Walk the Line

This is nearly my life's philosophy. It's funny that one's whole journey on planet earth can be summed up in three words scrawled out in a backstage dressing room and put to a "freight train" rhythm. The writer, Johnny Cash, had a sweet promise to stay true to his love in mind. So do I, just maybe in a broader sense. I am not specifically talking about a relationship between a man and his wife, though that is noble and can come in the package. I mean more along the lines of doing what is right. Walking the line. In this world there is plenty to get drunk on. We are plenty educated on that. We need a Saviour to sober us up and He will. Many in the world are alcoholics and this is a tragedy. Sometimes intervention is necessary. Sometimes rehab isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes we need a guiding hand. Sometimes we need the humility of a black get-up. Sometimes we need to be hurt. Sometimes we need to look back on our past and feel the regrets. Sometimes we need a best friend. But we always need a Father, and He's always there. When you're so sloppy drunk you can't hear Him or see Him. When you wake up half dead of a hangover. He sits beside your bed with the hot coffee. He gets you back on your feet, combs your hair buttons up your shirt and gives you a little shove. Fall in love...

Walk the Line

Question II...The Derived Persona

Once again I have to revoke my Cool Hand Luke borrowed phrase "I can eat fifty eggs" and admit, I just don't know. I have often theorized, as I'm sure others have with me, that perhaps individuality is but a myth. Tinkering with such a time-honoured claim is foolish if one wants to maintain a fanbase. However, I prefer answers to fickle fans. Could it be that each man or woman's persona is only derivative of those one surrounds themselves with. Then, our "uniquity" could be explained by the fact that we each surround ourselves with a different social set. And we give and we take and even create from what we see and hear from around us. These things we call original are not our invention at all, but a beautiful conglomeration of outside ingredients. I would appreciate anyone's response on the matter. Don't me dogmatic, don't be shy. The question:

Is there an innate personality?

Action, the Myth, and Myrrh

"Wrestling Till Dawn" by Jean Blomquist was a novel. That is to say it was a brand new idea, not a long storybook. A novelty I plucked from it was in regard to faith. Faith without belief. Shocking isn't it? These two words are usually synonymous. A couple. Holy matrimony and all that jazz. So we think. We're not talking divorce here, we're talking these two were never married to start with. It's a myth. Or at least that's the way I see it for now.

Mrs. Blomquist brings proof with a brilliant analogy. She says that faith is to disbelief in much the same way that courage is to fear. This is the "in spite of" theory. One may act in courage in a situation in which they are very much afraid. Likewise, one may act on their faith in a situation in which they do not believe can have positive results.

It is logical to say that when events, circumstances, prior knowledge, facts, and reason contradict something it is beyond one's mental capabilities to believe it. We just cannot fathom the outcome in our head. But when we act anyway we are rewarded. This is the noblest of faiths.

How are our ill-financed human spirits charged enough to take such a leap? Assuredly it is none to our credit. The only way we have this faith is that God gives it to us. Freely and without reserve, I will add, if we take it.

Luckily for my mind that ever gravitates towards an argument, this theory has produced lots of criticism and disagreement. Tell me your own theories on faith, if you can counter mine.

Campest

I have this big, inborn love for camping in me. Something about "roughing it" attracts me so much that I intentionally contradict my natural needs. Discomfort is sometimes welcome, I stage it myself. Being wet, cold, sleepless and slightly hungry is supreme. To just elaborate a little more on this whole camping thing, I have a hard time believing that anything can be considered camping that includes a camper (such a misnomer), running water, beds, air conditioning, and anything electronic. Shelter in a tent is acceptable, but much better is the wide open sky as your ceiling.
Perhaps what is so appealing about camping, in part, is its raw contact with nature. In "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey, she writes that God communicates with us in at least three ways, "His Word (the Bible), through history, and through Creation." To the last, I can testify. Some of my closest moments with God are spent in the middle of nothing but his own. The chimeric thoughts that haunt me elsewhere cannot be found. I can get up close, or zoom out, and both viewpoints "declare the glory of God." Running water, and stars, and tall grass, and majestic trees, and fire, and birds, and crickets, and creatures; they make you realize who you really are, and who breathed life into you. We crave these things. They bring us close to God and His joy. They "sentence us shivers." Much unlike the man-made things we surround us with. These are much more common, much more plastic.
Remniscent of a peculiar anecdote that happened to me once. Sitting at home on Facebook, I was reminded by a status or something that all I had to do was look around to see the glory of God's Creation. This is what I did, and I saw a computer, water contained in a bottle, furniture, a television set, and a bottle of Pledge window cleaner. In a fit of frustration I grabbed the Pledge bottle by the neck and yelled at it, "You are not beautiful!!" (You did know I was crazy?) But so true it was, and too I could rush to the window and see nothing but a cloned neighbourhood and roads and grass that was laid out like carpet. I felt very stifled in that moment. After you are surrounded by material as that, and you realize it, all you have left of sanity is a human, God's greatest creation.

And so much better than the fineries of home, with the cozy bed and heat and comfy clothes, is the soaked, "mugged array," of the campest's bed. That choking smell of smoke is lovely. Eating of a stick you yanked from a tree is lovely. Telling long stories, often of the macabre, is lovely. Speculating the morrow's venture, of swimming (in a creek or a river, not a pool) or canoeing is lovely.

Camping is nice.

Reservations and Review

This next May will mark the one year anniversary of Classical Ride. I have enjoyed every minute of it. Chiefly because of feedback, whether good or bad. But in almost ten months it is easy to believe that I might have changed some of my opinions, or made some new realizations. This blog is the blog I would write now in place of some of the ones I have thrown out there.

1. I think the first mistake I made was a technical one and not a content one. It was a send-off of a very close friend of mine in prayer. My mistake was I included a picture of myself in plain view. My intentions later evolved into a much more anonymous methodology of never including a picture that fully showed my face. So, if you want, by all means go back to the blog entitled "Sarah Jane Murray" and take a look. I have deleted the picture that included my own face.

2. The next reservation is not so much a mistake as an imformative gesture of professionalism. I wrote a blog called "Proverbs...A Wise Man." Later, I wanted to add on with advice from another wise man, so I changed the aforementioned to "Proverbs...Wise Man I" and a whole series of "Wise Men" was sparked. That was simple enough.

3. This too, is not a big one, but I regret to have used the same picture in two separate blogs. Especially two that I liked very much. "Television Shows" and "The Gentleman's Handshake" both showed the same original picture. To me that just seems very unprofessional. Apologies.

4. Alright, this one is a real change of opinion. Sort of. In the blog "Inspire Me" I railed a bit against inspiration and how useless it is. It is something I have been thinking about ever since I wrote it. I have asked many good friend's opinions on it and gotten wonderful answers. I still don't really believe there is a permanent and quenchable inspiration. However, I longer believe to inspire someone alone is to fail. I no longer believe inspiration is useless. Perhaps Zig Ziglar put it best in saying, "People often say that motivation doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing that's why we recommend it daily." What did I ever think was wrong with constant refilling anyway?

5. In "Quote Commentary 10...Leeland Mooring" I criticize mildly the lyrics of a song that talk about the "...tears of the saints for the lost and unsaved..." Now I recognize that, still, it will take more than tears, but that raw, sincere emotion is vital in reaching the world. You have to have a heart for the lost, to build relationships and bring them home.

6. I think since "The Gentleman's Handshake" has one of the highest comment responses of any of my blogs that it deserves to be mentioned. Know this: it is not in modern etiquette the true proper way to shake a girl's hand I suppose. (Though the male instruction was the most widely approved way). Most people will tell you that a man should shake a woman's hand the same as anyone. It depends on where you stand in the feminist movement. Thanks to all for the comments, whether approved, practiced, interested, or annoyed. I love feedback.


7. Maybe my most controversial (unintentionally, though foreseen) post of all was "Science." This one I really went out on a limb and I do not expect to revoke any of my statements very much. I said that Christians should not ardently study science, and with good reason, science is now presented as free from supernatural explanation and that defies the prescence of Almighty God. But if one is firm in belief, "so firm," as one commenter put it so that "NO-THING can move us." If this is right, then be a scientific genius and be ready to argue the natural-obsession out of other scientists. By all means do. I would like to myself, had I the mental capabilities to get a lot of it. One reader rightly put that "Early science pioneers actually looked at science as a way to understand the world that God created, thereby coming to a greater understanding of God." and that "you are learning about God's creation and there is nothing to fear there." Maybe there is something to fear, then again maybe I'm wrong. In any case I will heed the book suggestion "Total Truth" by Nancy Peary that one reader offered. Our anonymous reader goes further on to say this "atheists believe that Christians are too stupid to appreciate the scientific intellect and rational thought, and I think most Christians are too afraid b/c they believe the lies of the atheists." That too I can finally agree with.



8. In "Born" I relate my experiences with "getting saved" or entering a relationship with Christ. Two rememberances have crossed my path either by verbal reminder or sudden nostalgic thought. The first was that my mother did indeed talk to me about what it meant to be a Christian and led my brother and I in the "sinner's prayer." So it was discussed with me to a state of apparent understanding, but not rememberance. Further brain racking reminded me of "getting saved" (if not the actual experience itself, the after effects) and my dad telling me the first thing I should read in the Bible is the book of John.


9. In "The Now" I am afraid that I gave the impression that Now was not a time to be treasured. I hammered it too hard. What I wanted to get across was that, we should never settle for less, at the same time we should not postpone present discomfort, because it only grows with time. No reservations though, just I may not have written on an appropriate degree. I spoke truth along with my fellow bloggeress Sarah Jane Murray. Co-writing is something I enjoyed very much, and plan to do in the future again.


10. "Welcome to America" Parts I and II were the scariest thing I ever posted. I was not sure if I agreed with myself or not. As Marshall McLuhan said, "I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." In part one "Definitions" I began to address the problem: the de-civilization of the United States. It is true in a lot of ways. Is there reason for hope? Sure, I am all about hope. In Part II, "Part of the Problem" I suggested a sure cure. For the record, I am a patriot. I love the U.S.. Tough love is a must at times. The blogs were tough love in words.

11. I made a big mistake in "Principle and Carpetball." It should have been in the Wise Man series (whether than "Anti-Climatic" really, though those were wise men), because the person who gave the advice is someone I consider very wise. Just know that, and I will not feel bad about not putting "wise man" in the title.

12. "..." is by far the weirdest blog I ever wrote. It was like trying to run for political office against a punctuation mark. The reason I wrote it is because I was reading a daily devotional that often would cut half a scripture out and change the meaning. I though that was very wrong. The Word of God needs no help or deception to prove a point. So I guess I just unleashed a little frustration on my readers. I had fun, but apologies.

13. "Wasted Laughter" makes people mad at me. I LOVE TO LAUGH! In fact I wrote an entire reservation blog called "Well-Spent Laughter" so there! I meant what I said in the first blog though. Laughter CAN be wasted.

14. "Author" was my response to all the 'lu-lus' who try and catch God with his own words. End of story.




15. "'Coursing Indepthrible Plasms': A Fictitious Christmas Prelude" felt daring at the time, but I was so blessed with a big response. It has sparked a much bigger project, stay tuned for details.

16. I was ashamed of "Extraordinary" when I wrote it and still kind of am. But it is alright. It sounded so arrogant, so I understand if you got that impression. I am still toying with the theory of one's 'extraordinariness.' I have come to the conclusion that everyone has the same amount, only the greats all capitalize on it. That's the trick. Capitalize. Just a thought.

17. I am usually pretty good about giving credit for my sources. However, I failed to note the quotations that acted as anecdote in "Points of No Return." For those of you who didn't know. It was "Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain.


18. I was excited about the response in "Question...The New Morality." From what I have gathered, the only thing that seems to be agreed on morally is that "if it hurts people it is wrong." I feel there must be more to it than that. Many believe that morality is subjective, or as one anonymous reader commented, "Morality is just a set of standards for a particular social group..." The same commenter goes on to state that morality simply isn't real. He then tries to prove his statement with one of our own, C.S. Lewis which gives me the impression he/she is well read. The quote was, "Human beings, all over the earth,have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way,and cannot really get rid of it." This quote however was more assuring us that there is definitely a right and a wrong, but as to what is or isn't, it remains unclear. Another reader and fellow blogger ginniajo (http://ginniajo.blogspot.com/) suggests that it "very well could be piety." A logical guess. Sarah Jane (http://mitiocbygrace.blogspot.com/) agrees it is a "man-made set of rules" and makes good points from a Christian standpoint. The war goes on. I am starting to think Morality cannot be bound by reason. We have to know as C.S. Lewis talks about in "Mere Christianity" (the source of the anonymous reader's quote) that there is something bigger than us out there, and he gave us a really thick book to tell us things we couldn't possibly get together on our own.

Well those are my reservations for the year. Once again thank you for coming along on the always...Classical Ride.