The Loser

Listen without interrupting. ( PROVERBS 18 )

Speak without accusing. ( JAMES 1:19 )

Give without sparing. ( PROVERBS 21:26 )

Pray without ceasing. ( COLOSSIANS 1:9 )

Answer without arguing. ( PROVERBS 17:1 )

Share without pretending. ( EPHESIANS 4:15 )

Enjoy without complaint. ( PHILIPPIANS 2:14 )

Trust without wavering. ( CORINTHIANS 13:7 )

Forgive without punishing. ( COLOSSIANS 3:13 )

Promise without forgetting. ( PROVERBS 13:12 )

Ten Ways To Love

Noah vs Christians

My political philosophy professor once said that philosophical texts argue against something. I originally intended to critique Darren Aronofsky's Noah but I've been overwhelmed by the many unjust (well, in some cases) reviews. So what I'm writing right now will not be a crystal-clear stand-alone critique but it will be also an argument against others.

I will begin with the harshest criticism that I've heard so far: It is a falsification of he biblical Noah story. It was actually a bit of a surprise to me because I am a christian myself and it never occured to me. What must be observed is that it is a dramatization, which means making something into a drama. A drama is a piece of art, like a painting or an opera. If the crucifixion is painted, does it falsify the Bible by the characters not looking exactly the same as they actually looked? No. If Noah is a dramatization, one must look at it as an independent artistic feat, which in no way attempts to replace, say, the teachings of the Bible. Someone said to me that those, who don't have a basic knowledge or understanding of the Noah story, will watch Aronofsky's work and think that it's the Bible. Well, it's problematic. I can't imagine this becoming a thing. This isn't a hundred percent true, of course, so there might be people, who would fall under the impression that it is a true depiction and it is, of course, acceptable to advertise that it actually isn't but nothing further comes from this, like saying that it is actively against the Bible. In the other hand, this person did not consider how the christians, who think like him, will miss the actual merits of the film, while strongly concentrating on their preconcieved fears.

There was also the idea that the Bible's Noah was a missionary and he tried to actually save everyone from dying, instead of deliberately keeping them out of the ark. They argued that it is written in the New Testament that God patiently waited for the people who were otherwise condemned to death (1 Peter 3:20); and that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). It is a misunderstanding to think that these things go against the movie. They certainly aren't in focus because Aronofsky had other things he wanted to communicate. But the film's depiction of God isn't essentially untrue to this. Christianity's chief principle is that life on earth is not the complete life but instead, we have an eternal perspective. The Bible's truth is also about more than the truth that a flood will come: it is about God and his love for humanity. If we marry these two together we will see that Noah's missionary work was to save the souls of the poeple of his time, much rather than convincing them that they will be killed by water if they persist that they keep out from his ark. So, this aspect of the Noah story isn't represented, however, if people turned to God, gave up their wicked ways and were truly converted, even Aronofsky's Noah wouldn't have kept them out of the ark, even so, the whole deluge would probably have been cancelled.

Another criticism that I've heard was not unique to christians, even secular voices said this: In the movie, people are subordinate to nature. Noah seems to think the same and the bad guy, Tubalcain, says, what seems to be the modern approach, and it looks a bit like judgment of modern people because of how much they neglect their environment. To me it was much more like Noah had this inner conflict whether or not God wants mankind to continue existing but he never even entertained the thought that hierarchically the animals and plants would be superior to mankind. The animals seemed to have preserved the right to live through not being corrupted, on the contrary it doesn't equal being more valuable. What gives ground to this view is that Noah understands that he has a responsibility toward the nature. He should serve the animals but not be their servant or slave, much rather being a true master through caring and valuing them. Sadly, this is such an alien or radical concept that people tend to feel offended by it and feel that they are treated inferior to animals.

I heard something else, what really seemed baseless to me: Female characters are depicted in the light of the modern feminist culture, instead of what was present at that age. This argument was a real surprise because the first thing I said, while leaving the cinema was that in this movie the female characters were pretty traditional. Others argued that the way Noah's wife "told him off" would have been unimaginable at that time, since if the man says they cut down the wife's children, the wife will have her own thoughts, disagreeing with the man's decision but they will keep silent and watch he man deliver his will. Well, the first consideration we ought to make is: how long ago did Noah live? Very long ago but who can tell exactly? Nobody can. But someone said to me that the same system existed as in Abraham's time, since Noah's family was which started civilization again and so culture originates from them and Abraham lived in an early culture. This is poor reasoning because theologians may know quite a lot about a certain part of history but since every civilization comes from Noah and his descendants, so do older ones, like China. Abraham lived about 4000 years ago, whereas China started its career approximately 5000 years ago (these aren't accurate numbers, I'm only trying to give a sense about which one is the older). So to have the right to say that this or that was traditional in Noah's time requires thorough understanding of all of the ancient cultures, which the creators of this argument lack (I lack it about equally as much). We might think that hierarchical traditions precede egalitarian ones, while in China there have been egalitarian communities a lot earlier than the philosophy would have been borne with John Rawls in the 20th century. Of course, there has always been a hierarchical tradition in ancient China, too, my point is only that certain social systems seem to appear after a certain chronology preceding it and it's just misleading. Having made these precautions, I will proceed to my last argument against this line of reasoning. As Noah's wife even tells Noah, she stuck with him through everything, even through the annihilation of everyone on earth. She did as he has said and she helped him through hell without really ever going against him in words or in actions. So she never told Noah off. But when she says that she will abandon him, it is not that she stands up and starts a new family, or casts Noah out. She actually pledges her allegiance to Shem and his new family, so the authority that Noah used to have as the patriarch, is being withdrawn by the family, which' trust formerly constituted it.

There was a secular argument, which really confused me. Someone said that Aronofsky usually makes his characters suffer from a sort of obsession in his films and Noah's obsession is obeying God's orders. While I understand what this argument is about, I still find it overall confusing. Nobody can have this obsession because God gives wisdom and shows the way on which to walk in every field of life, ergo whoever is obsessed with God is obsessed with everything and that is not an obsession. In Noah's particular case he is exclusively focusing on what mission God has given him. He builds up the ark, he gives up human life on earth but eventually walks back on his decision. This can seem like having an obsession, then finally getting rid of it, still, I believe it is a wrong inerpretation. First, we see what happens, when Noah follows his vision: everything goes well and everything is justified by God, he always receives what is necessary for continuing. Then, at one point, Noah is going out to find wives for his sons and then he sees the true wickedness of humanity and that is what implants the idea that all the people should die on earth, including his own family. But this isn't God's message, it is Noah's own idea because he is afraid of the bad that's inside of everyone's heart. In the Bible we get to see that Noah's a righteous person and his heart is clean but it is, once more, a dramatization, and he finds himself equally evil. And though it is true that there was evil in Noah and all his family, he was still saved. Why Noah is trying to get an end to humanity is that he himself judges his own race, just like God has done formerly. We see the consequences of Noah's judgment, not the Lord's in it. Well, the Bible is not going into details of this sort but there never seems to be the same thing, so this is Aronofsky's addition. It is an ineresting thought and worth meditating on but I think it's quite clear that Noah was not really obsessed but actually conflicted.

The part where I "argue against" ends here. I will go on, though without opposing ideas this time.

What I found very profound was Tubalcain's inner conflict. He knew about the existence of the Creator but he lost contact with him, he has probably never had it. From the story of Pentecost we have learned that the Holy Spirit was sent to be the mediator between God and mankind only after that event and so having connection with God has been very different before. Tubalcain's in-film problems probably originate from the fact that apart from Noah, nobody had that connection, but since Tubalcain and his contemporaries were not long after Eden, where Adam and Eve had a daily and personal connection with God, they somehow craved it. There is a certain ambivalence in this because even though he has an honest desire to reconnect with the Creator he still is evil and he wouldn't think for a second of following God. Tubalcain thinks of the Almighty as equal but men aren't equal with God. He refuses the proud and accepts the humble. Noah is humble and it doesn't mean he would be weak or stupid, since he is the only righteous person in the whole world, which is quite an achievement. But returning to Tubalcain, I find it ingenius that Aronofsky made this attempt to explore the depths of feeling neglected or denied by God.

The last thing that I'd like to mention is the montage of murders: Showing people of different ages killing each other by different means, the people being only dark silhouttes before the red background. Aronofsky was truly creative with this one but there's more to it than the mere spectacle. First of all, it is in the contex of Noah's tale of the creation of the world, so Noah is reasoning with it against the continuation of the existence of men. But as we see that killing is present through all the ages, not exclusively in the ones that preceded Noah, is alarming. Even in the Bible, it is written after the deluge ended that the heart of humans is filled with evil. The very reason why the total population of earth has been annihilated ultimately persists. This is actually why the story of Noah matters so much: the crimes, for which once everyone was killed, are still present, yet we live. This doesn't make much sense in itself. Not at all, unless you read the whole Bible and you read about Jesus, who died for us. This is a brilliant thing, something that only God could think of. 

You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Revelation 3:17-20 (via thatwhichdoesnotsuffer)

Thanks for making my favorite video

Today I made your favorite video. You’re welcome.

An Essay Against Calvinism

As a premise to this essay I want to note that I write all this as a Christian, I go to a Baptist church but I was also greatly informed by many of the Catholic Church’s teachings on numerous matters. In this context it is plain to see that I don’t intend to negate the validity of a Calvinist’s faith, however I truly believe that there are some completely mistaken ideas that are either introduced by Calvin himself or held sacred by contemporary Calvinist cells. Connecting to this last sentence I must add that many of my complaints and reflections come from contact with actual Calvinist theologians and from current -- sometimes underground -- publications by them.

First of all I want to present the claims and concepts of the Calvinists that I’m going to argue against. (#1)Out of many articles of teaching they are most boastful of the center of their theology, which they say is God and they contrast it with other denominations’ different focuses -- or at least as they perceive that this contrast can be legitimately made. At the core of their Scripture interpretation lie two crucial elements: (#2)the Predestination “fact” derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans; and (#3)a very broad incorporation of the Old Testament’s teachings. There’s also the doctrine of (#4)“Total Depravity”, which states that men can do only bad things -- meaning all men at all times do only bad things.  And lastly there is (#5)a contradictory stance held by Calvinists on the principle of “Sola Scriptura”.

#1: As it will be explained in the point about Predestination, Calvinists support and try to resolve the internal conflict of their theology by referring to God’s infinite greatness, his infinite power, and the infinite influence of his rulings. They use these attributes of Him to get rid of all logical counterarguments because, quite undeniably, He’s above all human intellect, so we cannot take up a fight against Him in any way, not even dialectically. This comes together with -- again from another point -- the faith that God decides about everything constantly. Predestination to them means that God actively makes unbelieving souls believe, by His own selective choosing. This is always irresistibly happening, but in fact this is the case with all things in the world: God makes everything happen.

Without spoiling my second argument too much, this, in a nutshell, is why they think the focus of their theology is God -- they refer to Him about everything. This is usually put in contrast with how other denominations treat the questions of faith and Christian conduct: all other schools of Christian faith believe there is an active human component in these matters. For example: when somebody is converted to Christian faith a generic Christian will say “He found God”, whereas a Calvinist will make the same assessment through these words “God made him believe”; another illustration is that in generic terms someone would “sin”, in Calvinist terms someone would “not be forced to do good things by God”. I hope this clarifies it: Calvinists do not in fact put God more at the core of their focus than other denominations, they only erase other words from their dictionary*. This trickles down to their theology in a peculiar way, as they find it arrogant of other Christian theology’s to involve positive action and human initiative in their tenets because those are not autonomous, instead made directly by God. Why would anyone mention something else, or explain something through other means than God’s work, when that is all there is? goes their argumentation. 

I find it to be a serious misunderstanding of the contrasted denominations to say about them that they don’t put God at the center of their theology in the same exact way as them. In fact they say the same things with regards to God: He is all-powerful, all-encompassing -- the real difference is what Calvinists think about human beings. In a way they don’t believe in humanity. Not in the way that they don’t praise humanity or believe in its power to save itself, rather they don’t believe in its existence. More on this denial later, back to the point. As I’ve said, these theologies follow the same pattern, all believe there’s no salvation through actions, only through Christ but Calvinists laugh at the idea, when other denominations teach the believers about everyday conduct or talk about the search for purity. And they can’t avoid but laugh, since for them it is futile speech, men can do nothing on their own. Men’s every minute is ruled by God, if they be pure, God made it, if they be bad, God didn’t make them be pure.

This is an important mistake because all of Jesus’ warnings against pride and evilness fade in the shimmering light of denying the need for any Christian to strive to follow the teachings of the Bible -- after all, he’ll follow if God rules it, and he necessarily won’t if God doesn’t, he has no internal agency to act or remain inactive. Probably another point will bring more light on this...

#2: In Romans 8:29-30 Paul talks about how God has known and decided about His own before time to become like His Son. I was paraphrasing because I tried to both encapsulate the part that Calvinists base their teachings on and remain true to the text, not to accidentally bend it toward anything I might unconsciously prefer to be there -- I even tried to utilize the original Greek’s meaning for the most attainable truthfulness. The other bedrock of the Predestinarian Calvinist faith is the first part of the ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It is an extremely dubious thing what the Calvinists do: they pose an interpretation of these scriptures and claim it is explicitly the content. I say it’s dubious because somehow non-Calvinists didn’t take up this mental and it’s never really been the canon interpretation. So they rely on one very revered source of the past: Augustine. His turn from Manicheism gave the Christian tradition one of its greatest theologians and philosophers, yet he shouldn’t be named as the one Calvinists will rely on. Augustine first championed the existence of free will, then, arguing against other schools of thought, went on more and more to shrink away from it. In The City of God he introduced the concept of God’s election for His salvation. It was much more moderate than Calvin’s but about near the end of his life, Augustine got to a point, where he, in a way, denounced free will and got to the point Calvin did. The reason he’s not an ideal theologian predecessor is that he never rested at any one state of opinion on the matter of predestination but kept it changing from work to work. Its evident reason is that he was continually arguing against others and in this fashion of reactionism were his interpretations born. Today we’re not having a discussion with the Plageans, there’s no actuality of his works, they should be inspected with a much more contextual approach and more analytically, not accepted as, well, Scripture. I want to note that I don’t intend to discredit Augustine, as there’s absolutely no way for me to do that, as he’s clearly my intellectual superior and I’d be a predestined loser in a sparring match, still, it’s important to see that there’s something forced in the Calvinist approach to legitimize their claims of predestination.

The Calvinist concept of predestination is as follows: God, in his sovereignty, elects certain individuals for salvation. Others He elects not, as everybody is worthy of damnation, which even further glorifies His loving kindness and goodness, since He does elect some by His grace. 

First of all it is crucial to remember that, despite what Calvinists claim, only the Calvinist interpretation of the texts from Romans is the above one. Other denominations and schools of faith never taught that this is the meaning of Paul’s words. Mind you, despite the claim that this is explicitly what he says. This statement of mine must be amended because the Calvinist interpretation isn’t completely dissimilar to others, traditionally Christians have believed that God works in people to help them to get to faith and on their own people wouldn’t be able to find salvation. Even so, this is what the work of the Holy Spirit in us is most often credited for: He helps us to break free from our flesh and eventual death, in order to be resurrected. This I do not argue against. Yet, it’s not identical to the Calvinist version.

The reason why predestination isn’t an interpretation that Christians traditionally believed is that salvation has been connected to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and faith in it. Even though Paul doesn’t speak of any of these things in these verses. His mention of the Pharaoh, of the Jews and Gentiles, seem to show God’s workings on Earth. Especially so, since in these cases there was no Gospel, at the time of Moses the Jews didn’t have a concept of any afterlife or salvation, yet they were elected. If this election means election for salvation, then God’s saving works used to be happening completely without the sacrificial death of His Son, which I think is blasphemy. If we make the step as to say chronology is irrelevant from the point of view of God, there still seems to be a problem with Evangelization: if people were saved unknowingly, why does the Bible put an emphasis on the spreading of the Good News? Why does it matter? The question of afterlife for people before Christ’s time is quite mysterious for us but the Calvinist answer is outright contradictory, to say the least. It seems that Paul could possibly mean something other than God would choose on His own accord to save some and damn others, and like most Christians believe, there likely is a reality on the part of human initiative with regards to faith, even if not achieved completely alone.

Now there are Calvinist responses to these:

Predetermination is argued against because it seems illogical, whereas it seems so only because humans are much lesser beings and what constitutes logic**? Human constructions, whereas God’s great works far exceed those. He wills what He wills, that is His sovereignty and we are not to understand it but to abide by it and make ourselves subjects to it.

This is problematic only because predetermination seems to reflect solely the Calvinist vision, and I suspect they refer to God’s sovereignty only in order to prove themselves, as His rulings are indeed inarguable. Traditionally this isn’t the interpretation, logically it isn’t the interpretation, there is no reason to accept it, other than Calvin and Augustine said it and that falls into the category of tradition, which proves weaker than the entire Christian tradition; whereas if someone claims to have come to the same conclusion about predetermination, they used their logic, which is again overruled by sounder logic.

God is great, in fact He is the greatest in existence. It is arrogant to assume He needs our assent, that is, our initiative, our, so called, faith, in order to save us. If He wills to save someone, He cannot be stopped with any obstacle and if He wills not to save someone, those cannot somehow get into salvation.

My answer to this is that God’s irresistible greatness is made evident in His work of Salvation through Christ. That cannot be undone by anyone or anything, it is done forever. It is superfluous to go as far as to assume He must decide for us. This is, of course, assuming that it is possible for humans to autonomously believe. I will explain this later but it is a crucial question because Calvinism tends to express its stance not dissimilar to disbelief in human existence. So the problem with the Calvinist argument is that they believe non-Calvinists think God needs us to repent, on our own, is because He couldn’t otherwise save us and that makes Him look incapable of overcoming our will. And yes, evidently He can harden and soften people, but were it the case that people could decide to believe or disbelief, He could let them. God’s all-powerful work is that we can be saved and if we believe there’s no circumstance that can take us out of salvation -- simply, Calvinists reject the notion of free will.

#3: Now it is universally true that for sound doctrine it is necessary to incorporate the entirety of the Bible, that is, including both Testaments. Why Calvinists differ from other Christians in their doing so is that they look at it normatively (not differing from all schools of faith, as fundamentalist interpretations usually follow the same pattern). This is problematic because in the New Testament it becomes quite evident that Gentiles are not required to conform to old Hebrew rules and patterns and in the light of the Gospel the Old Testament’s essence seems to be revealed to be something completely beyond normative texts: it is a narrative gradually moving toward the final revelation, which is Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior. Paul also talks about the role of the Law in the Christian life, and in addition to this, many texts of the Old Testament, especially the ones concerning normative parts, philologically seem dubious, as in attributing rules and laws to Moses whereas they were created much later. This makes it questionable in the context of usefulness as normative texts and it seems just more likely that they are included in canon for other reasons, namely for context, or helping to create the image of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Now this is not as elaborate as the previous arguments but I hope I have at least made this argument at least an inspiration for understanding the underlying problem with this trait of the Calvinist faith.

#4: Calvin introduced the concept of Total Depravity in Institutes. It’s based on several verses from the Bible and he concludes that all men at all times are doing evil things and they cannot help but do that.

I will present three counterarguments to this, the first one I consider a weaker one, the second one I consider a more powerful one, and the third as an auxiliary one.

Firstly, through empirical inspection it is quite visible it’s untrue. Not only in the sense that not all people are doing the most vial crimes imaginable at all times but also seen in how sometimes people perform completely innocent acts. There’s familial love and care, which isn’t universal but at least general and usually observable. To this can come a counterargument of selfishness. People can perform seemingly innocent acts but be, in their spirits, totally depraved while doing so. Selfishness is widely accepted as a manifestation of sinful nature and when a mother takes care of her child, she wants gratification, she wants some subtle pleasure in return. This is understandable and eerily similar to Kant’s moral criteria of the categorical imperative. Still, many idealists, who aren’t Christians, show self-sacrifice for the sake of a good cause, without any hope or desire to be remembered or praised for their achievement. It is a rare, noble behavior, but nonetheless observable. Of course, what is empirical evidence, when a man can be deceived, or can misunderstand what’s before his eyes? This is why it’s a weak argument, when dealing with higher things than base natural science.

Secondly, Calvin seems utterly and irreverently selective with regards to his choosing of Bible verses. From the time of Noah, when everybody was evil, yet a man truly just before God existed, through the Psalms, which describe evil and good people, to Paul, who was quoting the Psalmist, everywhere in the Bible there is a dichotomy of Good and Evil persons. It’s very important when dealing with this matter. Even outside of the community of generally accepted believers there seems to be, at least portrayed, gracious characters in the Bible and contrary to a selection of decontextualized verses, the Bible never categorically claims that people would be inherently incapable of doing anything but evil. In fact, it would be futile to call anybody to do good or resist evil, were it impossible for them. While sinfulness in nature is apparent, its totality is Calvin’s invention. Other schools of faith teach the doctrine of deprivation in the way that all men are sinful and cannot achieve salvation, therefore are in need of God’s mercy, realized in Christ and His work of salvation.

The reason I find need for an auxiliary argument is that with total deprivation comes the incredible doctrine of human-denial. The ultimate response to any criticism about total deprivation is that men can do only wrong and God can make them do good, when He decides so. He does that for the sake of His own children’s benefit. This means that humans are bound to take the course of evil, unless by God they are bound to do good. The horror in it is that for anything to be alive it must have agency, it must be autonomous but if we are truly not doing things on our own accord, as we cannot possibly alter our will to decide between good or bad, we are not in fact real agents, we are not in fact alive (in terms of soul or spirit). Also, this claim is self contradictory, as if men were incapable of doing anything good, the evil they do would not be their own responsibility. For, are we responsible for things we don’t decide to do? Are we responsible for things we are forced to do? This can’t be a true state, as God is just and righteous, He isn’t condemning people if they are not responsible but they are. In Romans 9 we see a seemingly similar line of argument, only that applies to the election and that has already been discussed above.

#5: The principle of “Sola Scriptura” is that faith is based solely on the Scripture. Yet, this is, illustrated by my previous arguments, far from realized in the Calvinist system. They have their own inventions, their own interpretations and they cling to it and often choose to change the scripture to fit to their doctrines. There are visibly higher authorities than the Scripture among Calvinists and not only Jean Calvin himself -- but he certainly is --, but Councils and texts declaring doctrines. Of course, many denominations utilize extra-biblical sources to base their rituals and modes of teaching on, what separates the Calvinists is the hypocritical nature of it. While a church may have an influential tradition, it is possible to remain true to the Scripture, theologians only have to know which is which; in contrast with the Calvinist way, where tradition and authority is said to be the Scripture or its only right interpretation.

In conclusion to this essay I’d like to add a few notes. Most importantly the reason behind writing this is twofold: on the one side I find a few great errors in Calvinism, especially the kind I encounter through certain theologians and their influence, and I am worried it would spread (evidently more and more people are impressed by it); and on the other side I haven’t seen any denomination in my life be as actively critical and hostile toward other churches as the Calvinists, and it’s important to see that the ones who call the Catholics non-Christians and non-Calvinists as lessers, do in fact comprise the greatest sect in Christianity. These last few words might seem very harsh and I only half-mean them but in light of the above arguments I find myself strongly leaning away from them. Ultimately, I mean no harm, I intend not to hurt any Calvinist’s feelings, I’d be thrilled to continue it as a conversation on faith, and, most importantly, I don’t think Calvinists can’t be saved by God because of their mistakes.

Before commenting consider the following: this is not a scholarly work; I have written it truly as a Christian, don’t try to mix into this essay any other religion or atheism.

NOTES:

*In James there is a lot said about acts and while they’re still no way of salvation, he points out they are necessarily part of a living faith. It is for this reason that non-Calvinists typically mention good acts and even include it in their teachings, since, according to James, a good conduct is inevitably paired with faith. (I wonder if Calvinists are ever puzzled by James’ words.)

**Logic is often associated with humans, as inherently flawed, just like them, whereas in reality logic is the formalization of the paths to right conclusions. In this way it’s easy to see logic can’t be blamed, as it, by nature, cannot err. Where there’s failure in the conclusions, there’s a lack of sound logic. It’s a little bit beside the point, that’s why it’s a note, nevertheless, I thought it important to remind us all that logic is never the culprit, it’s not human-like in any way, it is a precise way of formulation, much like language is a way of expression, yet we -- while language is often unable to fully express something -- don’t make it the Big Bad and reason of false ideas.

***”schools of faith” is a phrase here, referring exclusively to Christian theological teachings and nothing of other religions, nor pseudo-Christian ones

You'll find another.' God! Banish the thought. Why don't you tell me that 'if the girl had been worth having she'd have waited for you'? No, sir, the girl really worth having won't wait for anybody.

F Scott Fitzgerald - This Side of Paradise

He stretched his arms to the crystalline, radiant sky. “I know myself,” he cried, “but that is all — “

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Side of Paradise (via introspectivepoet)

Man, I envy you quite honestly and proudly

I wanna thrive, not just survive

"Feels like I travel but I never arrive" - sings Jon Foreman. I suppose it gets us all every now and then. We feel like we're doing so much, when at the same time our lives seem to be stuck at an unreasonable point.

Currently I've had the impression, that I'm working very hard, building a great relationship, doing everything possible. I sent out numerous query letters, to literary agents, in hopes of living one of my dreams: becoming a writer. Not neccesarily a full-time one, just any writer, who can change college and go from mechanical engineer to anything-else-with-which-I-can-be-a-writer-and/or-director... But it just doesn't happen! I'm not getting any response.

Do I suck, is that why they ignore me? This is what I've asked myself a thousand times. Insecurity and doubt, however, are just terrible lies. I say lies because they are totally unreasonable and useless. Oh and most of all pointless. This no-reply has nothing to do with my writing or with my letters, it's just the process, you dumbass, and when I say you dumbass I mean ME DUMBASS...

I've heard it so many times, that it's way too much, that: It isn't the finish line, which matters, but the road, that leads there. And: Enjoy life's wonderful journey, cos' that's what matters. But these are nonsense common-places. If I were given a dollar for every time I thought to myself: Oh, could you be any more wrong? - then  I wouldn't have to study at all after all...

I know this has been nothing but confusing so far but believe me, my conclusion is at the corner now :)

We (and personally I, but let's stay with we) do struggle a lot and we make serious efforts. Most likely day by day. And it seems, like our lives are going nowhere. Because we're not getting anywhere... But is this true? We all are full of potential and we all are called for so much more. The big, romantic turn waits after this moment. Whenever we're ready. If we want to thrive, and not just survive, there is a chance. We can always trust our lives into the hands of the Heavenly Father, who is already taking us there. And it's THAT there. The next moment may just be a moment for a miracle. Let's thrive :)