"Your Body is Incapable."

So I've been thinking (uh-oh).  All of this reading about pregnancy, babies, birth, and a woman's right to choose (elective cesarean) sort of makes me wonder where the feminist movement stands on this issue.  How do women like Erica Jong feel about birth?  I'd venture a guess and say she's all for medicated birth and whatnot (pain/suffering is bad and should be avoided at all costs).  But she doesn't make up the entirety of the feminist movement.  As this article states, there are women on both sides of the fence.

Because of my difference of opinion with Erica Jong (and my heated response to her article) I've lost a progressive friend, so having a conversation about this with someone who is on that particular side of the fence with other things is a little less feasible for me.  I don't have a lot of friends who seem so decidedly on one side or the other, and talking about this to someone who is undecided isn't helpful in figuring out how one side thinks of something.
The questions this raises are a whole other bag of tricks.

I wouldn't call myself regressive per se, but some of the staunchly progressive ideas out there raise more concern in me than hope.  It is my opinion that the mechanization of birth is terrible in several ways.  Yes, hospital technology and medicine in general are great, for those who need it.  But the obstetric model of care - that a woman's body is inherently flawed and cannot handle childbirth (something it was designed to do) without the aide of technology - is something I have issues with.  This makes me think of a certain gentleman's opinion that Catholicism taught the very thing obstetrics teaches to it's practitioners.  How, then, do you explain a backwards view of women seeming to be present in our forward-moving medical society?
I suggest that if we were as progressive as pro-choice people want, we would not have women writing about how home birth is something only narcissistic power-hungry women do - because everyone knows that medicine is God and there is no way that an informed woman can safely birth her baby without obstetric intervention (pitocin, epidural, etc).
What I would love to know is how pro-choice people feel about women having the right to choose where they have children.  Given that pro-choice is obliviously medical, I'd wager that they are against assisted home birth, free-standing birth centers and midwifery in general.  But I could be wrong.

As a small side note, the woman behind the above link (Skeptical OB) is getting her information from somewhere that is completely different from everything I've read, and studies I have looked at for myself (also what I've read about the history of obstetrics taking over birthing).  I haven't found any citations on her entries, but I also haven't read a terribly large amount of her blog.  It gets tiring to be told over and over that I need technological intervention, that I cannot survive without it, and that attempting to do so (even if I am informed) makes me nothing short of an idiot.  These aren't her exact words, but the tone I get from her articles gives me that impression.  It's all very fear-based, and I don't trust fear-based information.

So those are my musings, regurgitated because I sat down to stare at the blank new entry box and wondered for a good amount of time what in the world I was going to write about.

I do want to say that I am not against hospital birth.  I am against pressuring mothers into procedures they do not need (episiotomy) for the sake of obstetric convenience.
Hospital birth is a great thing for those mothers who do need it.

A Shift in the Tide.

On being pregnant:

I used to say things like, "by the time I'm pregnant, birth will be pain-free!"  I was definitely a fan of medicine's version of childbirth.  But that was before I really gave it any thought, or looked into it at all.
Medicine is fantastic for the women who really need it; women are saved pretty regularly by hospital staff for various reasons.  However, the interventions these women need are not the interventions all women need.  There should not be a standard of care where you receive the one thing that has been proven to work regardless of your actually needing it.
Hey, hospitals need to cover their ass.  They could get sued.

I digress.

My original intent is to write about what I thought before and what I think now, because what you think before you live something is not necessarily what you think after or during.
As with my opinion on abortion, my opinion of birth is much different now.
I believe that birth can (and should) be a positive experience for mother and baby.  There are risks to the birth I am choosing to try to have, but there are also risks in choosing a hospital birth.  Birth is not risk free, no matter what you choose.
I will be the first to admit that birth terrifies me somewhat.  I think it's mostly the unknown that scares me.  Every birth is different, someone's story about when they gave birth will be different than what I have to say, so the question remains: what will it be like?  I am intimidated by not knowing what to expect (other than pain).  I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in feeling this way among first-time mothers, which is why hospital birth is so appealing to women - there's a certain sense of safety associated with being in a hospital at a time of potential medical crisis.  And yes, there are benefits to being in a hospital if something does go wrong.

People tend to assume that I have just up and decided to have my baby at home.  With this assumption comes the inevitable, "don't you know that birth is dangerous!?"
Yes, I do know this.  I have made this decision based on the information I have acquired and I really believe it to be the best choice for me.  It is by no means the best choice for everyone, and I have neither said this nor meant to imply it.  It is, I believe, the best choice for me.
In talking to these same people I often find that they base their opinions on an article they read in a magazine, or some form of media coverage of something.  And they are adamant that what they think is the only right way to think.
Some of them have never had children.
Some of them will never have children.
These two latter groups I try to take in stride, as they are usually the most vehement backers of hospital birth.  There is nothing to be done but smile and nod at them, because they will never listen to why I made this decision (and continue to research it).  They only want to tell me how stupid and selfish I am for making it.  One blogger (who happens to be an O.B.) called the home birth "movement" narcissistic.  The people I talk to in person are generally of a similar mindset.
As I said earlier: there is no middle ground.

The above is what bothers me most.  I shall call it "the great divide."  People must have their opinions and your opinion is only okay if it matches their own.  Never-mind being open minded about things, or at the very least receptive.
I understand why people are shocked when I say I'm going to try to have my baby at home.  I know that it's not how the majority would do it.  And I know there is a lot of media available against it.  And of course I know the risks involved with it (they are not as terrible as one is led to believe, but they are still present).  I feel, sometimes, that my understanding is like banging my head against a brick wall.  It doesn't matter that I understand these things, all that matters is that I see the error in my own judgement and the terrible mistake I'm about to make.
Dealing with it is even more difficult when it's coming from people who aren't pregnant and potentially never will be.  I'm glad they are concerned for my well-being, but I would appreciate if they gave me credit for the information I've gathered.  I'm doing my best to make an educated decision, and that does include looking at the situation from all of the angles I can perceive.  So in a way these people are helping me, just not in the manner they had in mind.  Still, I'm not really a fan of being given a rather loud version of the cold shoulder.

When I speak with someone who has a different opinion I try to figure out where the opinion came from.  What information led them here?  I tend to work under the assumption that they had some sort of logical thought process behind it (which is not always the case).
I was one such person in my days of, "just give me pain killers," and my pro-choice opinions.  I now understand what I had to overlook to hold those opinions.  For me, it's a damned lot to overlook.

Being pregnant is a life-altering journey.  It certainly has changed my mind about a number of things and solidified my pro-life stance quite a bit just from what I've learned about Baby's development.  It has also opened my mind to things I'd never thought of, and would never have thought of if I was not pregnant.

I suppose what I'm driving at here is that opinions are all well and good, until you're actually living the situation you've formed your opinion about.
Experience can change a lot about a person, not the least of which being their worldview.

Natural Parenting.

Women feel not only that they must be ever-present for their children but also that they must breast-feed, make their own baby food and eschew disposable diapers. It's a prison for mothers, and it represents as much of a backlash against women's freedom as the right-to-life movement.

-Erica Jong 

Okay, let me first say that I am very well aware that there are circumstances in which you cannot raise a child naturally.  I am in no way trying to degrade the women in these circumstances.  Very often (if not always) they are loving, caring, wonderful parents; something is just preventing them from doing what they might otherwise want to do.  I am responding to this particular woman's rather long-winded article against natural parenting.

This quote is more than a little irritating.  This woman has just railed against everything I consider to be logical in being a good mother.

Ever-present is not a good idea, but being with your child and actually taking a large part in his or her life is very important to raising him or her.  In fact, I might say that part of being a mother is sacrificing your own life to raise the child (or children) you have brought into this world.  That being said, I'm not really sure it seems like sacrifice for the woman who loves her child.  If it does, it is a good kind of sacrifice.

Oh. Wait. Sacrifice is bad.

I forgot where I was living for a moment.

The remainder of this quote is plain ridiculous.

Formula feeding should be your absolute last result.  Unless you like chemicals then, by all means, formula feed.  We wonder where all this hyperactivity is coming from in our children.  Would it not be logical to connect their diet to their behavior?  No?  Is it it too radical to think that processed foods (that are largely made of practically synthetic things) may actually be bad for you?

Early in the shift to hospital birth women were routinely X-rayed to make sure they had a big enough pelvis.  Oops, the babies got cancer.  Later, women were given a drug to help morning sickenss that caused severe (by my standards) birth defects.  Who is to say that in another few years there won't be widely publicized information linking formula to colic and other digestive problems?

Oh, and forget microwaving your formula: it can cause the formula to become toxic.  Not fatally so, I assume, but how many toxins are you okay with your baby ingesting?  They do label formulas with a warning against nuking them these days, but it took a bit for anyone to admit something was wrong.

It should follow that I am pro breast-feeding.  I am a formula baby myself and I'm just fine now, but it is something I would like to avoid if I can with my children.  And my reasoning seems logical to me, the same way eating a healthy, natural diet is logical to me.

Disposable diapers is a choice.  I'm going to try cloth, because I'd like to minimize my household's waste output.

As for the last bit:

I'm terribly sorry that having children also comes with responsibility.  If you'd like to be a completely free person don't have a child.  Children are not pets; they are a lifetime commitment.  As with any lifetime commitment (such as marriage) there are things that need to be sacrificed, there are compromises to be made, there are responsibilities to adhere to.

This is the line of thinking that leads to the concept of painless child birth.
What is that doing to us and our babies?

~~~

I am a woman.

I was created to be nurturing, loving, and strong.

I'm not imprisoning myself when I choose to raise my child in a healthy way.

Women have been raising children this way for ages, what is wrong with it now?

I am a woman.

And I find it ridiculous that others would unabashedly decline the logic of natural parenting because it's difficult.  Life is difficult.

Get over it.

Honey Bees and Projection Screens.

Bee Love (redbud tree)

Hubby and I went to Grand Junction for Easter weekend and it was pretty awesome to be out of town.  The weather was beautiful (it was also beautiful in Denver) and we spent some time driving around doing various things.  On Saturday the honey bees found the tree in the front of my parents yard.  Their tree is very similar to the one pictured, but has slightly darker blossoms.  The honey bees love it; they were working from late morning to early evening collecting goodies to take back to their hive.  There were so many of them!  Almost the entire top of the tree was covered in honey bees with about three to four blossoms between each of them.  And the sound.  The sound they made was amazing.  All of those bees working on a single tree created a fantastic hum.  You could hear it form inside the screen door, but if you walked outside it was much louder, and much cooler.  It was an experience, to say the least.

At any rate, today I'm writing about projecting yourself onto others: what I was supposed to write about yesterday, had I not been up at three in the morning.

How many times have you caught yourself expecting others to behave the way you behave?  If you're a parent, your answer is most likely higher than those of us without children.
I catch myself doing this a lot.  I mean, a lot.  I slip into the foolish expectation that someone else will treat me the way I would treat them, or have habits similar to mine.  This is easy to do with a lot of things.  I forget that world view is different for everyone.  Sometimes I think, "well it was easy for me, it'll be easy for you."
I feel like this is an error that a lot of people make.  And I do try to correct myself, though sometimes it's quite a long time after the fact that I realize that's what I was doing.
The mistake of projecting something onto another person is simple to make, and it's hard to understand that this is what's happening in a multitude of situations.  The problem is the difficulty level of thinking like someone else.  Thinking like someone else is next to impossible for most people because you can't turn off the you in your brain (at least I can't).  It's extremely difficult not to perceive something with your own special bias (I'm not using this word negatively here).  Because of this we come upon the fallacy of Relativism. In some respects this theory is true, and in some respects it is false; like anything else, it cannot be blanketed over everything the way people seem to want to use it.

People also project onto animals.
This is why you see dogs that are ill-trained, or animal hoarders.  Someone has projected their emotional distress in some form onto the animal present, and the result is sometimes disastrous.  This is true of projecting onto other people as well.

I'm not saying projecting yourself onto someone else is particularly a terrible thing; what I'm saying is that it can cause problems.

The most frequent example I have of this in myself is my lack of understanding for others misunderstanding.  It is so clear to me why I joined Catholicism and why I'm preparing to embark upon the journey into WAPF, it should also be clear to you, the person I am speaking with.
But it is not always so clear to everyone else.  And in my limitations I get frustrated with those who refuse to even acknowledge that perhaps my choices are right, though different from theirs (I am also guilty of not understanding someone's choice, but I try to be nice about it).  In my frustration I find my articulation suffers and I become somewhat stubborn, sometimes very stubborn.  In the end (if the discussion is particularly irritating) I wonder, "why can't they just see my side of things?"  But who's to say they're not thinking the exact same thing about me?
I have my reasons and I try to explain them, but I rely a lot on the assumption that since they were logical to me, they will be logical to someone else.
The common error of projecting my logic process onto the person I'm speaking with.

It's also irritating to realize that someone else has been making assumptions about you based on their own emotional baggage.  The kind of assumptions that are totally out of left field and really don't make any sense if they actually knew you (or were actually observant).
The "up" side is called rose colored glasses and is a term applied to people who are blindly in love with someone, or just intentionally ignoring their faults.  The "down" side doesn't have a name to the best of my knowledge - I might call it seeing red or something similar - and is the opposite end of the spectrum where someone refuses to see any good qualities in someone.

~~~

I'm sorry for the lack of activity last week.  I'm trying to write when possible, but this eye strain is really kicking my ass.  I should make an eye appointment but I can't do that until after September, when I'm not a pregnant lady any more.  At least that's what they tell me.
Until then I'm going to make my best effort to obtain Hubby's glasses so I can sit and stare at the screen for a while.  The difficult part is he doesn't get home from work until around 7:30 p.m., then we eat dinner, then I'm tired and I want to go to bed so I can get up at 5:30 a.m. the next day to work for 9 hours.  It's a viscous cycle, but I don't think I'd change it.  I'll just have to try and work around it.
And try I shall!
I apologize for the potentially sporadic updates that may follow.

~~~

I leave you with this.  Enjoy.

More on HHS and Contraceptives.

I am back.  The convention went fairly good.  I do wish I had been able to garden this weekend, or get some semblance of housework done.  Guess what I'm doing this whole week!

Just in case:
The following post is based upon arguments I have read and heard.  It is not, in any way, intended to refer to every single person and their views about the issue.

Further regarding HHS:
I read two articles in last Sunday's Perspective section in the Post about it.  Both opposing the religious side in favor of "women's health."  One was written by a woman and one was written by a man.  Both brought up valid points in favor of birth control, the latter bringing up the point that the government indeed forces others to pay for things they are opposed to.  The author cited four to six things (I can't remember now) that peoples of other faiths pay for via taxes that they oppose.
The religious argument is not a new one.
I suppose the question now is what makes the Christian/Catholic argument any better than the others?
Upon thinking on the things the author cited (vegans paying for subsidized grazing land for livestock we eat) I've realized that the difference is that birth control is not something that is needed by the majority.  It is not a necessity that people be able to have sex without facing the consequences of a child.  There is a percentage of women (I think the first article mentioned said something around 14%) that need birth control as hormone therapy for treating certain disorders (PCOS) however, these women are most likely not going to die without it.
In a further discussion with my roommate she argued that freedom of religion is acceptable until your religion is hurting someone else.  The example she gave was as such: what if she worked for a Christian Science company and for some reason went to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.  At the hospital she dies on the operating table and needs to be resuscitated.  Now, because Christian Scientists do not believe in medical care they refuse to pay the particular part of the medical bill (after insurance) that is regarding the resuscitation and she is left with the resulting enormous bill.
That's valid, but I don't think a Christian Science company would even offer health insurance to begin with.
I can say, that having been in a situation where I was uninsured and "needed" birth control, it is not difficult to get.  All I did was go to a Planned Parenthood, told them I needed a prescription for this pill, and they gave it to me.  The cost was double what I was paying with insurance but even then it amounted to an extra $10 a month.  I understand that this is hard to come by sometimes, but it's not like I had a high paying job.  I was pretty much below the poverty line according to my income totals at the end of that year, but I made due.  It's all about budgeting, which is a skill Americans seem to notoriously lack.  In any case, I haven't found an insurance provider that covers contraceptives fully (albeit I haven't been really looking for one either).
So my point is that those who argue that it's OK to force someone to pay for something they morally oppose argue that those who are morally opposed are in some way physically harming someone else.  At least that's the way it seems on the HHS issue.
The issue is silly because it isn't like birth control is hard to get.  If someone opposes it and therefore will not pay for it, pay for it yourself.  You're already working, so use $20 of that money every month to buy a pack of pills.

The whole thing frustrates me.  I have a problem with people who expect others to just pony up for their stuff.  The group of people who are entitled to everything regardless.  The same people who will buy a shiny new car when they know damn well they can't afford it and then are surprised (sometimes even enraged) when it gets taken from them because they can't pay.
Yes, there are people who legitimately need the help, and help should come to them in some form or another.
But there are also those people who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves if only they didn't live outside of their means.  I feel like these are the people that make up the majority in this case.

But it could be that I'm just being a cynic.

Boulder Billboards

"Man has the dreadful power of refusing to think"
- Fr. Ronald Knox

The above is taken from a chapter in the book I'm reading (I hate to be redundant, but there it is).  Having been a person who was not thinking, I find this quote amusing.  I'm sure someone will take offense, but it is intended to be lighthearted.  It's also true; working in customer service I can attest that perfectly intelligent people do (often) refuse to think.  We'd rather follow mindlessly.  It's easier.

At any rate, I was reading the paper this morning and came across The Open Forum in today's Opinion section:

Atheists' billboards: "God is an imaginary friend"

There were three responses published; all cordial, but all opposing the sentiment of the billboard.  The title of The Open Forum sort of softens the actual text on the billboard:

GOD IS AN IMAGINARY FRIEND.
CHOOSE REALITY, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
The Colorado Coalition of Reason
www.cocore.org

One response that was published said,

If Boulder Atheists' goal is separation of church and state, why don't they just say that?  They want to "encourage dialogue," they say, but dialogue can quickly become a monologue if you attack the intelligence of your audience.  I suspect "believers" know what reality is...
-Bob Benham

I understand the purpose of the billboard.  What I don't understand is the logic behind it.  They call themselves the Coalition of Reason, but I find their phrasing to be a little on the unreasonable side.  Choose reality, because what you believe is so wrong it affects everyone else in a negative way.  Uhm....what?  How is that reasonable?

I also disagree with the statement that choosing to live my life differently would be better for everyone else.  Living a Christian life is akin to living a good life.  No, you don't have to be Christian to live a good life, but the average person might be more inclined if he or she believed there to be consequences to their actions.  No, you don't have to be Christian to believe that, but following a faith certainly helps.

The people that paid the money to put up this sign are perhaps misguided.  Just as Bob Benham said, a dialogue quickly becomes a monologue if you attack your audience.

There is humor to be found in this, however, because it is better to laugh at it than to be irate.

There are more.  Apparently this is a thing:

 

On a related note, have any of you seen the Mormon billboards?  They're just a little on the creepy side:

pictured: creepiness.

 Check out that guy on the far right.  He's friggin' stoked about being Mormon.
These normal, unassuming people are Mormon!  It's awesome! They think it's awesome, you should try it!

Nothing against Mormonism, I just think the ads are creepy.

If you find any Christian/Catholic billboards, do share.  It's quite fun to see what people decide to advertise to the world.

The point of all this talk about billboards is this: if you ask me, I don't think religion belongs on billboards period.  It shouldn't be something you sell.

Theological Rhetoric...or Lack Thereof.

[EDIT]
If you're interested, read Women in the Days of the Cathedrals - Régine Pernoud.  It's a very interesting book about the history of women in Catholicism.
[/EDIT]

I hosted a party this Saturday to bring in the new year.  I'm feeling under the weather, so no drinking for me; which means that when I was asked if someone in the house was a religions major I was completely sober.  I was asked twice - at intervals of twenty minutes, or so - explaining both times that I was converting.  The second time it sunk in, but was not pursued.  The third time it came up, I was sitting next to the couch watching the game of King's Cup unfold when Ryan* turned around and said, "so, you're converting to Catholicism, why?  Are you converting for him?" He nodded his head in my fiance's direction and gave me an interesting look.
I told him that, no, I was not converting for him.  Yes, he had shown me the faith, but I had chosen to convert for my own reasons.
It was clear he didn't believe me because the next thing out of his mouth was a statement of his surprise.  Something about Catholicism being anti-feminine.
"You mean, anti-feminist?" I asked.
"Both." was his reply.
When I asked him what he meant he provided no answer, but changed the subject.
Later, as he was looking at my art he expressed his disbelief again by saying I was so good at drawing the female figure and that my artwork centers around women.
So I shot my confusion at his theory right back and was met, again, with a change of subject.
He never explained his reasoning.

Lessons One and Two

My parents came into town early this week (I’m having trouble keeping track of exactly which day, the week is a blend of stress) and it’s been lovely.  I can’t tell you how much I missed feeling at home in my house. The feeling is still fleeting, but more permanent now than it has been for months. 

I’m working hard at modifying the wedding dress I bought at Goodwill and it’s coming along nicely.  I’m considering posting pictures after the wedding.

On to the point:

This is the first entry in which I will explore the catechism I’m learning from.  It’s been hard to not write until now; I wanted to write it every day of this week and I was having a difficult time waiting until Friday.  As it turns out, though, this Friday I’m working thirteen hours straight and I most likely won’t feel like writing when I get home (I’ve discovered that, for whatever reason, the wireless at work blocks me from signing in to blogger.  I can waste my whole day on youtube, but I can’t publish a blog or look at my stats.  I’m having a time puzzling over the logic of that one – if it exists).

The blog will be structured as such:

Things taken directly from the book are bold, my original views will be italicized, and my comments will be in regular typeface.

So, as I watch the snow fall outside, on to lesson one.

Lesson One:

The Purpose of Man’s Existence

My initial reaction was to sort of sneer at this sentence.  Who presumes to know the purpose of the existence of human-kind?  I should think no one human.  I was of the general opinion that our only real purpose was to procreate just like everything else that lives on this planet.  Certainly, individuals find purpose and meaning in life, and I never said they were wrong in that, I just held a rather cynical view that, in the end, what does human life really matter to the planet? and in the grand scheme of things, there was no one to hold merit to it.

I still sort of sneer at this sentence, although put into context of everything I’ve learned it sort of makes more sense to me.  The purpose is to lead a good life.  I still believe that no one human knows the true purpose of existence of human-kind, but I’m pretty sure God knows why we exist.

The next of the chapter consists of questions such as;

1. Who made us?  God made us.

2. Who is God?  God is the supreme Being, infinitely perfect, Who made all things and keeps them in existence.

3. Why did God make us?

You get the point.  There are six questions total and the chapter ends with the number seven:

7. Say the Apostles Creed.

Following seven is the Apostles Creed for you to read aloud, and a picture of the crossroads between Heaven and Hell

I’m glad I started mid-catechism because this chapter would have been a huge turn off to me.  It sort of has the feel of instructing you how to believe.  I’m aware that instructing my belief is the entire point of the catechism, but the remainder of the book is far less arrogant in tone than this chapter.

In the credit of the chapter, it asks difficult questions like;

1.  Suppose a great astronomer does not know why God made him and a little child does.  Which of the two is better off?  Why?

4. What makes people unhappy?

In context of the book the answer to four is simple; not knowing God makes people unhappy.  Or you could say not living a good life.  Answering one is a bit more trying.  I would counter with a question: Do you have to know why God made you to be living a Christian life?  This is assuming that ‘why’ is interpreted as ‘for what purpose’ and that you perhaps have a purpose other than living a good life.

Lesson Two:

God and His Perfections

A.  What is God?

8. What do we mean when we say God is the Supreme Being?  When we say that God is the Supreme Being we mean that He is above all creatures, the self-existing and infinitely perfect Spirit.
9. What is a spirit?  A spirit is a being that has understanding and free will but no body, and will never die.

B.  What are God’s Perfections?

12. What are some of the perfections of God?  Some of the perfections of God are:  God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.

17. If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him?  Although God is everywhere, we do not see him because He is a spirit and cannot be seen with our eyes.

19. What is God’s loving care for us called?  God’s loving care for us is called Divine Providence.

C.  How do we know about God?

22. Can we know by our natural reason that there is a God?  We can know by our natural reason that there is a God, for natural reason tells us that the world we see about us could have been made only by a self-existing Being, all-wise and almighty.

The rest of the chapter focuses on the bible, what it is, why we should read it, how to interpret it, etc.

-- Listen, children, take from this how to answer a question on a short answer essay test.  These are awesome examples (I couldn’t help noticing that). --

Most of these points seem logical to me, and seemed logical when I went over the lesson with my instructor.  Some of them cleared some confusion and some of them just reinforced my prior thoughts about a God before I was certain He existed.

The natural reason point (twenty-two) brings debate forward.  I ask this to counter those who are convinced everything is random:  Have you ever experienced a moment where time itself seems to stop, something so amazingly beautiful that you literally forget to even breathe for a short time?  If your answer to this was yes, I challenge you to say that God (or something/someone with a design in mind) did not fashion it for the world to see; for the very purpose of reassuring us that there is beauty in this ugly world.

This is part of what convinced me (I wasn’t reading this lesson until the end half of Convert Instructions) that God is out there.  I’d had that experience and, even when I wasn’t sure what I believed, the idea that the beauty I witnessed was created intentionally resonated within me.

To those of you who answered ‘no’ to the above question, I hope that sometime soon you’ll be able to change that.  It’s an experience that no one should be without, and it doesn’t necessarily require a long trek into the wilderness to achieve.  We’re too caught up in the great us that is humanity.  Technological advances are incredible, but also hindering.  I challenge you, for just one day, to set down everything (phone included) and go for a walk in a park, or drive to some remote location and just soak up the world.  Watch the sky, feel earth beneath your feet, find pictures in the clouds, see the stars – the real, magnificent star-scape you see when away from light pollution.  It’s worth every second to just experience nature, what I believe God has created.

A similar experience can be had through children.  Though I do not yet have children of my own, I see them frequently, and they often remind me how wonderful life really is.

~~~

I’m going to take a second to disclaim this for those who read things that are not here.  There is no ‘between the lines’ in this blog.  I have to ulterior motive.  I created this blog because I feel the need to share my experience with others. 

The real inspiration for it was in reading A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken.  I strive to create something that can possibly touch another the way that book touched me.  I will most likely fail in that, but in not trying is a more desolate failure.

This is also a chance for me to know my faith more intimately.  In exploring each lesson for this blog, I will have a chance to learn things I had missed before.

This blog is not directed toward anyone, which is why I have made the decision to keep it anonymous.

~~~

Now I’m going to take a minute to give my thanks.

I give my thanks to the troll(s) in my life.  You have taught me first hand that forgiveness is difficult, yet easy.  It is difficult in that you must forgive multiple times, it never takes just once, and each time the pain is just as fresh as the first.  It is easy in that I am forgiving by nature, and hating comes hard. 

The difficulty comes when I have forgiven a thousand times over, and still have yet more forgiving to do.  My instructor put this into words for me.

Another way to put it:  “There is nothing that has happened that God cannot forgive, that I cannot forgive, and that we can’t work through” (1 John 1:9)

In the words of a dear friend of mine: “Grief is like an angry monkey that runs in on you randomly, smacking you in the face with fistfuls of shit.”

That isn’t verbatim, but it’s close.

I also give my thanks to my first follower.  It makes me happy to have a reader, especially one who writes such an incredible blog herself.  I truly appreciate it.

On a similar token, I’m thankful for the share on facebook that one of the parish priests did for the link to my blog.  It’s brought the majority – if not all – of my traffic.

In short, you guys are awesome.

(yep, even the troll(s))

~~~

Milestone Four: 100 views!

~~~

Question Two:

Do you believe in ghosts or evil spirits?  Would you be willing to spend a night alone in a remote house that is supposedly haunted?