"universality"
"meaning to the human experience"
I think one question that I wrestle with the most is the point or purpose to literature. This by extension becomes a question of the importance of my own choice to pursue the study of literature as a career.
It's interesting because it seems that those in the field have no problem addressing this question with the implicit "of course this is important" through the very act of publishing papers that are published or through the pouring of hours into the research of various seemingly unimportant topics.
My very language betrays me. "Unimportant."
This is where I worry that what I am doing may not contain enough meaning for me to dive into it. I'm trying to reconcile what I enjoy doing with finding something that has meaning.
Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it has meaning. I enjoy watching anime, playing Tetris Battle, and cooking. Of the three, two have no meaning - they will not enhance my life in any way, they will not make me a better person, influence my being, or add to my character.
Okay, well I think anime does a little of that because media has its influences but playing Tetris Battle only succeeds in teaching me how to order my life when they are organized by shapes that are a variation of a placement of 4 squares.
"Enjoying something unproductive is useless."
This is the philosophy I've been taught and something that I'm fighting against because unfortunately reading and literature have both fallen into the "useless" category. This is in part familial - my dad's mantra has always been "activity with productivity" because in order to survive, one must be productive. Both reading and writing are not productive in the sense that they do not create money in the immediate sense (there is no career in this - though ironically, my dad as always encouraged the whole family to read). This line of thinking is also societal because of the push towards math and science. The general attitude (from where, I wonder?) is that there is no money to be made in humanities and that they have no value.
And yet.
There's always the "and yet."
When I am doing my readings, I disappear into a different world that I am exploring and time too disappears.
As I explore this field, I see the importance of literature and its effects. The philosophies (literary theories, if you will), filter down from the academics to the students. Students who care to learn and participate in class pick up on such ways of thinking, and then the ideas start to spread. And example is the hyperreal, though rarely called by its name, that is manifested in our lives; we see it, comment on it, and continue with it or fight against it.
Literature can change and has changed the world but perhaps its effects have been too subtle for us to give it any credit.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
My World, Our World
Our own culture, or world, in a way, can only exist in the mind.
So I suppose this is some kind of weird fusion of my post about the imagination and culture, but I re-read my post on culture and I realized that the true norm of one's culture to oneself can only exist in one's head because we are constantly affirmed or rejected by those around us in how we do things, how we approach things, and how we think. This means that what seems good and right, or perhaps what would be considered the norm, exists only within the mind and it is only there that the imagination plays a role in creating the "perfect" where we are always right and always good and always normal or accepted by everyone around us.
By stepping out of the mind and interacting with others, this sense of self is re-structured or shifted based on what their own "normal" compass is and again, through an averaging of such "normalizing" behaviors, culture is born.
Though in saying this, I'm repeating what I said in the culture post so I'll stop there.
The mind really is a powerful thing.
And the whole relativity thing I think is incredibly post-structuralist. I really don't like how I fall into that category of literary theory because it makes it harder for me to feel like an individual (though I suppose that's support for another theory (Marxists?) because they don't believe that we have that individuality but are simply created from society - I'm probably oversimplifying it horribly but it's pretty much along those lines).
So I suppose this is some kind of weird fusion of my post about the imagination and culture, but I re-read my post on culture and I realized that the true norm of one's culture to oneself can only exist in one's head because we are constantly affirmed or rejected by those around us in how we do things, how we approach things, and how we think. This means that what seems good and right, or perhaps what would be considered the norm, exists only within the mind and it is only there that the imagination plays a role in creating the "perfect" where we are always right and always good and always normal or accepted by everyone around us.
By stepping out of the mind and interacting with others, this sense of self is re-structured or shifted based on what their own "normal" compass is and again, through an averaging of such "normalizing" behaviors, culture is born.
Though in saying this, I'm repeating what I said in the culture post so I'll stop there.
The mind really is a powerful thing.
And the whole relativity thing I think is incredibly post-structuralist. I really don't like how I fall into that category of literary theory because it makes it harder for me to feel like an individual (though I suppose that's support for another theory (Marxists?) because they don't believe that we have that individuality but are simply created from society - I'm probably oversimplifying it horribly but it's pretty much along those lines).
Emotions
My theory on emotion has been proven!
Actually, I don't think it was my theory - it was probably something I read somewhere or had gotten influenced by and now have been trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to live out. Anyway, it's from a TED talk by Brene Brown from here.
Or you can watch it here:
So this had other good nuggets and I feel like I could probably relate this to Christianity it some way (apparently doing that has a name - I forget what it is though..) but it resonates pretty strongly with Christian ideology.
Anyway, this is what I got out of the lecture that aligned with what I had been thinking about with emotion/hardship/suffering and the like:
The greater the pain, the greater the joy. The greater the emotion, the more depth you feel in life, the more you realize the humanity in others and the less you can hate, blame, or reject a person (and perhaps yourself as well).
I feel like I still don't have the answers to how exactly to treat people (and I don't think there's a singular answer for dealing with people, though one can try to formulate various techniques and/or approaches based on theory and observation). And I still have issues living it out when hard-to-answer problems occur but it's interesting that one thing the talk said was that - you can't turn off the emotions because those problems exist. You can't just shut out the hurt, pain, anger, etc. because other emotions will go too, such as joy, happiness and the like. I think one thing to keep in mind is that bad things pass and that through such deeply hurtful or painful experiences, one (usually) becomes stronger and has a deeper understanding of what life is about and of others' experiences.
The depth in experience and emotion I think stems from a lot of this kind of thinking because if one just dwells on and remembers the painful, that means that there was no personal growth or learning.
Anyway, the difficulty of saying such seemingly encouraging things is that if someone is going through something incredibly painful or through a lot of suffering, they'll probably want to slap the person saying such things because it minimizes the the depth of hurt/pain/suffering. I mean you can't tell a person that things will get better if they feel like they're surrounded by darkness. And it's a little presumptuous to say because no one can predict the future. It's not only cliche, it shows a lack of understanding of that person's emotions.
This is why I feel like I still have difficulty truly living out a life of vulnerability and by extension, compassion.
I don't want to say that I'm one of those "wholehearted" people because I feel like I'm bragging and I know that I have my own set of personal issues but I like to think that I'm working towards those qualities so that I can have that sense not only of worthiness but by extension a deeper sense of joy and contentment.
I don't know though. I do have this thing with the whole "depth of experience." But what does that mean really?
To experience something and truly be there and be able to feel and absorb the experience for what it is - knowing that something good is happening and being able to appreciate it at the time for what it is, or to relish in the joy of the moment, the sadness of the moment, etc. I suppose it has to do with living in the moment - the ridiculously overused "carpe diem" type thing but would that be depth?
Well, this one needs more chewing, I think. I tried to explain it to my cousin and failed miserably, which means that I don't know what I'm talking about (or thinking about) when it comes to having depth in one's life.
Actually, I don't think it was my theory - it was probably something I read somewhere or had gotten influenced by and now have been trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) to live out. Anyway, it's from a TED talk by Brene Brown from here.
Or you can watch it here:
So this had other good nuggets and I feel like I could probably relate this to Christianity it some way (apparently doing that has a name - I forget what it is though..) but it resonates pretty strongly with Christian ideology.
Anyway, this is what I got out of the lecture that aligned with what I had been thinking about with emotion/hardship/suffering and the like:
The greater the pain, the greater the joy. The greater the emotion, the more depth you feel in life, the more you realize the humanity in others and the less you can hate, blame, or reject a person (and perhaps yourself as well).
I feel like I still don't have the answers to how exactly to treat people (and I don't think there's a singular answer for dealing with people, though one can try to formulate various techniques and/or approaches based on theory and observation). And I still have issues living it out when hard-to-answer problems occur but it's interesting that one thing the talk said was that - you can't turn off the emotions because those problems exist. You can't just shut out the hurt, pain, anger, etc. because other emotions will go too, such as joy, happiness and the like. I think one thing to keep in mind is that bad things pass and that through such deeply hurtful or painful experiences, one (usually) becomes stronger and has a deeper understanding of what life is about and of others' experiences.
The depth in experience and emotion I think stems from a lot of this kind of thinking because if one just dwells on and remembers the painful, that means that there was no personal growth or learning.
Anyway, the difficulty of saying such seemingly encouraging things is that if someone is going through something incredibly painful or through a lot of suffering, they'll probably want to slap the person saying such things because it minimizes the the depth of hurt/pain/suffering. I mean you can't tell a person that things will get better if they feel like they're surrounded by darkness. And it's a little presumptuous to say because no one can predict the future. It's not only cliche, it shows a lack of understanding of that person's emotions.
This is why I feel like I still have difficulty truly living out a life of vulnerability and by extension, compassion.
I don't want to say that I'm one of those "wholehearted" people because I feel like I'm bragging and I know that I have my own set of personal issues but I like to think that I'm working towards those qualities so that I can have that sense not only of worthiness but by extension a deeper sense of joy and contentment.
I don't know though. I do have this thing with the whole "depth of experience." But what does that mean really?
To experience something and truly be there and be able to feel and absorb the experience for what it is - knowing that something good is happening and being able to appreciate it at the time for what it is, or to relish in the joy of the moment, the sadness of the moment, etc. I suppose it has to do with living in the moment - the ridiculously overused "carpe diem" type thing but would that be depth?
Well, this one needs more chewing, I think. I tried to explain it to my cousin and failed miserably, which means that I don't know what I'm talking about (or thinking about) when it comes to having depth in one's life.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Depth
One of my friends (in Korean, she would be my 동생) told me that I have depth. I suppose there's two ways to take this: one is as a compliment and to be thankful that she thinks this of me. The other way is to say that perhaps it doesn't seem like I have depth but upon hearing my thoughts on some things, I (surprisingly) have depth. The reason she had to articulate the compliment is because either I or she did not seem to perceive it and thus it needed to be actualized into words.
To a certain extent, I think it's a little bit of both. Do we not compliment people when we think they don't know such things about themselves, or because they seemed to have forgotten (or act like they've forgotten and we want to encourage and remind them of such things?)? To want to do something nice for the person or to at least give them some kind of encouragement by saying it - I feel like that is what a compliment is.
I don't know. Somehow this segued into work but perhaps I simply wanted to brag about the fact that someone thought I had depth because it's a pretty awesome compliment, imo.
This is the kind of person I've been striving to become and I'm guessing progress in such things in showing. :)
To a certain extent, I think it's a little bit of both. Do we not compliment people when we think they don't know such things about themselves, or because they seemed to have forgotten (or act like they've forgotten and we want to encourage and remind them of such things?)? To want to do something nice for the person or to at least give them some kind of encouragement by saying it - I feel like that is what a compliment is.
I don't know. Somehow this segued into work but perhaps I simply wanted to brag about the fact that someone thought I had depth because it's a pretty awesome compliment, imo.
This is the kind of person I've been striving to become and I'm guessing progress in such things in showing. :)
Monday, January 13, 2014
Emotional
I wonder if it's true that a person gets more emotional as they get older.
I feel like such things can be justified in other ways or at least one can weigh in other factors that can be attributed to such emotional-ness.
I find myself being more emotional as an adult.
Things that didn't bother me before do now. Little things, stupid worries, actions that shouldn't contain as much meaning as I sometimes construe them to have...
All these things were things that I had taught myself to brush aside when I was younger but I feel like stronger waves keeps pushing me away from the shore and there's a pull to stay in the deep ocean of irrationality and the useless holding on to of grudges, past slights, and the like.
I mean seriously, in the end, who cares? It doesn't change, enhance, or better my life in any way, so there's no point in holding onto such things.
There wasn't any one big happening or anything that lead to this though; it's just that little things bother me more now and that in and of itself also bothers me.
Sometimes I wonder if it's because there's more stress as an adult (something I've come to realize I still haven't gotten the knack of managing yet) and with stress, little things begin to beat against an already fragile equilibrium of the mind.
Perhaps I've simply become more high-strung. What a horrible development. This is something that must be remedied quickly because that's the last thing I want to become.
I don't like being serious. Why must adults always be so serious? To be taken seriously? Preposterous, I say! I can be both, yet people have a hard time reconciling such things. Do they not realize that humans are not linear, 2-dimensional, or even 3-dimensional beings? There's so much depth to people that they themselves sometimes don't realize they have...
I don't like having to keep track of people in terms of their personality (I suppose another way to put it is whether or not I should be suspicious of their character). Thankfully, it seems that I've been able to meet and maintain friendships where I don't have to worry about such things. I've found that I have a general almost subconscious aversion to those prone to manipulation and superficiality so I haven't had to deal with too many heartbreaks (from friendships, at least).
I don't like the details that adults have to pay attention to. I suppose this is more to do with one's presentation of oneself. How one dresses, acts, and helps (or doesn't help) others has become a reflection of character or how serious one takes oneself and/or the other party. Dress like a slob and you're being rude. Act inappropriately and suddenly you've ostracized yourself from everyone else. Not helping someone suddenly is a lost connection in networking. In a way, it kind of sounds like what high school was, but isn't high school just the testing ground for how adults now act? I remember reading something about that somewhere... (there's also a song called "High School Never Ends" by Bowling for Soup addressing just that).
It's all become so burdensome. The ideal, of course, is simply to help others for the sake of helping them. The desire stemming not from personal gain, but from a desire to do so (oh, such cliche words..).
I feel like it goes back to why Christians are considered to be such hypocrites - the idea is that in knowing one's faith and how awesome and great God is and in knowing one's salvation, actions simply follow as an outpouring of such feelings. However, because one wants to show that they too have that "outpouring" of feelings, they fake it. Thus the hypocrisy.
What I find interesting about Christianity, is that the experience, though universal (for those who are truly rooted in their faith), must be deeply personal in order for true change to occur. There is a formula for Christianity, it seems. People go through certain situations in life and suddenly are face to face with God and come to accept or reject Him. Those who accept undergo such a dramatic transformation that the very fabric of their lives are changed. (At least I feel like that's the general expectation - and of course I'm making a very large generalization).
However, those that do not undergo such a dramatic change or feeling or what have you are left in the dust and others look at them with the general feeling of "Well, what about you?" So to compensate, they fake it in front of those that they think matter and act as they please otherwise, not knowing the lack of true depth in their faith.
This development is the same in society. First, someone acts out of genuine feeling. Others find that it works and it becomes a formula - a custom, if you will. Thus, courtesies are born.
Such actions, with no truth behind it, create a culture of hypocrisy.
No one wants to show their dark side so the facade of polite courtesy but back-stabbing machinations continue.
I wonder if there's a way to break out of this cycle?
The other solution, as a friend so aptly put it, is to "fake it 'til it's real."
Gah. There are some missing gaps between ideas I feel, but for now, I feel like this will have to suffice.
I feel like such things can be justified in other ways or at least one can weigh in other factors that can be attributed to such emotional-ness.
I find myself being more emotional as an adult.
Things that didn't bother me before do now. Little things, stupid worries, actions that shouldn't contain as much meaning as I sometimes construe them to have...
All these things were things that I had taught myself to brush aside when I was younger but I feel like stronger waves keeps pushing me away from the shore and there's a pull to stay in the deep ocean of irrationality and the useless holding on to of grudges, past slights, and the like.
I mean seriously, in the end, who cares? It doesn't change, enhance, or better my life in any way, so there's no point in holding onto such things.
There wasn't any one big happening or anything that lead to this though; it's just that little things bother me more now and that in and of itself also bothers me.
Sometimes I wonder if it's because there's more stress as an adult (something I've come to realize I still haven't gotten the knack of managing yet) and with stress, little things begin to beat against an already fragile equilibrium of the mind.
Perhaps I've simply become more high-strung. What a horrible development. This is something that must be remedied quickly because that's the last thing I want to become.
I don't like being serious. Why must adults always be so serious? To be taken seriously? Preposterous, I say! I can be both, yet people have a hard time reconciling such things. Do they not realize that humans are not linear, 2-dimensional, or even 3-dimensional beings? There's so much depth to people that they themselves sometimes don't realize they have...
I don't like having to keep track of people in terms of their personality (I suppose another way to put it is whether or not I should be suspicious of their character). Thankfully, it seems that I've been able to meet and maintain friendships where I don't have to worry about such things. I've found that I have a general almost subconscious aversion to those prone to manipulation and superficiality so I haven't had to deal with too many heartbreaks (from friendships, at least).
I don't like the details that adults have to pay attention to. I suppose this is more to do with one's presentation of oneself. How one dresses, acts, and helps (or doesn't help) others has become a reflection of character or how serious one takes oneself and/or the other party. Dress like a slob and you're being rude. Act inappropriately and suddenly you've ostracized yourself from everyone else. Not helping someone suddenly is a lost connection in networking. In a way, it kind of sounds like what high school was, but isn't high school just the testing ground for how adults now act? I remember reading something about that somewhere... (there's also a song called "High School Never Ends" by Bowling for Soup addressing just that).
It's all become so burdensome. The ideal, of course, is simply to help others for the sake of helping them. The desire stemming not from personal gain, but from a desire to do so (oh, such cliche words..).
I feel like it goes back to why Christians are considered to be such hypocrites - the idea is that in knowing one's faith and how awesome and great God is and in knowing one's salvation, actions simply follow as an outpouring of such feelings. However, because one wants to show that they too have that "outpouring" of feelings, they fake it. Thus the hypocrisy.
What I find interesting about Christianity, is that the experience, though universal (for those who are truly rooted in their faith), must be deeply personal in order for true change to occur. There is a formula for Christianity, it seems. People go through certain situations in life and suddenly are face to face with God and come to accept or reject Him. Those who accept undergo such a dramatic transformation that the very fabric of their lives are changed. (At least I feel like that's the general expectation - and of course I'm making a very large generalization).
However, those that do not undergo such a dramatic change or feeling or what have you are left in the dust and others look at them with the general feeling of "Well, what about you?" So to compensate, they fake it in front of those that they think matter and act as they please otherwise, not knowing the lack of true depth in their faith.
This development is the same in society. First, someone acts out of genuine feeling. Others find that it works and it becomes a formula - a custom, if you will. Thus, courtesies are born.
Such actions, with no truth behind it, create a culture of hypocrisy.
No one wants to show their dark side so the facade of polite courtesy but back-stabbing machinations continue.
I wonder if there's a way to break out of this cycle?
The other solution, as a friend so aptly put it, is to "fake it 'til it's real."
Gah. There are some missing gaps between ideas I feel, but for now, I feel like this will have to suffice.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
I have a temper
I don't think I'm as easy-going as I come off. I've heard people tell me that I'm happy-go-lucky, easy-going, free-spirited or to put it in a negative light, that I'm irresponsible and kind of thoughtless (though that's more of a personal realization than anything else).
I realize that each time I decide to let things go or choose to go with the flow. It's a conscious decision and not something that's built into my personality. I think at some point in my life or perhaps at various points (I think it's the latter), I realized that certain things weren't worth holding onto.
I suppose I could trace it to various childhood, adolescent, teen, college, or young adult experiences that led to such changes in personality, but for now, I want to talk about how certain experiences bring out what seems to be the true me.
I have little patience (something else that I've kind of known about myself but recently has become more apparent).
When my patience runs out, I get very very very angry. Perhaps not to the point of seeing red (thankfully no situation has ever occurred for that to happen) but definitely to the point of doing something irrational.
I'm currently in a situation where I'm teaching. One of the students seems to have some form of ADD (even ADHD, maybe - but this is perhaps because I think I have a mild form and I see similar symptoms in him... I could be wrong) as well as some authority issues - not in a bad way, but he doesn't seem to realize that he's undermining authority in a way that will cause chaos in the classroom. "Oh, I can get away with this? Then what about this, this, and this?" And then the whole classroom decides that they don't need to follow the rules. That's the kind of student he is. Yet, you can tell a lot of it is without malice. At least that's the way it seems. I do have to call him out and tell him to chill out, be quiet, stay focused, etc., but he tries with his classwork and I see it.
Today, I completely lost my temper. Had he questioned my authority then, I probably would've gotten up and punched him. That was the first thing that came to mind. Thankfully he didn't question and simply did as I asked because I was ready to not even punch him but probably to beat him up. I suppose I could attribute my anger to hunger or something as simple as stress and a build-up of various factors, but the point is, I got uncontrollably mad.
This is dangerous because this means that I have an uncontrollable temper and it also means that I can get angry to that point. This is also dangerous because I don't know how to handle such anger.
I don't remember the last time I got that angry. I want to say it was in high school for something that I felt was unjust (and thinking about it now, it seems stupid but my expectation was high and the result was unfortunately negative, which caused a more severe action).
Anyway, I really hope it doesn't happen again or that I'm in a place that I am able to diffuse it properly. As it only happens once every 15 years or so, I think I'll be okay. *hopefully* when (if only I could say "if"...) it happens again, I'll be older and wiser (and better able to control my actions). ^^
I realize that each time I decide to let things go or choose to go with the flow. It's a conscious decision and not something that's built into my personality. I think at some point in my life or perhaps at various points (I think it's the latter), I realized that certain things weren't worth holding onto.
I suppose I could trace it to various childhood, adolescent, teen, college, or young adult experiences that led to such changes in personality, but for now, I want to talk about how certain experiences bring out what seems to be the true me.
I have little patience (something else that I've kind of known about myself but recently has become more apparent).
When my patience runs out, I get very very very angry. Perhaps not to the point of seeing red (thankfully no situation has ever occurred for that to happen) but definitely to the point of doing something irrational.
I'm currently in a situation where I'm teaching. One of the students seems to have some form of ADD (even ADHD, maybe - but this is perhaps because I think I have a mild form and I see similar symptoms in him... I could be wrong) as well as some authority issues - not in a bad way, but he doesn't seem to realize that he's undermining authority in a way that will cause chaos in the classroom. "Oh, I can get away with this? Then what about this, this, and this?" And then the whole classroom decides that they don't need to follow the rules. That's the kind of student he is. Yet, you can tell a lot of it is without malice. At least that's the way it seems. I do have to call him out and tell him to chill out, be quiet, stay focused, etc., but he tries with his classwork and I see it.
Today, I completely lost my temper. Had he questioned my authority then, I probably would've gotten up and punched him. That was the first thing that came to mind. Thankfully he didn't question and simply did as I asked because I was ready to not even punch him but probably to beat him up. I suppose I could attribute my anger to hunger or something as simple as stress and a build-up of various factors, but the point is, I got uncontrollably mad.
This is dangerous because this means that I have an uncontrollable temper and it also means that I can get angry to that point. This is also dangerous because I don't know how to handle such anger.
I don't remember the last time I got that angry. I want to say it was in high school for something that I felt was unjust (and thinking about it now, it seems stupid but my expectation was high and the result was unfortunately negative, which caused a more severe action).
Anyway, I really hope it doesn't happen again or that I'm in a place that I am able to diffuse it properly. As it only happens once every 15 years or so, I think I'll be okay. *hopefully* when (if only I could say "if"...) it happens again, I'll be older and wiser (and better able to control my actions). ^^
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Christianity wordplay
The -ion words just seem to flow, sometimes (though upon writing this, the flow will most likely stop - I'm good at doing that to myself it seems; where what I say about myself becomes untrue because I've said it and for some odd reason causes me to stop doing what I say I do..).
I digress.
I was listening to the sermon this Sunday and the phrases started to string themselves along as I listened to the importance of sanctification.
The manifestation of
justification should be in our
sanctification so that there is
connection of our
salvation to our
glorification.
Pretty much, one should act as a Christian if one truly believes in Christ and the salvation associated with such belief so as to show that one is saved. Not for others to see or to look good in front of others, but as an outpouring of the feelings inside as the vertical relationship between God and oneself is strengthened.
What's interesting that the pastor pointed out is that if there is no faith, or belief behind the actions, Christianity because no different from other religions. It is the salvation first, then the actions that follow that makes Christianity different. How can you act as you don't feel?
Yet so many Christians and so-called Christians do this. By acting, there is an unsaid feeling (that has not even become a thought yet) that it will somehow earn points in God's eyes so that one can be saved. This is perhaps the default way of thinking for humans because of how things generally work (the whole tit-for-tat idea).
Anyway, it's interesting to think about because Christians get so much crap for being hypocrites.
I digress.
I was listening to the sermon this Sunday and the phrases started to string themselves along as I listened to the importance of sanctification.
The manifestation of
justification should be in our
sanctification so that there is
connection of our
salvation to our
glorification.
Pretty much, one should act as a Christian if one truly believes in Christ and the salvation associated with such belief so as to show that one is saved. Not for others to see or to look good in front of others, but as an outpouring of the feelings inside as the vertical relationship between God and oneself is strengthened.
What's interesting that the pastor pointed out is that if there is no faith, or belief behind the actions, Christianity because no different from other religions. It is the salvation first, then the actions that follow that makes Christianity different. How can you act as you don't feel?
Yet so many Christians and so-called Christians do this. By acting, there is an unsaid feeling (that has not even become a thought yet) that it will somehow earn points in God's eyes so that one can be saved. This is perhaps the default way of thinking for humans because of how things generally work (the whole tit-for-tat idea).
Anyway, it's interesting to think about because Christians get so much crap for being hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)