The Exception That Proves the Rule

In the previous post, "Words Gone Bad," I suggested the idea that words cannot be inherently bad, but what makes a word bad has to do with intention, and perception (and in a different way, definition as well). Although I stand by that idea, I now want to discuss the exception that proves the rule...

Its an exception in part because there are certain words that one should never use, but in another way it's not such an exception because the reason those words should not be used has to do with the three rules of defintion, intention, and perception. The words which shall not be named are words that are or have been used to denigrate, insult, or subjugate an entire group of people.

Now... by and large, one might say that it would be unnecessary to point out that certain words like those are just never appropriate, but there are some issues that come up regarding this that I found myself discussing recently, and I'd like to lay out my point of view, and it has a lot to do with the practice of "taking words back."

I was hanging out with some friends recently when the subject of taking words back somehow came up and one of my friends repeatedly used the n-word as he was attempting to explain why he thinks that if a word can be taken back, then all should have equal access to it or else its (reverse) racism, or else the word should simply not be able to be taken back at all. Now, I could do a whole blog (or several) on racism and probably will because its something that is used and abused as an issue, and nobody seems to properly understand it. BUT that's not what this blog is about. This is just about the word...

My view is that that word is simply never appropriate for me to use. As far as taking it back goes, though... well, there are a couple things. First off, the way my friend was saying the word and the way that black people who use the word are two ENTIRELY different things even before we get to the point of who's saying what. Finishing the word with "-er" just isn't gonna sound the same as "-a" any which way, and yes, it does sound somehow more inherently evil with the "-er" ending, whereas the other ending is arguably friendlier somehow.

Secondly, if a word has been used to insult an entire group of people, I would agree with the idea that only those people have a right to take it back. Here's why: the idea behind it is to deprive the word of its hurtful meaning, but the hurtful meaning is still there. If I were someone who was a member of a group that had a word like that slung at them, I could always be confident of its usage and meaning among those who could be hurt by that word in the first place, because they can understand what its like to be hurt by that word. Someone who is not a member of that group doesn't necessarily get it in the same way, and if someone else used that word with me, even if I knew that they didn't mean it in a harmful way, there's always going to be that nugget of doubt there.

The attempt to deprive a word of its meaning is an on-going one and it may never be so complete as to allow everyone equal access to that word. Which is why its arguable as to whether its even appropriate to try to "take back" a word at all, and there are those who feel that those words shouldn't be used by anyone, but should just be put to death as the horrible words they are. And I think they have a point. I could see it either way, really, but if (IF!) there's any merit to taking back a word at all, then I would say that only those who have been truly affected by that words meaning can even attempt it.

Anyone else should just bite their frakking tongue.

So now that I've made my point as to why certain people should NEVER EVER use certain words, I'd like to now contradict myself by offering yet another exception to the rule... You should NEVER EVER use certain words.... unless you're attempting to portray the use of those words. As a writer/filmmaker, I can think of a number of situations in which the use of such words that I would otherwise never use would better represent a certain kind of character or a certain situation. I don't really have a problem with that kind of usage. I would still generally cringe at the sound of certain words, but sometimes I think certain things must be portrayed in the arts, and in that circumstance, I don't think it should be offensive so long as it is used in that way.

Some upcoming blogs that are applicable to what I'm saying here will be "Fiction is not Truth" and also "You Can't Say Frak on TV!" although my next blog will probably be the flipside to the Faith blog: "Too Much of a Good Thing" or maybe I'll finally get around to "The Balloon Theory." I don't know, but all of these are upcoming blogs.

The Real World or Something Like It

This blog may get confusing because this is a topic that kind of confuses me...

Have you ever seen the movie A Beautiful Mind? It's been quite awhile, so I've forgotten pretty much everything about it except for one thing... After seeing it, I remember joking with my friend Christine about the possibility that one of us could be the imaginary creation of the other, a trick of an unstable mind. It always fascinated me: the idea that someone you know, that has played a major role in your life could not be real at all. How would you know?

How do you know that your memories are real? How do you know that what you remember ever really happened? Have you ever had a dream that was so vivid, you remembered it as a real occurrence, only to come to the startling realization later that it couldn't have happened? Is a dream that real a sort of reality all to itself? If you remember it, if you felt it, could that sort of be real?

When you really get down to it, a single person's perception plays a disturbingly large role in the formation of reality as any one person knows it. I mean, sure: just because you perceive something to be real doesn't necessarily make it so; a man may truly believe that he has the ability to fly, but he's still probably going to kill himself if he tries jumping off a tall building to prove it. On the other hand, there's definately something to be said for the things that may be possible through nothing more complicated than one person's persistent belief that they could. The improbability of flying men aside, I would never discount the power of belief; the things that can be accomplished through simple power of will.

But that's kind of getting off my original point. My original point is more about the state of reality itself. Case in point: Blue. What if blue didn't look like what you think blue looks like? What if blue as you know it is just a variant of purple and true blue is something that you've never actually perceived before in your life? You see it the way you do simply because that's how you see it, but seeing something a certain way doesn't mean that that's the way it is. Except that it sort of does. It does to you, at least. What if the whole world has a misperception of blue? Does it matter? Probably not since its just a color, but I think the idea is still relevant. Sometimes perception is reality. Blue is what blue is because that's how we see blue, and that's real to us even if that's not really what blue is. Make sense? Sort of/Not really...?

Well, here's something that really blows my mind... As a writer, I have a very real sense of who my characters are and the worlds in which they live. They are real to me in a way that I'm not sure can be understood by those who haven't experienced the same thing with their own creations. They even define themselves, make their own decisions, live their own lives even if its not a part of the story I'm trying to tell. Were my characters to climb out of the page and present themselves as living, breathing, thinking individuals not unlike what happens in The Dark Tower series, as weirded out as I would be, I can't say I would be entirely surprised, because they are that real to me. So (and this is the part that my mind has fun blowing apart on) what if that's what we are to God? Does that make us any less real? Does that make my characters MORE real? Or are they still less real because they're creations with a little "c" made by a creator with a little "c," rather than The Creator with a capital "C" and an important-sounding "The" at the beginning? Or does that make us more like a dream that God had once? Was that enough to push us into existence?

Of course, you all know that I personally believe that God made us with intention, but I feel its worthwhile to address the idea that we were a by-product of God's overactive imagination. And either way, I think it really calls into question the entire nature of reality... Okay, that's enough of that. Let's go back to the small-scale of this subject...

How important really is a single person's perception to the world around them? All I really mean to point out with this blog is that perception alone can have a huge impact. Someone perceiving something as truth, whether it is or isn't, makes that thing a reality to them, and that may or may be something that you can prove otherwise, and it may or may not be something that you need to or should prove otherwise. Either way: perception is integral. It can make or break the world around you, as well as how you respond to the world around you; whether you're able to cope with the world around you.

That's why I think the following things are important: 1) Its important to try to keep a handle on your own perceptions. Looking at the world in a positive way is going to help make it a more positive place. A dark view of the world is going to make it a darker place. 2) Bear in mind other people's perceptions. You can't reasonably be responsible for how another person is going to view things, but their own view is something to keep in mind. For one thing, they may have a better view, even if you're too dim-witted to see it. Even if that's not the case, with how much of reality may be shaped by how someone sees it, you could be stepping into an entirely different world just by being in someone else's life. Always good to know the customs of the worlds you visit. 3) You never know if there's some part of your world or how much of it that is all in your own mind. No need to be paranoid about that fact, but its something worth keeping in mind. Chances are, we all bear a few minor delusions that would be well-served by remembering numbers 1 or 2.

Okay then. Time to go run around with elves, battle orcs, and fly on giant eagles. ;D

... Of God and Men (The Ka Blog)

I've never liked the word "destiny." That word has always brought with it (at least to my reasoning) a sense of inevitability; that everything is set a certain way: the play is written, and we are but players... "Fate" can easily be read the same way, but my mind has always marked "fate" more as how things turned out, not necessarily having to do with cause. Neither of these definitions is necessarily completely accurate. In reality, the two words are synonyms, and either could imply a sense of "predestiny" or not, but I always like to assign my own personal interpretive meanings to words and then use them accordingly. As such, I think of destiny as something that is predetermined, and fate as a random result, and because of that, neither has ever really seemed like the appropriate word for how I think things like that work.

I can't believe that time and everything that happens is completely predetermined because I believe that God gave us free will, we can choose how we live our lives and what to believe in, so our lives are simplly not predestined. But I also believe that God has His hand in our lives and how things work out, so I also can't (at least not completely) believe in the idea that things just happen because they happen, and it's all random and crazy and unpredictable. Since those two ideas are generally how I like to differentiate destiny and fate, what I needed was a third idea and a word to accompany. That's where "ka" came in...

When I was a young teenager, I was riding in the back of my sister's car, and picked up a book that was lying around back there called Desperation by Stephen King. I was intrigued by the blurb and started decided to start reading it a bit. Soon, I was hooked, and thus was born my love or Stephen King. After that, I started eating up much of the King library of books and that would eventually lead me to picking up The Gunslinger, the first of the Dark Tower series. For those not in the know, The Dark Tower is Stephen King's magnum opus. A dark fantasy with a side of a spaghetti western that touches King's entire body of work, some on such a deep level that their connection is deeply intertwined with the Dark Tower. And ka is a central idea to The Dark Tower, as well as some of those other deeply-intwined books, such as Insomnia or Rose Madder. The Dark Tower became my favorite of King's books, and I always love the Tower-related King stories a bit more than the rest.

Anyway, "ka" in the series is defined as something somewhat like "destiny" but not quite. Destiny seemed an insufficient way to describe what ka really was. Because ka is something that shapes and gives meaning to the characters' lives and actions; it gives direction, and it might even be inescapable at times, but even with all that, you still have the choice to defy ka. Not necessarily a wise thing to do... but you can. You have the choice of letting ka rule your life or not. In the end, it's hard to really define, but I think the best definition of ka ultimately came in book 4 of The Dark Tower: Wizard and Glass, which described ka as being like a wind. And that's how I think God works in our lives...

But first, more on each of our individual ka. In theory, everyone has their own ka, which we may say is shaped both by what we want for our lives, our personalities, our intentions; but at the same time also shaped by things that are beyond our control. Everyone's personal ka is a force unto itself, which means that you get to make choices for your life, and where you want it to go, but since everyone and everything has a sense of ka, those things may affect your ka, in turn. What this really means to me is that life is a balance of the things you purpose for your life and the random consequences that result from forces in the world or other people. Purpose and Randomness are two important factors to keep in mind when talking about ka. Ka theoretically deals with the Purpose, things that happen for a reason, but it is a counterbalance to the force of Random, things that just happen: the wild cards.

And make no mistake: I believe there is Random in the world. I don't believe that everything that happens happens with a Purpose. There's six billion people in the world all with free will, and that kind of open-ended freedom is bound to create some random occurrences. It's unavoidable. Here's the cool thing about how I think God works, though: despite the fact that I think there are Random forces aplenty at work in the world, I believe God works to create Purpose even when something Random occurs. I don't think God makes bad things happen, but He does work to make good out of the bad where He can. At least, that's my opinion.

So how does He do this? That's where we get back to "ka like a wind." I think its important to remember that God is not a puppet-master. He's not up there pulling our strings, forcing us into this or that. He doesn't do that to anyone (again: thus the Random). Doing so would remove our free will, which would arguably defy the point (or at least what many of us think the point is; the ever-questionable "meaning of life"). So how is God to work in a free world? Like a wind, of course!

The wind is a force that can be used or it can abuse. A gentle wind may push us in a certain direction, or push something toward us. Depending on just how gentle that wind is, we may ignore it and strike our own path. I think God works in our lives by pushing things toward us or us toward certain things, but it's up to us whether we utilize the wind to its full potential. On the other hand, sometimes the wind can be a very strong force. It can blow hard enough to force an outcome, and I think that occasionally, God's will may blow like a very strong wind. There may sometimes be things that simply have to happen, and in those cases: ka like a wind!

The point is: between our ka, everyone's ka, and God's Ka (or whatever else you want to call it; maybe you don't like the word "ka"), I think everything is connected, and everything affects something else. I believe God uses that, and I believe we can use that. But that's basically how I think it works.

"Well," you may say, "that's all fine and good, but what does that really mean? Let's say - for the sake of argument - that you're right. What does it matter? How does that actually affect my life?"

Well, maybe none at all. But then again... I think Purpose is something worth believing in. I think Random is too, actually. And I think the fact that things are connected, and that meaning may be formed even from the Random... it's all things that can help to know... Do you know it just 'cuz I said it? I suppose not. But that's where Faith comes in (a subject, I plan to return to soon, by the way). Also, I think it can help to try to find your ka, whether you believe there's a larger Ka at work in your life or not.

Maybe it's easy for me to say because my bigger purpose, if I have one, may be easy to find. I have one good natural-born talent in my life, and that's to write. Determining that that's my ka isn't exactly a stretch, but others may be tougher. But there's more to ka than that too... I don't want to get too specific here with names or details, but there are things in my life which I can look back on and I feel certain I can see ka at work in my life. There's a very good friend of mine who I have discovered in hindsight, I had multiple opportunities to meet. Multiple opportunities in very different venues. Maybe this is just my faith talking, but I believe that this was someone I was supposed to meet, who was supposed to be in my life. I missed the first opportunity, but later met them in a very different way, and I think that we have had profound impacts on each others' lives. You can say happenstance. Coincidence, perhaps? But I don't believe in coincidence. If there's one thing ka leaves no room for it's coincidence. I don't know for certain why this person needed to be in my life (though I have my theories), or why I may have needed to be in theirs... But I believe it was supposed to happen. I also believe we still could have missed each other. I don't think that ka was blowing hard enough to force anything, but I think it was blowing hard enough to provide more than a single opportunity.

But that's just me. Take it or leave it. But for me, I believe in ka. And I like to consider it a primary force of how the world works.

Best Laid Plans...

Warning you in advance: this one's gonna be a two parter. The first part will make some points, wonder about some things, and possibly meander a little bit. The second part will be a bit more cohesive, and will be more of an application. As always: I remind you that this is simply my opinion. It's just the way I think. I could very well be speaking out of my ass. It's hard to say for sure, 'cuz the words are being translated through my fingers to the keyboard, and while I think I'm thinking them, it's entirely possible that it's just my ass that is thinking them... =)

Now, I've been meaning to write the ka-blog for awhile... Hm... "ka-blog..." Sounds klingon... Anywho! It's kind of the blog I've been itching to write the most because it's very central to my way of thinking and how I view life. Now, some of you might have a better idea than others what I'm talking about when I start talking about ka, and some of you might not know what I'm talking about even once I finish talking about it, but... my idea of "ka" is basically a concoction of some observations I've made, some borrowed ideas from a famous writer of horror and fantasy fiction, the things I believe about God, and some creative deductions that have come as a result of all that. I tell you all this not because this blog is about ka (at least not directly anyway), but because the second part of this two-part blog is the ka-blog. The first part is essentially set-up...

And while I was getting around to writing these blogs soon anyway, what compelled me to go ahead and make them the focus of my very next blog has largely to do with my brother. He wrote a blog a couple weeks ago that I didn't see before it was deleted, but can guess at what it was about thanks to my incredible powers of deduction... Anyway, THAT blog in turn led to him writing another one about God's so-called plans (to feel well-informed, you might want to take a moment to go read Nate's blog... Go ahead; I'll wait...), and that blog got me thinking about a number of things, including the ka-blog, which is essentially all about how I think God enacts His plan in our lives. And since I couldn't just comment to his blog like a normal person, and even though he and Clay seemed to have worked out what he thinks, what he meant, and why he thinks/meant it in his comments, I still want to go on about what I think.

I'll start with the part that Nathan's blog got me to thinking about that is aside from (though applicable to) what I already thought about ka and/or God's Plan. This is the part of the blog where I'm just going to muse about something without necessarily having a point to my musings...

I never really thought about the idea of God changing His mind before... I don't know why. I think maybe it's just because I'm a member of a church which believes that God perfected His Word about two thousand years ago, and has had no need to change it since then, meaning that He hasn't changed his mind about anything in quite a little while. But according to the Bible, there was a point in history when God seemed arguably a little wishy-washy about His Creation. He made man, decided there should be more, and added woman. Man and woman kind of sucked at the obeying, and God kicked them out of Eden. There are a number of times when He came to regret having made stupid people, and decided to wipe them out, one of those times actually wiping out everyone save Noah and his family...

For some reason, despite wording that specifically said that God changed His mind about something, I never really stopped to think about God actually doing such a thing. The way I saw it, God is omniscient, and is so from a place of perspective where He could (at least if He wanted to, I suppose) sit back and view the entire course of humanity from beginning to end, being that He exists on a plane beyond time and space, which I think we can determine to be true because Heaven is supposed to be eternal, and while I suppose that could be defined more simply as ever-lasting, which might imply a beginning with no end, I've always looked at it as eternal as in: beyond the existence of time as a factor. I've always viewed time itself as another part of God's creation, and I tend to think that this idea is supported by the Bible, since the passing of time, day and night, took a whole Day for Him to Create...

It's possible that I'm losing perspective, and making no sense... Fortunately for me, like I said, this part of the blog is really just about musing, and I don't have to have a point. And I could be wrong. About any part of it, or all of it. I don't know. But these are the things I think about...

Anyway, at the idea of God changing His mind, I'm inclined to take one of two different opinions on that, and at this point, I honestly don't know which one I buy into... Either 1) God really did always know what He was doing, knew already how man would screw things up, but allows things to happen as they do because they must, and the description of God changing his mind has more to do with our ability to understand that then it has to do with God making an actual change in Himself (this arguably touches on my Balloon Theory, which we'll eventually get to...), or 2) Maybe God COULD view the world from an eternal standpoint, but chose in the beginning to get right down into the dirt of it, from which perspective, He may have had a change of heart from time to time, but has since taken a step back and now views the world from an eternal perspective...

I think the second one probably fits better with how the church of Christ perceives it, although to me, the second option opens up more questions, in that it means that God COULD change His mind about something; there's precedent to prove it. I think others would probably disagree with me on this, but to me, if God has changed his mind about us before, He could again, which just opens up all sorts of questions in me about the "perfect" nature of the Bible... which also gets into my Balloon Theory... that's coming; I promise... But I've always been more of a mind for the first idea, that the language of the Bible has more to do with how we've changed than that God has... that its worded for our limited understanding, perhaps...

I don't know... I don't know what to think about that. It's pretty complicated stuff. It takes me to the furthest reaches of my reasoning ability, and not to boast (especially if I'm self-deluded here in my abilities), but I kinda think I have some pretty good reasoning skills in the existential and theological arenas as it is.

Anyway, that's some of the more creative thoughts that were inspired by my brother's blog. In my next blog, entitled "... Of God and Men," I'll get into the specifics of how I actually think God works in our lives, and how that applies to his Plan. One other thing before I go, though...

I also don't believe that there is one specific person out there who is the perfect romantic match for another one single person. Interestingly, I do believe in "soul mates," in that some people seem to interlock so perfectly (in mind and spirit) it's like puzzle pieces fitting together, BUT I don't believe that these people often make the best romantic pairs (though sometimes maybe). I think that there are any number of people out there who a person can MAKE their romantic soul-mate, though, and personally, I think that this is a much more romantic idea than those two Ones magically finding each other and falling in love anyway. Sure, the fairytale romance is a nice idea; it's sweet and easy, and I get wanting it. But oh so much more romantic (at least in my opinion) is the idea that a person chooses to love you. I'd take someone who chose to love me every morning upon waking over a so-called "happily ever after" any day.

BUT... (there's always a but...) I also believe that God gives us opportunities. I believe that there are people in my life that are there because God wanted them in my life. I also believe there are people who are not in my life that are not there because I missed the opportunity when God presented it or because I let them slip away. I believe that. I believe it with all my heart... But that's all part of the ka-theory, actually, SO until next time...

I Ain't Afraid of No Ghosts!

With Halloween just a couple days away, I decided now would be a superb time for my "ghost" blog! So that's what this is...

Growing up, I was fascinated with the supernatural. My friend, Keith, and I developed something of an obcession for awhile, and we started checking out books from the library about all sorts of "supernatural" phenomena, like ghosts, monsters, and aliens. At some point, we even came to believe that we had a ghost on our hands, when someone drew the word "ghost" in the dirt and left it to be found and we let our imaginations run wild (supported a bit by my brother pranking us a bit, which resulted in the ghost following us home from school...).

As I got older, I grew into something of a cross between Mulder and Scully. I was skeptical, but I also "wanted to believe." And that has resulted in both a continued interest in all sorts of fantastic and supernatural stories, as well as me developing more reasoned theories on what may exist in the world, how and why. When it comes to ghosts, I both believe and don't believe in the existence of such things.

As with all things in my life, I'm deeply impacted by a religious upbringing. My religious beliefs have led me to believe in a Spirit, independent of (though tied to) our physical body, but it has also made me skeptical of the idea of spirits separated from their bodies through death lingering in this realm. I just don't think that happens. When a person dies, I believe their Spirit goes somewhere, and white light or not, I don't really believe that a Spirit can turn away from that destination and hang out here instead.

So I said that I both believe and don't believe, but what I just said seems to say that I firmly don't believe, right? Well... not exactly. It just says that I don't think the ghost phenomena is caused by a Spirit that's stuck here. (And I should say: I do believe that SOME of the ghost phenomena may be legit; though I'm also sure there's plenty that's people letting their imaginations run wild, not unlike ours did as kids...) So what do I think ghosts are really all about?

Well, if you've been reading my blog or if you've read any of my book, Legends of Az, you may be hip to the fact that I'm a strong believer in the possibility of so-called mental powers... I think that part of the function of the brain is to be a conduit between our physical bodies and our true essences: our Spirits. I believe the Spirit is an incredibly powerful thing, and that our brains in that function have a lot of untapped potential for what they could theoretically do. I actually believe there's a whole Spiritual world out there, that our Spirit interacts with, and leaves little imprints on. You might think of this in the general realm of "auras," or perhaps the astral plane.

Anyway, the imprint of that "aura," if you will, is what I think ghosts potentially are. Ghosts are often said to be produced by paritcularly violent deaths, or are associated with places or things that the person had a strong attachment to in some way. I think this jives perfectly with the idea of our Spirits. Say that a particularly mad individual (I mean that as the original definition of mad, by the way) were to commit a particularly ghastly murder, woulnd't you think that that may leave a sort of imprint on the place in which it happened? I think that ghosts aren't really the person sticking around, but an echo of them. So in a way, it could be a little bit of that person, or that emotion, or that act.

For a lot of people, this idea is not very easy to accept. Many Christians find it easy enough to think of us as having Spirits, but they don't seem able to think of the full extent of what that might mean, or the effects it may have on the world around us. Granted, I could be absolutely wrong, but I think that there are things in this world that are not easily explained. We can ignore those things, or we can believe in the wilder theories, but I choose to believe in what I consider to be the most likely explanation. I think that there is some truth to every fiction, and that it may be found by trying to find an explanation in what you know to be true.

So... that's all pretty easy and simple. You don't have to agree with me. I'm just telling you that's what I think. Of course, with this belief, ghosts don't necessarily lose any of their scary points, since they might be capable of as much as imprints as they would be as Spirits... particularly since some imprints may be more strongly imprinted than others... But then again, an imprint is essentially little more than an idea... I don't know where I'm going with this...

Okay, so... maybe next time you think to calm yourself down at the thought of ghosts, maybe it won't be so easy to just push the thought away because you don't believe that Spirits linger... because maybe they don't. But that doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist...!!!

Next time... I'm not sure yet what my next subject will be, but with elections next week, don't be surprised if something politically-slanted crops up... Then again, I kinda hate politics, so don't be surprised if I go for something sillier either.

All You Need is Love

If there is a single-word, easy answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" that answer would surely be: Love. Love is what it's all about. It's the thing that makes it all worth it. And it's the thing without which makes it all seem so very horribly desolate. It's a huge thing. It's an immense force. There is nothing greater in all the world, in all time, in or out of Creation. So what exactly is this greatest of all things called Love? How do we define it?

Per usual with this series of blogs, I'm going to start with the Christian perspective and then broaden out from there. Despite a more negative image that many so-called Christians bring to religion whether by their false teachings or their imprudent methods, Christianity is really all about Love. Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and the second is to love one another. If you ask me, all of Jesus' teaching ultimately comes down to one basic goal, and that is to love. But again, what is Love anyway?

Most people would probably refer first to 1 Corinthians 13, often called the "Love Chapter." Quoting the NKJV, starting in verse 4, it reads, "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..."

Now, I think that this is an excellent description of love, and tells us certain things about love, which I'm going to get into more in a moment. But I do think of it as more of a description, than a definintion. No, for me, the real defintion of love is in an even more famous scripture than this: John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." To me, the definition of Love comes is simple: Sacrifice.

Love is the giving of yourself to another, in heart, mind, soul, and strength. Loving someone is not just something you feel. You do feel Love, sure, but the emotion is the effect, it's not the thing itself. Love is something you do. No matter what kind of love we're talking about, that's still the gist of what love is.

And there are different types of love. There were several different words for love in the greek, each referring to a different type of love. Eros is a romantic and/or physical type of love. Philos (I might get some spelling wrong here, by the way; I haven't double-checked anything here; I'm just working off of memory) is brotherly love, like the love between friends. If I recall correctly, I believe there's also one that's something like storge, which is a family-type bond, I believe. And of course, the greatest of the loves is agape. This is the one that Jesus was talking about. It's a selfless type of love, but I believe that any other type of love is simply a subsect of agape, and as such, they all can and should bind to the same things as agape (even the one that we most often allow to be ruled by passion, more than anything else: eros).

So... getting back to our definition... The key to understanding love is to understand the direction it flows. It flows out. Loving someone or something is you giving something of yourself to that person or thing. There is where the application to faith and hope come in. You can't love without the other two because you simply don't give yourself over to someone or something that you don't have faith in. The existence of love precludes the existence of faith, so if you have the latter, I daresay you have the former as well whether you realized it before or not. At least to some degree. Hope is also important here because you give out your love with the hope that doing so isn't going to run you dry... which brings us to an interesting point...

If Love is only ever giving out, never keeping it for yourself, then could you potentially run out? I think yes. Returning for a moment to the Bible, another important reference to Love is in 1 John, where John writes that God is Love. Now, I think there's an idea behind accepting God into your heart and following Him that should ideally provide us with an infinite well of Love, but at the same time, we're human, we have an endless parade of faults, and I think that even once we have accepted God to the point of having Him dwell in us, we still often live enough in our own heads, refusing to rely on Him that we have a way of cutting ourselves off from that bottomless well of Love. So there's something that I like to think of as a Plan B in Christianity, which is in our community. Also part of the idea of Christianity is our Love for one another. If we're doing our part, giving our love to one another as we should, then not only should we not run out, we should probably be overflowing, because the proper course of a loving relationship should be going both ways: Yes, we give our Love out, but if things are working like they should, we're also getting others' love back, thus refilling us, so to speak.

Which holds true for non-Christian relationships too. Any type of relationship that is based on Love, in fact. If you're giving Love out, then the other person loving you means they're returning it, thus solving the problem of running dry. If you find yourself devoid of love, then there's an excellent chance its not your fault. You could have given it all out, having the faith an hope in another person to return it, only to find your faith unfounded. Of course, then again, I think its worth taking the time to ask yourself if you were loving in the first place. I mean, Love is a giving of yourself, so if you're not doing that...

Now, don't get me wrong. None of this is easy. Or at least it's not easy maintaining it. Love is still a powerful force, full of strong emotion, and as such, it's easy to get swept up in it. There's enough of a current, that the initial force alone could be enough to carry you for a long time without ever really having to put in any additional effort. This is where I think a lot of relationships stumble and falter. They get caught up in the current (I like to think of Love as a river), happily drowning themselves in it, but never taking the opportunity to truly utilize it. As a result, sooner or later, the flow is going to slow down and many find themselves washed up on the shore, not quite sure how to get back in, and generally lacking the faith to find their way to stronger waters once again.

But true love does require effort. Of course, there are other problems. Most notably, successfully piloting the river of Love with another (whether its in a romantic relationship or otherwise), requires the participation of both parties. A person who repeatedly gives their love to someone incapable or refusing to return it will find themselves repeatedly washing back up on dry land. So both people have to be in it. So long as they are, and are willing to work, giving faith, hope, and love to the other, I believe they have the potential of surviving everything. It only takes one person to leave a relationship; it takes two to make it work.

Two more things before I'm done... I've neglected to say anything here about Hate. I am going to talk about that. Hate will get its own blog somewhere down the line. It'll be called The Opposite Blog. I don't know when, but it's coming. Hate isn't nearly as happy a topic, of course, but I find it very fascinating. Opposites in general are fascinating to me...

The other thing is that I want to mention one other major description of Love that could sort of be inferred by Paul's "Love Chapter," but isn't specifically mentioned... Love is irrational. Let me explain... (For the sake of protecting the innocent, I shall now play the pronoun game.)

Awhile back, a dear friend of mine told me something that they had been thinking about. They were ashamed of themselves for thinking what they had been thinking, and knowing me to be a Christian, with all my uptight morals, they were afraid of what I would think of them. Immediately upon being told, I couldn't imagine what they were afraid of. I love this person, and there's nothing they could tell me that would change that. From that, I could see the irrationality of love from both sides.

Their love was irrational because it made them afraid of losing something that they had no chance of losing BECAUSE of what that thing was in the first place: love. My love was irrational because with the standards I hold myself to, cold logic might have dictated a less loving response. But love is love, and it was unaffected by anything either of us could have told the other.

I think the inference of Paul's "Love Chapter" to the irrationality of love is that true love will bear anything... that it isn't reliant upon circumstances to dictate how it behaves. It doesn't seek out fights (though if a fight ever does break out in a moment of love forgotten, love would seek to repair it)... Maybe that's not quite so irrational, but it might seem so from a certain perspective. But the other side is the more irrational side. The side that doesn't see that love will sustain any hardship. I understand it. I've been in that frame of mind myself, and will be again. I've been afraid of losing relationships for something that I might have said or did or something even less than that, but if somone truly loves, that fear is irrational. We should never have to fear losing love, because if love truly exists, then what wouldn't that person forgive?

And so, that's why Love is the greatest of all things. But also why Faith and Hope are steps on the way to Love. I don't believe Love exists without them. Until next time, know this: whatever may be going on in your life, whatever hardships you may face, I have faith in you and what God has planned for you; I hope for only the best; and I love you dearly. Thank you each for the Love that you have first given me, because I would have none of these things if you hadn't shown me first that it was possible.

Next Blog: I Ain't Afraid of No Ghosts!

Hope Springs Eternal

Optimism, Pessimism, or somewhere in between is often considered to be just a way a person is. You may be a half-glass-full kinda person, or you may be a half-glass-empty kinda person. You may even be a "What glass?!" type person. Hope and optimism aren't PRECISELY the same thing, but they generally keep each other company. You're not gonna find a whole lot of hopeful pessimists. So what is hope exactly and why is it important?

Well, of course, in Christianity, when we're referring to hope, I think we're generally referring to the Hope of Heaven. That's a big part of what makes it an extention of Faith. We have Faith that God exists and that he cares for us, and as a result, we have the hope of eternal life in Heaven. But like Faith, I think this is generally true of hope's extention from faith in anything. Hope essentially springs from faith. If we have faith in something or someone, then the hope of a good result from that thing or that person is the effect of that faith.

That much is all pretty easy and simple. Where hope gets hard is actually having it. In many ways, hope is even more of a leap than faith is. It's groundless because it's rooted in something that's often barely grounded itself. Which is what makes it hard to believe in. But that's why I see it as a progression.

The reason it's important is this... I mentioned happiness in the previous blog about Faith. Everyone's looking for happiness. But everybody's looking for all the wrong places. Have you ever said to yourself something like, "If I can just get done with high school, I'll be happier!" or "Once I'm done with college and have a good job, I'll be happy!" or "If I can just find that special someone..." or "Once we get married..." or conversely, "Once we get divorced..." Maybe your aims are a litle lower: "Once I have that big-screen!" Whatever. Everyone seems to think that happiness is a result of circumstances, your state of being. But it's not. Happiness is a state of mind. You can only ever be as happy as you allow yourself to be.

If you focus on the horrors of the world, the sadness, the suffering, then that's going to be the center of your experience. If, however, you focus on the hope, the faith, the love... have a positive outlook, it's enough to make all the difference in the world. Hope is essentially a positive outlook, it's believing that things will work out, believing that people will come through for you (even when it doesn't and they don't; hoping still makes a difference). It's the dissolution of worry and regret, which only cause stress and pain, both physically and mentally. And that's why it's important.

And because Hope, because Hope is all about the positive side of life, Love is going to spring from Hope, in the same way that Hope springs from Faith. And that will take us into the next blog...