tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39327588843807989232024-03-15T09:46:59.690-07:00Holiness, Not PerfectionMusings and observations of the spiritual seeker kind.Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.comBlogger294125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-52236073934781656702024-01-28T14:06:00.000-08:002024-01-28T14:06:34.123-08:00Previous Reasons for my Faith<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Always be ready to give an account for the reason of your faith.</span></p><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I doubted off and on many times, for many years. I tried to uncover the truth on my own. I leaned on my own understanding. It led me to propositions that would end in confusion, contradiction, and despair.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I realized that many of those who question the Gospel likewise are not persuaded by scientific facts or reality (abortion, binary gender), so there's no reason to use their tactics in approaching truth, as they have been proven to be faulty.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Others who doubt the faith nonetheless do not live by any alternative that would be convincing to it's efficacy: they lack inner peace & joy; they're anxious about many things. What good would it do me to follow in their footsteps? We could wallow together in misery, but why if there's a better way?</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I decided that I - and everyone for that matter - want to be happy. So I began to reflect on what brings lasting happiness. It's not material goods. It's not prestige. It's not control or power. It's not even perfect health and creature comforts. All these things come and go.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">But when I considered the approach provided by the gospel of Jesus, it all fell into place. God made me for a specific purpose: to know, love, and serve Him, *so that* I can spend eternity in heaven with Him. In other words, God's purpose for my life is my lasting happiness!</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The way to this happiness is through discerning and abiding by natural laws and principles that are outlined in the Bible, specifically in the Gospels (especially the Beatitudes and the entire Sermon on the Mount) and Proverbs and the 10 Commandments. These have been tried and true. Those who do not follow these do not experience lasting joy and peace.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I also discovered that faith is both a grace and a choice. If I consciously choose to believe and ignore the temptations of the world (to trust my own intellect, for instance), then God will reward me with a strengthened and ongoing faith. Therefore I choose to believe in the Nicene Creed. Since I say this is a choice, no appeal to my pride will shake my faith because it isn't based on my own understanding. It is based on grace and will.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Having a certain faith has proven to be especially grounding and centering as our society - both culture and politics - has continued to deteriorate into utter chaos. In this environment, if one doesn't stand for something - something solid and everlasting - then one will fall for anything, and any number of things.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I thank God for my autistic brain, which does not allow me to tolerate nonsense. Things must make sense to me for me to accept them, and in a Catholic-Christian world-view, they do. The world makes sense. The chaos makes sense. The desires of my heart make sense. The trials we face make sense. And if all these things line up, I'd be a fool to refuse to extend this sense-making to the belief in eternal life, salvation, and heaven with God.</div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br aria-hidden="true" /></div><div dir="auto" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #242424; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web (West European)", "Segoe UI", -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 13.3333px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I believe because it makes me happy. I believe because the alternative is utter despair. I believe because I choose to believe, and in turn, God blesses me with faith. I believe because it makes better sense than not believing. Amen.</div>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-38763477794702588472023-12-01T20:04:00.000-08:002023-12-01T20:04:51.134-08:00What if the Transgender Movement is just what our society needs right now?<p>I identify with my biological sex. My gender identity is the same as my biological sex. That happens to be what's considered normal in the place and time I live. I also come from another culture, which has given me insight into "doing femininity" in a variety of ways. I don't feel constrained by strict gendered stereotypes. It doesn't phase me to have been a tomboy, or to read that my autistic brain is more "masculine". These things don't cause me to question my femaleness nor my femininity. I believe I am feminine enough. I do not do feminine things that make me uncomfortable. Like high heels or waxing body hair. </p><p>But there is another aspect of myself that I do not identify with nearly as strongly as seems to be traditionally expected of me: my marital status. I grew up hearing (and resisting) that once married, "two become one" essentially means "both become him". I did not drop my "maiden" name. </p><p>In fact, I doubled down and used the opportunity to switch from my father's to my mother's surname. And my husband and I arranged to both hyphenate each other's names. So while I did add his to mine, he likewise added mine to his. What's more, I have never felt comfortable using the social title "Mrs." I simply saw no reason why my marital status should affect any social interaction I have with anyone. </p><p>It caused me great anguish every time I was referred to not only by my husband's surname, but by his first name as well. I once pointed this out to a lady who pointed to the "Mrs." on an envelope with what was supposed to be both our names and said "there you are". (I have used "Ms" before and after getting married.)</p><p>So maybe this is what it's like to be transgender. Maybe a trans person simply does not put as much weight on their biological sex or level of masculinity/femininity. Maybe a trans person doesn't think their adherence to sex stereotypes or gender roles (or lack thereof) should determine how they interact with the world around them. Maybe their identity is much more basic, more generic, more universally human?</p><p>I was once "misgendered" when a boy in my middle school math class called me an "it" on account of my not being particularly stereotypically feminine. I was offended by this, and I assumed everyone would be offended by being referred to by a non-gendered pronoun (like "it" or "they"). But I was assuming everyone identified as strongly with their sex and gender as I do. What if other people experience the world differently from us? What if other people place more or less value on things than we do? What if we're having a mass knee-jerk reaction to the transgender community becoming more vocal and assertive on account of our own insecurities?</p><p>I remember discerning where I fell on the same-sex marriage issue before Obama made it legal nation-wide. I listened to the conservative arguments against it, and I simply did not buy it. I did not see how same-sex marriage in any way threatened MY marriage, or heterosexual marriage as an institution. In fact, what I saw as the greatest threat to marriage (of any kind) was two-fold: promiscuity and no-fault divorce. </p><p>When gay people started demanding access to the same family rights as straight people, society could've done one of two things. One - it could've redefined their terminology without compromising their values (while they still had them), saying OK, you can marry, but we're holding firm on no sex before/outside of marriage. Or two - it could've resisted kicking and screaming all the way, forcing gay people into generations of extramarital sexual relations on account of having no other socially acceptable alternative outside of celibacy. And to my Catholic and Orthodox Christian friends I say - celibacy is indeed a calling, but certainly not a simple solution to all of life's problems. There is way too much focus on sexuality in our society. From both sides. Too promiscuous on the secular side, and too prudish on the religious side.</p><p>At any rate, now that trans people are making similar demands as gay people before them, again society has a chance to respond in one of two ways. One - we can redefine terms and continue on our merry way, holding fast to a continued need for both femininity and masculinity in society, without accusing either of toxicity. Or two - we can resist kicking and screaming all the way, forcing trans people to eventuall erode any gendered expression from public life at all.</p><p>Will this happen? I don't know. Could this happen? Why not? If they're going to be told over and over and over again that they do not get to identify as a woman or man because their sex doesn't match their identity, they will do what they need to do to meet their psychological needs. They will go after gendered stereotypes as a whole, eradicating them so that there is no more gendered difference among people, and therefore their personal identities would become a moot point.</p><p>I don't know about ya'll, but I for one want to maintain my freedom to embrace certain feminine stereotyped roles, appearances, presentation. I don't want skirts or makeup to become illegal any more than losing the freedom to choose to stay home to raise my children and not have to worry about being drafted into military service. </p><p>My being a woman, my being a female, my being feminine.... these are not inherently threatened by biological males wanting to present like me, nor by biological females not wanting to present like me. There are already many women (more so than men due to the homophobic stigma against effeminate men until quite recently) who do not identify as trans and yet would be tricky to pick out of a line up as being female, due to their androgenous or even masculine appearance.</p><p>Now, that doesn't mean there aren't certian issues of equality that present a conflict of interest. Women's sports is one thing that comes to mind. Forcing terminology onto people (people with uteruses or ciswomen come to mind). While I may in fact be a person with a uterus, that is not how I identify. To me, my uterus means something. Much like some women's marital status means something more to them than it did to me, and they insist on being referred to as "Mrs." To each their own. I have no problem calling a woman "Mrs." if that's what she wants (I would stop short of ever using a woman's husband's given name to refer to her, though. I just can't.) So if a biological female identifies as a man, I say let him. And then, indeed, this newly expanded definition of "man/him" would in fact mean that new concepts are now possible: menstruating men, pregnant men, lactating men. </p><p>Is it comfortable for me? No. You know what it is? It feels like I'm being robbed. These things used to be uniquely woman's territory. Now they aren't anymore. And that's a loss that we have to grieve societely.</p><p>Dare I compare this to the integration of Black women into the feminist movement? Or the civil rights movement? Black men had been emasculated by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. They were fighting to be Black MEN, to be recognized on an equal footing with white MEN. So for them, to include Black women felt like it was taking away from what they were fighting for. Similarly for white women. White women were trying to establish their equality with white men, who had the right to vote. They wanted to be associated with those who already had privileges and status in society, not with Black women, who had less privileges and status. Both white women and Black men worried about losing their proximity to the desired privileged status of white men, to the detriment of Black women who had to fight both sexism and racism simultaneously.</p><p>Are we biological women doing the same thing now to our fellow trans citizens? Are we afraid of losing our proximity to the privileged status that is still associated with white men in a lot of corners of our country? We don't want to share. There's an element of priding ourselves on our "victim" role as the "second sex" (Simone de Beauvoir). Poor us. We are physically weaker, therefore we need our own sports, locker rooms, bathrooms. Woe is us. We are cursed with menstruation and the reproductive burden, so we want special consideration in other areas of life, since we don't get the respect we deserve for our feminine contributions.</p><p>What if it will be thanks to trans women that all women finally become truly equal? What if it'll be thanks to trans women that there will be no need to physically separate women from men in locker rooms and bathrooms because there will be sufficient infastructure, technology, and peer pressure to simply treat other people with dignity and respect simply for being human, not because they're "the weaker sex"? </p><p>Notice the public debate is not about trans men. No one seems to mind too much that trans men are doing all the same things as trans women. There's an understanding in our society that biological men are still top dog. Therefore, biological men are not threatened by the presence of biological women, and on account of there being a history of women seeking to infiltrate traditional men's spaces (workforce, military, clergy; pants, short hair), trans men in men's spaces isn't met with the same level of resistance as trans women in women's spaces.</p><p>Yes, there are precautions that must be in place. There certainly are biological differences that make it problematic for a male body to be in the vicinity of female bodies under certain circumstances. Maybe that second amendment controversy needs to come to the forefront here. What if every woman armed herself with a handgun and training in how to use it? What if then everyone knew that if you try anything in a women's locker room or bathroom, you will find yourself staring down the barrel of all those women's new besties? What if we step up security in all public spaces to ensure sexual assault is not a temptation? </p><p>What if biological women were to welcome trans women instead of fearing that they're taking something from us? What if we were to take on the role of showing them the ropes? What if we teach them what it means to be a woman, so they don't just get their information off the internet? What if we use our feminine charm and nurturing to help trans women become better women? What if we take on the role of setting the standards and calling the shots, rather than allowing ourselves to be on the defensive? What if we stand firm in our confidence about what it means to be a woman? What if allowing one other "type" of woman into the fold actually strengthened our "cause"? What if it may not be a bad idea to have women with biologically male bodies "on our side", "on the inside"? What if the emergence of transwomen into communities of women is precisely what will finally even the playing field between the binary sexes in society?</p><p>And what if the price we have to pay for that comes in the realm of sports? What if we reenvision sports? What if we stop separating sports by sex and start separating it by weight or size, like in martial arts? What if we have different tiers of runners, say tier A for those who can run up to X speed, and tier B for those who can run above X speed? What if integrating sports between the sexes is what will finally raise women's sports in the consciousness of sports fans everywhere? What if women athletes end up getting paid the same as men because of this integration? </p><p>What if the future can be nothing like what we've previously experienced and everything we can possibly imagine? What if it only takes a little bit of labor pains to iron out the details, but if we're just willing to let go of the past and embrace the future, we can all evolve as human beings?</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-57397976037683961652023-11-28T14:07:00.000-08:002023-11-28T14:07:18.514-08:00What have I lost faith in?<p>Why would someone who WANTS to believe.... not belive? I have always had religions and spirituality as special interests of mine. It has long confused for me what I "ought" to believe on account of my "salvation", which was based on the idea that Truth with a capital T is found in the literal interpretation of religion, and it's only a matter of me figuring out WHICH religion is the actual, true one. What I finally figured out is that there is SOME truth in all the religions, so if I choose to focus on those truths, I get tunnel vision and start to feel convinced that I ought to convert because "I have found the truth!" But after several of such experiences back and forth, taking into consideration the whole of each religion and realizing that none of them are totally true, I finally became OK with the idea and started to imagine what life would be like if indeed none of the religions were true.</p><p>1) So the first reason I've lost my faith (this time around) is that <b>I've given myself permission not to force beliefs onto myself </b>if reason and gut instinct don't let me.</p><p>Simultaneously I have been reading up on Taoism and that world view absolutely resonates with me 100% and there are no doubts at all in my mind regarding what the philosophy teaches. I can observe the world for myself and come up with the exact same conclusions as the Tao Te Ching. I don't need faith. I don't need to put my trust in a book, place of worship, nor prophet to arrive at the truth. I can get there directly myself. </p><p>2) So the second reason I've lost my faith (this time around) is that <b>I've found an alternative world view that actually makes a lot of sense </b>and with which I am very comfortable and have no lingering doubts about.</p><p>In the last couple of years of my spiritual journey, I have tried the usual suggestions of surrounding myself with people of faith and hoping that their faith would rub off on me. I took my family on a church hopping journey to find a church where I felt the people were reverent "enough" for my taste. I sought out spiritual direction and retreat leaders. I sought out Bible studies. None came to fruition. One priest never responded to my inquire about spiritual direction. I met with another twice, but he never followed up with me after I stopped coming without notice. I asked an older friend in the faith to serve as my spiritual mentor, but she discerned that it was not for her to take on such a role. I inquired about doing a Bible study with a new friend and her husband, but after what amounted to a couples date via videochat that must've been a vetting interview, she pushed me to attend her church instead of meeting with us 1:1 to study the Bible together. My husband and I attended for several months a small group of people from one of our previous churches to discuss matters of faith (not a Bible study per se). It ended, a new baby was born, and we stopped meeting. When one of them reached out to us after noticing we weren't at their church anymore, I responded with my honest reasons (which were faith-based), and I never heard from her again. </p><p>3) So another reason I have lost my faith (this time around) has been that my efforts to draw closer to God via surrounding myself with faith-filled people has shown me that <b>people either don't really believe what they claim, or they don't think it's important enough to share with me</b>. Maybe they saw my genuine questions and concerns as proof that I was beyond help and they didn't want to waste their evangelism on me. But it showed me that if these people actually represented "the truth", then my efforts would've been welcomed and met with some measure of success.</p><p>I also have come to realize that I have a bit of an obsessive personality. I was technically diagnosed with mild OCD, and I personally think (if at all) that it was specifically scrupulosity. As such, I have tried to keep my obsessive compulsions under control by talking myself through the urges to "do" more intense religious stuff.</p><p>4) This is another reason that I have lost my faith (this time around); <b>perhaps my "faith" was never actually faith but rather an obsession all along</b>? Or merely an autistic special interest, that could easily be replaced with some other interest that doesn't claim to have my eternal life in its hands.</p><p>Turns out that my "loss of faith" is NOT based on any anger I have towards God. I love God. God is awesome. I don't really understand God, which I think is the most authentic and honest commentary on God there is. I'm still trying to figure out what it means to believe in God without religion. There are no neat pre-packaged rules or dogmas that come in tow. It's just that - God is, as God is purported to have said in the Hebrew Bible. We can't know God the way we know another person, and that's OK. God can still be "personified" or talked about "as if" God were a mere person, because God is "supra-personal" - personality is included in God's being, but it is not sufficient to describe God.</p><p>I'm certainly not "faithless" due to a recent loss. My dad passed away nearly a year and a half ago. It was sudden and unexpected, but it was also bitter sweet on account of his having been mentally distraught with his quality of life for a long time, along other issues. So I'm grateful that my dad is "in a better place" now.</p><p>Speaking of gratitude, I hear that's another reason people lose their faith - they forget to have a gratitude practice. Well, that's not me, either. Every evening during family prayers, we go around thanking God for something we're grateful for. Sometimes we pick a theme. And every morning, I read the prayers I have written both expressing my thanks and interceding for my closest loved ones (another thing often said to be a reason for losing faith - being too focused on self and not enough on others).</p><p>So I believe in God. I love God. I'm grateful to God. The only think left that I can think of is forgetting God's prior work in my life. If I take the time to reflect, I remember how God has walked hand-in-hand with me my entire life. I have often said that I lead a charmed life. That's not to say that it's been a life without challenges, or even at times suffering. </p><p>God saved me and my mom from carbon monoxide poisoning.</p><p>God sent my dad abroad and convinced my mom to join him and bring me.</p><p>God safely landed our plane when we were experiencing an emergency.</p><p>God protected my father when he'd fall asleep behind the wheel coming home from working overtime.</p><p>God did allow my dad's motorcycle accident to result in permanent, irreversible brain damage... but God did save his life. God did return his mobility when doctors thought he'd never walk again. God did give us 23 more years with him after his accident, which opened up countless other life lessons.</p><p>God helped me find my husband early in life (at age 20).</p><p>God kept me safe in the Army. God kept my husband safe in the Army.</p><p>God answered our prayer for children....eventually. Again, the long wait and heartache served to teach priceless life lessons that we can only understand with the gift of hindsight. But the bottom line was: God did bless us with two wonderful children!</p><p>God kept my daughter safe in spite of her having an undiagnosed velamentous umbilical cord insertion, and her cord having been wrapped twice around her, bolero style.</p><p>God even soothed my anxiety by providing me with an official autism diagnosis that has helped me to better undersand (and therefore) accept myself.</p><p>God has been active in my life, as you can see. God is not in question. So what do I mean when I say I feel like I've lost my faith?</p><p>I've associated my faith with an organized religion, and it's been difficult to let go of the neat albeit limiting belief system that provided all the answers and prevented me from ever having to do much discernment. It fed into my codependent need for external validation. I didn't know a thing was true or right until I knew others thought so. God has peeled that crutch away from me, forcing me to stand on my own two feet of faith, if you will.</p><p>So maybe this lack of faith is actually just another thing to add to my list of things I'm grateful to God for?! Maybe instead of saying "I lack faith", I start saying that I "lack religion". That's not quite right, though, because I'm still a religious person, in that I still attend church and include other Catholic/Orthodox/Christian-generic practices in my spirituality. But I don't have faith in my religion. I don't practice my religion because I believe it's literally true. I practice because it's such an ingrained part of my life. It brings me comfort. That's probably the autism talking. I like knowing just what to expect from a liturgical form of worship and pre-written prayers.</p><p>But I actually experience God outside of the context of religion. I experience God in nature, in silence, in solitude. I experience God late at night, with a spiritual book and journal in hand. Or on a retreat where I look around and notice the symbolism of everyday objects and occurrences. Or when I catch myself living in the moment, mindful only of the joy found in the here and now. </p><p>So why do I say that I "lack" faith, when clearly it's all around me? It's only a matter of picking it up on a regular basis. I have to make the time to sit still and meditate. I have to make time to go away on retreat. I have to make time to read and journal my thoughts. I have to make time to be in nature in an unhurried way. I have to make time to surround myself with beautiful, uplifting music or poetry. I get a little hint of it at our Byzentine Catholic church. The interior is fantastically beautiful. It's warm and pleasant and I love bathing my sight with the red/brown/gold tones that surround me during liturgy. I love that we sing, even if the singing is superior at the Orthodox church where we go for homeschooling co-op. When I go there, I easily slip into the role of Orthodox Chrisitan woman, even though I'm not. I wear a headscarf like many of the women there. I wholeheartedly perform the metanoias to venerate icons or express physically what the spoken/sung words of our corporal prayer say. Sometimes I get distracted with the disappointing thought: "I wish I believed what they believe". But why?</p><p>What difference does it make if we all believe the same things? Shouldn't what matters be that we all value the same things? The same virtues? </p><p>Yet even here, I know we diverge at times. I lean conservative, for sure. Which is why I've never been able to feel comfortable in a Unitarian Universalist church or with unprogrammed Quakers, both of whom tend to be quite politically active.... on the left. Yet I can't say that I agree 100% with my conservative Christian friends who disagree about marriage between same-sex couples, or divorce, or birth control. Most recently, transgender issues have arrived on my horizon (the fact that my children were finally at an age where they didn't require as much of my attention as before allowed me to really tune in during the pandemic to the trans grievences and all the issues that came with it). I recoiled because the idea of stepping outside of a gender binary was so completely foreign and thus uncomfortable for me that I sought solace in a community where not only we agreed there were women and men, but we also knew which was which.</p><p>But now that I've had three years to process the idea, I'm slowly coming around to the idea and drawing comparisons between identifying with the opposite sex, or with both, or with neither, and my own experience identifying with the "Ms" social title in spite of being a married woman (and thus a "Mrs.") Or with my neither feeling fully Polish nor fully American. Or even - full circle - belonging to any of the religions that I've so desparately tried to fit in with. </p><p>Maybe the point is that life isn't as black and white as I thought, and this is what I'm experiencing. This is what I need to mourn - that certainty that used to come from a religious worldview. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-77857797908779730992023-09-13T17:14:00.005-07:002023-09-13T17:14:58.118-07:00I am good, and so are you<p>People usually say that everyone wants to "be happy". I don't think this is exactly right. I think everyone wants inner tranquility, a sense of all being right with the world and within oneself. I think this comes from the subtle recognition of our true nature. Tranquility and inner peace makes me think of stillness, joy, acceptance, awe, beauty, observation, reception, breathing, embracing, free-flowing and unrestrained movement (say, dance), being in a state of flow, living in the moment...</p><p>That said, if we want inner tranquility, there must be something that interferes with this when we start to base our sense of self-worth on the validation of others. Sometime in our early childhood development, we must have been taught that to live in that inner tranquility, there are certain pre-conditions that must be met first. Often, these are quite literally the approval of others, especially our parents. We are taught to respond to compliments of our being. If we are told we are "good", it's generally in relation to something we are doing. Therefore, we learn that to be at peace means to be "good", and to be "good", we must do X. </p><p>Once that false notion is established and internalized, we start to pursue that external validation as a constant affirmation of our being OK. And of course, it is not other people's job to always affirm us, especially since they're often busy trying to do the same thing for themselves. And so since we're hyper aware of other's responses to us, we notice right away anything that veers even minutely away from 100% validation, and we immediately sound the alarm that something is not right, that we are not "good" (enough), and therefore CANNOT be at peace with ourselves UNLESS and UNTIL we DO something - please someone, change ourselves. </p><p>This never-ending cycle feeds on itself and will never be satisfied. The only way out is to get off the looney train. Stop seeking validation outside of oneself, and recognize that I am already perfectly "good" without having to "do" anything special, and without having anyone affirm that for me. I must learn to trust myself. If I tell myself that I am well, then I am well. Nothing else is needed to prove this to myself, and certainly not to others. I can choose to be at peace with myself just as I am, even when others disapprove, because their approval is irrelevant to my inner state, unless of course I delegate my responsibility to maintain my mental and emotional equlibrium to others.</p><p>How can someone outside of myself ever truly judge me, though? They will never know the entire thought process that went into my decision-making. They will never have experienced my life's circumstances in the same way that I have. They will never have had the same set of experiences in the first place. No one can ever relate 100% to my lived experience, so how can they truly tell me if I'm "good" or not? Why should I trust them if they offer such a judgment? It's chaos. </p><p>We must remember that what we're struggling with, they are too. Why should they be validating us when they ought to be validating themselves? That's what happens - we start validating others, and forget to validate ourselves. And then we fill that void by seeking others to validate us. And then we're resentful of those who don't fully validate us, because we think - we're validing others, why can others validate us? What if we all stop validating each other and start validating ourselves?</p><p>Will I make mistakes? Yup. So what? Who taught me that I shouldn't make mistakes? It doesn't matter, because they were wrong. Mistakes are a part of life, just like breathing. There's better and worse ways of breathing (some lead to hyperventilation, some are context-dependent [like holding one's breath under water]), but as long as we're breathing, we're "good". We waste precious potential breaths when we think, "oh, no! I shouldn't have breathed like that! I should've slowed my breathing down a little. That would've calmed me down. I can't believe I did that." </p><p>Mistakes are like breaths. If the inopportune one happens, we acknowledge it and focus on the next one. Nothing more, and nothing less. Mistakes are not evidence of our failure as human beings. And while we're at it, successes (as measured by society's standards) are not evidence of our being exceptional human beings.</p><p>If something or someone does not help me circle back to this basic realization, I need to distance myself from it or them. If my religion tries to make me focus on my mistakes (sin! confession! hell or purgatory!), then it's not leading me closer to my true nature of oneness with God (which is what even Christian scriptures claim to be the end goal of the Christian life, just via often convoluted wording).</p><p>If it's not helping, it's harming, and I'm distancing myself from it.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-60319372836750860632023-09-03T13:47:00.002-07:002023-09-03T13:47:14.600-07:00Following the Dao of Jesus<p>What if Christianity is not only not helping me, but is actually causing harm? I'm not talking about abuses by Church authority figures, which is its own ironic evil. I'm talking about the way that Christianity is presented and taught in general; what if THAT is what's causing me harm?</p><p>Christianity is based on the premise that I am a victim of original sin. I am sinful without any effort from me. There's nothing I can do about it. I'm doomed. BUT... here's the good news! If I accept Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross as somehow making it all better for me, then and only then can I rest in the Father's love again. I intentionally didn't refer to Jesus's "atoning death" because not all Christian traditions see it as a "ransom". Even in the more .... gentle, shall I say?.... approaches to the purpose of the Cross, nonetheless I NEED it. I cannot escape the horrific torture of the Man I'm supposed to emulate, and even if we don't call it "payment for my sins", the implication is there. </p><p>The message is clear - I am inherently not good enough. God went through hell and high water and then some to bring me back, and I owe Him my life. This is not the sort of gratitude that I find a healthy approach to life. It's rather a sort of shame-based relief that the wrath of God passed me by. But there's still a wrathful God in the picture, and supposedly this is the God "of love" Who created me in the first place. It would appear that He did so for His own entertainment, then. And if that's the case, this sort of God doesn't exactly scream "virtue" and "goodness" and "righteousness". </p><p>It seems that there's the Father, who is the yang, if you will, of the operation, with justice and the ensuing inevitable doom to humanity. And there's Jesus and the HolySpirit Who are the yin or the merciful aspect of God, with forgiveness and love. Or maybe just Jesus is the yin, and the Holy Spirit is the connection between the two? At any rate, it seems like the Trinity and Christianity as a whole is a sort of personification of what we read about in the Dao De Jing.</p><p>But in the Dao De Jing, the focus is not on sin, shame, guilt, wrath, punishment. Rather, the focus is on acceptance, balance, inner tranquility, detachment. The framework is completely different. All the same aspects of reality are still there, but we are not taught to fear any of them. We are not running from anything. Or towards anything, for that matter. We simple are, just like God introduced Himself to Moses when He said His name is "I AM". If we are to be like God, then we, too, are supposed to focus our lives on "just being". </p><p>I have known this on some level for a long time, but I've been oscillating between denial and unhealthy attachment. I could not let go of my image of God. In spite of my best efforts, I have been breaking the first commandment by creating a certain idol of God based on what other people have erroneaously told me about Him. God is supposed to be mysterious and beyond definition or description, yet this has never stopped religions from insisting they've got Him figured out anyway, at least to some degree. And I totally fell for it. Their assuredness made me assume they were right just bc they believe they are. </p><p>Instead, I am learning to trust myself. I am learning to listen to that still, small voice of God that doesn't need to be filtered through the lens of religion and therefore someone else's experience or interpretation. God will tell me whatever I need to know for this journey. I trust God. I trust God more than I trust Church. I trust God completely. I believe in God in that I believe in God's ability and desire to commune with me directly, to convict me directly of what I need to draw closer to Him, to be more like Him, and therefore to be more like My True Self.</p><p>I'm tired of trying to force myself into believing "facts" ABOUT Jesus instead of believing (read: trusting) Jesus based on what He taught. I can't imagine going down in human history merely for my death, and not for my life, my character, my teachings, my efforts. To say that we only needed Jesus on the cross, and not on foot among the people is to objectify Him into a token "source of coattails" that we can ride on into heaven. I don't want to do that anymore. I want to get to know Jesus for His teachings, and through His teachings, and I want to emulate Him based on His teachings.</p><p>And I believe Daoism actually does a better job of that than mainstream Christianity.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-61299841198044069002023-08-18T08:02:00.002-07:002023-08-18T08:02:12.313-07:00God is Love, Love is Mercy, Jesus Shows us the Way<p>So the basic premise of the Christian religion, faith, world-view (you name it) is this: we are inherently "fallen" by nature, thanks to "original sin" of our first parents (the mythical Adam and Eve of the Garden of Eden), and there is nothing we can do to fix our predicament. BUT God nonetheless loves us anyway, and that's why He sent Jesus to endure the justice due for us to be reconciled with Him. THEREFORE, the natural response - and the only acceptable response - is to live from a place of gratitude and follow Jesus, professing Him as our Lord and Savior.</p><p>I like the idea of living from a place of gratitude. I like the idea of recognizing our own helplessness in a lot of life's circumstances. I like the idea of God's mercy and forgiveness. But I simply do not accept the original premise of original sin. I do not believe that we come out of the womb already damned because of our sinful nature.</p><p>Even Adam and Eve, when God originally created them, must have had some sort of inclination towards turning away from God, this potential had to have been in them or else they never would've acted on it. God put that possibility into the very DNA of human beings! "To err is human" is not a bug; it's a feature! We learn from our mistakes. We take risks, pick ourselves up and try again. We accept dissapointment. We acknowledge our own need for mercy and therefore extend that mercy to others who need it. Or at least, that's the idea. There is nothing shameful about our tendency to stray from time to time! To deny this is to walk down the path of scrupulosity, which I know all too well from first hand experience, and which has the potential of turning into a psychiatric disorder! (Moral OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder)</p><p>Why would God create the first humans in such a way so as to "test" them out, seeing if they love Him, and then when they make the first big mistake by doubting Him (a process of individuation for any adolescent, by the way, so a natural part of growing up), He banishes them from His presence? And then to save face, He incarnates as Jesus in order to make things right, instead of just forgiving them on the spot, or even after kicking them out admitting that was excessively harsh, and let's debrief and see where we went wrong and how to avoid it in the future?</p><p>That very first move by God to kick Adam and Eve out of Eden is where the entire Christian premise falls apart for me. I cannot feel shame for my human nature and maintain a healthy psyche, and so I cannot get overly emotional about Jesus's "sacrifice on the cross" because I don't believe that's what it was. His crucifixion was indeed an act of love in that He had the chance to go back on His teaching but He did not. He refused to compromise, knowing full well that it could/would cost Him His life. But He believed that the message He had was important enough to die for, to suffer for. That is still valuable, and that is still a reason to follow Jesus.</p><p>It is not, however, a reason to worship Him or confuse the Messanger with God. Nor is it a reason to turn to one of the other monotheistic religions that either ignore Jesus or recognize Him as only a prophet, because no organized religion has been able to stay fully true to Jesus's message, without adding to it the traditions of men, something Jesus actually spoke out against! </p><p>Jesus's words alone have the power to transform lives, without all the extra beliefs ABOUT Him. Yes, He said "you believe in God, believe in Me also" (John 14:1). But first of all, notice He differentiates between "God" and "me" here. Second of all, believing "in" Him doesn't mean believing specific things "about" Him. When I believe in someone, that means I trust them. And here Jesus is asking us to trust Him. What does it mean to "believe in God"? Maybe He means the same kind of belief for both Himself and God? But again, He doesn't say "believe that God and I are the same thing" or that "I am God, too". If you believe "in" God, you 1) believe God exists, and 2) trust God. There's nothing else to believe. Everything else we are taught about Jesus has been added by His followers.</p><p>And so, back to my original point - if the first premise of Christianity is that we are in need of a savior, I counter that in one of two ways. One - that may be true, but who is to say that this savior is the person of Jesus on the cross? It may actually be Jesus, but the manner in which He saves is through His teaching, and our free will is to obey Him, not to "believe stuff about Him". Or, two - we don't actually need a savior. What we need is a dose of reality, which includes humility - a recognition that we are not God, that we make mistakes, that we need mercy, that we ought to extend mercy to others, that in spite of being imperfect God expects us to try our best anyway, that we have a lot to learn, etc. Our salvation is not a one-and-done event done vicariously on our behalf, but rather a lifetime of forming the habit of turning to God - the literal antedote to what Adam and Eve did when they turned away from God.</p><p>We prove our love to God - the original purpose of free will that allowed Adam and Eve to sin - by choosing God over and over and over, by turning to Him in prayer, meditation, mindfulness, contemplation, through acts of service and patient endurance, through small or great sacrifices, and especially through mercy. The one alternative to the idea of Jesus-as-Savior-on-the-Cross is God-as-merciful-right-off-the-bat. That's supposed to be our take-away from that story - what we wish God had done for us - shown mercy - is what we are called to do.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-37992183928345879422023-08-18T07:33:00.001-07:002023-08-18T07:33:32.276-07:00Christian Mystics and ... me?<p>Contemplative mystic. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but that's the goal. I think I've figured out why I can't otherwise fit into any religious mould. I'm confusing spirituality and religion because I am actually both, but they are not necessarily related.</p><p>What I mean is that my religiosity is based on my background, familiarity, personal preferences. Namely, I resonate with the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Eastern Catholicism. Divine liturgy takes me outside of the mundane and provides an easy way to remind myself that there is other-worldliness "out there" (or rather, all around and within). </p><p>Even some of the rules or regulations of Catholicism I can appreciate. My autistic brain appreciates the boundaries of clear rules, even if I choose to question where those boundaries ought to be, or how one ought to interpret them. I just need a starting point, but I do need that starting point. For instance, I appreciate the ten commandments to keep me in check and to better gauge if any given action is a good idea. </p><p>But interpreting the first or second commandment (depending on whom you ask) to mean I should not perform metanoias in venerating an icon of Chris, for instance, is incorrect in my mind. It's splitting hairs and getting way too far away from the spirit of the law, which is to place God before all else. If performing the physical ritual of bowing to or kissing a representation of the object of my devotion (so long as it is God or one of God's helpers) deepens my desire to do God's will, then that desire actually lived out is my worship. The bowing down/kissing is not the worship, but merely the inclination of my heart towards that worship. It still needs to be followed up with actual worship - in spirit and in truth, or lived out in daily life.</p><p>Likewise, religion also centers on certain theological beliefs which I do not necessarily hold or interpret in the same way as "the mainstream" within my tradition. The creed comes to mind. "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." Does this have to mean that I imagine God to be a male parent? Some would say that indeed, God's energy must be masculine in that He is wholly independent of anything else, and that a faminine energy within God would mean some level of dependence on something outside of Himself. Fair enough, but even then, is God "a person"? No, trinitarian Christians say that God is "three persons in one God". That is something with no human analogy. One person holding three roles is probably the closest we could get to it, but it's not really correct because that one person would have to be schizophrenic to really be "like" the Trinitarian God - he'd have to be able to talk to himself from one role to another, to have one of his roles (say, that of son) love himself in another of his roles (say, that of father) and to love so intensely, that a third of his roles would then manifest. See, the analogy starts to run away from us. Point being, God cannot be defined. And the creed precisely tries to do just that.</p><p>But where I have the most trouble with the creed is in the larger second section dealing with Jesus. </p><p> "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b>And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God</b>" (so far, so good... but before we get too comfortable, the next part continues:) </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"<b>the only-begotten, </b></span><b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">born of the Father before all ages. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father,</span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">" </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In other words, Jesus is NOT like any other human being, and so what we were likely thinking (Jesus is a child of God like I am a child of God) is denied right off the bat, and very vehemently. Not only that, but Jesus is said to preexist his earthly life, again unlike the rest of us.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Unless... the preexistence of Jesus is also a comment on our preexistence as pre-incarnate souls. But of course, that is not the Church's intention, for then Jesus's description ends with: </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"<b>through Whom all things were made</b>." Now, if we equate ourselves with Jesus, we raise ourselves up to the level of God, and that's a big no-no. The #1 rule of theism, and particularly monotheism, is that we are not God. There's God, and there's us, but we are not one and the same. This is supposed to keep us humble and obedient to God's will. Otherwise, if we're equal to God, we get to make up our own morality.... or do we?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The assumption here is that equating ourselves with God gives rise to polytheism, and that each of us can have individual claims to make mini-universes with our own choice of moral standards. But if we become truly "one" with God, then we take on the mind of God and become indistinguishable from God. Therefore, God's desires become our own desires, not at all in conflict with "the rest of God" if you will.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">But then we circle back to the "only-begotten" part above, which ensrues we do not try to identify ourselves with Jesus. Which is ironic, since the very purpose of the Christian life is to "become another Christ", to "be Christ's hands and feet in the world". We actually ARE called to live up to the same identity as belongs to Christ, but I guess the fear is that again, we won't be able to do so in humility.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Continuing with the creed, we recite: <b>"</b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b>For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, </b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b>and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man</b>." Most of this statement is not problematic, except that Jesus's very purpose is to somehow "save" us, which of course begs the question - from what? As well as - why in the following manner?: "</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b>He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried</b>." Circling back to his incarnation from the "Virgin Mary", we have to ask - why did Mary have to be a virgin? Why couldn't Jesus's birth be just as miraculous even if he had maternal siblings? Of course, the answer is that virgin births are a common occurrence in mythologies of larger-than-life personalities. This is basically here to highlight - yet again - the uniqueness of Jesus and his incomparable identity.</span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">Next, we recite that: "<b>He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures</b>" This is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. This is a claim that is supposed to be historically verifiable, or at least there ought to be evidence suggesting as much. Apologists say that if this is true, everything else (in the creed) is therefore true. I'm not so sure. We can potentially "proove" that Jesus "was raised" from the dead, but it wouldn't prove if it was by His own power or that of God (the Father, let's say). Furthermore, the Jewish people disagree that Jesus fulfills "the Scriptures" because only some of the prophesies of the Hebrew Bible came true through Jesus, while others did not, and still certain things about Him go contrary to standard Jewish understandings of righteousness. If anything, more modern Christians who already believe in Jesus as Savior have read these associations back into the Scriptures to make the story fit.</p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">We continue: "<b>He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He is coming again with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom will have no end</b>." This is all of course speculation, so the creed is asking us to believe all of this "because we said so". My question is - how much of the content of the creed is actually helping us follow Jesus? Live according to His teachings? It wasn't until Pope John Paul the Great added the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary that Catholics started reflecting more systematically on His actual teachings in that devotion. Until then, it was all about who Jesus allegedly was, and what happened to Him, but not so much the actual teachings He wanted us to internalize... the teachings that got him killed in the first place! It was His teachings about how we ought to live that were so dangerous, that He refused to back up on, that He died defending. He knew there was life in His words. He knew He spoke the Truth. And His followers have all but stifled the very Truth He died for in order to elevate Him to Godhood so we can satisfy ourselves by merely "worshipping" Jesus without really doing what He taught.</p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">So yeah, this part of the Creed about Jesus I cannot say I actually believe verbatim the way the Church wants me to believe. The Creed continues about the Holy Spirit: </p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br />"<b>And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Together with the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified; He spoke through the prophets.</b>" Now interestingly, here it is the Holy Spirit (of God) Who is identified as "Creator of Life", even though we usually think of that role as belonging to the Father. But no matter. The fact that He spoke through the prophets begs the question - has the Holy Spirit stopped speaking through prophets? Are we to believe that there are no more prophets being called forth? That's what Muslims claim about Mohammad. The Baha'i claim that about Baha'ullah. Refusing to acknowledge future prophets is a tactic to try to solidify one's claim of control over the faith community. If there's no more prophets, there can be no more insights or changes made. That is contrary to life and nature itself. Life is change. Nature survives on the basis of cyclical change. Of course there needs to be ongoing change, growth... life. And it continues to come from the Holy Spirit. </p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">I believe that it is here that the mystics come in, but so few people are interested in what is said because honestly, mystics mostly just remind people of what's already been established but long forgotten. It's too hard to discern the nuances of the spiritual life. It's much easier to stick with a literal mythology and legalistic framework where we do as we're told and don't have to think too hard about anythin.</p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><br /></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-2713999961395851432023-06-01T15:18:00.004-07:002023-06-01T15:18:47.207-07:00Presence of God vs. Eucharist<p>I feel more spiritually fed, more enveloped by God's holy presence, just by attending and participating in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox church than I do when receiving the Eucharist at the Catholic church.</p><p>I used to have a very Eucharistic spirituality. But then I think the physical Eucharist became an idol for me. I forgot how it represents the reality of God being ever present everywhere, not merely in the physical monstrance, tabernacle, or host/chalice. And so distanced myself from the whole Eucharistic Adoration spiritual practice.</p><p>In Orthodoxy, Holy Communion is more akin to a verb than a noun. It is something we DO together as a community. Jesus said, "take and eat, this is my body", not "take and decorate and then hang out with me in the chapel". </p><p>I know that I'm done with Catholicism. I'm about 99% certain, because I like to stay humble and recognize that I truly never know ;) But unless I find an Eastern Rite Catholic parish that is a) within driving distance of us, b) the same calibre of beauty and joy as Holy Cross, and c) that includes a community, ideally of homeschoolers with well-behaved children.... I don't really see any reason to hold onto my Catholic identity anymore.</p><p>I will always cherish the spiritual strides that I made thanks to the RCC. I have my memories of when being Catholic was meaningful and fulfilling. But alas, I think it's time to break up. I want to follow Jesus, and I know Jesus meets us where we are, and I no longer think I am vested in Catholicism. Jesus is meeting me on this crossroads and leading me to a new home, a new expression of the ancient faith.</p><p>So what is my hesitation? That I'll have to actually take my faith seriously? That I won't be able to just cruise under the label of Catholic while maintaining my own personal spirituality? That there are still loose ends with my son's awaiting his First Communion at the Catholic church?</p><p>I can just start worshipping at Holy Cross on a regular basis. I can see how that goes. I can either opt out of the sacraments of confession and communion altogether, or I can continue to receive them periodically in the Catholic church for the time being, prior to officially becoming a catecheumen. I think I will do that. Jesus is irresistible. He will lead me without a doubt, if I allow myself to stay open to the next baby step.</p><p>I have to allow for a grieving process. I have to grieve the disappointment of having to let go of what I couldn't make work in the Catholic church. I have to grieve the changes that took place in the last 4 decades within the church, that have drastically altered my faith experience within. I have to grieve the certainty with which I lived my Catholic identity. </p><p>I want to be there for my son though. I want us to have joint faith experiences. Like when we go to Confession together, or kneel next to each other for Holy Communion. I'm having to grieve that it just isn't the way I envisioned it to be. Following Christ is more complicated than that. It's more nuanced than that.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-87120538897148704722023-05-15T09:02:00.001-07:002023-05-15T09:02:10.553-07:00Christianity vs Wokeism<p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, serif, EmojiFont; font-size: 16px;">I remember my previous spiritual director pointed out to me that tolerance is not a Christian virtue, but I think I still have some residue left over from my own liberal days. The reason I worry about taking a stand at times is because I still think tolerance is somehow the superior good. I've managed to equate tolerance with humility, the latter being indeed a Christian virtue.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, serif, EmojiFont; font-size: 16px;">But as I think about the Woke Ideology that has become the defacto Secular Religion of the US and perhaps Western Civilization as a whole, I realize that tolerance only has the moral superiority within the Woke World View. In a Christian World View, there are moral absolutes, which by definition eliminate the ability to treat any and all perspectives as equally valid and valuable.</span></p><p>What else does the Woke Religion value that I need to be aware of?</p><p>Tolerance. Equity. This second one is also contrary to the Gospel. The Biblical worldview tells us that we all have different callings from God, different challenges, and that we are not to compare ourselves with each other but rather to do the best we can with what we have. Now, of course, there are basic human rights that we ought to fight for, but I think this is where we need to iron out what Christianity sees as human rights, and what the Woke Religion sees as human rights.</p><p>Christianity sees the right to life, liberty, and even property!... but pursuit of happiness is an American value, not a Christian virtue. Rights from the Christian worldview are seen as something we owe to others, not something we demand for ourselves. They stem from the 10 commandments and Jesus's dual Great Commandment of loving neighbors as ourselves.</p><p>So, since we ought to honor our parents, our parents can be said to "have a right" to being honored by their children.</p><p>Since we are to not kill, we can say all people have a right to not be killed.</p><p>Since we are to not steal, we have a right to our private property.</p><p>Since we are to not cheat, we have a right to not be cheated by others.</p><p>Since we are to not commit adultery, we have a right to expect fidelity from our spouses.</p><p>Since we are to not covet, we have a right to not be envied by others. (This one doesn't really hold water...)</p><p>Let's look at how Woke Religion does according to the above standard.</p><p>Parents are being overridden by the government when it comes to transgender issues and their own children. In some cases they are being separated from their children for making decisions contrary to the Woke view.</p><p>Killing has been turned on its head in the case of both abortion and euthenasia, where they are both considered a "right" rather than the absence of the right to life.</p><p>We are told that taking from the priviledged and giving to the less advantaged is their "right" in the name of equity. So equity is in direct contrast to the commandment to not steal, for it overrides the right to private property.</p><p>We are not to cheat, yet the transgender ideology as it relates to women's sports certainly provides an unfair advantage to male bodies over female bodies on account of the male bodie's minds identifying as female!</p><p>Adultery is pretty much seen as a quaint vestige of the past at best, and patriarchal oppression at worst. People's sexuality is now seen as something that could "by nature" (or by preference) be "polyamorous", and some of the more liberal churches even have pondered if they shouldn't "bless" such group unions! In effect, lifelong fidelity to one spouse is out the window. </p><p>The Wokeists claim that they are only demainding what anyone would want for themselves, thereby evoking Jesus's commandment about loving our neighbor as ourselves. We are to use terminology that is contrary to biological facts for the sake of appeasing the mental disorders of trans people, as if we would expect the same for any other mental delusion. If I'm pschizofrenic, the last thing that is in my best interest is a society that goes along with my delusions and pretends with me. I have zero hope of ever being rescued from my illness in that environment. </p><p>This comes down to whether we have a right to what is in our best interest, or merely to whatever our current desire is. The Woke say we have a right to happiness, basically. Not joy, mind you, but happiness, which by definition is fleeting. Christians would say we have a right to have our whole person cared for with the long view in mind. Just because we want to do something self-destructive doesn't mean we have a right to it!</p><p>And so we are at a crossroads. There is no way to reconcile the two worldviews. We will end up loyal to one and hating the other. Much like it says in the Bible about not being able to serve to masters. The God and Mammon quote is generally used to refer to financial wealth and money, but I think it fits here, too. The point is, we can only serve one Master, and we will serve someone or something, whether we want to or not. So it's in our best interest to serve the One Who created us, for He has our best interest in mind! </p><p>Perhaps there are specific political issues that it may be Christ-like to come down on the left side, but only if they are assessed from the point of view of the Great Commandment and the 10 Commandments. We may want to be granted our every whim, but do we really want to grant every whim of every one of our neighbors? That would result in utter chaos and no security, for whims by nature change from minute to minute. </p><p>I may want to be treated with respect, and so name-calling is probably not the Christ-like response to Leftists or Trans Activists. We want to engage them with respect, even when they resort to name-calling and cancellation and downright destruction of our reputation. But it does not mean we have to bow down to their demands. We can disagree appropriately and respectfully. We can refuse to embrace what doesn't feel right to us based on our own world-view. If they have given themselves the right to hold to a world-view that is entirely based on individual human independence and desire, then using their own standards would necessitate they extend those rights to us, who choose to follow a world-view we believe comes to us directly from God the Maker of Heaven and Earth. It's His world, His rules, He knows what He's doing. We have a right to believe this, since people can believe whatever they come up with nowadays. </p><p>But the Left is based on hypocricy, not anything timeless or dependable. That's how I know it's not virtuous. Virtue can only be unchanging, for it comes from the Unchanging God. There are so-called cultural virtues, like collectivism vs individuality, or honor vs mercy/compassion, or reverence for ancestors vs pursuit of innovations. But if followed to their natural end, we see that the Truth with a capital T is a balance between the two extremes. </p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-91714820462124560862023-03-26T14:17:00.006-07:002023-03-26T14:17:58.503-07:00Taking God's Mercy for Granted<p>I pride myself on my humility.</p><p>Did you catch the irony and oximoron there?</p><p>I have a ways to go before my ego is extinguished and I and God become one.</p><p>Different religions have different ways of articulating the basic point of the spiritual life: the extinction of the ego and thereby the uniting of ourselves to all others. Doing to others as you'd have them do to you.</p><p>At the same time, I take a very laisez fair attitude towards any and all religious doctrines, dogmas, and prohibitions, hiding behind Jesus's words in Matthew 22:37-40: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” So basically, live and let live. That's how I've simplified it.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">But doesn't that make me no different than the secular humanist who does nothing on account of their love of God, but merely what she herself has deemed (through her own intellect, reason, logic, ... ego) as in the best interest of society?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">Yet I keep insisting that I love God, and that I want to draw near to Him. How? By doing my own thing? Just like true peace is more than just the absence of war, true love of God is more than just the avoidance of evil. I have been satisfied with being morally "good enough". I have taken God's mercy for granted, feeling myself entitled to it on account of... simply being a daughter of God, made in His image.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">I can do better than that. I want to do better than that. I am, I can, I ought, I will, said Charlotte Mason.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fefefe; color: #141414; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">The seemingly arbitrary rules of ... say.... Orthodox Judaism. Does anyone "have" to do all the mitzvot in order for God to love them? No. But shouldn't we WANT to please our Heavenly Father even if we know He'll love us without "works"? If we happen to fail, ok, we know we have God's mercy on our side. But take it for granted, that's the wrong attitude altogether.</span></p><p>I may need to come around to making a decision to do things not because I "have" to, but because I "get" to - I get to please my Maker, I get to join countless others in pleasing our Maker, I get to reap the rewards of a community if I yoke myself to them in this way. I do not have to. I am not Jewish. As a Gentile, I have 7 very basic commandments to abide by. But th emore I choose to draw closer to God (via community, via affiliation, via mitzvot), the closer God will draw to me.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-33640857756252345992023-02-20T12:29:00.002-08:002023-02-20T12:29:22.298-08:00A Prayer to Jesus<p>Lord Jesus, lead me to Our Father! Help me to understand what I need to understand, and to embrace the mystery of the things I cannot understand at this time. </p><p>Lord Jesus, send me the Holy Spirit! That I may truly be a temple of the Most High, gleaning the Almighty's wisdom and all the virtues.</p><p>Lord Jesus, allow me to follow You always, without distraction and doubt.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-7810565215340748472023-02-20T11:37:00.004-08:002023-02-20T11:37:24.778-08:00Churchianity vs Christianity<p>I came across a new word that perfectly describes what I've been trying to distance myself from: churchianity. I made the mistake of mentioning to a couple of nondenominational Protestants my desire to distance myself from some of the practices of Catholicism because they were distracting me from following Jesus. I said that I thought they had value and the potential to lead people closer to Him, but for me where I'm at on my journey, they were having the opposite effect.</p><p>Now my Protestant friends, bless their hearts, must see me as ripe for the picking and are encouraging me to check out their church. I've mentioned that I'm not looking to change churches (again), but rather that I'm looking for a more intimate gathering where we can discuss the faith without the lens of a denomination. </p><p>I feel like I can't have these conversations with Catholics, who will warn me of my impending apostacy or at the very least hereticism, and I can't talk to Protestants, who will warn me that remaining affiliated with the Catholic church is demonic or at the very least idolatrous. I probably could talk to Quakers or Unitarians, but we would quickly clash on social issues, as both of these groups lean left politically, which is why we aren't going to their Sunday worship services.</p><p>But luckily I came across a new website/ministry that is speaking to my heart: <a href="https://schoolofchrist.org/">Home - School of Christ</a>. As I began to explore the teachings here, I realized this is exactly what I've been looking. And I can't say that I didn't know it, because I've been following similar teachings from Catholic priest, Father Richard Rohr: <a href="https://cac.org/daily-meditations/">Daily Meditations — Center for Action and Contemplation (cac.org)</a>. What both of these followers of Christ have in common is that they do not throw away the proverbial baby with the bathwater. They recognize that there is much wisdom and peace to be gained from aligning one's life with the person of Jesus Christ, but so doing does not have to look like religiosity.</p><p>I'm reminded of two other philosophies I've studied in the past that really resonated with me but back then, I couldn't distinguish between the different aspects of my spirituality that needed to be fed, and I assumed there was only the one-stop-shop approach: I either aligned 100% with the teaching, or not at all, and the said teachings had to include a regular meeting place where we would gather with like-minded people (church). The two philosophies I'm speaking of are Deism and Daoism.</p><p>Deism lacks a personal relationship with God. Daoism lacks a personification of the Dao. Finally, I hope and pray, I may be at a cross-roads where I'm ready to embrace the fact that I can continue to have my "social" needs met by continuing with Sunday Mass participation, while looking elsewhere for philosophical and spiritual conversations with like-minded people. I used to worry about coming across as a hypocrite, but now I see religion for what it is, and I have no reason to feel any sort of loyalty to them.</p><p>Christian Deism takes their moral and ethical stance from the example of Jesus, but they deny His divinity. Daoism, of course, does not believe in His divinity either, since Jesus doesn't factor into the original philosophy. But looks like someone thankfully beat me to it with this Christian Daoist website: <a href="https://www.openhorizons.org/process-worldview.html">Process Worldview - Open Horizons</a> .</p><p>The bottom line, and I've known this for a while but never had the courage to implement and internalize it, is that I hover near religiosity due to my need for external validation. This is a disease, not a virtue. I need to work my way through this in order to embrace the simple message of Jesus that does not threaten anyone with hell.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-60037706069466698952023-02-07T17:37:00.003-08:002023-02-07T17:37:42.260-08:00Looking for the Early Church in the New Testament<p> <a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1205/early-christianity/">Early Christianity - World History Encyclopedia</a></p><p>According to the above article...</p><p>1. Early Christianity broke from Judaism when...</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"At a meeting in Jerusalem (ca. 49 CE, The Apostolic Council), it was decided that <b><i><u>pagans could join without becoming Jews.</u></i></b>"</span></p><p>2. The papacy evolved in...</p><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">"There was no central authority, such as the Vatican, to validate various beliefs and practices. Numerous and diverse groups existed throughout the Empire. Bishops communicated with each other and their letters demonstrate often rancorous debates."</p><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">"Christians adopted the Greek system of political assemblies (<em style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">ecclesia</em> in Greek, English 'church') and the Roman system of an overseer (bishop) of a section of a province (a diocese). "</p><p style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">"When Constantine moved the capital to <a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Constantinople/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">Constantinople</a> in 330 CE, this created a temporary void in leadership in the West.<b><u><i> By the 5th century CE, the bishop of Rome absorbed secular leadership as well, now with the title of 'Pope.</i></u></b>' In the Eastern Empire (<a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Byzantium/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">Byzantium</a>), the Emperor remained the head of the state as well as the head of the Church until the <a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/warfare/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">conquest</a> of Constantinople (Istanbul) by the Turks in 1453 CE."</p><p>3. Jesus came to be seen as deified...</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"With the belief that Jesus was now in heaven <b><i><u>[see Paul's letters in NT, Gospel of John - so within first century AD</u></i></b>], Christ became an object of worship. Paul claimed that Christ had been present at creation, and that “every knee show bow” before him (Phil. 2). In the fourth </span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Gospel_of_John/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">gospel of John</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">, Christ was identified as the philosophical principle of the </span><em style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">logos</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">, or the rational principle of the universe that became flesh (the doctrine of the Incarnation)."</span></p><p>4. Worship in the early church...</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"We have very little information on how early Christians worshipped Christ. Worship in the ancient world consisted of sacrifices. For Jews (and then Christians), this element was removed with the destruction of their Temple in 70 CE. At the same</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;"> time, ex-pagan Christians ceased the traditional sacrifices of the native cults."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"In the Acts of the Apostles, we have stories of Peter and John healing people “in the name of Jesus.” There was an<b><i><u> initiation rite of baptism, hymns and prayers to Christ, and a meal known as the Last Supper,</u></i></b> a memorial of Jesus' last teaching. <b><i><u>Christians addressed Jesus as 'Lord,' which was also a Jewish title for god."</u></i></b></span></p><p>5. First universal religion, available to all regardless of what one was "born into".</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"<b><i><u>Christianity taught that ancestry and bloodlines were no longer relevant.</u></i></b> According to Paul, faith (</span><em class="gr-progress" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">pistis</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">, 'loyalty') in Christ was all that was needed for salvation. This new idea resulted in a religious movement no longer confined to a geographic area or an ethnic group. Christianity became a portable religion available to all."</span></p><p>6. When did the concept of "orthodox belief" originate?</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"<u><i><b>The Church Fathers of the 2nd century CE developed an innovation with the concept of orthodoxy, or the idea that there was only one “correct belief.”</b></i></u> This was matched by its polar opposite, heresy (Greek, </span><em style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">airesis</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">, or 'choice,' as in a choice of a particular </span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/philosophy/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">philosophy</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">)."</span></p><p>7. When did the Catholic church develop?</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"Constantine was interested in both unifying the Empire as well as the Church. He adopted the teachings of the Church Fathers as the core of Christian belief."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"<b><i><u>In 325 CE</u></i></b>, Constantine invited bishops to attend a meeting in Nicaea to define the relationship between God and Christ. The result was the <u><i><b>Nicene Creed, a list of tenets that all Christians were to avow.</b></i></u>"</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">SEE PAPACY #2: "When Constantine moved the capital to </span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Constantinople/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">Constantinople</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">in 330 CE, this created a temporary void in leadership in the West.</span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u><i> By the 5th century CE, the bishop of Rome absorbed secular leadership as well, now with the title of 'Pope.</i></u></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">' In the Eastern Empire (</span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Byzantium/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">Byzantium</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">), the Emperor remained the head of the state as well as the head of the Church until the</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/warfare/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">conquest</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">of Constantinople (Istanbul) by the Turks in 1453 CE."</span></p><p>8. The Trinity became dogma in 325 with the Nicene Creed.</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">"God and Christ were of the “same essence,” both participated in creation, and therefore monotheism was maintained; God was one, with three manifestations. With the Holy Spirit of God as the manifestation of divinity on earth, this doctrine became known as the </span><a href="https://www.worldhistory.org/Trinity/" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: white; color: #b52600; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: none; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">Trinity</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", "Palatino Linotype", "Book Antiqua", Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">."</span></p><p>9. The Bible came to be canonical Scripture in...</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">"How did the books of the New Testament become canonized? The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700;"> AD 115</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon."</span></p><p>Which means that the first hundred or so years of the Early New Testament Church operated based primarily on oral tradition and Hebrew Scriptures.</p><p>There was Ancient Temple Judaism, there was Jesus, there was the Early Church of the New Testament, there was the development of Rabbinic Judaism, there was the transformation of Christ-followers from a persecuted sect among many in the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome taking over the role of both secular and church leadership in the Western Roman Empire once Constantine moved to Constantinople in 330 and becoming the Catholic Church. </p><p>Meantime, the Orthodox Church developed from the Early Church of the New Testament in the East. It did not espouse the idea of universal governance like the Western (Catholic) church did. Because of this, Orthodox Christianity fossilized circa this time period. It is more ancient than Catholicism, but still not the same as the Early New Testament Church. </p><p>The Early New Testament Church did not have a creed and it did not articulate the nature of God as Trinitarian. It did have a shared meal modeled on the Last Supper, hymns and prayers to Christ, and an initiation rite called baptism. </p><p>If I want to find a modern church that most closely aligns itself with the Early New Testament Church, it would need to 1) have no top-down governance but rather local governance, 2) not insist on a creed, 3) not believe in the Trinity, 4) share a Last Supper meal, 5) sing hymns, 6) say prayers (to Christ), and 7) baptize initiates.</p><p>This eliminates Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, and most other mainline Protestants. Possible contenders? Christodelphians, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, Swedenborgianism... But these are actually modern denominations that have done what I'm doing - researched the Bible for what the early church looked like, and then built their beliefs around what they believe was true back then. They are out of context, not considering the oral tradition that was part and parcel of the early church, since it operated without the benefit of the canon of New Testament Scripture.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-7391257425890890012023-02-07T13:29:00.004-08:002023-02-07T13:29:35.255-08:00Christian Truths vs Denominations<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I don't believe any one denomination is "the" church Christ established. I believe that all of them, working together, form "the" Truth of the Gospel of Jesus.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">That said, here's what attracts me to the various denominations in which I've spent some time.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Catholicism - the faith tradition of my upbringing and the one in which I feel most comfortable, both to worship and to question.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I believe in the doctrine of Purgatory and I extend universalist principles to it, which is controversial but allowable within Catholicism. In other words, I believe that God will save anyone who turns to Him, even after death, but that not everyone will. So while I do believe Hell exists and is eternal separation from God, I do not believe that all non-Christians go there.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Orthodoxy-Catholicism - I believe the aesthetically most beautiful forms of worship exist within these two traditions. The colors, stained glass, icons, incense, bells, vestments, architecture .... all lend themselves to lifting one's heart and mind to the Divine. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I also believe bodily postures and gestures like the sign of the cross, metanoias, kneeling, genuflecting... also show reverence and awe before God.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Charismatic Christians, both Protestant and Catholic - they incorporate more lively gestures like hands upraised, eyes towards heaven, swaying in the Spirit, all to emotionally charged praise music.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Quaker and Catholic-Orthodox contemplation and meditation. Being still in the presence of God. Placing oneself in a state of awe before our Maker. Waiting to have the Spirit lead us.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Evangelical Christians (primarily Protestants) - love the Word of God, are very familiar with it, and turn to it daily to familiarize themselves with the person of Jesus Christ and with His calling to us.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I'm noticing in this list that the Eucharist is no longer on my radar. It used to be. I was 100% convinced of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic-Orthodox Eucharist. I believed I was receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of my Savior. But the more I've searched for a church whose worship would support that, the more I became cognizant of the fact that this is actually meant as a microcosm of a bigger reality.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">God became man in the incarnation. Jesus becomes the Eucharist through transubstantiation. But that doesn't mean that the Catholic clergy are meant to act as gate-keepers giving or preventing access to Our Lord in Holy Communion. Jesus Himself made Himself available to the least liked, least respected, regardless of their actual belief in Him, regardless of their "worthiness". The cult of the Eucharist is now bothering me.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I've questioned in the past if the Eucharist has not been turned into an idol that has been flying under my radar because it has been equated with Jesus. But even Jesus Himself did not ask His followers to worship Him. So by reverencing the Eucharist, even if we believe it to be Jesus Christ Himself, we are not worshipping God the way Jesus taught us. Jesus taught us to turn to the Father.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Which brings me to Jesus as the model for our worship. He spent daily silent alone time, generally in nature, communing with the Father. Notice that word, "communing". It is not accidental. We refer to the Eucharist as holy "communion" because of what it represents and is intended to bring about: communion with God and with fellow believers. It is a sacrament, which by definition is an outward sign of an inward grace (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). But how many Catholic Christians actually take that beyond the walls of the sanctuary? Beyond the time allotted for Mass? We are meant to LIVE that way! Not to tap into it once a week and hope it gets us through the rest of the week until our next refill! </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">So now the question becomes - can I in good conscience continue to participate in the Catholic Thanksgiving Meal (aka the Eucharist, aka Holy Communion)? Well, if understood correctly, it has a lot of potential for good. It has formed a lot of saints that way. So I cannot knock it on the surface. The question becomes, *how* ought I receive the Eucharist? What should I be thinking when I do? What should I be doing afterwards? Beforehand?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">\</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> Bottom line: is the Eucharist making me a better follower of Christ? If no, then it needs to stop. If yes, then it can stay. But either way, it is not enough. Mass is not enough. Even daily Mass is not enough, because it is relying on riding on the coattails of experience of others, instead of having my own personal experience of the presence of God. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Mass.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Prayer.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Bible Reading.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Spiritual Direction.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Small Group (Bible study/faith sharing).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I was hoping to find all at one church. Now I'm seeing that may not happen. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">What's more, I was assuming that a reverent Mass experience = committed followers of Christ = families with similar values to ours in terms of parenting. I was mistaken. There is a lot of hoop-jumping by devout Catholic parents who mean well but are actually devoted to the Catholic Church and its version/interpretation of Jesus. They have put their trust in the Church Organization, and not in the Holy Spirit.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I once heard a critique of Protestants that went like this: Every Protestant is their own Pope. The point of course was that each Protestant Christian goes directly to the Scriptures and interprets them themselves. But this is telling. Does the Pope interpret Scripture? Or is the Pope supposed to be in contact with the Holy Spirit, Who is to interpret Scripture, and then the Pope speaks these revelations *on behalf of the Holy Spirit*? And if the Holy Spirit can speak to the Pope, the Holy Spirit can speak to each believer.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Truth is not monolithic. It's not relative, exactly, but it is dynamic. It is contextual. It does depend on various factors. Not everything we as Catholics believe to be set in stone necessarily is. I don't believe every single thing the Magisterium of the Church teaches as dogma is actually an aspect of God's unchanging Truth with a capital T. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">One of the reasons I chose not to convert to Orthodoxy in spite of being enamored with our local Divine Liturgy is that I believe in continued revelation. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is done speaking to us. The Catholic church believes this, too, but claims that it is the sole interpreter of the continued revelation of God. I disagree. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">God chose to reveal Himself by questioning established religion in the person of Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus remained a religious, practicing Jew. But He did not allow that religion to limit His understanding and application of Scripture. He called us to do likewise. To follow in His footsteps. To look to the Scriptures, perhaps also to our religious traditions, but then discern how to apply each teaching to our unique circumstances. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Indeed, I think we are meant to each be our own Pope, because Jesus is the true head of the Church, which is the body of all Christian believers and not a single denomination. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth, not a human representative like the Bishop of Rome.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">I used to try to find the "right" denomination to belong to. Today I know it doesn't exist, on the one hand, and on the other hand, they can all potentially be "the right one" for where I am in life. But my denominational affiliation does not take the place of a relationship with God/Christ.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">The question now is, where is the Lord leading me now?</div><br /><p></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-44910577962110383982023-01-28T16:42:00.006-08:002023-01-28T16:42:57.999-08:00Poverty Leads to...<p>Poverty <span style="font-family: Wingdings;">à</span>
(In no particular order, though #1-9 are also common in the “developed West”,
while #10-13 are especially problematic in sub-Saharan African countries,
India, and Cambodia, among others.)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1. <span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Lack of education</p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2. Lack of medical care</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Unemployment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Homelessness<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Addiction<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Domestic violence<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Abortion <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Hopelessness, depression, & suicide<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Community Distrust & Discrimination<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Malnourishment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Human trafficking<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Prostitution<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Bonded servitude<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->When Left Unchecked for long enough…. Uprising
& Civil War<o:p></o:p></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-63556102373838246672022-11-27T16:55:00.002-08:002022-11-27T16:55:49.357-08:00First Visit to Anglican Ordinariate<p>Wow. I've been down this road before and I don't want to get ahead of myself (again), but wow. This church seems to have everything we were looking for.</p><p>1. The priest faces ad orientum. (TLM, Eastern Orthodoxy)</p><p>2. Altar railing for receiving Communion while kneeling. (TLM)</p><p>3. Everything in English. (Novus Ordo)</p><p>4. Kneelers available and utilized in the pews. (TLM, Novus Ordo)</p><p>5. Communion by Intinction (Maronites, which was a super nice surprise!)</p><p>6. Incense. (TLM, Eastern Orthodox)</p><p>7. Bells. (TLM)</p><p>8. No sign of peace between the faithful. (TLM)</p><p>9. No passing of collection plate. (TLM, Eastern Orthodox)</p><p>10. The homily was 17 minutes long (it was available on YouTube later), and it was engaging and relatable.</p><p>11. Many women wore head coverings. (TLM, Holy Cross)</p><p>12. Tons of kids! (Holy Cross)</p><p>13. Interior of the church was colorful and joyful. Walls painted pinkish, stained glass, stations of the cross. I also saw several Eastern-style icons throughout.</p><p>14. There was a luncheon afterwards downstairs! (Holy Cross, Maronites)</p><p>15. Only one Mass for the congregation on Sunday - really helps solidify sense of community, along with the gathering afterwards. (Holy Cross, Maronites)</p><p>16. The priest, Fr. Albert, is married with children and introduced me to his wife, Abigail.</p><p>17. The Mass was an hour and a half, but the kids did not seem to notice and didn't mention length as a negative during our debriefing in the car on the way home. (Holy Cross)</p><p>18. The bulletin provided included all the prayers and music, so I was able to not only understand bc it was in English, but also follow along and sing along! It felt sooo good to be able to fully participate in the Mass again!</p><p>19. The kids had their own little bulletins and crayons they could take to the pews. </p><p>20. There was a large TV set up downstairs where the Mass was shown for anyone needing to take rowdy kids.</p><p>21. The Gospel was read from the middle of the center aisle.</p><p>22. At the end, we faced a little Marian "shrine" to recite the Angelus prayer.</p><p>23. There was a lot of kneeling! More than I remember from the Novus Ordo.</p><p>23. I noticed via my peripheral vision that people were bowing and crossing themselves at various points. Felt like they were more engaged with the Mass. (Holy Cross)</p><p>24. This particular church is about 15 minutes closer to our house than our current Maronite one.</p><p>25. We knew several people there already, apparently. Small world!</p><p>26. The kids got to make an Advent wreath to take home as a table centerpiece.</p><p>27. Parishioners were friendly and approached us to talk.</p><p>28. Fr. Albert actually knows Fr. Joshua from Holy Cross, and mentioned that the two churches are like informal sister parishes! It's as if God is telling me - you wanted Holy Cross but for Catholics; there you go! </p><p>29. I have a new appreciation for organ music. It turns out that I associate it with my formative years in Polish Catholic churches, and organ music is church music for me. It doesn't have to be concert-quality, but the cantor and choir were actually quite good. And the provided music and lyrics meant I was able to join in singing, which I have missed so much at the Maronites, since so much of their service is in Arabic or Syriac with no phonetic cheat sheet.</p><p>30. I teared up at one point during the singing, which is always a good sign that the Spirit dwells there.</p><p>31. There was so much singing and chanting! Even the readings were chanted (Holy Cross), which didn't bother me as much as it did at Holy Cross - perhaps because the bulletin had the readings printed and I could follow along. </p><p>32. I already signed up to join them for their Advent mini-retreat on Saturday!</p><p>I have the same feeling I had when we first found Holy Cross, and then again when we first found the Maronites - I don't want to leave! I worry that I won't find another church like this if we move to Georgia. But I also have to remember that God is in control and is leading us to where we need to be.</p><p>While the kids aren't thrilled about changing churches again since they've come to appreciate the Maronites, they are both willing and found things they each liked about the Mass at the Ordinariate. My son also said he'd be ok with receiving his First Communion there, which is a big plus, bc he was adamant he did not want to receive it at our old Novus Ordo church!</p><p>The funny thing is, God was saving our discovery of this church until I worked through some idolatry I had going due to my autistic black-or-white thinking. I had associated the host with the Real Presence of Jesus, and the mere thought of the Eucharist at an Eastern Rite or Orthodox church made me doubt I could ever get on board with being spoon-fed Communion. But then a talk with Maru helped me see that the external elements can change, but the reality of Jesus remains thanks to our faith. Once I was ok with trying an Eastern Rite church, communion and all, God gave me a church where I didn't even need to change what I am used to, and not only that, I can continue to receive under both forms, AND on the knees the way I believe is proper and just.</p><p>The explanation on the bulletin said that we kneel to pray, sit for instruction, and stand to praise God. I really like that delineation. Something was very missing at the Maronites when we couldn't kneel. Even the Orthodox, too, but their chanting was so incredibly beautiful and we stayed standing the entire time, that I never felt that I was being disrespectful by just sitting there.</p><p>At any rate, looks like we have a new church home. We will attend the Maronites twice more, as the kids just signed up to do the Nativity play, but then we will be shifting gears, and I can't wait. I'm grateful for the experience of worship with the Maronites, as it has helped me tremendously in my walk with Christ, but mainly because it helped me realize what is truly a priority for me and us as a family.</p><p>The Anglican Ordinariate is both reverent and joyful. There's music and kneeling. Communion is in both forms. The altar servers are all male (there were like 9 boys and men serving at the altar today!), which is something else that I appreciate as I look forward to an all-male place for my son to plug in soon.</p><p>At any rate, God is good, all the time. Alleluja, Amen.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-21996730275784249362022-11-27T16:27:00.001-08:002022-11-27T16:27:36.853-08:00Eucharist as Idol?I've been wondering lately if I've turned the Eucharistic host into an idol. When I was discerning conversion to the Orthodox Church, one of my stumbling blocks was the form of Communion - by spoon! We attended an Eastern Rite Catholic church once where we opted out of receiving Communion (we also went to a TLM later that day, where we did receive Communion), even though we were technically eligible to receive. <div><br /></div><div>When we settled on the Maronite church, it seemed like it had the best of both worlds. The Eucharist was in the familiar host form, dipped in the wine, but the liturgical prayers and hymns were more reverent than in the Roman Rite Novus Ordo Mass. However, after three months of weekly attendance at the Maronite Divine Liturgy, I'm starting to get antsy yet again. This time it's the kneeling. I knew going in that the lack of kneeling would be a challenge. I hoped the reverence of the liturgy would make up for it, but it hasn't. Right now, I'm trying to mesh my personal need for kneeling with the reverence of the service by kneeling before and after receiving Communion even if no one else does. I guess I associate kneeling with reverence, which is not an Eastern practice. I also associate silence, traditional hymns, and bells with reverence, all of which are gone from the Roman Rite usually. All that is left there is the kneeling. It seems there is no secret sauce to be had anymore.</div><div><br /></div><div>I guess God is calling me to stop focusing on my personal preferences and stop using religion as a balm for my personal comfort. After all, that's not the point of Jesus's coming - to make me feel comfortable.</div>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-3642285155406978432022-11-10T12:08:00.001-08:002022-11-10T12:08:14.044-08:00How I Came To Christ - No "Born Again" Experience Here!<p>My autistic spirituality may be a factor, and I will not be told/judged as having an "inauthentic" faith simply because it looks different than that of others.</p><p>Love is a decision and choice, not feeling --> relationship with Christ as "working out my salvation", what on the surface may appear to be "going through the motions" but differs from it by an internal intention and the openness to being changed in the process. </p><p>I have seen people "going through the motions", doing the things that outwardly express their supposed faith, but when you dig a little below the surface, it quickly becomes evident that this is just superficial piety, nothing based on a repentant heart. In my extended family, external religiosity is merely polite culture. </p><p>The outwardly religious are just as likely as the outwardly atheists to ridicule me for wanting to fast beyond "no fish Fridays", participate in daily Mass, go on retreat, pray grace at every meal, etc. So I know that to some who have been hurt by religionists, external expressions of religion may be associated with superficiality, but they are not automatically so!</p><p>I see these externals as ways that a truly spiritual heart would want to express itself and maybe even share its peace and joy with others. Or alternately, these are ways by which the spiritual heart can go deeper into relationship with God - precisely through the physicality of the rituals. I believe in an embodied faith. I think it is ironic how so many supposed Christians - who believe that God Almighty became incarnate, that is, took on a physical body - would look down on physical expressions of said faith. </p><p>The body is good and holy and a temple of the Holy Spirit. It is right to adorn it with religious symbols such as a crucifix. It is right to mark it with the sign of the cross. It is right to utilize our senses to express our faith - be that through the sense of smell of incense, the sense of hearing of music, chant, bells..., the sense of touch via prayer beads, the sense of taste of Holy Communion, the vestibular sense of movement via metanoias, kneeling, prostrations, etc. </p><p>We cannot look at the expression of a person's religion and judge them. We can only look at the fruit that their religiosity is bearing in their lives. Are they peaceful and joyful? Are they merciful and compassionate? If so, what's the problem? Clearly, their religious piety is helping them to be more virtuous and holy. If not, then the problem isn't their piety but the disposition of their heart. And that is true for the spiritual-but-not-religious as well.</p><p>Plenty of people claim to be spiritual but not religious and nonetheless the lack of religiosity does nothing to help them be more joyful or peaceful, merciful or compassionate. On the other hand, other spiritual-but-not-religious-ers are plenty virtuous and holy, even if they don't subscribe to any particular religious tradition, or they do, but they don't participate in it regularly.</p><p>Only God knows their hearts. Only God knows if they are meeting their obligations to God. Practical and pragmatic alternatives being unbearable, I believe God meets us wherever we are and honors our turning to Him no matter what the reasons or details.</p><p>Having considered the secular, materialistic alternative to religiosity, I have decided that life would not be worth living with that worldview. I refuse to succumb to it, even if in the end it turns out that it is factual. Factual does not mean "true". Truth is something that permeates existence and cannot be pinpointed with language.</p><p>While many would argue that my falling into Christianity isn't "valid", I disagree. I believe that it is impossible to make a solid case for the superiority of the Christian religion with the number of in-house disagreements within Christianity. How can Christians claim they've got it all figured out if they don't even think other Christians have it all figured out? </p><p>But what I CAN get on board with is the spirit of the fundamentals of the faith, which I believe is based on the incarnation of the Divine, on the eternity of life, on the power of repentance and forgiveness, on the importance of mercy and compassion. If a worldview somehow contributes to these principles, then I think it is doing the work of Christ, and it makes no difference if we use the label "Christian" for them or not.</p><p>(As an aside, the word "Christian" in Polish is actually literally translated as "The Baptised" - it's based on the act of baptism rather than on the name of the One who modeled baptism for us, namely Christ. Christians even disagree on the meaning and importance of baptism, and certainly on the appropriate timing of it. So with this in mind, some Christians may not be considered Christians in Polish. But I digress...)</p><p>In a nutshell, I came to Christ by way of the process of elimination. I tried on different worldviews, different religions, different spiritualities. And while each had something to offer, not having found a perfect fit anywhere, I decided to do the practical thing and return to my roots. I figured, if I'm not reinventing the wheel, trying to learn new prayers, new rituals, new ways of explaining life, then I can better concentrate on going deeper in the faith that already comes naturally to me.</p><p>I want to end this thought process on the following note: I do not know of any mystics - in any religious tradition - that bicker about the need of people switching religions. Rather, mystics urge us to go deeper, wherever we are. And I believe firmly that if we go deep enough, regardless where we started, we will end up at the heart of all religion - union with God, theosis, salvation, nirvana, enlightenment, heaven, or at it's most basic: eternal peace and joy!</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-43697068406528449722022-11-10T11:38:00.001-08:002022-11-10T11:38:05.776-08:00Beliefs, Rituals, Faith, Religion, Spirituality - oh My!<p>I firmly believe in a Creator God. I believe *He is loving and powerful and omniscient. I believe we live on in some way after death. I believe this afterlife is different from our earthly life. I don't know how, but I trust and believe it. I base this belief on the observation of nature itself, including the entire cosmos! Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so I believe "energy" is a scientific term for what religionists call God, but it is not a complete definition of God. God IS energy (think Holy Spirit here), but energy is not an intelligent being. Energy does not judge us for wrongdoing nor reward us for righteous living. So God is more than just energy.</p><p>While many people argue that instead of God having created us in *His image, it is us who have created "a god" in our own image, I disagree. I believe SOME people create a god in their own image, and this we'd call an idol. This is a god that is limited in virtue and power and wisdom. This is a vengeful god, a nit-picking god, a self-absorbed god. This is nothing like the God of the Bible, the God of Christianity, the God I believe in.</p><p>Rather the God I believe in is the ideal to which all human beings aspire. Because we cannot aspire to that which we do not know or have not experienced ourselves in some capacity, it leads me to believe that there is a touch of divinity left on our souls by our Creator, that causes us to look towards heaven and wonder. That wonder is the spark necessary to form any spirituality, and often religion as well. </p><p>I do recognize that spirituality and religion are two different approaches to God and all things heavenly, but they are not mutually exclusive. Spirituality speaks to the mysterious, the emotive, the subtle, the inexplicable, the awe and peace and joy that we find in God. Religion speaks to our desire for community, moral living, and traditions and rituals that help us mark milestones and express outwardly something of our inward faith.</p><p>Some people are only spiritual ("spiritual but not religious"). These are usually folks that have been burned by religion or religious authority figures, and they react to those experiences without being able to appreciate the positive aspects of religion. </p><p>Other people are only religious. These are generally the literalists, the extremists, the superficial list-checkers, the moralists - those who focus on the letter and not the spirit of the law that Jesus criticized. They do what is supposed to be "good" but without allowing it to transform them from the inside.</p><p>But is such transformation really "necessary"? Depends on what our goal is. If an intentional life of peace and joy is the goal, then yes. I do think living a spiritual life is more fulfilling than living a secular life. But I do not thing that it is necessary to open the gates of heaven, for instance. Though I do think we will have a better time "there" if we took time to prepare "here".</p><p>Then there's the definition of religion. Is it the mere superficial doing of external rites, rituals, traditions? Or is it also the belief in the meaning behind said actions? If it's the latter, then I'm definitely religious - I find comfort in the liturgy, in repetition, in familiarity. May be part of my personality, may be part of my autism. But I like it and find meaning in it, but not necessarily the meaning the official magisterium of the church would like me to find. </p><p>My spirituality isn't exactly Catholic Christian. My religion is, but my spirituality is a hybrid. The most important thing is how do I relate to God? And this is the thing that cannot be pigeon-holed into any one set way. What's more, it's not up for external validation, since no one else knows my heart the way God does.</p><p><br /></p><p>* I use male pronouns because Jesus is male and He refers to the Source as "Abba/Father". It's just a convenient way to keep God's superpersonhood in mind. I cannot relate to God without gender. Nowadays this point has really been driven home to me as people deny their biologically-based gender and reinvent grammar to try to fit with their need to be a nonconformist. But I digress. I've gone through periods when I referred to God with feminine pronouns, but since I am choosing to stay firmly within the Christian worldview, I find it more consistent to use the language that is familiar with other Christ-followers. That said, it is understood that God is not "merely" male, nor is *He "merely" female. God is "super" personal - that is, as a Trinity, God is not just "a" person like human beings. But in order to relate to God, we must personify *Him to a degree based on our lived experience. </p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-33184099201133774302022-09-19T18:25:00.003-07:002022-09-19T18:25:17.560-07:00The New "Mrs. Man's Name" is Genderlessness<p>We have entered the Fourth Turning - the inevitable Crisis of our society has arrived. Social mores are being reimagined with a vengeance. It's easy for those of us who have never lived through this before (most of us) to be in a bit of a panic about it, as if this has never happened before, or not to the same degree, or not in the same way... But really, each Crisis has the same effect on those generations who are middle aged and older when it hits. </p><p>For us, it means racism is being reimagined and redefined. It means that gender is being eliminated from the public sphere. It means that the economic and political status quo is being uprooted with vocal neo-hippies who want to start from scratch no matter the cost.</p><p>And it's easy for us look at the seemingly sudden uproar and freak out. But really, any honest student of history did see it coming, as William Strauss and Neil Howe's "The Fourth Turning" illustrates. And therefore, there is no sense in trying to force the genie back in the bottle. </p><p>The Crisis is at hand. We can fight it and exhaust ourselves, or we can accept it and reimagine our new role in relation to the new world order (and I don't mean this necessarily politically, but just in general). </p><p>In particular, I'm thinking here of gender ideology. It makes very little sense to me to take a mental disorder and normalize it to the point of gaslighting the rest of us into thinking we have been fooling ourselves all these millennia thinking species come in two sexes. But that's the first problem - semantics. </p><p>Sex and gender, as I learned back in my undergrad days, are not interchangeable terms. Therefore, as long as we think they are, we will be talking past each other.</p><p>Sex is the biological fact of our physical bodies, including our chromosomal makeup (XY or XX, or some abnormality thereof), our genital makeup (egg-production or sperm-production, or some abnormality thereof), and our secondary sex characteristics (musculature, body hair, voice). This last section is where the overlap with gender begins. </p><p>While it is true that males tend to be more muscular, more hairy, and have deeper voices, while females tend to be less muscular, less hairy, and have higher voices, this is not universally so and varies by ethnicity. What's more, it is often exaggerated by socio-cultural efforts to highlight stereotyped beliefs and expectations about the sexes.</p><p>Gender is the set of those stereotypes that are associate with a given sex in a specific culture and historical period. Clothing is a starting point. Only modern times have allowed the rather extreme differences in acceptable dress for females and males. Historically speaking, most people wore some variation of a tunic that more or less draped male and female bodies in very comparable ways. In those times, we generally see women demarcate themselves with an additional head covering, though often males also wore these for practical reasons. </p><p>Outside of clothing, hair has historically been used to accentuate a person's sex/gender, especially when clothing didn't always do the job. Males often sported facial hair, while females wore their head hair long. Although with certain cultures, hair was traditionally long universally.</p><p>So really: hair, clothing, as well as various adornments like makeup and jewelry are completely arbitrary gender markers, meaning they are socio-cultural ways of signaling the sex of the individual, but they are not what makes the individual the sex that they are. As such, those things can and do change from culture to culture and between time periods.</p><p>With that said, it is important to note that what gives those markers any meaning at all is that society agrees on those meanings. Once society starts to question the association of facial hair with masculinity or makeup with femininity, we enter chaos, because people no longer know what to expect. This is where we find ourselves today with gender bender ideology.</p><p>Twenty years ago, I was on the bandwagon of gender neutrality to a point, before I had realized the logical conclusion of such a world-view. I was outspoken against sexist language, I refused sex-based social titles ("Mrs") and names (husband's surname), and I entered motherhood insisting on what I thought was a gender-neutral babyhood for my children. </p><p>By today's standards, I was mild. For me, being gender-neutral just meant wearing neutrally-colored and decorated onsies and outfits that looked equally cute on a little girl or a little boy. I never once thought to undermine the idea that underneath it all, there actually WAS a little girl OR a little boy. I also didn't push stereotypical toys onto my children, instead focusing on things I deemed educational and useful for a human child, regardless of sex. So I got cars for my daughter and dolls for my son. I thought I was a rebel.</p><p>Today, parents are no longer allowing society to even try to force their gendered stereotypes onto their children by... simply not revealing to anyone which sex their child is. They choose gender-neutral names and use the third person plural pronoun to refer to the child, so that people simply cannot stereotype them according to sex. In my generation, we did what we could, but there were still people who, knowing we had a daughter or a son, would nonetheless come at us with color-coded gifts and assumptions about their temperament or future careers. Technically, we were still at the mercy of well-meaning, or not-so-well-meaning others.</p><p>Today's gender-neutral parents have found a way to take that risk completely out of the equation. I can't say that I blame them. I get so up in arms about nonsense I hear about my daughter's physically attractiveness but my son's temperament, as if they don't both have both qualities. </p><p>Yet I'm not exactly on board with the new gender bender world-view. I believe the sexes ought to have equal opportunities and be treated with equal respect, but I do not believe they should become indistinguishable from each other. I believe it is something beautiful to be feminine as a female, and to be masculine as a male. God made us male and female and said it was very good, and I for one have no reason to argue. There are things about being female that are wonderful precisely because they are not universal to all humans. Part of what makes us human, in fact, is actually our sex and the associated life experiences that differentiate us from the opposite sex. </p><p>I do honor each individual's right to identify how they want to identify - on one hand. On the other hand, what bothers me is the lack of understanding why such a seismic shift in worldview is being thrust upon us oldtimers with such fury and so little comprehension for why it may take us time - a lot of time - to wrap our minds around it. Accusing us of being bigotted hardly opens up the lines of communication. </p><p>When I call a biological female "she", it's not to be disrespectful, but it's because that is what four decades of living on this planet has taught me. Expecting an overnight change is simply unrealistic, and yes, we're going to push back against being forced to change.</p><p>But there's more. We also learned how to be respectful, and interestingly, respect is not expressed in universal ways. I remember people thinking they were being "respectful" when they referred to me as "Mrs. Husband's First Name". It absolutely infuriated me! I come from a culture where thank God this type of "etiquette" never took root, and so I did not find it respectful in the least to have my own name erased from the public square simply because I was married. I never stopped to consider that the people offending me were not doing so intentionally. They were operating according to the rules they had been taught. Their world view had not had a chance to upgrade.</p><p>And so here we are again, this time with me being the inadvertent disrespector when I "misgender" someone. Back when, I sighed with annoyance when someone assumed I went by "Mrs. Man" but I absolutely went berserk when someone called me that even after I let them know that was not how I wanted to be addressed. </p><p>Today, people are having the exact same reaction to us calling them "she" or "he" based on our cultural programming, which tells us that 1) we can make gender assumptions based on people's external markers such as physical features or name, and that 2) sex and gender are essentially the same thing. I'm trying to be respectful, because the idea of calling someone "it" - that is, ungendered, is downright dehumanizing. And yet that is what people thought they were doing if they didn't acknowledge my affiliation with my husband - as if my existence as a human being was somehow diminished because I was married yet not being acknowledged as such. Married status was seen as more important for a woman than a man.</p><p>Today's youth are doing away with gender as a concept altogether, and while I grew up with gender as a fact of life, if I want to maintain integrity in respecting the wishes of individuals even when I do not understand said wishes, I will need to readjust how I think about people without the lens of gender.</p><p>My gut reaction is that to take away gender is to take away the humanity of a person. But for the youth of today, who are simply not "married" to their sex the way I was not "married" to my... well, being married, one of us is going to need to adjust our world-view. I, being of an older generation, claim to have more wisdom, which includes the ability to compare current situations with previous ones and to draw similarities between them. I cannot expect the same from the youth. They are making their demands not to be difficult, althought their demands are indeed very difficult for us old-timers. They are making their demands in the same spirit as I made my demands 20 years ago. I simply wanted the right to define myself by my own standards. I did not want to be told who I was. Once I was allowed to do so, with time and experience, I came around to the idea of being called "Mrs.". Albeit, I still will not go by my husband's given name. But I would happily respond if someone simply called my by his surname. That is the compromise that could have only come through time.</p><p>And so I can hope for as much to get worked out with this new demand of genderlessness. God willing, with enough time and life experience, the pendulum will swing again in the direction of balance, and as people stop pushing gender on others, those others will stop insisting on avoiding gender, and eventually we will arrive in a place of compromise where we can all agree that life makes sense again. </p><p>But this won't happen any time soon. And so, I embark on a new phase in my life - acknowledging that I am now part of the middle-aged generation, and that our ideas are no longer the new thing. I have to make way for the even newer ideas, and practice patience, humility, and understanding.</p><p>I trust that this new attitude will be much more healthy and useful than digging my heels in and rolling my eyes at each new mention of gender. I don't have to understand it or even embrace it for myself to respect that it matters to other people. If I am to see others the way God sees them, that starts with making an effort to try to see them the way they see themselves. </p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-47852465849964396032022-09-15T08:41:00.000-07:002022-09-15T08:41:13.282-07:00Jesus First Spirituality<p>Thanks be to God, the Lord has been leading me to understand what it means to have a Jesus-first spirituality without becoming a Protestant!</p><p>I had to first shed the idea that the Sunday church experience is supposed to somehow "carry" us through the week. No, we need to put forth our own effort throughout the week. Sunday ought to be a time of renewal and recharging for the week, but it does not excuse us from working out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12-13).</p><p>Divine Liturgy is the communal/corporate aspect of our spirituality and faith. It is not the be all and end all. There must be prayer rules and fasting rules in place. There must be regular confession and Bible reading. There must be regular silent meditation either in nature or Eucharistic adoration (or both). </p><p>We do need to be intentional about who our friends are, and even more who our children's friends are. But we don't want to become so isolationist that our kids don't know how to be friends with people who are different from them. There needs to be a balance. </p><p>The homeschooling co-op at the Orthodox church is a good local source of well behaved Christian friends for our kids (and me). But we do need to still make an effort to find specifically Catholic friends for us.</p><p>Perhaps the monthly children's Mass and time fellowshipping afterwards may be a good source of Catholic friends. It may also be a good source of small groups that meet during the week. </p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-7270235027123834552022-09-01T14:53:00.003-07:002022-09-01T14:53:57.133-07:00Just the Facts - Maronite Rite<p>Fact - I want to remain Catholic.</p><p>Fact - There are different varieties of Catholic out there.</p><p>Fact - We have found one such Catholic church in the Maronite church.</p><p>Fact - The manner of reception of Holy Communion matters to me.</p><p>Fact - The manner of reception of Holy Communion at the Maronite church checks off several of the boxes for me: unleavened Host, dipped in Blood-Wine and therefore receive once but under both forms, received directly on the tongue, received directly from consecrated hands, received in the context of a joyous and reverent liturgy. </p><p>Fact - I am used to kneeling in the context of worship.</p><p>Fact - I associate kneeling with reverence and humility.</p><p>Fact - One of the reasons we are looking for a new church is to become part of a community of faithful.</p><p>Fact - To be part of a community, we need to adjust to their cultural norms.</p><p>Fact - The Maronite Catholics do not kneel during their Divine Liturgy, as it is a Western/Latin practice.</p><p>Fact - I can still kneel in private prayer, in Eucharistic Adoration, on retreat, whenever attending Novus Ordo (daily) Mass, and even before/after Divine Liturgy.</p><p>Fact - I have long been drawn to veiling.</p><p>Fact - Being around a lot of women who veil at Holy Cross Orthodox church has given me the confidence I needed to start this devotion without worrying about if I'm the only one doing it.</p><p>Fact - Women's veiling is a universal historical practice.</p><p>Fact - The Maronite church in question does not currently have any women who veil.</p><p>Fact - I can still veil while in attendance at the Maronite Divine Liturgy without being disrespectful because it is not a Latinate custom.</p><p>Fact - A commute doesn't lend itself to a very convenient community.</p><p>Fact - None of the Catholic churches we have considered lend themselves to a very convenient community either, and those that do, are not to our standards in terms of reverence.</p><p>Fact - Holy Cross is not an ideal church choice for us because (1) it is not Catholic and therefore we cannot fully participate in the Liturgy as we are barred from their Communion, (2) if we were to become catechumens, we would have to stop receiving the Eucharist at Catholic churches and so we would go without being spiritually fed until our formal reception into Orthodoxy, and (3) their Communion form is so foreign to me that it does not feel like the Eucharist at all.</p><p>Fact - We have missed the boat on allowing our children full access to the Holy Mysteries from the time of their baptism because we come from the Latin rite and were unaware of alternatives.</p><p>Fact - Going forward, my son can get married and still become a priest in the Maronite Rite should that be what God is calling him to. </p><p>Fact - DH and I both agree we felt positive vibes from the Maronite church.</p><p>Fact - If community is what we're after, we already met one family from the Maronite church - the very homeschoolers who introduced us to this Rite! We should make an effort to both meet additional people there, and to help the kids that have already met hit it off.</p><p>Fact - The Maronite church seems to be a good blend of what I love about Catholicism and what I've come to love about Orthodoxy. </p><p>Fact - Hearing chant and prayers in a language closely related to the very language Jesus spoke is valuable in itself, and this is something the Maronite Rite offers that cannot be found in other Rites.</p><p>Fact - Unless and until we come across an obstacle, we should continue where we have been led, even if unexpectedly and even if it doesn't look exactly as I had envisioned it.</p><p>Fact - Seemingly missing from the Maronite church: color and wall decoration of any kind, kneeling, women's head covering, proximity to our home, unknown homeschooling people.</p><p>Fact - The alternative to the Maronite church is the Novus Ordo church led by Fr. Eric, where we will nonetheless continue to attend monthly children's Mass. This is the "safe" option. We may need to quickly discern where to become parishioners in order for Antonio to receive his First Communion there.</p><p>Fact - Antonio wants to receive his First Communion at a reverent church, he would prefer to receive kneeling, today in church he said he'd rather wait until he's 7 so it'll be more special, and now he says kneeling isn't as important to him anymore. Bottom line, we need to make an executive decision for him.</p><p>Fact - I want to give the Maronite church a fair shake. I don't know what the future holds, but I'm intrigued enough to return and to prepare some questions for the priest there and make an effort to meet some of the other parishioners.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-80372573181175637262022-09-01T11:06:00.003-07:002022-09-01T11:06:17.359-07:00Lingering with the Maronites<p>If I am really intent on following the Lord where He may lead me, I will have to be open to stepping out of my comfort zone. Maybe that means refraining from kneeling during Divine Liturgy. Maybe that means commuting to our church community. Maybe that means joining a faith community that has grown from an ethnic heritage that is different from that of anyone in our family.</p><p>And maybe the reason I must step outside of my comfort zone is that within it, our faith has gotten stale. Within it, I have exhausted all possible paths to piety and virtue and holiness. Within it, we stagnate and do not grow.</p><p>Maybe growth in our spiritual lives means becoming open to something different. In the fantastic show "The Chosen", which is known for ad libbing to fill in contextual gaps from the Bible to help us better relate to the key players of the Gospel, there is a scene where Jesus says, "Get used to different." Perhaps He never actually said these words, but isn't that what His message was all about anyway? To see with new eyes?</p><p>2 Corinthians 5:17 says: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"</p><p>The Lord led me to Holy Cross, the Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Church where we have lingered for over a year off and on. Several months ago, there was a brief moment where I thought we were ready to make the jump and convert. But the Lord stopped me in my tracks with the Eucharist.</p><p>I love everything about the Orthodox Holy Cross parish except the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is precisely the center of our faith and the purpose for which we are seeking a reverent church! It need not be logical. I'm autistic, and I came to faith in Jesus's Real Presence in the Eucharist when it was in the unleavened form of the Host. While I thought I'd really like to have leavened bread in liturgy and communion, my actual experience has been otherwise. </p><p>I've received leavened bread at an Episcopal church once. And I've observed leavened bread at Orthodox Divine Liturgy. And to my eyes, it is bread. It is beautifully symbolic bread. There is something about the unleavened Host that is reminiscent of the manna from heaven that we read about in Exodus 15 and John 6:58.</p><p>I've often said that there needs to be something other-worldly about the environment of the worship space. That's why mere table fellowship in the way of the Quakers didn't do it for me. And while I was very excited about the prospect of baking our church's anaphora bread that would then be consecrated for Holy Communion, it actually made it too ... mundane. </p><p>I don't doubt that the early Eucharist was just this way. I'm not commenting on the validity of the Eucharist when in this form. I'm merely stating that the Lord is using this hesitation of mine to better lead me to where He wants our family.</p><p>When we visited the Russian Rite Catholic church, they used the spoon and leavened bread. I didn't feel it there, either. I realized then that it's not about Rome, or the Papacy, or which church is more apostolic than the other. For me, it is going to come down to the Eucharist.</p><p>But while the Eucharist at our Novus Ordo Masses is the way I need it to be relatable and believable, the lack of reverence around it counters my expectations.</p><p>And while the Eucharist at the Tridentine Masses is indeed surrounded by reverent liturgy, that liturgy is somber and downright depressing. </p><p>At Holy Cross, I have experienced joyful and reverent liturgy, and so what remained to be found is a joyful and reverent liturgy that also has the Eucharist that I can relate to.</p><p>And then we went to the Maronite Catholic Divine Liturgy, which felt part Orthodox, part Catholic, and part.... je ne c'est qua! It was familiar enough that I could feel comfortable joining in prayer. It was reverent and joyful. I was able to fully part-take in the very purpose of the gathering - to partake of the Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist in a form that spoke to me. Not only was it the familiar unleavened Host, but it was the Host dipped in the Blood-wine and received all in one act of reception! </p><p>The few times I've received the Eucharistic Jesus under both forms of bread and wine have always been via two separate acts - host on tongue (or worse, on the hand!) and sip from the chalice. This always felt divisive of Our Lord. There is One God, One Lord, One Body and Blood, One salvation. Having the Eucharist split like this inevitably led to eventually eliminating the laity from receiving the Blood at all. Which begged the question - do we still receive the Lord fully as He intended us to? He did say, "Take and eat; take and drink." </p><p>Yes, there are differences in the Maronite church. But this is good, I think. It allows us to look at our faith anew. It gives us an opportunity to learn with fresh insights what it is that we do when we gather for worship!</p><p>There are no familiar Stations of the Cross on the walls of the church. No stained glass windows. No kneelers and no kneeling. This particular church doesn't seem to currently have the practice of women veiling, but I don't think that is a stumbling block. I think since veiling is a universal heritage and not a Latin practice, I can confidently continue to veil without fear of coming across as trying to Latinize this beautiful Catholic Rite.</p><p>What if, when I longed for the Orthodox and Catholic churches to unite, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic church are what God answered with? For where we are now, perhaps the Maronite Rite is the right one for us. Perhaps in the future, if we move, a different Rite will take it's place. But at least I know it will still be Catholic, I will still be faithful to my conscience, and I will not need to keep myself or my daughter away from the Eucharist as we transition between churches.</p><p>I thought I wanted to check out the former Anglican ordinariate churches when I recently found out about them.... but I don't think I need to anymore. I think the Maronite church is where the Lord wants us right now. </p><p>What remains to be seen is if this is where we shall become official parishioners, and if this is where my son shall receive his First Holy Communion.</p><p>Lord, lead me on the path. Amen.</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-73060158642239456692022-08-28T12:37:00.003-07:002022-08-28T18:22:23.630-07:00First Visit to Maronite Catholic Church<p>The Lord is slowly leading us to a faith community where we will grow in faith and virtue. We recently made new friends via our homeschooling group, an unlikely family where the parents and children speak Polish and Spanish in addition to English, and who homeschool, and who are Catholic! </p><p>Today we decided to go to Divine Liturgy at their Maronite Catholic church in DC. I looked it up online and wasn't sure it was going to be a good fit. I asked our new friend and her answers further made me doubt it. </p><p>The women do not veil, and the congregation does not kneel during the service. I have come to really appreciate wearing a scarf during prayer and Mass, even when I'm not in the majority. But since this was a new rite for me, I did not want to come across as bringing my Latinate practices as if they were better than theirs. However, now that I've been once, I would be more comfortable wearing a scarf next time, even if I'm the only one, however I do want to hone in on a better style than just the Muslim-style hijab I've been wearing. And, there was one Latin-rite woman there who wore a scarf that I noticed when we were going up for Communion.</p><p>The kneeling is another practice that I would miss. Just like at the Orthodox church, there is no kneeling at all, never mind for reception of Holy Communion. There is standing and sitting. I did see one man receive the Eucharist on his knees (another Latin rite Catholic, probably there with the veiled woman who was right behind him). I resorted to my previous practice of genuflecting immediately before receiving the Eucharist. I had been kneeling regardless of the church lately, but again, I did not want to send a message that I'm a newcomer know-it-all. Perhaps I could receive on the knees in the future, especially after consulting the priest there. But even if not, I realized that if we arrive early enough, the atmosphere of the church was prayerful, so I expect I'd be able to spend a few silent minutes praying in front of the altar or tabernacle, and again afterwards. Plus, just because others aren't kneeling doesn't mean I can't kneel before/after receiving Communion, once I'm back in my pew.</p><p>Why am I even talking about how to make peace with these two features that didn't resonate with me? Because something else did. Enough to want to return. Enough to want to discern if this may be the place the Holy Spirit has been leading us to all along.</p><p>There was prayerful music. It wasn't the same style of chanting as at the Orthodox church. There was an organ. But there was also singing/chanting that was both in English and Arabic, and it was angelic in its own right. Oscar articulated it best: it was like the Muslim call to prayer. </p><p>About 12 years ago, I went through a period of discerning conversion to Islam. Of course, it didn't go anywhere because I realized the Muslim beliefs about Jesus just weren't sound. But three things attracted me to Islam: women's head coverings, the postures of prayer, and Arabic. </p><p>The church itself I was expecting to be modern art-deco style, so I didn't think I'd want to come back. But actually, while a modern construction, Oscar pointed out that it was like they made it intentionally to feel like a cave! And it's true! The materials were nothing modern-ish. No metal, no sharp edges. Plain white washed walls. Very Quaker-simple actually. Except the altar. The altar was lighted by a huge window/skylight that bathed the area in light, and cast shadows of crossbeams onto the wall. It really drew the attention to where the Consecration was taking place. Even the crucifix above the altar was small and low to the ground compared to the vast space available for it. Again, drawing our attention to what was happening at the altar.</p><p>I tried my best to follow along with the prayers and these too were beautiful. They were all about getting us ready for the Eucharist, and then thanking God for the Eucharist. Maybe we have something like that in the Novus Ordo, but I've never noticed it the way I did at today's Divine Liturgy. </p><p>And while we did not receive the Eucharist on our knees, we did receive under both forms, body and blood of our Lord. How long has it been since I've received under both forms! And even then, it was a two-step process. At the Novus Ordo Mass, I'd go up to receive the host, then to take a sip from a chalice. To me, this separation of Jesus into His two parts - body and blood - took away from the powerful meaning of Holy Communion. But here, at the Maronite Divine Liturgy, I only received the Lord once, already under both forms! (Just like at the Orthodox church, but without the spoon, with the familiar host.)</p><p>I also want to add that when I received Our Lord in the Eucharist today, under both forms but in one fell swoop, if you will, I immediately thought of the Scripture passage about the road to Emmaus and how the disciples, after Jesus made Himself known to them and then disappeared, said: "didn't our hearts burn within us as He talked with us and opened up the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32) In like manner, I felt a pleasant .... "burning" sensation on my tongue thanks to the "communion wine". Truly, I was able to "taste and see the goodness of the Lord" (Psalm 34:8), which if I'm being honest, I cannot literally taste the host by itself.</p><p>I wanted to also add that the sign of peace was quite nice. The priest first expressed peace to his fellow priests, to the deacons, seminarians, servers, and then two altar servers went down the outside aisles and with hands clasped in prayer fashion (without interlocking thumbs) and offered the sign of peace to the first person in each pew on either side, and then those people passed the peace to the next person all the way down their pew. In this way, as long as everyone does this, no one is left out of the sign of peace, which is often a possibility in both Novus Ordo Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy, which are more localized and so if no one around you reaches out to you or you don't make an effort yourself, then you won't have shared the peace with anyone.</p><p>And so, I will have to do some more research on this beautiful rite. We will need to go ahead and try to tap into the community. I realized too that whenever I would say I wanted diversity, I meant I wanted "Brown" people around! I don't know if it's a desire to be close to people who presumably resemble Jesus, or people who resemble the Romani that I know I have in my background somewhere... but this attraction dates to before meeting Oscar. In fact, I was attracted to him because of his Brownness, if you will. </p><p>Sometimes you can't explain why the heart wants what it wants. You just trust in God and follow His promptings. And today, I'm glad I did. I may not be able to get everything I want from the Maronite Divine Liturgy, but I may just get everything that my family and I need.</p><p>I feel as though we attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, certainly different from the Antiochian Orthodox liturgy we're used to, but nonetheless with enough Eastern features to feel Orthodox, and yet we were fully able to participate, to receive Our Lord with no deception, no waiting, no permission, no nothing! The priest even asked Oscar if our son was receiving, so again, the children are not excommunicated once they are baptized! I only regret not having found this rite earlier so that my children could have grown up with the Eucharist from day one.</p><p>+</p><p>Beautiful Arabic/Syriac chanting</p><p>Sign of Peace</p><p>Eucharist under both forms</p><p>Fellowship after Divine Liturgy</p><p>Simple, clean interior</p><p>Many priests/deacons/seminarians/altar servers at altar</p><p>One year reading cycle</p><p>Faint incense present</p><p>Confession before every Liturgy (10:15-10:45am)</p><p>Religious Education for children before every Liturgy (10am)</p><p>Rosary before Liturgy (10:15)</p><p>-</p><p>No kneeling at all (but I can pray quietly kneeling before and after Liturgy as well as after Communion if I choose, plus I'll ask the priest about receiving the Eucharist while kneeling)</p><p>No veiling common (but it doesn't mean that I can't continue the practice myself)</p><p>Interior unadorned (for kids - but we'll try sitting up front so they can observe what goes on at the altar)</p><p>Distance from home (but we were pretty much expecting that no matter what we chose since the local churches are generally Novus Ordo and only Fr. Erick's church with the monthly children's Mass is a viable contendor)</p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3932758884380798923.post-33903674973516268872022-08-24T08:37:00.001-07:002022-08-24T08:37:28.965-07:00Father-Daughter Relationship<p>I wasn't able to fully reflect on my relationship with my Dad while he was alive because of the nagging feeling of incompleteness and uncertainty resulting from his traumatic brain injury. I lost him 23 years ago, yet he lingered on with bits and pieces of his personality and from inside his Earthly body, with his voice but mostly no words. How does a daughter relate to a father not in the role of a father? I couldn't come to him for advice. I couldn't expect him to be proud of me anymore. </p><p>Really, the only thing I could do, and I did do thanks be to God, is relate to him through his grandchildren when my daughter and son were born. I know it brought him great joy to be a grandfather. I know he loved seeing the babies, then toddlers, then preschoolers, and finally big kids visiting him, even if all he really ever did was collect snacks to gift to them every time we'd visit. </p><p>He tried having them watch "cartoons" but I had to nip that in the bud as his discernment of what constituted appropriate children's television was off, not to mention his complete inability to appreciate that I may have standards that he ought to respect.</p><p>Thanks to my mom, we also shared meals together. These were generally short and without conversation with my dad. But nonetheless, it was time spent together.</p><p>The first 14 years after his accident, I was in the desert so to speak. Although I got married just four years after his accident, we spent the following 10 years trying to have children before we were finally blessed with our two bundles of joy. During those 14 years, I had to brace myself to always have my dad ask when we were going to have children, and why we didn't yet have children. It was nauseating and I dreaded seeing my dad because I knew that was the only thing he'd want to "talk about". </p><p>Then again, during those years, he also tried to relearn how to read again. So each visit, I would sit with him and go through the alphabet. Over time, he began to copy sentences from children's books into a Word Document on his computer, and when I'd visit, he'd have me read what he wrote aloud. This must have made him feel like he could still "write" since I was reading mostly legible, real words. </p><p>He knew he couldn't communicate orally with most people. His aphasia was so severe that even my mom would sometimes be at a loss as to what he wanted to get across. Americans assumed he spoke Polish and it was difficult to explain what aphasia looks like in a bilingual patient.</p><p>Before his accident, I feel as though I was in a good, albeit neutral place with my Dad. I had been a typical teenager, rebellious and misunderstood by my parents. Probably more so considering I grew up not knowing about my autism. Probably more so considering I was a child immigrant being raised in a culture my parents could not explain to me. </p><p>But when I showed my parents my delayed entry card demonstrating I had enlisted in the Army, my Dad was visibly proud. I carried that feeling of validation with me all my life. For this one decision, my Dad approved of me. It made all my stupid teenage antics fade away, because I had done something good for a change, something that my Dad was proud of me for. </p><p>One year later, while I was away in the Army, my dad had his accident. I had a premonition dream the night after his accident. I was awoken from it with a phone call from my mom telling me he was in the hospital, in an induced coma. I was already scheduled to fly home to visit and introduce Oscar to my family, so I did that within a week or two. When I got back, I sprang into action to request a family hardship discharge, which took 3 months to receive. </p><p>Looking back, it was my mom thinking of my constant complaining about how much I hated the Army that allowed me to get out when I did. She had me write a letter expressing how my language skills would be needed for her to take over family affairs. And while I did indeed translate documents here and there, really it was probably not much more than most immigrant children do for their parents. It didn't take my mom long to get up to speed and run the household on her own. But by then, I had been granted my discharge and came back to live close to home.</p><p>Before his accident, my dad did not understand me. No one did. I was autistic and I didn't know it, and neither did they. I wasn't very close to anyone really, by today's standards. I'm only now realizing that my emotional needs growing up were neglected, because my parents were not taught much emotional intelligence. Their emotional needs were not met, so they didn't know how to do that, or that they weren't doing it. </p><p>But before the troublesome teenage years, I loved my tatus. I had him and my mom all to myself for nearly 9 years, except that my dad was gone from my life for 4 years when he immigrated before we did. He kept in touch by letters and occasional phone calls. He'd send funky photographs and have us guess what it was, or just to show off that when we'd join him, we'd have a house phone. </p><p>When we arrived in New York and were reunited with my Dad, for a short time, I guess I was a daddy's little girl. I was super polite, quiet, obedient. We played Legos together. He liked to take me and my mom on little field trips to show us this new country in which we had arrived. He worked hard to move us quickly from the apartment in Bladensburg to one in Silver Spring, and then another year later, to purchase a house all the way in Fredericksburg, Virginia, so that we could live in a safe neighborhood and so I could go to good schools. </p><p>But because he worked so hard, such long hours, and then with such a terrible commute, I didn't really see much of him, and there was no such thing as "papi and me" time back then. At least not in my household. We grew distant because as I entered adolescence in a foreign culture, my parents did not expect the challenges that would bring. I felt blamed for my difficulties, for my rebellion, for my questioning of authority. I needed to be talked to. I needed to be asked what I was feeling and how I was doing. I needed to be assured that our faith was something that was a continuation of what we all knew from the old country, so that I could hang onto it when tough times came. But my parents didn't know that.</p><p>Before our separation, I only have two memories with my dad from Poland. One may have been a created memory from a photograph. I was about 3 and we were visiting a cousin of his on their farm. I was shy, but he wanted me to come sit on his lap as he crouched in front of a car - maluch. I was cuddled up against him as the photo was taken. I remember being there, in his embrace, safe from the prying eyes of people I did not know who were taking our picture.</p><p>Then, I remember overhearing my parents talking, about a year later, in the foyer. I was already supposed to be asleep. I got out of bed and found my parents saying goodbye by the front door. I protested my dad's leaving. My mom picked me up, and I reached to pull on my dad's brown woolen scarf in my childish attempt to get him to stay. No one had talked to me about the fact that he was leaving on a long work trip. No one thought it would be prudent to let me know that my father was not merely abandoning me, not even bothering to tell me that he was leaving. They just figured I'd go about my day with whatever explanation they'd give me, acting like it didn't matter that my dad was no longer in my daily life.</p><p>I must have felt protected and provided for by my dad on some level even back then, because while I don't recall specific memories with him other than these two, I clearly had a positive attitude towards him, and I missed him when he left and I looked forward to meeting him again when I was 8.</p><p>I doubt that I subconsciously felt fear of abandonment already from the age of six weeks, when I was baptized but he didn't come to my baptism. I only found out about this at the age of 40. But maybe?</p><p>My baptism when I was 6 weeks old.</p><p>Leaving the country when I was 4 years old.</p><p>Focused on work but not my changing needs in adolescence. </p><p>Then our blessed reconciliation just in the nick of time, when I joined the Army at the age of 19.</p><p>His accident which left him with a severe traumatic brain injury and me without a father figure, at the age of 20.</p><p>And finally, his earthly death when I was 43, five days after my last conversation with him (during which time we said "I love you" as we had recently started doing), about 6 weeks after the last time I saw him when I visited for Father's Day. Sadly, I did not take any photos on that visit. Perhaps I was getting weary of taking random photos each visit. But already earlier this year, I had started to feel that each visit could be our last. I had a surreal sense of saying goodbye without really saying it. </p><p>I knew he could go at any time. But really, this is true for all of us. No one knows the hour nor the day (Matthew 24:36).</p><p>And so, my relationship with my father has come to an end. About a month or two before he passed away, I started a daily morning and evening prayer rule. I included a prayer for my parents in it, from a book by Jesuits. The first time I prayed that prayer after his death, the following words hit me hard: "may they die the death of the just, may they pass quickly to their heavenly home". I had been praying for a happy death for him leading right up to his passing, including the night before and that morning even! </p><p>I take comfort in knowing that, and in the continued prayers of my children and myself for the repose of his soul. I thank God for making me Catholic, where we believe in Purgatory, where we believe there is always hope, there are things the Lord can do even after death. Truly, death is not the end of our relationship with God, even if it is the end of our relationship with others. </p><p>In a way, because I continue to pray for my dad even now, we continue to have a relationship of sorts. In a way, our relationship now can become more pure, more unadulterated by circumstances, hurts, habits, and hang-ups. And eventually, I pray, the tables will turn, and having entered heavenly glory, my Dad will then pray for me :)</p><p><br /></p>Karolinahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03882350873385549751noreply@blogger.com0