Jarred's Slice of Heaven

For the past few years, Fred Clark over at Slacktivist has been doing an in-depth critique of the book Left Behind by LeHay and Jenkins. I began to read through this review about a month ago and have enjoyed Clark's analysis, which has covered literary, theological (Clark himself is an evangelical Christian), and political perspectives alike.

Yesterday, I ran across this installment, where Clark takes a step back from the book's plotlines to discuss one of the concepts touched upon by the book, evangelism, in a broader context. Primarily, he speaks of a shift from evangelism as hospitality to evangelism as a sales pitch, expanding upon a familiar (or at least familiar to anyone who's been involved in the evangelical Christian community) metaphor:

...it is not "one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread," but rather one fat man trying to convince another fat man that he's a beggar in order to close the sale on another loaf.

The rest of of the post goes on to talk about how this approach to evangelism amounts to a sales pitch with little or no product to go with it (in fact, the title of my post references another great comment made by Clark). I highly recommend reading the whole post, as it's quite insightful.

Today, the following email was forwarded to me:

Merry Meet,

The National Day of Prayer is this Thursday May 1st. Our Coven has been watching and listening to the media on this and we decided to organize a group prayer meet to create positive change in our country though our Pagan perspective. This is also to enhance the day of prayer as Pagans and to show our faith and religious morals since many right wing groups want to make this a Christian day of prayer only.

If anyone would like to join us our group and others from our area will be at the Ontario County Court House, (27 North Main Street, Canandaigua, New York 14424) May 1st, ironically Beltane, at 7PM. Please bring a friend and a self contained candle to light as we silently pray for our country and for positive change. Signs are welcome so long as they are relevant to the topics of the day and are not vulgar or inflammatory to other religious groups.

Parking in the back of the court house is free and plentiful.

We look forward to coming together as a community and be counted as part of the solution.

Blessed be,

Shelly O'Brien and Heidi Gleber
High Priestesses- Coven of the Sacred Pentacle
Local Coordinators Fingerlakes Pagan Pride

Today, I ran to Dick's to buy a new pair of walking shoes. Now that the weather seems to be generally warm, I've decided it's time to start taking my monthly seven mile walk along the canal again. As I started wearing my "dedicated walking shoes" from last summer all the time during the winter, I figured I best get a new pair.

Once I had my new shoes in hand, I immediately put them on and decided to take the first step in breaking them in. So I drove downtown (well, a bit east of downtown, really), parked my car outside of Psychic's Thyme, and set out for my first real walk of the year.

I decided that being a new year, it was time to increase my "short" walk. So rather than walking the circuit of Park Avenue, Alexander Street, East Avenue, and Culver Road, I decided to walk the circuit formed by Monroe Avenue, Union Street, East Avenue, and Culver Road. Estimating my brief bathroom break and tea purchase at five minutes, I would say that my walking time was an hour and fifteen minutes. That's up fifteen minutes from last autumn. Further more, now my "short walk" takes more than half the time of my seven mile walk!

I fared the trek quite well, really. My feet were aching by the time I got back to my car, but I think that was mainly due to the fact that I was wearing the new shoes. Overall, I'd say the dance class has kept me in the same shape I was in when I quit walking for the winter.

I've also come up with my tentative weekly exercise regime (or I should say "plans to have fun while getting some exercise without really thinking about it" regime):

• Tuesday night: Beginner's Contemporary Dance Class
• Tuesday Night:: Floor Barre Plus Class
• Sunday Mid-Day:Walking the Circuit Downtown. (Alternative: Seven mile canal walk one weekend each month)

Tonight, I decided to finally watch Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. To be frank, people who are raving over this movie either have never seen the original musical (especially the 1982 version starring Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Lovett) or did not truly appreciate it. I watched the Tim Burton movie tonight and, while I can certainly appreciate that everyone in it were great actors and the movie had some compelling parts, I can say that it came nowhere near to the musical which inspired me when I watched it live at Mansfield University (no, that production did not star Angela Lansbury, sadly) or the 1982 stage performance on DVD since.

I think that the least offensive change I noted was Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett . Carter transformed the familiar senile character with no sense of right or wrong to a more aware and somewhat dark cynic of a woman. This made the character more aware of what was going around, forcing who to react to it on some more serious level than the frivolity of a more spacy baker. I also think this hurt the sense of utter and mindless devotion to the vengeful barber that is so key to the character. But if this had been the worst of the changes, I concede that it might have actually worked.

I think the greatest offense in the movie was Johnny Depp's portrayal of Sweeney Todd. Todd is an excellent actor and while many of his lines were well developed, I felt that overall, he played the character poorly. For starters, it was difficult to believe that the man on the screen had just spent fifteen years of a life sentence in Australia only to make a harrowing escape, get lost at sea, and finally rescued by sheer luck. I would expect a man who has gone through such a rough life to look far more haggard.

This was further complicated by the fact that Depp played a far more brooding Todd rather than a man who was becoming completely consumed by grief and a compulsive lust for vengeance. While he showed some excellent sparks of anger (the scene where he tossed Mrs. Lovett into the fire was phenomenal, I grant you), he more often seemed to be more prepared to write emo poetry than explode in murderous fury.

Burton's decision to cut the chorus and any number they would do from the movie entirely also hurt the production over all, in my opinion. The chorus plays an important part in the musical in that its numbers help to build up the atmosphere of intensity and fury. Without that aid, this movie did not crescendo well into the final climax, proving the point of the final words of the musical (which again, were cut from the movie):

To seek revenge may lead to hell, But everyone does it, though seldom as well As Sweeny, Sweeny Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

And that brings me to the crux of my problem with this film. Sweeney Todd is not just a musical with a grim plotline. It is a morality play demonstrating in frightening detail the dangers of becoming enthralled by thoughts of vengeance. The main character serves as an example of how one bent on revenge will become so consumed by the quest and the negative emotions involved that one can ultimately destroy everything one holds dear, and ultimately, oneself. In my opinion, while the movie got the grim plotline down, it failed to deliver the ultimate message of the drama with any real force.

Let me start off this post by announcing the very good news.  As of yesterday, I've found it necessary to tighten my belt by another notch.  As I was walking through the office in the morning, I felt my jeans start to do the "let's wiggle down the hips" dance.  This rather excited me.

Granted, I'm mystified by this discovery, as the scales at the mall announced two weeks ago that I haven't lost much if any weight.  It says I'm still at 277 pounds.  (Which might be down by five to eight pounds, but that's it.)  And yet, I'm tightening my belt.  And this is after going from a 44 waist to a 42 waist.  And to be honest, I don't care what the scales say, as long as I continue to inch towards the physical dimensions I had back in high school.

This past weekend, I had a pleasant time at my parents' house.  I left work a couple hours early so that I could pack and give Precious time to settle before I put her in her kennel for the two hour drive.  I ended up getting to PA around 8pm.  That evening, my parents and I just sat around the house and had a pleasant chat.

Precious spent the first twenty four hours or so having issues with the presence of the (increasingly mis-named) barn cats.  She apparently felt threatened by them.  But eventually, she figured out that they'd run away from her if she chased them, so that became a sport for her.  I'm waiting for the day the barn cats decide it's time to chase her!

Saturday, we ended up watching a couple of movies, but otherwise just spent the day enjoying each other's company and chatting some more.  Apparently, they'd never seen "A Series of Unfortunate Events" before, which shocked me.  So that was one of the movies we watched.  They both enjoyed it, and it was good for a few laughs.

Sunday, we had the traditional ham dinner for Easter.  I even brought home some leftovers.  (I plan to make a ham sandwich to bring to work for lunch, but I keep getting home too late to do it.)  Sunday evening, my aunt and uncle came over to visit, so I ended up leaving for Rochester later than I planned.  However, it ended up being a nice visit, and I got to find out how some of my cousins are doing.  I even got to see video clips from Chris's one mile race at the Division II National Championships for indoor track and field.

Overall, it was a pleasant weekend.

I originally posted the following answer on another site back in April 2004.  The question was asked by a friend of mine.  I thought some people might be interested as my answer briefly touches on my opinions regarding the whole "nature vs. nurture" argument.

Was being gay a choice you made, or were you born knowing that you were? If it was a choice, why did you make it?

This is a very question, and deserves a great answer. But the problem is, it's not going to be quite as simple as everyone's probably expecting. Because personally, I think that the whole issue of sexual orientation is more complicated than a black and white question of biology or choice.

You see, it's very common these days to hear gay people say that they knew they were "different" since some early age (five seems to be a common number, if my memory is accurate). I honestly can't say that. And to be honest, I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of people who do say that might be speaking primarily from hindsight. It's too easy to reinterpret our past from the comfort of the present and weave it to fit our current perceptions. I know that this is easy, because I've been known to do it. And I think it's a normal and healthy part of the process of personal growth.

But at the same time, I think we need to be aware of what is happening in some cases. We have to consider that our reinterpreted perceptions of what we "thought" or "knew" in the past may not be 100% accurate. In my opinion, failure to recognize this can also be hurtful to our personal growth. As such, I try to be skeptical of what thought patterns and perceptions I apply to my early life after the fact.

I can say, however, that I knew something was up at around age fourteen. That's when I started having erotic dreams involving other boys. I remember waking from the first such dream (that I recall) and being completely freaked out by it. Having been raised in a Baptist church, I knew that "good little boys" were not supposed to have those kinds of thoughts -- even in dreams! At the time, I tried to comfort myself with the thought that it was only a dream and that all young boys probably go through such dreams. (I believe there is some psychological research that even supports that notion.)

I do not believe that sexual orientation is a "choice" in the popular sense. That's to say that I don't think you wake up and say "I think I'll be gay today" in the same way that you wake up and say "I think I'll wear the stonewashed jeans and hot pink shirt today." As support of my position, I point to my dreams. It was not my conscious mind that decided to consider same sex romantic love. Instead, it was my unconscious mind that introduced the idea of male-male sex through dreams.

From age fourteen until age twenty two, I tried to repress my feelings. I tried to ignore such dreams (fortunately, they were relatively rare). I did this with varying success throughout those eight years of my life. Those feelings would occasionally spill over into my waking life as well. It wasn't just a matter that I'd dream about these things. They'd flow into my conscious thoughts from time to time, as well. Some times, I could push them away. Other times, I couldn't do so. They were simply too persistent.

If you'll forgive a short tangent, I'd like to go off on one for a little time. I must say that trying to repress what one is feeling on a sexual level is a foolish and painful thing to do. To be honest, this is the one reason I don't care for the evangelical Christian stance on homosexuality. While I fully recognize the right of Christians to believe what they do, I can't help but feel a bit of anger over it, having been a product of that mentality. Telling -- or even unintentionally implying -- a young adolescent that what they are feeling is wrong and dirty does nasty things to them. I remember the amount of frustration I went through it. I remember some of the thoughts and fantasies that resulted from the interplay between my feelings and the guilt for having those feelings caused me. I remember some of the things that I wished for (please forgive the vagueness, I'm not emotionally prepared to spell out the details publicly right now) that were terribly unhealthy, to put it mildly. And I've looked at what I had to work my way back through when I finally came out to myself. To be honest, it's very hard to avoid getting defensive over the topic of homosexuality and morality, because of what I know that debate can do to young people struggling with the issue.

In college, I had to quit repressing how I was feeling. I think the best wake-up call for me was the morning after my roommate and I got in a huge fight. I was highly emotional. I had said some things I deeply regretted. And when he came back into the room, I found myself faced with a terrifying and overwhelming desire to "make up" with him through sexual means. At that point, I had to admit how I was feeling.

It was still another year before I finally accepted it rather than trying to fight the feelings. (I wasn't repressing anymore, but I was also still fighting myself over it and condemning myself.) But finally, on 1 April 1996, I came out to myself and accepted my gayness. It's been an interesting life since then.

As I said before, I don't believe that people don't wake up one day and say "I think I'll be gay." But I hope that my story has made it clear that there is still an element of choice involved. My choice was to acknowledge what I was feeling. My choice was how I decided to interpret and define what I was feeling. My choice was in determining how I was going to respond to those feelings. Personally, I think it was the only reasonable choice to make. (I could go off an another rant about most of the supposed "cures" for homosexuality, but I'll leave that alone for now.)

In truth, I think that acknowledging that element of choice is an important thing for gays to do. I think that acknowledging our choices in the matter is a necessary step in the coming to terms process, and the eventual goal of owning our sexuality. It's too easy to say "I didn't choose this." But doing so keeps us a slave to our sexuality. It's only when we say, "I didn't choose this, but I am choosing to embrace it and respond to it on my own terms" that we are truly masters of our own sexuality.

So, Brian, I hope that answers your question.

Jonathan Rowe, one of the contributors to Positive Liberty, pointed his readers to a great opinion piece by John Corvino in regards to ex-gays. It's well worth the read and I highly recommend it.

Corvino offers an excellent and respectful criticism of the ex-gay movement, as well as those individuals and organizations that comprise it, while affirming the rights of ex-gay individuals to follow their journey towards heterosexuality. (I will note, however, that Mr. Corvino seems unaware that some ex-gay individuals are now accepting life-long celibacy as a valid alternative.) What I find more interesting about Mr. Corvino's article, however, is when he touches upon the question of whether he feels threatened by ex-gays and their testimonies:

I am not at all threatened by the notion that some people can change their sexual orientation, if indeed they can. In reality, it seems that at best only a small number can do so, and only with tremendous effort. But if they can, and that makes them happy, good for them. I’m confident enough in my own happiness that I need not doubt theirs.

Unlike Mr. Corvino, many people do feel threatened by the possibility that some people might actually be able to change their sexual orientation. And to some degree, that reaction is perfectly understandable. Many in the ex-gay movement, and certainly most of their political supporters, are banking a lot on the claim that people can change their sexual orientation. This is because many of them have the desire to make the poorly founded jump from evidence that some people can change their sexual orientation to anyone can change their orientation. And once they've made that jump, their next step is to conclude that everyone (everyone who isn't heterosexual, of course) should change their sexual orientation.

The threat comes not from the possibility that some people can change from gay to heterosexual, but from the reality of where many in the ex-gay movement and their supporters want to lead the conversation from there. After all, organizations like NARTH still lament the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disease and would like to see its eventual reclassification.

Of course, the solution to this "threat" is to simply point out that the fact that something can be done does not necessarily mean it should be done. And I think that's where we queers as a community tend to fall down. We're so wrapped up playing defense in proving that sexual orientation can't be changed that we don't take a more proactive force and ask the bigger question: WHY should it be changed? That's why the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is a great thing, and why organizations like NARTH have to try and dismiss its declassification as a "political move" rather than a reasoned decision based on careful study. That hurt their entire position and we would do well to remind it.

Corvino talks about this when he admits he's happy with his life and sees no need to change. This isn't based on the fact that he "can't" change (or so it seems to this blogger), but on the realization that it's a satisfying part of who he is. It's a great place to be on a personal level, but I think it's also a great argument on a communal level.

Let those who wish to seek change have it. But those who wish to force that same change on the rest of us will need to justify that decision. And quite frankly, I think they have a losing battle on their hands.

Yesterday, I did something I haven't done in almost two and a half years.  I went grocery shopping.

I tried grocery shopping and cooking for myself when I first moved to Rochester.  I think that lasted for about a month before I decided it was too much bother.  I just found the idea of running home after work and cooking my own food to be a nuisance.  So I started ordering takeout, ordering delivery, grabbing a sub on the way home, and even eating out most of the time.  I even started buying food items for lunch and breakfast at convenience stores.

And for two and a half years, this arrangement worked perfectly for me.  I had the excess cash flow to support expense of that kind of lifestyle, so it was comfortable.  However, now that various factors -- like starting to contribute to my company's 401k plan and the extra expense of taking dance classes -- have altered my (non-existent) budget to the point where I'm just barely breaking even each month.

As such, I've decided it's time to change my eating habits.  This week, I decided to start with something simple:  Buying groceries and putting together my own lunches and breakfasts rather than buying something "on the run."  The net result is that I covered two thirds of my meal requirements this week on about one fourth of my typical food bill for a week.  It's actually kind of depressing to realize how much money I have been wasting due to overspending.

I figure I'd start with just lunches and breakfasts for now, as well as dinner for the two nights I need a quick bite before dance class.  For most dinners, I'll still buy something or eat out for the next week or two.  So my spending won't be completely minimized, but I'm hoping to at least put a bit more of a buffer between my income and my total expenses.

I'm also working on bringing my own snacks to work, which is my other big expense.  This will have the advantage of being cheaper as well as healthier for me.  Granted, I don't expect my trips to the candy machine to disappear immediately.  (If that was the case, I already failed on my first day.)  But overall, I hope this will help cut down on my spending even more.

I actually got a huge compliment from the woman in front of me in the checkout line.  She glanced over my pile of items, which consisted mostly of yogurts, fruits, and stuff to make salads (as well as a couple pre-made salads at real good prices) and wraps.  She smiled and said that I had an extremely healthy selection.  In fact, her exact words were that her nutritionist would be pleased and proud of my groceries.  I smiled and thanked her.  Eating healthier isn't one of my primary goals in doing this (I actually feel I do pretty good at that anyway), but it should be a nice side effect of the process.

In a previous entry, I talked about my perspective changed in regards to getting involved with a guy who has kids.  It seems proper to note that while I've only become fully aware of this change, the actual change process has been a long time in the works.  In fact, I can trace its beginnings back as early as 2001.

Back in 2001, I met Mike, who I ended up dating for four years.  Mike didn't have any children of his own, but was fiercely devoted two his sister's two sons, especially David, who was in his mid teens at the time.  In fact, he was so devoted to them, you would've thought they were his own kids.

Again, this level of devotion was very attractive for me, for all of the same reasons I mentioned in the previous post.  And there was the fact that Mike was devoted and close to his family in general, including his mother.  (To be honest, he struck me as something of a "momma's boy" at times.)  That in itself was also an attractive quality.  I myself have always been close to my family, so it was nice to see that reflected in the person I was with.  Of course, I also think that it was a bit of a comfort to me, as my family was becoming more distant at the time, too.  So it was nice to be reminded that such closeness could still last, even if not in my family.  (Fortunately, things are on the mend in my own family now.)

Of course, in the end, Mike's closeness with his family contributed significantly to the end of our relationship.  This is mainly because in the four years we dated, Mike never reached the point where he was comfortable coming out to his family.  This meant that he spent that entire time leading a double life, keeping our relationship safely separated from his relationship with his parents, sister, and nephews.  This also meant that when his time was limited, that time was usually spent with his family rather than me.  After a while, that simply became unacceptable to me.  Along with other issues, I finally confronted him and ended our relationship when he admitted he was unwilling to do anything to resolve these issues.

In retrospect, I don't hold Mike's devotion to his family against him, even if it did contribute to the end of our relationship.  To this day, I consider that a positive quality and something I'd still find attractive.  However, I do take issue with his unwillingness to integrate his devotion to me and his devotion to his family, because his failure to do so was the real problem.  To this day, that fact is something of a sore spot in my life, though I've mostly made my peace.

Through the grapevine, I've come to understand that Mike's gone back to dating girls, and has been with the same girl for at least a year now.  I guess things are going quite well, at least from what I can gain from indirect sources.  When I first found out about this, I was deeply hurt.  In fact, I won't say I don't still feel a twinge of pain over it now.  However, I've come to be more accepting of his choices, and I hope he can truly find happiness with this woman.  After all, I don't think he'd ever find happiness with me or any other guy.  Because it's become clear to me that he could never make that choice that would ultimately be necessary.  So I hope he can find happiness in the choices he has made.

I know I have.  And to be honest, I'm starting to realize that my new choices since breaking up with him have offered me more chances for happiness than I ever would've had with him.  (I just hope that doesn't sound too cruel.)

A shepherd was out with his sheep one day.  He was standing next to an old dirt road as a brand new SUV went speeding by.  The driver stopped one hundred feet away, then backed up twenty feet before killing the engine and jumping out of his vehicle.  The man approached the shepherd in his perfectly pressed suit and power tie.  As he got near the rural resident, he began to speak.  "Hello there, are these your sheep?"

The shepherd nodded, "Ayep.  They're mine."

The other man immediately smiled as he began his pitch.  "I'd like to make a little wager with you.  If I can tell you how many sheep you have, will you let me have one of them?"

The shepherd pondered this for a moment before replying, "I reckon that's a fair deal.  Go ahead."

The well dressed man trotted back to his vehicle, pulled out a laptop and began to set it up.  The shepherd watched in bemusement as he connected to the Internet while standing there in the field.  In moments, the businessman had downloaded satellite imagery of that very field, running the photos through an image processing program.

After a few minutes, the man proudly announced, "YOu have exactly two hundred thirty seven sheep."

The shepherd nodded, "Ayep.  That's exactly right.  Pick out your sheep."

After a couple minutes, the man made his selection.  The shepherd carefully picked up the small creature and maneuvered into the back of the SUV.  Once this was completed, the two men shook hands.  At that moment, the shepherd suggested a new wager.  "I'll tell you what, son.  If I can guess your profession, can I have my sheep back."

The other man was intrigued.  "Sure.  Though I can't imagine you'd be able to guess my profession."

The shepherd simply smiled and said, "You're a business consultant, aren't you?"

The man was floored.  "How could you have known?"

The country dweller simply shrugged.  "'Tweren't that difficult, son.  You showed up without an invitation.  YOu asked me to pay you to tell me something I already know.  And you clearly don't know squat about my business, because you just took my dog!"

So there's this guy I've been talking to recently.  Nothing serious, mind you.  I'm not sure you can quite say we're friends yet, though I'm certainly hoping that things are headed in that direction.  I certainly enjoy the conversations we have.  And I'd be lying if I denied that I'd be curious to explore the possibility of moving beyond friendship someday.

A while back, I found out through conversation that he had a couple of kids.  Now, there was a time where such a discovery would've caused me to immediately move this guy into the "friends only" category for good.  After all, relationships where one person already has kids can get complicated.  And years ago, I wouldn't have been interested in dealing with those complications.  And besides, I would've felt that kids would interfere in the relationship-building.  Or to put it more bluntly, I was selfish and wouldn't have wanted to have the other guy dividing his time between his kids and me like that.

Things have changed since then, it would appear.  Now, I hear that a guy has kids and I suddenly become more interested.  Oh sure, I still realize that all those complications I used to think about still exist.  And I still think about them.  But they're not deal-breakers in my mind anymore.

But more importantly, I think it's a case that now when I look at a guy who has kids -- and more importantly, is active in their lives -- I see a guy who understands commitment and devotion.  I see a guy who believes in those things.  And that's an incredibly attractive quality.

Also, what they say about having kids changing you is true.  Parents -- or at least decent parents -- tend to be more mature and stable.  Heck, they have to develop these qualities to a considerable degree to raise their kids.  And again, that's just an attractive quality to me.

And let's face it, those are also qualities that can really benefit a relationship.  So when I now see kids in the picture, I realize that it means there's good reason to believe that there's an increased chance of a relationship working out.  So I find that rather positive.

Of course, there's also the fact that I like kids anyway.  I think they're great and I love talking to them and even encouraging them.  And I have to admit that these days, the idea of having kids around is somewhat appealing.  It's certainly an alternative to trying to have or adopt my own!

I don't really know if my friend and I will ever get together romantically.  At this point, I'm not counting on it.  And even if it does ever happen, I get the impression it's a long ways off.  And it's not like I'm going to start looking only at guys with kids when it comes to dating options.  But my change in attitude on the topic is both interesting to note and welcome.

You are The Hierophant

Divine Wisdom. Manifestation. Explanation. Teaching.

All things relating to education, patience, help from superiors.The Hierophant is often considered to be a Guardian Angel.

The Hierophant's purpose is to bring the spiritual down to Earth. Where the High Priestess between her two pillars deals with realms beyond this Earth, the Hierophant (or High Priest) deals with worldly problems. He is well suited to do this because he strives to create harmony and peace in the midst of a crisis. The Hierophant's only problem is that he can be stubborn and hidebound. At his best, he is wise and soothing, at his worst, he is an unbending traditionalist.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.