praying

So I can often be accused of "Preaching to the choir". Most of my posts are politically liberal and somewhat religious and are read by moderate liberals who are somewhat religious. So today I'm going to write a post about which I know a lot of people will disagree with me.

Often when I am in a discussion during a conformation meeting, one of the questions is "How do god or Jesus help you in your own life?" I always get bugged by that, partially because it always gets the exact same response from the people in the discussion (He calms me when I'm stressed out, he tells me to work hard) and partially because it seems kind of a stretch to think that the almighty creator would listen and help with small, trivial problems while ignoring the world's much more serious problems.

These discussions always link back around to prayer, and instruction by the leader on how to pray correctly. Of course, there's the obvious point not to pray for something evil or completely unnecessary, but they always underline the fact that if you pray, god will answer, and if he chooses not to act it is always because not getting what you prayed for is for the best.

My problem with that is that it is nearly impossible to imagine that kind of philosophy flying with someone who lost a family member who prayed would survive, or underwent some other catastrophe.  Whenever I bring this up, someone in the group discussion always says "Well, imagine how boring life would be if there were no problems." I understand the theoretical thinking that immortality and limitless wealth would cause long term unhappiness, but it's hard to apply that fantasy with the realities of life.

Because of this I have concluded that praying doesn't work. I don't think that god can influence things that most people consider random because, in actuality, nothing is purely random. If you pray that a college will accept you, you assume that since you have applied it is out of your hands and into those of god, when really it's in the hands of the admissions board. Even something as unpredictable as how quickly a disease spreads is not up to chance but up to how the virus works and how good your immune system is.

The problem with this theory if taken too directly is that it pretty much undermines all reason for being a christian in the first place. Other than the concept of the afterlife, by saying god doesn't intervene in the actions on earth is more or less a belief in deism (The belief that god created the world, then left it entirely). But I didn't say that god or Jesus or the Holy Spirit didn't intervene in the actions on earth. I said he (Or they) don't do it directly, or on command. I think it mostly happens through the mind, not the body. Examples of god speaking to someone through their minds, not through a miracle or answering a prayer, exist a lot in our world. The founder of Feed My Starving Children, which is one of the largest charities in the world, which donates millions of meals to over seventy countries, said that he was spoken to by god to start the charity while on a mission in Honduras. Martin Luther King Jr. cited a moment when he was spoken to by god as well during the Montgomery bus boycott.

It doesn't have to be through prayer, either. I think that a lot of people attribute things they do to their conscience urging them, when really it's a form of subconscious communication, a form of prayer in which no miracles are given. In addition, I think it's wise to note that a lot of people do the opposite, using the name of god to justify their own actions, even if those actions are terrible.

So this brings me back to contradicting myself. I suppose I actually believe in what I initially was annoyed by, the thought that god was in our own lives when we (By which I mean affluent people not presently suffering a crisis) really don't deserve it compared to the suffering of others. As well, the two things that were common responses to what god does (To calm you and convince you to work harder) are actually the kinds of advice that it seems god would give. In discussions like that, only one or two people ever say that god actually gives them whatever they ask for, and they're usually not serious. Perhaps I'm just restating and opinion a lot of people hold but don't vocalize, and I'm preaching to the choir yet again.

What should be taught in schools?

I come from a very academic family. Since both my parents are teachers, in the morning everyone goes to school and everyone gets summer off. And since my family is academically geared, I think about school a lot. And often, in math or science class, I find myself wondering the same question that most students have thought at some point "How does this at all pertain to real life".
This question is based around a basic philosophical concept. Assuming no aliens exist, if something is not perceived by humans, it may as well not exist. If I draw a card from a deck of cards but keep it face down and no one ever sees it, the card may as well be blank, and for all practical purposes, the suit of the card does not exist. On that same line of thinking, if humans will never be able to travel outside our solar system, why should I learn about how the universe is so intimidatingly large. And, if you critically look at every fact in a textbook, most of them would only be useful to someone with a very specific job. This is an apathetic look on the world, but one that is surprisingly common in school.
Most people would agree school is intended to educate children and teens with the skills they need for their life and career. But aside from basic math and reading skills, there are few things taught in schools that everyone absolutely has to know. The most necessary skills for later life that I can think of are the ones taught in world languages and home economics, and still most of America only speaks english and tons of people can't do their own laundry. Language arts is useful for writers and government for politicians, but not everyone is a writer or politician, so why should everyone be required to learn the skills required for one. My math teacher himself has said that the most practical application of learning math is getting a job as a math teacher.
But if thats true, why has it been shown that scores on vocabulary tests of words that no one uses correlates almost directly to someone's income, or that it is almost impossible to get a living in the middle class if you never learned algebra in school?
Because, although school may not be a direct preparation for every possible scenario, it does help people My math teacher from seventh grade put it best once "School doesn't always prepare you for getting a job, but it imitates life with a job. You probably won't use the formulas I'm teaching you twenty years from now, you probably won't even remember them, but the time it takes to memorize them will teach you the need to do work. For example, this summer, I had to learn how to make webpage for my class. And I wouldn't have had the work ethic to spend the hours on it had I not had to memorize similar things in school." And, all things considered, every class doesn't train you for every career, but some skills needed for some careers are covered in most classes.

Now that thats cleared up, can I please learn physics from this century (See the video above)

The Garden of Eden

Now, there are a lot of parts of the old testament that I don't get, and I can honestly say that without reading the whole thing. But one of the most well known stories, is the origin of humankind, the Garden of Eden, and it is also my least favorite.
It seems to be the spring of the science versus religion debate. Not only does it blatantly contradict common scientific knowledge by saying the world was created in seven days and that the earth was created  before the sun, but it actually supports ignorance and demonizes knowledge.
For anyone who is not aware of the story, there are the two first humans, Adam and Eve, were created in a perfect world in the garden of eden. Then the serpent tempts them into eating the fruit of knowledge, which is also forbidden by god. They eat it and have knowledge, but they are cast out by god and have to toil in the world in order to survive.
Now, I understand that this might not be meant literally. I have heard many examples of how both the story and the actual creation of the world could have happened, but its not the inaccuracies I dislike as much as the moral. Its surprising that so many people I have talked to, when attacking the christian faith, have used the scientific inaccuracies of that story, instead of pointing out that it clearly implies that knowledge is evil and complete trust and reliance on god is preferable to independence and the knowledge to make decisions.
The defense to that argument is that reliance in god is preferable to knowledge and independence, and that this story is to show the humility you should show before god. But humility is different than complete dependence. And the trouble with relying and trusting completely in god is that no one has any idea exactly what god wants them to do, and a lot of people get it really wrong.
The bible is a good book, but large sections of it, as I've said before, seem to be fictional, almost like myths or stories that have been hugely changed through the eras. and I think that the story of creation is probably fictional.

Mercy

I've been reading to kill a mockingbird in school. Although I in no way dispute that it is a great work of literature, i do disagree with one thing, the emphasis put on the title. It is clearly said in the text that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird because they do no evil, only good. This is a direct metaphor for a trial that happens in the book, where a black man, Tom Robinson, is being wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, and could be sentenced to death, therefore killing the man (Metaphorically a mockingbird) who doesn't do hasn't done anything wrong. My english teacher, and entire class, have been discussing how the title is a great insight, and I don't understand how that works. No one has ever disputed that killing an innocent person is wrong. When the class is discussing the title, I am tempted to say "Well what if the mockingbird wasn't innocent?" I bet that would cause quite a bit of different discussion. Unfortunately, my english teacher has directly banned me from leading in-class conversations into digressions.

But what I said, about what if the mockingbird was really guilty, leads into a much more serious question of justice vs. mercy. I'm not talking about the death penalty (I think I've posted about that topic quite enough) but whether the law, be it regular rules, city ordinances or federal laws, be intent on punishing equally to the crime or less than it. I'm pretty sure any other regular readers of my posts know my answer, but let me explain why.

I don't know what justice means, but commonly when I discuss it with people, they use it interchangeably with vengeance. And it makes sense that someone who commits a crime should go to jail, but not because it's what they deserve, although deep down that's what I, and most others, feel. It should be because they need reform, or at least to be kept off the streets so they can't repeat it. That is the fundamental flaw with the death penalty (Sorry, it just came back to it). It is impossible for any kind of reform. You have to remember that these are people, and can't be generalized as good or bad. One or two hours of a life can't possibly be more important than a lifetime of others.

Often,  I've heard people, mostly christians actually, refer to "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This was, as I understand it, a jewish law, but seems odd that they use it because Jesus himself directly refuted it with the "If you are hit, turn the other cheek" quote. I think the reason that it is used is because it so strongly connects to our pathos, to think of ourselves as the ones who decide who is wrong or right, while not knowing that we have no idea about the reason the wrong was committed. But the upside to this is that hopefully if we have more open, less judgmental minds, others will consider this when judgeing us.

Symbols, part 2

Recently, I've been reading Angles and Demons and the sequel, The Da Vinci  code. The conspiracy theory basis seems somewhat weak, so I don't believe it, but some of the other things in it seem interesting. Specifically, the religious symbology discussed in it.
See, the main character is  a Harvard symbologist (Yes, I know that's not a word) so much of the book is about different symbols in our everyday lives. It got me thinking about how symbols affect our lives.
It's odd, especially, how symbols change. The Nazi symbol once had a christian meaning, and the cross, which, to christians, is thought to be a symbol of love, was once a form of Roman torture and would be associated with execution in Jesus's time. 
Particularly I feel like in the U.S., we are too sensitive to our national symbols. You aren't allowed to hunt eagles, which are just another bird, and every week at school I have to pledge my allegiance to an inanimate piece of cloth decorated with stars and strips.
To be honest, I don't think we should be so serious about symbols. All in all, they're just lines on paper.
Sorry that this isn't my best post, but right after I posted the first part, I got sick and then had a lot of other things going on.

Relgious symbols, part 1

Sorry about the last post.
Anyways, I have a good post now  to validate the last one.
Recently, I've been reading Angles and Demons and the sequel, The Da Vinci  code. The conspiracy theory basis seems somewhat weak, so I don't believe it, but some of the other things in it seem interesting. Specifically, the religious symbology discussed in it.
See, the main character is  a Harvard symbologist (Yes, I that's not a word) so much of the book is about different symbols in our everyday lives and
Sorry, I have to go. I guess this will have to be in 2 parts. The rest will be in another post tomorrow.

Selective memory

A couple days ago my parents told me I did certain things when I was eight or so that were really embarrassing. I found this weird because I don't think I would forgot something as bad as that. My moms explanation was "We all remember selectively".
I think that is really true, and kind of scary. We all forget things we did wrong that we don't want to remember. I wonder what else I don't remember.
If you look at it at not a personal but a societal scale, it's true too. People tend to talk less about wars they consider unjust, like the war in vietnam or Iraq, than wars that are considered just, like World War 2 or the union side of the Civil War (Although arguably, no war is just). And when you look at it from societies from a religious stand point, things get really interesting.
Take ancient Egypt for example, when I was in kindergarten in sunday school I learned that Egypt, it's many idols, and it's evil slavery were all unholy and terrible. However, in sixth grade (At a religious school) Egypt was referred too a great, industrious civilization. Each side seems to have forgotten about the other. Or Rome, for another example. I know priests who refuse to acknowledge Rome as a civilization because of Pontious Piolot, yet every time they vote they are entering into a Republic-style government that was partially developed by Rome. And those who praise Rome's government (Before it got all corrupt) forget that that government is the one that ordered Jesus executed.  
In my opinion, selective memory works best in positive light, and although it is slightly deceiving, it is necessary to having a functioning history book. If we take all the crimes of even the greatest civilizations, they look terrible. Forgetting the crimes of individuals in thinking of a society is the best way to remember, in my opinion. Of course, turning someone into a hero (By putting them on the $20 bill for example) who did terrible things shouldn't be done.
Sorry if this post was a bit off, I am running out of ideas.

No Room for Grey

For school I have to make a spoken word poem. I wrote this one and some people said I should put it on my blog. Hope you like it.

No Room for Grey

We are all raised

To believe there is:

Good and bad,

Law and Chaos,

Black and White.

Bright, shining heroes,

Bathed in sunlight.

Evil, haunted villains

Under a heartless moon.

All out problems will end

When he is in the grave.

It’s not just fiction.

History book have their favorites,

And their hated.

No room for grey

In the human psyche.

The death penalty lives as

long as we believe this illusion.

But what if we’re in the equation?

Not like we’ve ever killed,

Or saved a life,

Or started a war,

Or stopped a killer.

We are told

In the library,

In the theater,

In the classroom,

In our minds,

That there is good and bad,

Law and Chaos,

Black and White.

But what if we’re in the equation.

History books have their favorites.

Are you one.

Science vs religion

I know, I haven't been posting in a while. My excuse is homework, coupled with the fact I haven't had access to a computer where I knew how to use spell check (Which, if you consider the spelling errors I have with spell check, would make a post practically impossible to read) over christmas vacation.
At school, in history class, I've been learning about the John Scopes case, in which a science teacher named John Scopes was tried for teaching the theory of evolution. The simple case of whether or not he had broken a small, local law spiraled into a huge debate over the age-old question of science versus religion. And the defense, by the end, resorted to more or less trying to disprove much of the old testament. Given that the defense lawyer was a practicing christian.
I believe in evolution, but this kind of questioned my faith.
This doubt was deepened when, in science, we learned started our unit on the universe, which, if you believe it (Like I  do) pretty much discounts the whole creation story. But the thing that disturbed me most of all was the fact that, apparently, the earth was going to be burnt to a crisp slowly and painfully. Why would god put us on a planet that was doomed from the start?
The universe unit also exposed how small earth is compared to the whole world. I have never heard of anything in the bible saying we were the biggest thing in the universe, but it is still pretty demeaning.
To be honest , lately I've been doubting religion in general. It seems as though the word of god is somehow fighting things that can easily be proven true. And, although in some cases religion and science can agree with or even back up each other, they clash so much that it seems hard to hold onto christianity.
But the thing is, it only really disagrees with the old testament, which is also the part which has God go out killing the Hebrews' enemies (A very un-Godlike thing to do) and says the homosexuality is a sin. I can't find a single passage in the new testament where science would disagree with it (Except possibly Revelations, which is most likely in code anyways). And that is where true ideals of Christianity come out.
I'm not saying the old testament is a lie. Jesus does agree with most of it, doesn't he? But in the fine details arguments spring up.
But, whether or not he created the earth in seven days, god is out there. Why else would people who are resuscitated describe an after life? If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, who made all this? Why is there life on the earth in the first place? These are the true questions that prove fatih.

Judas

Just as a note up-front, yes I know in my previous post I used greed twice and left out wrath. I'll fix it soon.
As for the content, I've been reading about some film-maker, who says that in all his films, he tries to keep out any antagonist, because he believes there is no one person who is completely responsible for a major conflict and his or her death is the sole solution to it. I know this is an opinion I have talked about before, but when I read that opinion, I started wondering about if other stories follow that principle. So far, none the literature I've read in school has proven to have a realistic antagonist, nor have many of the books and movies I read or watch for pleasure. The I thought about it in terms of the bible.
If you asked most christians who the antagonist of the bible was, the knee-jerk reaction is to respond satan. But since I don't believe in satan in the first place, and he isn't really an antagonist that can be over-come (As long as it holds true that no humans, be Jesus sides, are sinless). So, as far as the Christ story goes, most people consider Judas the big-bad guy. And since I can't think of anyone else like that, let's go with him.
In case you're not familiar with the story of Judas (Or are victim to the rumors about him, such as he used the first ever gun to kill himself), more or less his story goes like this: He was one of the disciples, starting with high hopes of the son of god crushing the evil romans underfoot. He became the sort of treasurer of the disciples and sometimes took more that his own share for himself. Later, when it became apparent Jesus  was not the expected military leader, he sold him out to the romans, and Jesus was crucified. Later, Judas killed himself out of remorse.
 Now, that is very different from the traditional antagonist story. For one thing, he seems to see Jesus as the sort of traditional hero, the one who fights people so evil they aren't really people, but monsters. For one thing, those kind of people don't exist, and Jesus sees that. So, after his vision is crushed, yes he sells Jesus out to the romans, and yes he gets payed for it. But now his vision is changed, seeing Jesus as the person who isn't a person.
But the thing is, the antagonist never has remorse in most stories. That's what separates the bible from books and movies, it has people who are really people, each one of them. Judas knows he did a wrong, and takes it out on himself.
If Judas had resisted his urge to commit suicide, would Jesus condemn him? Hurt him? At the very least lecture him? I say probably not, unless Jesus was some sort of hypocrite or else dying changed him a lot. Remember the story of the parodical son? Yes, this is a fair bit more than wasting your savings, but since Judas felt remorse more painful than any cross of torture Jesus suffered, Jesus would have welcomed him and save him, even if the Other disciples might  loath and despise him.
Speaking of which, have you ever wondered: what if Jesus has already come back, in some third world country or distant land. What if he's out there now with his own group of followers, waiting for us to hear.
 

7 deadly sins

I never really thought about the seven deadly sins much before, mostly because they have the word sin in the name, which is a word I never really like, mostly because whenever people use it, they're talking about why someone's going to hell. I've thought about it a bit more, and although it's a very imperfect philosophy (There are a lot more than seven reasons people do bad things), it gives a different way of thinking why people do bad things. And I'm going to do a series of posts about each one of them. But for now, I'll take a break from religious or philosophical posting and do something about my theory of how the seven deadly sins relate to different hogwarts teachers from Harry Potter. If you haven't read the books or don't like the books, please just stop reading here.

Note: Yes, I know Slughorn was potions teacher and Snape was defense against dark arts the sixth year, not the seventh. But, think about it. If J.K. Rowling intended each defense teacher to carry a deadly sin, it wouldn't bee the real defense teacher in the seventh book, who is mentioned and then forgotten.

Year 1, Qurall, greed: This argument is the weakest because  Qurall is one of the least developed characters, or rather, his actual personality is undeveloped, and his pathetic stuttering personality is not really him. The only part that he actually shows his true colors is in the climax, where he says (Quote approximated) "There is no good or evil, just power and those who are too weak to use it". He was power hungry, so he represented greed.

Year 2, Lockheart, pride: Simply the fact that he gave a quiz about himself to his students shows how vain he is. Throughout the year his class degrades into lectures about stuff he did.

Year 3, Lupin, sloth: I'll be honest, I did the other ones first so I could eliminate all the options but one, which had to be Lupin. Lupin seems like such a good person (Except for at night when he turns into a murder-crazed wolf. So I eliminated all the other and the final choice surprised me,  sloth. I suppose he was a sloth, he foolishly ignored the danger of his condition and taught at school of children he could easily accidently maim, kill, or infect with one hiccup on snape's part.

Year 4, moody, lust: I don't really know what lust is. Mostly when people thinks about it, it is thought to be lusting over someone whom you are physically attracted to, but the way I can see it, some people can lust for power or money as  much as they can a person, so this is what Moody, who is actually Bardy Crouch junior lusts for, revenge. Revenge against his father he wanted so badly that it was all that consumed him. Revenge for abandoning him and and betraying him. Revenge for being less a human and more a machine. Revenge for sentencing his own son to a punishment worse than death.

Year 5, Umbridge, greed: In this it is not Umbridge herself that is greedy. Umbridge is just a puppet of whoever is in power at the time, as long as she is at the top. No, the greed that I'm talking about is the greed of her puppeteer, Cornilias Fudge, minister of magic. You see, he is greedy because he has become minister of magic and, as is the human impulse, now that he is at the top, he is trying to keep that position. Although it would take a remarkable politician to let go of the feeling of wanting to be on top, Fudge keeps his position by using torture and fear to keep students from telling people about the impending crisis with Voldemort which fudge would be fired for if he was blamed for it.

Year six, slughorn, gluttony: This one is easy, Slughorn lets himself be bribed into telling Tom Riddle about a deadly secret that he knows is dangerous for a small treat. He also indulges himself with surrounding himself with talented students in order to do them a favor, and when they make it, reap the rewards.

Year seven, Snape, Envy: Snape is shaped by his envy of James Potter. That much you can tell by the seventh book. He sees Lily as a great person foolishly thrown away to the arrogant and talentless James Potter. He wishes that he were James Potter and he was with Lily. He only helps Harry because, even after Lily's death, he envisions himself with her and thinks she will thank him in the afterlife.

facebook religion

I know this is a small topic after writing about suicide, but have you ever gone on facebook and seen all the things where doctors will give cute/heroic people free operations if their posts or pictures get a certain number of likes or shares. What doctor would actually be evil enough to say, "Your boy who took a bullet for his little sister needs a heart transplant, but I'll give it to you free... if his picture gets 1000 likes on facebook! Bwahahahahaha!" But what gets on my nerves even more is facebook religion.
It's not like I expect deep philosophical discussion on facebook, but almost every post that is about religion is threatening non-believers.
If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know that I don't believe in hell in the afterlife, so this probably affects my view point, but I think it is completely unfair for god to condemn you on the day of judgement for not sharing a post. I actually talked to someone about his religion posts and his answer was "Well, I do agree it is a bit extreme, but think about it, there is so much other stuff on the internet, I might as add some religion in there."This leads me to believe that these people who put it up aren't actually believing it themselves, but just want to "Show god who's side they're on". In other words, they want a cushion in case somewhere in the afterlife they have to prove they were a good christian. Or maybe they really  believe it. Not to say there's no good religion on facebook. Just a few weeks ago I saw a post about why christians should be pro-gay.  

Suicide.

I'm sorry that I haven't posted in awhile. I was waiting for something big to happen that I could post about, and now that it has come, I wish it had never happened.
I heard that a friend of mine from second grade hanged himself this week.
I know it is much easier for you to have someone you don't know that well to die than someone you know very well. But the down side is my friend, who I hadn't seen in six years, only appears in small places in my memory. And he's never moping around or acting depressed. He's always smiling and laughing or making a joke or sining a silly song about "Different countries of the americas" Most people would instantly assume he changed in those six years, but I've seen photos of him, obviously not. In the pictures, he's smiling the way you can't fake.
And yet he killed himself.
I don't know the whole story, only he was angry so he stormed up to his room, tied the knot, and did it. But something else must have been going on who he was angry at is undoubtedly not to blame. Something was eating away at him. I fell like if I could just have five minutes alone talking to him before he did it I could have stopped it. Whenever something bad happens, I always think about it from what I could do if I was there before it happened.
I don't really know where I'm going with this. It just helps me to think about it when I type. The only real insight I can provide is it is the human impulse to feel sad and guilty when someone is dead. But if I could talk to his ghost I assure you, he would want to be remembered not by weeping, but by "Different countries".

Different religions

I'm officially off hiatus now.
To start it off, I want to talk about a book I've been reading. It's called The Life of Pi, and most people would say it's about a boy stuck on a life-boat with a tiger, which it mostly is. But the first part is all about religion.
The protagonist, Piscine Patel is a boy growing up in India who is rather undecided about religion. He gets into his native Hinduism, but later in life he meets a priest who introduces him to christianity, a baker who tells him about the muslim faith, and even his science teacher who tries to convince him there is no god.
He actually takes all the teachings to heart, except the atheist science teacher (Although he still considers him a big figure in his life).
The thing is, each figure who introduces him to the religion is completely ignorant of the two others. One day, all three of them corner his parents asking them about him. His parents believe him an atheist and were unaware that he subscribed to any religion. But the result is a heated debate between his three religious figure and his parents utterly confused how you can worship three religions and consider them all true, and Pi stuck with the image of his the priests fighting each other with angry, fiery words, each condemning the others religion as foolish and stupid.
I think I can understand what Pi is getting at. He saw what you are supposed to see in religion, love and theories. If there really is a god or multiple gods for each religion as  Pi believes, why should they be mad at each other? Because they wouldn't be. If god or the gods are really immortal and forgiving, then why would they condemn others? Because they don't. What causes the anger and angry debates are the people.

Spanish 1A

A few years ago, I went to a small public school, which encountered a fair amount of problems. One of them is no spanish teacher ever stayed for more than a year. They left for a variety of reasons, but not one stayed for more than a year until I left the private school for a public middle school middle school.
The thing with the spanish teachers is each one, though talented at having us memorize words, not one of them taught building on what the previous one had taught. That meant that each summer each student in my class would forget what happened the previous year, and, with no re-enforcement, only new words which were tested then forgotten, the end result was a lot of studying, but nothing stuck.
The end result was, in middle school, which I came in to a year after the language programs had started, I was put into spanish 1A, which was basically a class for students who had failed spanish the last year and had to take it.
The kids in the class all look really seedy and mean, like criminals before they had a chance to drop out of high school. This is an over exaggeration, there are three kids in that class who are really smart, but that is what most of the students seemed like.
On he third day I walked in with a shirt from dartmouth, which is an ivy league school.
"What's that shirt form?" asked one of the students.
"Dartmouth, it's a college," I responded.
"Wow. Are you going to go to college after high school?"
"Yeah, aren't you?"
"Of course not!" the student seemed to find the idea appalling.
I kind of dread going to this class every other day, but I think it is good for me, in a way. Going to a private school has reminded me that not everyone is concerned with their education and really wants to reach their full potential. As you heard me say in one of my previous posts, I think that whether or not you an intellectual individual depends on what your parents show you is important in life. My parents, luckily, are both teachers, so I am set on getting a good education, but I have to remind myself that not everyone is so fortunate. Plenty of people have parents (Or other influences, such as piers) who don't care about them, or give them bad advice.
Oddly enough, after that class I have enriched language arts,  the two seem to be exact opposites. Language arts is about thinking, spanish is about memorizing, enriched means the best students, spanish 1A mainly has the slackers.

9/11

First off, sorry about all the posts in which I say I've got nothing to say. I'm going to stop doing those, so sorry.

Now, I know that the ten year anniversary to 9/11 is tomorrow, but I feel like I need to write it all down now and post it, because if wait until tomorrow I might have forgotten some of my ideas.

Sometimes I read books or watch movies that mention New York before the disaster, and I am struck by the fact of how they show the twin towers as a fact. Its existence is not questioned, and if you went up to someone the morning of September 11, 2001 and said that someone would blow up the twin towers, they would either laugh or think you are crazy. They do not question that it is there today and will be there tomorrow. I guess all people think about things like that. But its not the Towers that were the big loss. I mean, sure, it was great to have the world trade center in our own country, but we could do without it. What really struck us hard is the people.

We never expected that people could just be killed in such large numbers. I mean, wars can wipe out far more people than that, but wars have happened before. Disease can wipe out more people as well, but disease has happened before too. What hasn't happened is just all of a sudden an airplane crashes into a major landmark of a huge city. That really took people off guard.

If you walked up to any American and asked "Do you think if hell exists the suicide pilots of September 11 belong there?" I would say you would get almost none who say no. 

But I say no.

I say no because they thought they were doing the right thing. They thought their god would reward them. They thought it was the right thing to do. So yes, they were wrong, and their mistake cost us thousands of lives, but they thought with all their heart (If they didn't they wouldn't have killed themselves) that this was the right thing to do. It scarred out nation and will for years to come, but I would forgive any of them. ANd if you disagree with me to a point of extreme anger, I will remove this post immediately.  

100th post spectacular

As you might be able to tell, I do posts about big issues on every big major mark (I posted about gays and lesbians on number 50) and this time it is the old testament.
It all started when I looked up Mark Osler (I was wondering what else he did) And came across this article about gays and lesbians at Baylor, and how they feel scared about being found out and kicked out. It is an excellent article, and if you want to read it I will put up  a link for it, but one of the comments really appalled me. It was by a guy called doc Joseph. It one part goes:
"That Old Testament, which Christians would like to edit to remove the "bad parts" or explain away with platitudes ("It was a different time...") still tells you what God, the Hebrews, AND Jesus thought about homosexuals."
Sorry, but for the rest of the post the text is stuck like this. 
Obviously this guy believes in a completely serious interpretation of the old testament. He says that christians "Like to cut out the bad parts" which is, in fact, exactly what I do. And I would agree with him, if I had not read one book.
It is about greek myths.
If you compare the old testament and Greek myths, they are surprisingly similar. I can't quote one part of it to show the similarities, but the way it is told, like a history, is really similar. And not just that. In both books, the gods (Or god) take sides of certain people and slay their enemies. How can this be, if one is supposedly all fact and the other fiction?
Simply because that is the way people interpreted life back then. They couldn't think about what made the great things of the universe, so they had god do it. And the world they lived in was violent, so the creator must be like that too. And wouldn't it be good if this creator(s) was on their side and used the violence on others?
You see? they made it up the exact same way.
The thing is, Jesus said that the Hebrew religion was right, so would he lie to us like that?
No. 
So god must exist, and do some of the same things as i the old testament, but the people changed it to meet their needs (Make them feel like god was on their side) Until certain parts weren't even his any more.
As for cutting stuff out, it's not like the stuff I choose not to believe is about love or acceptance or anything that would make the world better. It is about a vengeful god killing people. In fact, the reason that christianity succeeded to become the worlds most popular religion (That fact comes from my sunday school teachers) is because it isn't about an angry god, but rather teachings that help us be better people. 
Of course, this isn't condemning other religions (Other than greek mythology) as worshipping an evil god. In fact many of the people who practice other religions (Muslim, Judaism, Hinduism) are actually very nice people. Those people have seen things similar to Jesus' teachings of love and peace, and are attracted to them. And if anyone fro another religion is offended by this post, lease comment. I will remove the post immediately after I read the comment.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-osler/gay-christian-students-baylor-university_b_941141.html

Hypocritical

Originally this was going to be a post apologizing for the decreasing amount of content in my posts. But then I realized that, seeing as this has no content itself, I think that would be very hypocritical.
But what the heck, I'll do it anyways.

Exposure

Sorry its too late to do a serious post today, but I will provide at least a tidbit of content.
It's kind of weird, a few years ago to get a book published you had to go through a whole long process. Now you can publish a book on the kindle for free and no editing required.
See what I meant by a tidbit?

Stats

It's kind of weird, I don't do this anymore, but I used to obsessively compulsively check my stats. I don't know why I did this. Who should I care how many people read my blog? It's not like I'm getting paid or rewarded in any way by who reads my blog. Heck, I don't even really have to blog at all. But I still felt an intense happiness when when my stats were up, and a sudden disappointment when they were down.
So why did I rely on how many people were reading it? the same reason that people post links to their own work when reading other peoples stuff on the internet. Because they want exposure.
Not to long ago, if you could do something really well, short of doing it in the street in front of a crowd, you would need some organization to show it off. Say you can review books really well. You would need to work hard to get it in a magazine or other form of distribution. Now, you just type it up, put it on a blog or other website. Instant exposure to tons of people.
The only problem is, you need to get people to see it. If you get people to see it, they might like it and you might be a world famous reviewer. Of course, I do not expect my blog to get really big, but I still cared about exposure.
Now, I realize it doesn't really matter how many people read it. What matters is I like writing and so I blog.
Not that I'm complaining I don't get enough views.