Skip to main content

Talking about eternal destiny.

"Do you know about the flood?" I pushed the newspaper into my bag and looked at him. "I'm sorry, what?" He stepped closer. "I asked if you knew about the flood." I looked around. "What flood?" "The flood." He said. He pointed to a shell in the limestone wall in front of us. "See this shell? This shell got here during a flood. All these shells in all these walls got into the rocks during a big flood. A flood that covered up a lot of land." Images and information flooded my mind like a slideshow on fast forward. Shells, rock, limestone, water, sea, millions of years. Deposition, sediment, cementation, calcification. "Really?" I said. "There are sea shells on top of Mt. Everest." He said. "Wow." I said.

And so we talked. We talked about religion. He told me about how he'd had a religious/spiritual awakening twelve years ago where, after an entire life of religious belief and Christian practice, he finally accepted Jesus Christ as his salvation. "I was saved twelve years ago," he said. "Before, I had thought I was going to heaven. Now, I know I am." He gave me a rundown of the gospel and read some Bible excerpts to me. "You can be saved right now." He told me. "We are all sinners; we all are born with sin. And you and I, we're more given to sin--to look at things we shouldn't. And, God forbid, if you were to die tomorrow carrying that sin with you, you'd go to hell. And unfortunately that choice isn't up to me. Right now your name is written in the books." "Oh." I said. He looked up at me as he handed me a pamphlet. "Do you want to be saved?" "Um," I said. "I'm not sure if I'm ready yet." "What's your name?" He asked.

"Gabriel."

I still don't know if religion is for me. Here I am, starting my third year in my quest for spiritual enlightenment. I've talked to people, been talked to, gone to church, tried to observe God's grace, and been around true believers both life-long and recently converted. I've also talked with atheists, aggressive or not, agnostics, once-believers, and devotees of science and logic. Most of the people I've met are decidedly in one camp. It's faith or faithless. For the most part there is no reconciliation between the two ideologies. And all of these interactions have left me completely confused. I just want inner peace and shit. Why does it have to be like enlisting in an army? But I guess I'm doing alright just wandering in the dead zone between the sides.

"Why do you waste so much time drawing cartoons?"
"Because I take some pride in my work.""Do you want to be a proud cartoonist working for $6 a day for the rest of your life?"
And I didn't say anything back. Aren't you proud of me?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You ended weak, but you started.

This is something I feel very strongly about. So strong are my emotions about it, in fact, that I have haphazardly drafted this singular post about it on the fly. I hope, for your sake, that you are seated as I deal with this incredibly important social issue and say controversial things--the likes of which give women the vapors. Shorts. I fucking hate shorts. I hate them because you can't look cool in them. Think about it. Have you ever seen an action hero save the world wearing shorts? No. Action heroes wear pants. Men wear pants. People who save the world wear pants. Pants, pants, pants. Nobody wears shorts excepts, like, stoners, lazy guys, and dudes. And bros. Those archetypes do not do adventurous things. Indiana Jones? Pants. Robocop? Pants. Flapjack? Pants. Bear Grylls? Pants. Australian stereotypes? Shorts. Australia really likes to try to censor their internet content. That doesn't sound so awesome and/or manly to me. To prove my conclusion that shorts a

Pseudo-science (like psych).

I consider myself a man of science. I try to approach problems and deal with them logically, using observations previously recorded to handle new problems. So of course my interest was piqued when someone I knew posited that men are needier and more complicated than women. An interesting theory. But to properly examine it, one must understand the concept of sexual selection and its two aspects: male competition and female choice. Which brings us to point one: men are needier [in relationships] than women. This is true. In a natural/primal setting, the males are generally love-'em-leave-'em kinds of guys. Their main objective is to reproduce as much as they can. Humans, in their infinite wisdom, have decreased the emphasis on this to the point where it has become a footnote in male purpose. Civilization dictates that, instead of finding a partner for the sole purpose of reproduction, males find females for life companionship. With the effective removal of their natur

Waiting and such.

A doctor came to speak at our lecture series the other day. Honestly, I don't even remember what kind of doctor he was. I don't remember any of the questions he answered. I don't remember any of the anecdotes he related. I don't remember any of the insight he imparted on us or any of the wisdom he shared. Except for one thing, which really resonated with me at the time. "The biggest challenge facing you as pre-health profession students," he said before the lecture ended. "Is the overwhelming cynicism of our society." He's right. He's right, and it's awful. I'm a pretty cynical guy, but at least I know it's a joke. That everything is a huge joke. But everybody is so jaded these days. We just can't stand to entertain the thought that maybe--just maybe--things aren't as bad as we think they are. As we want them to be. That maybe--just maybe--people aren't always selfish pieces of shit. There have been a lot