we are still blessed.

One of my favorite movies is Lilo and Stitch. It's a great little movie about a mad scientist who creates a monster that it purely evil and destructive. But the monster escapes and meets a little Hawaiian girl. He destroys everything in sight, but is lulled by the story of the ugly duckling. In the book, the duckling goes off alone and says, "I'm lost." Then, it's family shows up and the ugly duckling, as we all know, is shown to be a beautiful swan.

So, during the "All is Lost" section of the movie, the monster goes out alone into the middle of the woods and shouts, "I'm lost," out into the night. Waiting for his family to show up and reveal that he is wonderful after all.

And of course, it is after he screams out into the woods that he discovers that he isn't entirely wicked...that there is some goodness in him, and that he does have family. Lilo and her sister love him and they have become his family.

So this is how it works in Christianity. We tell our Christian friends that we are lost so that they will pat us on the head. We're even asked to walk down the aisle and make this statement in front of strangers in order to prove that we mean it. It seems to me like Lilo and Stitch is almost this phenomenal representation of Christianity. I'm this monster, created by a mad scientist for one purpose -- evil. I am designed to destroy, to tear down what is beautiful, to make all the girls cry and pillage and thump my chest with pride at what a good job I did watching the world burn. But I still want to be loved, even though I am a monster.

According to Rob Bell, Jesus stated that he loves me even though I am a monster, no matter how horrible and wicked of a monster I am. And that love is not dependent on anything. And yet, we feel the need to run out into the woods and announce that we're lost, as if that accomplishes anything. As if God loves us more for being humble. And as if he can't see through that false humility that's just designed to make him love us more. I can shout it out into the night. I can scream it out at the top of my lungs until my vocal chords bleed and it doesn't make me any more found.

And still I feel the need to say it.

I am lost. I have no answers. I have lived me life the opposite way I should. I have way more in common with Adolf Hitler or Sid Vicious than Jesus. I'm a monster. I am evil and I destroy everything that I touch. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, and you only tell me that I am wonderful so that you can believe that you are wonderful too.

But we are lost.

We are both lost.

I am lost.

I am sitting in the middle of the woods, holding "The Ugly Duckling" in my lap and crying. I scream at the top of my lungs that I am lost. But the only thing that happens is a mad scientist shows up and tells me that I was created for evil and that I am unlovable.