Uggos And How To Love

Here's my latest installment of thought based on Donald Miller's book Searching For God Knows What.

The topic, you might ask? The personality of Jesus (part one, as I am not finished reading the whole chapter on it) and how He showed His love to people.

As I was reading this section, I had figured out what Miller was going to say (at least this first bit) many years prior, due to some note in Scripture, but not the "why" of it all. This probably seems confusing now, but it'll make sense in a bit.

Anyway, the first thing (well, first thing that I have thoughts on) that Miller notes about Jesus is that He was ugly. Jesus was what we might call these days an "Uggo" - an ugly person (strong emphasis on ugly). Perhaps not to the degree where people might run in terror if they saw his face (not that I've EVER known ANYONE to do such a thing), but Jesus was certainly not an attractive man.

When we were little, Sunday school would teach us about Jesus in ways that made Him seem attractive: piercing eyes that would pull in people with His gaze, a perfect face and jawline that just oozed confidence and prowess, things of that nature. The Mel Gibson rendition of Jesus in The Passion of The Christ was a beautiful James Caviezel. Miller even notes this in quoting Gibson's statement that he "wanted the actor who played Jesus to be beautiful."

But Jesus was none of these things! Take a look at Isaiah 53:2-3 here...

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
Nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men,
A man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
He was despised, and we esteemed him not.

This was prophecy speaking about our Lord! So why have we bought into the handsome renditions of Christ? I think it's a problem, folks. It shows, as Miller puts it, and as I agree, that we as humans value beauty entirely too much. Outward beauty, mind you. Physical beauty - not "spiritual" beauty (spiritual in quotes will be discussed briefly at the end). Sure, Jesus was the most beautiful man ever alive, "spiritually". But He was never once considered an attractive man physically.

Miller even goes to criticize Christians for thinking that Jesus' "uggo-ness" is attributed as a symbol of His humility. Here's the issue with that thinking: why should un-attraction be considered a humble position? It's EXACTLY what's wrong with this picture! We value physical beauty to the point where people who aren't attractive (insert shameless self-plug here) aren't considered worthy of attention or even able to hold a proud position in life. At least, that's what this sort of thinking implies. Miller even notes this horrible human fallacy in criminology.

In the book, Miller speaks of a study of some 74 ish (I don't recall the number exactly) criminal cases where a "jury of peers" judged the physical attraction of the criminals. They then took these results and compared them to who got what degree of sentencing (note here that I'm sure the study was done all on charges that would incite the same, or very similar sentences - aka all murder trials or something like that). You know what the study showed? That the attractive criminals got a lesser sentencing while the unattractive ones got the low end of the stick. My friends, this should not be!

BAH! Anyway, abrupt change of topic....NOW!

The next section that Miller writes on is that Jesus loved to be with people. Specifically the part I wish to focus on is the latter half of this section, where Miller describes how Jesus showed His love to people, and why they led successful lives after meeting with Him.

First off, a quick note to those who might not know (which hopefully is very few) that I LOVE about Jesus is that He was friends with the worst of the worst. The sinners that would make Hitler look like a saint. He didn't just hang out with these people, either. He was their friend. He loved these people. Mark 2:17 says it this way: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Amazing.

Okay, back on topic here. Miller describes what I just have in slightly different terms, but the most endearing thing he talks about is how Jesus showed His love and made these people successful. The "formula", if you'd like to call it that, is simple. He would look them in the eyes and tell them that He loved them. BLAM! This small gesture of affection and care would completely blow people away. To think that a man who is hated by all the "pious, righteous Pharisees" loves me, a sinner - a downright dirty person with no hope of coming clean. He loves ME! He thinks I'm worth something. He thinks I'm beautiful!!

Oh, how I long to be so steadfast. I would honestly love to be able to do that with all my friends, with all my enemies, with everyone. I would love to look you, yes you, in the eyes and honestly say without a doubt that I love you and I think you're beautiful. But today's society has brainwashed us into thinking that people who do that are liars and really just want something from you. If I, being a guy, were to do that to a female friend of mine, one of three or so thoughts could arise. 1) They would think I really romantically love them and desire more than friendship, 2) they would think I've lost my mind and/or faith, thinking I want sex or something of that nature, or 3) they'd realize I mean it the way I intend, but still be confused by it. The third would probably happen maybe one out of every 10 times (assuming I did it ten times). If I were to say that to a guy, they'd probably say I'm gay. But I digress.

The point is, we should be striving to show that we love people, and nothing more. The two NT commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. So why aren't we showing it? Jesus never hid His love for people, so we shouldn't either. Miller notes a couple famous people (Maya Angelou and some other female author who's name I can't quite recall off-hand) who "blame" their success as writers and as people on the love of their parents. The latter author, when asked in an interview what makes her writing so good, replied by saying that she is a good writer because, when she was little, she would walk into her father's study and he would look up with his face bright, smiling warmly and letting his little girl know she was loved. Maya Angelou was asked the same question basically. She was one day walking with her mother - some years after a horrible incident that led to little Maya not talking - when her mother stopped, looked little Maya right in the eyes and confessed how terribly proud she was to be her mother, and that Maya was one of the greatest women she had ever known.

These are real-life examples of how a visible sign of love can lead to great things, and hopefully will encourage us to do the same.

Now, as pertaining to the whole "spiritual" thing. There's a band I listen to called Confide, and they post little thoughts like I do, on a much smaller scale, on myspace. Their latest was regarding this spiritual deal. I'll just quote it, because it pretty much explains itself. I do, however, think they're correct.

Take a look at this conversation between two believers and tell me whats wrong.

"Hey man how are you doing?"

"I'm great thanks!"

"Awesome. So hows work and school going?"

"Pretty good. Same thing everyday you know? Nothing new really."

"Hows your friends and family doing?"

"There doing great! I've been able to spend a lot of time with my family even though I'm always busy."

"Cool. So hey hows your spiritual life going?"

"Its good man!"


Looks pretty normal right?

In the Hebrew language there is no word for "Spiritual." If you were to say to Jesus. Hey how is your spiritual life? His response would be something like "What.. what do you mean?" To label one area spiritual is to label other areas not spiritual. That concept is absolutely foreign to the scriptures.

So back to our little conversation here. The last line as harmless as it seems suggests there is a spiritual life and non spiritual life to all of us. That we as humans have the ability to turn it on and off when we want to. As if it was our choice.

God created us as spiritual beings. The question isn't if we are spiritual or not. The question is are our eyes open to it at all times. Now yes God does give us the freewill to live our lives the way we choose. But we encourage you this week to open your eyes to see that there is so much more to your life than the daily run around.

Pretty amazing, deep thoughts.

Anyway, I hope I don't bore you to pieces with my random thinking and sporadic writing style. Hopefully I'll have some new songs written sometime soon, I'm just waiting for God to inspire me!

God bless, and thanks for stickin' around!

~@

Why We Wear Clothes

I have been reading again. Same book as before (look below) by Donald Miller. Y'know, I've been told that this book in particular kinda sucked, but I really like it so far. It's not so much enjoyable as it is informative and thought-provoking, which is why, I think, I've heard such things.

Simply put, I think a lot of people don't enjoy having their minds prodded, or something that requires thinking for pleasure. They just want gratification. Instant gratification.

Anyway, back to topic. This time, I've been thinking about some questions Miller poses and answers from his ideas; I've also been formulating my own questions and specificly-aimed thoughts, but those are on a one-to-one basis, and I will therefore not place them within this blog. (but you can ask if you think you're someone I think about)

The first question is this: why do we, as humans, wear clothes?
It's quite a good question, really. We're the only animal species who wears clothes. Nudist colonies have proven that they aren't required for survival (also the Garden. duh), so why? Many people's answers will boil down ultimately to shame:

"Because we're naked." Why does that matter?
"Because it's gross to be naked." Says who?
"I dunno. It's just frowned upon." But why is it frowned upon?
"Because it's shameful." Ah...

Something of that sort, yeah?

So where did this feeling of shame come from? Miller argues that it comes from what he dubs the "lifeboat effect" that was created after the Fall in Genesis 3.

Basically, this lifeboat effect is the human phenomenon of comparison to one another. All the negative feelings and emotions can be derived from this idea: jealousy, pride, hate, racism, you name it. It makes sense, too. If nobody were to compare themselves to someone else, there would be nothing to define jealousy, pride, hatred, etc. All of these negative things stem from the very important fact that we are ever-comparing people.

So why do we do this? Why are we "in the lifeboat"? Miller answers this one pretty simply, too. We, as humans, are validated by some outside source. Oustide meaning not from within our selves, but from some other-ness. If you aren't Christian, this might seem like a load of bull, but if you are, Miller's alluding to (and eventually mentions) that God is who/what is meant to validate us.

Adam and Eve were validated when they were in the Garden: "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Gen. 2:25). Why? Why did they feel no shame? Because God validated them. His glory was without bounds, and flowed freely within and among the couple. Only when they created the separation (Sin) did they feel ashamed of their nakedness.

This is going to seem like a huge leap, but bear with me. After contemplating all that whole "God's glory defines us" thing, I slowly started moving on through the book and my mind. The next thing that I wanted to digest fully is the concept of being liked.

This goes again back to that comparison principle. I'm almost 100% sure that every cognitive-capable human being has a will and desire to be liked, loved, wanted, needed, etc. Why is that? God, in the Garden, had given Adam and Eve that otherworldly love that required nothing more than God Himself. After that flow was severed, the need was still there, only what once was given to humanity (perfect love) had left quite a hole to fill that no human (imperfect) love ever can fill.

So we've established that everybody wants this feeling of being wanted/needed/loved/liked/what-have-you. Now, if you applied that principle to what in all we do as humans - and I do mean EVERYTHING we do - the whole thing starts to sort of make sense.

Here's an example of my life: I like to write. I specifically like to write lyrics and poetry and deep-thought works. I'm giving my secret away here, but here goes. I claim that I write for no one but myself and God. That's somewhat true. But if you look further into both claims, you'll see that when I say I write for myself, I write so I can feel validated by what others think of my work. When I say I write for God, I am writing in hopes that God will read what I write and bless me for it, hopefully with validation.

Does that make sense? It should.

Anyway, after contemplating all this stuff, my mind moved towards marriage - mostly for two reasons. The first being that I just wrote a paper on marriage and finances earlier today, and the second being that I'm apparently obsessed with the idea of romantic-type love. So yeah, now that you know I'm a lunatic, let's continue.

Why do we have marriage? This question is a bit more difficult to tackle, and Miller never mentioned this, or an answer of any sort, so I have no real starting point. The only thing I can think of is the need for validation and definition. After all, after you get married, everything changes. You're no longer Ms. Stevenson, you're Mrs. Rogers (no real-life comparison intended). As a guy, you're no longer single and a virgin; you are a taken man who's experienced sex (which evidently is a huge thing for men - not so much nowadays, but in the past I guess it was).

True, God made Eve as a companion for Adam, but notice that they were not married. Nowhere in the creation story does it say that Adam and Eve were married, at least not before the fall. Why is that? Was there a need for marriage before Sin was introduced? I don't think so. I think that, despite the fact that I'm sure the couple loved one another (Adam was blown away by the beauty of Eve, etc. etc. - I'll touch on this before I close this entry), they had no need for a formal institution of marriage. They could have sex, procreate, enjoy each other, and cohabitate because God made it perfect that way. It's like there was an unspoken bond between the two. There was no room for infidelity, and no desire would have even existed for such a thing in the first place.

Which is why I think there is no such thing as marriage in Heaven. I struggled with that idea for a LOOOOONG time. I always wondered, "what's the point in getting married and making these 'forever vows' if, once you reach true life, you're no longer together?" Well, I think I disproved my own thinking. Here's my belief now. I believe that there will be no marriage in Heaven. But that is because there will be no need. I believe our spouses will still be our "lovers", but the institution and formality of marriage will be stripped away, because God will be there, in all His glory, to form once again that unspoken bond of unity.

Pretty deep stuff, man. Oh, and one last thought, jumping back up a few paragraphs.

Why do we value beauty as a point system for human worth?

That's just something for you to chew on and spit back your results to me. I'd really like to hear them!


Thanks for tuning in, folks. Join me next time my mind decides to wander!

~@

Self Terrorism (song)

I never thought
I was really this weak
Scared to the point of
Cowardice

Tuck your tail between your legs
And run away, run away!
Can't you see?
The light isn't far behind

Hiding in the recesses
Defining all you'll
Never be, never be

You have to stand your ground
Show 'em what you're made of
Put on your game face

Aim for their eyes, man
It's where they fall
Where they fall

Stand your ground
"It's not my time"
Dust yourself off
And learn to live again

© @othern 2009.

Conform This

I just watched a video about conformity and authority for my SOC 101 course.

It was actually very enjoyable, mainly because one of my main goals in this life is to NOT conform. I try to avoid any and all things normal, as you probably have figured out by now.

Anyway, It got me thinking of two things in particular that I'd like to write about before I go back to doing homework (yay personal time).

The first thing I thought about is how conformity relates to my love of art.
You see, art knows no bounds. The purpose of art is expression through creativity. But can creativity even exist in a conforming world? I don't think so. Uniquity is a very rare find these days, and I've tried hard to harvest it whenever possible. This, I think, is what attributes mainly to why I love art in all forms. I love music and writing lyrics because there is no authority there; you can write music however you like. True, many popular musicians DO conform to the "authority" set by the audience. But that's exactly why I dislike a lot of music. I can almost guarantee that if I don't like a musician or style of music, it's because it's reminiscent of conformity.

This is also why I love the art of screaming and intense vocals so much too. Granted, it's growing in popularity, but for so long it was considered to be "against the grain" - counter-cultural. But I love it! I love going against the grain, doing the unthinkable, breaking the rules established by popular vote.

I could really ramble on about music and art and stuff like that, but I really do need to get some work done today, so I'll move on.

The second thing that came to mind was this idea I've had since my first day at West campus. If any of you have been to ASU's West campus, there's a courtyard in the middle of what is known as the SANDS building, complete with the Kiva Lecture hall on the other end. In the middle of said courtyard is a water feature with tiles that make it look a LOT like a mini-swimming pool.

Ever since I've seen that, I've told myself that I really want to go to school one day in swimming trunks, sit down in the water, and eat lunch. There are no signs that indicate you cannot do this, but I reckon that's so because it's illogical to get wet during school hours. Not to mention the mere fact that it's a huge research facility, all business-like, and any fun to be had in such a place is kept secret for fear of ruining the atmosphere.

I had also heard about various studies regarding sociological experiments, including the one where 2-6 people all stand in an odd group looking up at nothing, and having someone record who else may join in passing. It's a classic conformity experiment, and I'd like to re-enact it, only with the mini-pool. I'd like to stage a water lunch.

If anyone else who attends ASU-West would like to join me one day, just to see what happens, let me know. The worst that could happen is the ASU Police are called and we get told by the "authorities that be" to get out because it's against "the rules" (which are nowhere plainly stated, so technically it's not illegal).

Anyways, that's my fun little rant for the day. Enjoy, and share your thoughts!

~@

The Line of Promise

I've been at it again. Reading. Music. Movies. Thinking.

Recent reading has been largely focused on Donald Miller's book Searching For God Knows What. It's not his best work (coming from the guy who's only read one other of Miller's books...), but it's very intriguing. He likes to ramble a bit on personal stories and then correlate them to his ideas of how Scripture really talks.

My most recent read, literally not even 30 minutes ago, has been about the social stratum - more specifically how we as humans are prone and doomed to comparison amongst one another. Taking real-life examples from his days in middle school, Miller begins to show just how ugly this comparing has become - he even likens it to lining up students from best to worst, with a punishment to be enacted against those in the "worst" portion, and how the kids in line would treat each other just to get ahead. It's just plain selfish.

But he finishes off that particular section with a sliver of hope. He talks about a girl he knew who once did the inevitable. Here's the line that really stood out to me: "A valuable person had crossed the line to kiss a person of no value." You see, this girl (a higher-up-on-the-stratum girl) had accepted a dare to kiss a geeky boy, notorious for a lunchtime romp of DnD.

I haven't quite gotten to his Scriptural comparison yet, but I started thinking (dangerous, I know) how that quote fits. Jesus did exactly that all the time. Obviously, it wasn't on a dare - it was sincere. And it wasn't necessarily a kiss. No, it was a proposal. You see, Christ is a groom, and we are His bride. He came down, crossed the line of humanity and gave us hope with a kiss - er, proposal. Quite a stunning revelation, in my opinion.

Of course, thinking of kisses, I move on to thinking about girls, but that's a whole 'nother story. You can ask me, though, if you'd like. It's always fun to hear people's opinions of me and my ways when it comes to the ladies. It's like I'm a rare find or something (sarcasm included).

Anyway, there's just a taste of my thought processes. In other news, I recently found this video on youtube, and am now an avid fan of Jared Leto's music.



I know he's an actor, but damn. That's one hell of a voice. One hell of a show, too. I'd pay good money to see a show if all that were included. It was like a musical number from a broadway show, only with better music ;P I even enjoyed that video enough to finally get their album (and consequently discover they have a new one on the way). I had always liked "The Kill", and had heard a couple other songs from this album, but never really wanted to get it.

But yeah. Oh, right. Movies.

Well, I guess the video kinda plays for both music AND movies, but just for customer satisfaction (ha) I'll actually give movies it's own paragraph. There are three movies I'd like to briefly mention. The first is the latest movie I've seen, House Bunny. It sucked. Okay, it was decently funny, but DEFINITELY not a keeper. Moving on, we have my recent re-discovery of one of my all-time favorite children's movies Little Nemo. This movie is OFF THE HOOK. Seriously. I watched this movie like a million times when I was little, and recently found it again. It's on my desktop right now. Okay, last movie: Slumdog Millionaire. I was skeptical at first. I was pissed mainly because it beat out Benjamin Button in the AA's. I loved Benjamin Button a LOT. But I figured "hey, best movie of the year. Might as well watch it and review it." It's now one of my favorite movies ever. It's right next to Benjamin Button, with the exception that I think BB should've won the best cinematography, but I digress. At heart, Slumdog Millionaire is a great love story. 'Nuff said.

Okay, I'm gonna go do other non-productive things now. Enjoy your life! And as always, talk to me! I'm not a hermit, even though I act like it.

~@