tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39184647621672109222024-02-20T01:10:00.913-08:00Heather's MewsingsHeatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-5249509049007228772011-03-16T19:03:00.001-07:002011-03-16T19:09:56.137-07:0044Well, it's that time of year again. I've turned another year older. I don't mind that so much, but I am concerned at how quickly life seems to be passing by. I'm not sure where my 30's went, and all of a sudden I'm mid-40's. Ouch. How did that happen?<br /><br />I'm a little superstitious. Just a little. I admit that this coming year makes me a little nervous. You see, my Mom was the age I am now when she had a massive heart attack. She survived, but there was a lot of damage; she was never the same. Man, did that seem old to me at the time. It sure doesn't now.<br /><br />Somehow this last year, I've seen the need to move faster, move quicker. It's like there's something driving me. I'm not sure what it is, but there's some urgency to the call.<br /><br />Hopefully next year, I'll have accomplished something that I've always dreamed of doing.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-80575373999804657512011-02-12T10:25:00.000-08:002011-02-13T09:36:02.069-08:00The Art of Letter Writing to your Best Friend...Today is a day of mixed emotions for me. I'm both excited and feeling sorry for myself. Excited because I have a new cousin. Sad that I couldn't be there to see her join the family. <br /><br />Let me now explain myself...<br /><br />I grew up far away from all of my 12 cousins. In fact, many of them were a lot older than me - a lot. There was one, however, who was close in age to me (I was 18 months older) and we were best friends. He was the closest thing I ever had for a brother.<br /><br />We first met when I was four and he was almost three. We met again when I was nine, 14, and 17. It wasn't until his family came for a full two and a half week visit when I was 21 that we really bonded. That visit had a profound effect on our relationship. Something magical took place. We did the silly things young people do: wandering around Lumberland together looping bungee cables on to the loops on the back of our respective shirts and walking around the store for a bit. One day while we were shopping at the mall with our families, we popped into a bookstore and I purchased a copy of War and Peace. I said, "Well, at least you can say your cousin doesn't read crap." Obviously surprised and impressed, he said, "No. I can't." (And, yes, I did read it in case you were wondering).<br /><br />I was stunned at how devastated the loss was after they'd left. I literally cried for weeks - perhaps even months - afterwards. I was miserable. And the only way I knew of to alleviate that pain of loss was to write to him - and write lots. It was the start of a furious correspondence. Within days of their departure, the letters started (literally) flying back and forth across the ocean.<br /><br />I wasn't just spilling my guts on paper for the sake of writing. No. I was writing to my best friend who I knew would read my letters soon. I also knew he'd write back and almost literally every day when I came home I eagerly looked for an envelope with his handwriting. It was the highlight of my day. It always made me sad to read the last page of his letters because I knew I'd probably have to wait a few more weeks before I'd receive another. Letters - especially the missives we sent to each other - took so long to write but could be read so quickly. Our letters were almost literal blow by blow descriptions of our daily lives. <br /><br />Kids these days. Bah. They knew nothing of letter writing. They know nothing of writing, period. That's my biggest bitch of the Internet: the butchery of the English language. It's shocking how many people (especially young people) can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" or "there" their" and "they're". It drives me mad.<br /><br />They know nothing of the pain of waiting. They don't even get the joy of reading a lot of their "bff's" inmost thoughts. They'll never know how just writing to your best friend can be healing in and of itself. Their friends will never see the authenticity of tear drops on the pages as the writer shares the pain of her latest break up. They'll never know the spontaneous card and handwritten (not typed) letter with some mementos (a photo, a sampling of art work from the kids you worked with, or some such thing).<br /><br />They'll never know the feeling of knowing that no one else would read these words; there was no chance. Those words were on paper and were secreted away and kept close by for re-reading and furiously guarded. It would have been an abomination to have someone else read them. These words were sacred. At least they were to me. Somehow just holding the same paper they had made you feel so close to that person. On the bad side, paper can be lost. And that's a shame. Some of those letters were special, very special. I remember one in particular: the way the letter had been placed in the envelope, he'd accidentally spilled the secret he'd been building up to the whole letter: he was coming for another visit. I'm sure he heard my screams of delight and excitement all the way from my room.<br /><br />They'll never know the pain of having to wait until you get home to tell them you miss them after leaving them at the airport. But the recipient could tell by the tears on the page when he got the letter a week later. They'll never know the long running inside jokes that if other people read your letters would think you were "stark raving mad". Perhaps we were. I looked forward to writing to him. It was my pass time. It was what I loved to do. He was always on my mind.<br /><br />My hands would ache from writing sometimes. But this was my best friend and he was worth the physical pain. I'm sure his hand often ached, too. Eventually, the letters went from handwritten to typed - an improvement on our output and was easier on the hands. To this day, I love listening to music while I write which was something I used to do while writing to him more often than not. <br /><br />I always knew it wouldn't last forever and I dreaded it. I knew we had something very special and I didn't want it to end - but I knew it would one day. I knew we'd both eventually get married and even though we'd always write to each other, it wouldn't be the same as what we had at the moment. <br /><br />We've always kept in touch, though since I got married not as much as I would like. We originally scorned the idea of email. After all, we both agreed that there was nothing like seeing a package in the mail at the end of a long, hard day. I wonder now if there was email back in the 80's and early 90's if we would have been as close. Somehow I don't think so. It was because we had to put so much effort into our letters that kept us close. There's no effort to email; there's no privacy.<br /><br />So, it's with great joy that I'm excited that he has is now married to his best friend. It's also tinged with a little sadness that I can't be there to share that special day with him.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-60824262207586641872010-09-23T20:51:00.000-07:002010-09-23T22:35:51.504-07:00Carpe DiemI have a new favourite song. Okay, I have a couple, but I'm only going to talk about one today. But I'm going to keep you in a bit of suspense for awhile longer while I give you some background.<br /><br />Lately, I've been having a lot of morbid thoughts. I know that Duchess' death has made me re-evaluate my mortality and look at what I'd like to leave behind when I'm gone. I've really wondered, "Crap. What if this is all there is? Wouldn't that be awful? Surely there must be more to life than this miserable existence." I get depressed just thinking that.<br /><br />I was generally a passive creature; passive by nature and passive by "molding". If I tried to do something and it didn't work out, I accepted it as that was what God wanted; that that was the way things were meant to be. Yet, somewhere, inside there was a spark that wanted freedom - but I was too scared to "steal the fire from the gods" and face the consequences of my actions. Occasionally, if I wanted something badly enough I would fight back against the forces of the universe. I do have a stubborn streak.<br /><br />I don't know why, but on Monday I found myself humming a song I don't think I've (consciously) heard in months. When I got home, I "you-tubed" it ("is you-tubed" a word?)to watch the video. And it amazed me. I'd been aware of the band's existence since about 1987, but didn't pay that much attention to them. What few songs I'd heard of theirs I liked. You can see the video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2u5uUu3DE&ob=av2e">here</a>.<br /><br />And here are the lyrics:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>This ain't a song for the brokenhearted<br />No silent prayer for faith departed.<br />And I ain't gonna be just a face in the crowd.<br />You're gonna hear my voice when I shout it out loud.<br /><br />It's my life. It's now or never.<br />I ain't gonna live forever.<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive<br />(It's my life)<br />My heart is like an open highway.<br />Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />'Cause it's my life.<br /><br />This is for the ones who stood their ground.<br />For Tommy and Gina who never backed down.<br />Tomorrow's getting harder, make no mistake.<br />Luck ain't even lucky, gotta make your own breaks.<br /><br />It's my life. And it's now or never.<br />I ain't gonna live forever.<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />(It's my life)<br />My heart is like an open highway<br />Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />'Cause it's my life.<br /><br />You better stand tall when they're calling you out<br />Don't bend, don't break. Baby, don't back down<br /><br />It's my life. It's now or never<br />'Cause I ain't gonna live forever.<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />(It's my life)<br />My heart is like an open highway<br />Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />(It's my life)<br />And it's now or never.<br />I ain't gonna live forever<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />(It's my life)<br />My heart is like an open highway<br />Like Frankie said, "I did it my way."<br />I just wanna live while I'm alive.<br />'Cause it's my life!</em></blockquote><br />Okay, okay. If you haven't figured it out by watching the video, it's Bon Jovi's <em>"It's My Life." </em>(And how <em>did </em>I miss Jon Bon Jovi being such a hottie all these years?) What a passionate call to life, to freedom. It's an anthem. It's a challenge to take accountability for one's actions and to take charge of one's life. The symbolism of having to go underground to sing to young people about freedom wasn't lost on me. <br /><br />It's a song about desperately wanting to do something with your life and being true to who you are. It's about looking at your life honestly and a call to take steps - even leaps if necessary - to live life to the fullest.<br /><br />Notice in the video, there's a clock running; time is running out. The young guy has only five minutes to make it to the tunnel. We don't know why it's important to him that he make the concert. We only know it is. The first time I saw it, I was on pins and needles: will he make it, or will he miss it? will this have a tragic ending? (I actually thought the semi might get him). <br /><br />I've heard the call. Changes are coming. Slowly but surely, I'm learning to take some responsibility for my life, instead of being blown by the wind. This is my new theme song (yes, theme songs like on Ally McBeal. Speaking of Ally, wasn't Jon Bon Jovi on a few episodes?)<br /><br />I look to the future with some hope. I pray there's still time left that I will leave behind something I will be respected for, so my life will not have been a complete and utter waste. I think I understand the pyramids now; why someone would want to leave a monument. It's so they won't be forgotten. I can almost hear the voices of the dead pharoahs mockingly say, "Who will remember <em>you</em>? I reach for the skies. They know my name. I am immortal".<br /><br />What my "monument" might be, I don't know. I have some ideas of things I'd like to be remembered for. I've always wanted to be a writer. However, would I want to be a Stephenie Meyer, or a Margaret Mitchell? Let's face it, Twilight is <em>NOT </em>great literature (decent potential, poor execution). Margaret Mitchell's - though she only wrote one - is a classic and one that will never go out of print. It's still popular today, 70 years later. No one (hopefully) will still be reading Twilight in 70 years. Mitchell's one book? None other than my favourite novel, <em>"Gone With The Wind." </em><em></em> I'd like to think I could leave something that wonderful behind, but I'm not sure I could live up to the standard she set.<br /><br />Join me in taking up the challenge to do something meaningful with your life - and I don't mean just going to work for the sake of making a living. Life is a gift - and we never know when it will snatched away from us. Life is eerily fragile. From now on, I'm going to try and take some "baby steps" to actually do some of the things that up to this point in my life I've only dreamed of doing.<br /><br />Carpe Diem - Seize the Day.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-20487578198482763662010-08-17T14:01:00.001-07:002010-08-23T12:27:42.560-07:00Eulogy to an Aristocat - RIP DuchessI know I'll never get through this without sobbing, but I have to do it today while the memories are still fresh.<br /><br />This morning, we lost our beloved pure bred lilac point Siamese cat, Duchess. She was 12 years old. We're both taking this pretty hard. Let me tell a little bit of her story.<br /><br />We first met Duchess at the mall. We were newlyweds and we were in search of a cat/kitten. Originally, we were looking for a young adult, maybe a year old or so. I had hoped we'd find a Siamese, as that was my favourite breed, having had two previously. We'd been to a couple of animal shelters but couldn't see a cat/kitten we both agreed on. Then DH suggested we go to the mall and look at the pet store. Sure enough, not only did they have kittens, but Siamese kittens. <br /><br />We asked to see the kittens. There were at least two on display, maybe three. One leaped over the other kittens and beat them to the door. She climbed up DH and started purring. Then she turned to me and climbed up me and started purring. That did it. We were both smitten. We looked at one of the other kittens they had, but it just didn't have the personality. This one was <strong>THERE</strong>. She was vibrant. As this was a Monday evening, we put down a deposit and came back for her on the Friday after work.<br /><br />We were so excited to take home our new baby. I originally wanted to call her "Esmeralda" as when I'd read the <em>"The Hunchback of Notre Dame"</em> two years previously, I thought, "What a cool name for a Siamese cat." I remember talking to a friend on the phone the night we took her home and telling him about our new baby. Kitty was down at the end of the hall, and when I called her she came running; gamboling was more the word. She was all legs. <br /><br />We took her to the vet the next morning to get checked out, and then we went to lunch. While sitting in the car eating our McDonalds, we said, "Well, if we're going to get a second cat, now's the time to do it." So, we went to the local SPCA and there was a little Siamese. She was obviously the darker markings, whereas our "first born" was the lighter. I picked up the little fur ball and said to DH, "What about this one?" And he said, "I can live with it." So that was how we added a second kitty. They meowed all the way home in their respective cat carriers.<br /><br />When we got home, we opened up the carriers and let them meet. I put down food for them and let them go at it. The first born immediately started eating. The second one let out a cry, as it to say, "Hey! I want some, too." Firstborn, immediately put her paw on second born's head, as if to say, "Be cool, kid". To which, the second born literally had a hissy fit.<br /><br />Now we had a problem. What would we call them? As I said, I originally wanted to call the first born "Esmeralda" but somehow, that didn't suit her; it suited the darker markings of our second born. So, the second born had a name: Esmeralda, but what to call the first born. I suggested "Duchess" after the mother cat in Disney's <em>"The Aristocats"</em> and because she was a pure bred. DH agreed, so that was how we ended up with Duchess ("Duch") and Esmeralda ("Essie" or "Es").<br /><br />Duchess accepted Essie right away and wanted to play with her, but Essie wasn't so keen on Duch. It took about three days before she accepted Duch. By the Wednesday, they were sleeping together. That was it. From then on, they were siblings. They loved each other, yet could get on each other's nerves. I saw them "bitch slap" each other as kittens. <br /><br />Having two cats - let alone kittens - was new to both of us. I'd never had more than one cat before, and neither had DH. It was fun. It's sad, but I can't remember a lot of the mischief they got into, but I do remember some stories. Notably, the time Duch climbed out on to the patio railing, stretched herself out and put her front paws on the window to the right, exposing herself to a fall of 13 stories. I'm glad it was DH that was home and not me. I might have freaked out and she would have plunged to her death right then and there. Somehow he coaxed her back down, all the while thinking, "Heather's going to kill me."<br /><br />Duchess was a smart cat. Man, was she ever. Being the pure bred, she was also a feline jumping machine. I once saw Essie charge Duch and Duchess avoided Essie by jumping straight up in the air, about two feet. Ah, the joys of kitten hood.<br /><br />Everyone - including pets - have their flaws. But not Duchess. Seriously. I can't think of a single bad trait she had. The worst I can say is that she could be stubborn and a bit proud, but those are good things. She was patient, she was loving as well as smart. <br /><br />Like all pets, she had her quirks. Hers was what we called, "playing with dolls." She used to take her toys, carry them in her mouth (like a mama cat) through to the kitchen and dump them in the food and/or water bowl. I had to be very careful when I stitched that I picked up all my bobbins of floss afterwards, or she'd steal them, too. Many's the time I had to chase her around the apartment in an attempt to take back my floss, or it, too, would suffer the fate of her toys and take a bath in the water dish.<br /><br />People used to say, "Oh, Siamese? I bet they're noisy." No. Neither of them were. Of the two, Essie was more vocal. Duchess had a very quiet meow. In fact, she hardly meowed at all. When she was one year old, we moved down to the U.S. for the first time. It was late August/September and the mallard ducks were starting to congregate beneath our window, two floors down. Duchess used to sit in the window and watch them, fascinated. Then we noticed she started "quacking." Seriously. She was walking around imitating the noise of the mallards. She wasn't meowing; she was quacking. <br /><br />Eventually she found her voice. When she wanted to, she could turn on the full volume Siamese yowl. When we lived in a townhouse with three floors, she often could be heard at night in the basement "tuning up." <br /><br />She was a perfect pet. When DH's mom died, it was Duch who climbed up on DH and started purring in an attempt to comfort him. She didn't go to me. She went to him. Somehow she knew exactly who to go to. Essie just didn't get it. I used to say that Essie was "brainless but beautiful," which is a fairly accurate description. I've often joked that she may have been deprived of oxygen at birth. <br /><br />Essie and Duch took turns being top cat. Eventually, however, Duchess seemed to emerge as the dominant one. I guess Essie pissed off Duch one day, and I saw Duch grab Essie by the throat and smash her head against the floor a couple of times to teach Essie a lesson. But it would take Duch a LOT to lose her cool like that. She was very patient; always dignified; always a lady. She never took a swipe at us, of scratched us, or tried to bite us. EVER. I can only think of one time in all her years where she hissed. It was the first time she met a child: when she was four months old.<br /><br />She became DH's cat; she favoured him. I was all right with that. They had a special relationship. He used to play with her with his keys. He would jingle them for her, and she would try to swipe them. Whenever she did, she would start doing the "Duchess dance" (as we called it) to demonstrate her superiority. The "Duchess dance" consists of kneading into either a person or some piece of furniture with the claws, while swinging the hips, in an attempt to show off.<br /><br />They were our babies and I loved them dearly. I dreaded the day that I would lose either one of them. Being Siamese, I expected they would live a long time. One of my previous Siamese cats lived to 21. Being a pure bred, I knew that Duchess would probably be the first to go.<br /><br />Everything was fine and I had two healthy (eventually three, but Hesperatu doesn't really figure much in this story) cats. That was until about nine months ago. Duchess - almost overnight - lost weight. I was concerned, but thought, "Well, she'll put it back on." I watched her to ensure she ate. She always was the more picky eater, so I tried to do what I could. She seemed to lose more weight. I took her to the vet and she was five pounds, down from the nine pounds when she was last weighed. The vet did a blood test and it came back clean: kidneys and liver were fine, and she didn't have diabetes. He did express concern about the lack of protein in her blood and hinted that it might be cancer and that she would need to come back for an x-ray to see what they could see.<br /><br />Unfortunately, due to finances, I wasn't able to do the x-ray until last week. Up until that point, she was doing pretty well. Still eating, still peeing. True, she'd lost a step or two, but I put that down to the fact she was 11 years old, approaching 12. I didn't think it was cancer. I thought she just might be clogged internally. I did notice she'd had a problem going "poop" and added more fibre to her diet to help her go. I even upped the fibre and it worked. Ten days ago, she laid a ping pong sized ball of poop (sorry if that's too much information). But something happened after that. From then on, she refused to eat. I had to force feed her. I took her in for the x-ray and the vet said she was "bad off." She was dehydrated and was now down to three pounds. She was literally skin and bones. The x-ray showed that a lot of her organs were "fuzzy" looking. They weren't clear like the heart and lungs were. He gave me some antibiotics and I was told to bring her back once they were finished.<br /><br />She cascaded downhill after that. Mom and Dad came round on Sunday evening to say "good bye". <br /><br />By yesterday, she could barely walk. She dragged her hind legs around. Last night, she slept in the cat basket, which was balanced on my night table. At some point during the night, she moved and reached out towards me. I picked her up and took her into bed with me. I'm not sure what time that was, but it was still very dark. When I woke up about 7:45, she was gone. She was still warm, but she was dead. We sat with her for about three hours, reminiscing - looking at photos and videos we'd taken. We placed her body in the cat basket. She looked like she was asleep. I kept saying, "Wake up, Duch. Come on, wake up." <br /><br />What killed her? We did, ultimately and I'll never forgive myself. This has hit us hard, and it's more than just losing a precious pet and companion. It's the guilt that we just couldn't afford to help her in her hour(s) of need. She's the innocent victim of our mistakes and she was forced to pay for our "sins." Naturally, there is no guarantee that if I'd taken her in to the vet right away that they could have caught whatever it was that was ailing her. But it might have. She never once complained, or showed signs of being in pain. She may have looked miserable, but more like she was fighting a nasty flu, not fighting for her life - until this last week.<br /><br />Duchess, I'm so sorry. I hope you know how much we both loved you. I'm so sorry we let you down. I'm glad you're away from your suffering. You were the perfect kitty.<br /><br />I sign off with her theme song, the title song from <em>The Aristocats</em> sung by Maurice Chevalier. You can listen to it: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yqh2sgnfZQ&feature=related">here</a><br /><br /><em>Which pets' address is the finest in Paris?<br />Which pets possess the longest pedigree?<br />Which pets get to sleep on velvet mats?<br />Naturalment! The Aristocats!<br /><br />Which pets are blessed with the fairest forms and faces?<br />Which pets know best all the gentle social graces?<br />Which pets live on cream and loving pats?<br />Naturalment! The Aristocats!<br /><br />They show aristocratic bearing when they're seen upon<br />an airing, and aristocratic flair in what they do and what they say!<br />Aristocats are never found in alleyways or hanging around the garbage cans where common kitties play. Oh no!<br /><br />Which pets are known to never show their claws?<br />Which pets are prone to hardly any flaws?<br />To which pets do the others tip their hats?<br />Naturalment! The Aristocats!<br /><br />Naturalment! Naturalment!<br />Oh, Naturalment!<br />The Aristocats</em>Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-54321148924318205002010-08-06T14:38:00.000-07:002010-08-07T11:16:40.695-07:00A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Wax Museum...You're just never sure what things will impact you for your entire life. I have three stories I'd love to share that have formed some sort of conspiracy (OMG. The spelling of that "c" word is pretty hilarious considering what I'm going to be writing about) to profoundly affect my life.<br /><br />When I was about four years old, Mom and Dad somehow got the dubious privilege of taking some of us kids from church over to Victoria, BC for the day. One of our destinations was the Royal London Wax Museum. If you know the museum, you'll know there's a figure of Cleopatra bathing there in front of Julius Caesar. Dad, being the dutiful tour guide asked, "So does anybody know how she died?" None of the kids knew, so he said, "She was bitten by a snake."<br /><br />Something happened at that moment. It was like some genetic memory switch had been turned on. I refused to get into bed that night as I was convinced - somehow - that there was a snake in my bed. I howled and set up such a fuss that Dad came in to see what was the matter. He pulled back the sheets to prove to me that my Mom was telling the truth that there was no snake in my bed. He then reaffirmed her orders to get into bed. I was "disinclined to acquiesce to their request" (that means "no") and continued my assertion that there was indeed a reptile hiding somewhere betwixt and between my sheets. I'm fairly sure I lost my case based on the lack of evidence on my part. Considering who the judge and jury were, I'm sure I couldn't have had a fair trial anyway. I should have launched an appeal. But I digress...<br /><br />From that moment on, I have been irrationally afraid of reptiles (in general) and snakes in particular. I loathe them and despise them. It's something I've never outgrown and probably never will. I even get queasy watching nature shows, as I get so upset over watching some poor animal getting devoured by these vile creatures. Okay, wildebeest sort of don't count. They're too stupid to exist. "Oh, look! There's a pair of eyes swimming towards me in the water. I wonder if it will be friends with me." Um, no. Not unless you are thinking in the Hannibal Lector sense of it "having an old friend for dinner." <br /><br />So that's the first thing. Here's the second: <br /><br />In 1975, when I was eight, my parents finally gave into my years of, "Can we go to Disneyland, Dad? Can we go to Disneyland, Dad?" (Well, I'm not sure I really was that big of a pest, but I'm sure I did ask). We left on a Friday morning and drove down to Anaheim. I was warned that repeated questions regarding the arrival at our destination would not be tolerated and that we'd be there Monday. In the meantime, I was encouraged to stick my head in the books I'd brought along for the ride.<br /><br />On the Sunday morning, upon waking, I was informed that our ETA had been adjusted and we would be arriving in Disneyland that evening. However, we would be arriving too late to go to the park. It would have to wait until tomorrow. I found this new change of itinerary satisfactory.<br /><br />I know we spent two days at the park. I'm not sure what day we went on Pirates of the Caribbean, but it might have been our first. I don't think I'd heard of the Caribbean before (I vaguely remember asking my Mom where the Caribbean was as we were walking in) and I'm not sure if I'd heard of this attraction or not. Yet, something is ringing a faint bell about hearing about it on a Sunday night episode of <em>"The Wonderful World of Disney"</em> that featured a tour of Disney World in Florida. Something happened on that ride. It began my love affair with pirates. It's the only explanation I have for my love of pirates. One of my all-time favourite movies is "<em>Captain Blood</em>" starring Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland. So, yes, I loved pirates long before they became cool thanks to Captain Jack Sparrow and the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise. I was so ahead of my time. <br /><br />So, when DH and I started dating and I mentioned that I loved pirates, he asked if I knew that pirates were Templars. I said, "What's a Templar?" Well, thanks to Dan Brown and the DaVinci Code, we all know what they are. There does seem to be some evidence that pirates were, indeed, Templars.<br /><br />So, that's the second thing. Here's the third:<br /><br />One of my favourite books as a child (under eleven-ish) was <em>"Heidi."</em> This was before I read the <em>"Anne of Green Gables"</em> series. I'm sure I read Heidi many times. I was always fascinated by how Johanna Spyri described the beauty of the mountains of Switzerland. I loved to pretend I was from Switzerland, which I can only attribute to reading Heidi. Reading it made me crave cheese and milk as a child. (Who funded this book, the Swiss dairy guild?) Oh, and guess what my name is in German? Heide. No wonder I loved the book.<br /><br />Now, here's where things get interesting. The Swiss have a legend of the founding of their country by some knights in white. This legend dates back to around the time the Templar order was dissolved in the first decade of the 14th century. If you look at the Swiss flag, there is a strong resemblance to the Templar cross. Also, the Templars were the first international bankers, and well, what's Switzerland known for? (other than cheese and chocolate?) Banking. Some very interesting coincidences.<br /><br />So, there you have it. Templars and pirates and snakes, oh my. So that's it then. I'm off to commandeer a ship, "pick up a crew..., raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out." Who's with me? And guess what I just found out? There are <strong>no</strong> poisonous snakes in Jamaica!!! (but they do have constrictors). <br /> <br />Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-26745359523828832832010-07-31T10:40:00.000-07:002010-07-31T10:49:25.227-07:00Where True Friendship Begins...You never know when you'll find yourself facing a moment when you're challenged. I had one of those moments the other day. If you've ever read some of my older posts, especially the ones dealing with religion, you'll know I'm an outspoken "radical gracist". But lately I've been confronted with the fact that though I preach such things, I can still be quite ungracious.<br /><br />Here's what happened: I met up with someone from the distant past. Someone I never kept in touch with once we left high school. This was someone that was from my viewpoint, at the top of the social order. I can't say that I looked up to her exactly, but I know that I sought her friendship and approval and that I would have died of happiness if I thought that she considered us to be friends.<br /><br />Twelve years ago, we ran into each other at a reunion and the first thing she did was grab me into a big bear hug and say, "I'm so sorry for the way we treated you." Wow. That was something. The funny thing is, I never felt that she was mean. Sure, she teased, but it was all in good fun and I played along. We both had a sense of humour.<br /><br />We recently found each other online and we met up in person the other day. Naturally, part of the conversation consisted of the shared experiences of our youth. I was shocked to hear how she considered herself an outsider during her early years at school. Really??? No way! I was also stunned to hear how she had been hurt by the same institution. In fact, I think her story was probably far more painful than mine. We talked about the legalism of the institution and how damaging it was. It was a bonding moment for me to realize that I wasn't the only one who was affected. The legalism was NOT what I was used to. The group I hung out with from my home church wasn't like that at all.<br /><br />Somehow she has managed to not only survive, but has kept her faith and her graciousness. Yet, here I was, someone that considered myself a radical gracist who in many ways just wanted to close the door on the past and let it be. The past was the past and it was dead. It was what it was and I wasn't really interested in looking back. I didn't think I held a grudge, or was angry. I just didn't want to go back.<br /><br />Due to the nature of the education, we were fairly isolated as students. We each sat in our own cubicle. There wasn't that much interaction with the other students. It wasn't until my last year when the format of the curriculum changed and we had more interactive learning that friendships really developed, but she had graduated by that point and missed out on that.<br /><br />I recently saw a quote from C.S. Lewis that I loved: “Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, "What! You too? I thought I was the only one." Friendship was born the other day; true friendship. She introduced me to her family as her friend. And, now, I realize, yes, that's what we are. We <em><strong>*are*</strong></em> friends.<br /><br />I can't under-estimate how healing the experience of that visit was. I found myself almost literally, physically healing. Again, the odd thing was I don't even consider myself angry or holding a grudge. I found myself letting go and realizing that we were all just kids, all in our own little worlds. I didn't know much about their backgrounds and they probably didn't know much about mine. That's just typical narcissicic kids. I bet there were a LOT of stories of painful pasts at that place. A lot. No wonder some of the kids were so miserable.<br /><br />A friend has suggested that perhaps in my rejection of mainstream literalistic Christianity that I was throwing the baby out with the bath water. I now am beginning to realize how accurate that statement might have been.<br /><br />I think I've passed a milestone on this journey I'm on. At least I think I have. Thank you, friend, for sharing your heart the other day. It's helped me more than you will ever know. We are fellow pilgrims on this journey and may God guide us both in our search for truth and grace. I love you.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-79671227868026461082010-06-06T14:45:00.000-07:002010-06-14T01:18:12.663-07:0025 YearsIt's hard to believe, but I graduated from high school 25 years ago today. In many ways, it feels not that long ago; in some ways, it feels like it was a different lifetime.<br /><br />Let me start off by saying that I hated high school. I went to a high school that was run by a church that we didn't attend. Having gone to Catholic school and having been picked on because I wasn't Catholic, I was looking forward to going to a school where I figured I would fit in better. How wrong I was. <br /><br />I was shocked at how mean spirited and ignorant most of my classmates were. Most of the guys weren't bad; it was the girls. Some of them out downright nasty. This is NOT what I expected. I put my head down and did my work. I also had the "misfortune" to be a good student, so I got picked on almost every time I hit 100% on tests. Occasionally, the teachers held me up as an example of good behaviour and that "their" kids could learn a lesson from me. Oh, man. Did that ever do wonders for my social standing. Yes, the movie "Mean Girls" was fairly accurate. You know you were treated like crap when the most popular girl in school grabs you in a big hug at a reunion and the first thing out of her mouth is, "I'm SO sorry for how we treated you." I'll never forget that. She wasn't even, really, one of the "mean girls." She had a heart.<br /><br />I was pretty lonely. I had no friends. The only people I hung out with were other "outcasts". The one time I remember ever being shown some friendship was during a school trip to Dallas in 1982. Part way through the trip, two girls took me "under their wing" and insisted that I bunk, eat, and go around Disneyland and Magic Mountain with them during the latter part of the trip. I've never forgotten that kindness, either. (I like to think it was because they wanted me to be with them and not because some teacher told them to).<br /><br />It was completly opposite to my home church youth group. NO ONE there was nasty; we didn't treat outsiders that way. New friends were always welcome. At least that's how I remember it - and I'm sure that most of us from that youth group would say the same thing.<br /><br />By the time I got to grade 12, the format of the curriculum and method of instruction had changed, making it easier to interact with classmates. That was when friendships started to form. Yet, once graduation happened, within a couple of years, a lot of us had lost touch with each other. I only kept in touch with one, but that was sporadic and we'd sometimes go for years without talking to each other.<br /><br />Recently, I've reconnected with some of the people I went to high school with. Some of them I welcomed back to my life, others more reluctantly so. It's not that I judged them by what they were 25 plus years ago (as I certainly wouldn't want to be), it's just that other than the fact we went to the same school, there wasn't anything to talk about. Even then, our perspectives on the school would probably be quite different. <br /><br />I look back at the intervening years and wonder, "So, what did I accomplish?" Sadly, I don't see a lot to be proud of. Because I lacked any self-confidence, I never went to university. That was because I was scared of math. Little did anyone know that I had a physicial disability that caused me to struggle with it. Yet, because I was good at everything else, it was swept under the carpet. I don't blame the school for that. No one would have known. I'm just sad that it wasn't caught early, for it would have made a huge difference in my life.<br /><br />So, I guess today is a day to remember and look back, and also to "go home and rethink my life" to see if there is yet time to accomplish something I can look back at the end of my life and be proud of.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-31620243228082773272010-03-19T18:24:00.000-07:002010-03-19T21:06:20.412-07:00Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Truth?I remember getting warned in high school about studying the Bible outside the mainstream church. Studying it at university was bad because university was filled with arrogant intellectuals who would pick apart the Bible and try to cause people to lose their faith. And I believed it.<br /><br />As I've said before, I was a mainstream christian who thought the Bible was inerrant, etc. etc. etc. until nine years ago when my faith was destroyed. In case you want to know a bit more, you can find more details on the story <a href="http://heathersmewsings.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-time-to-come-out-of-closet.html">here</a>.<br /><br />After I'd walked away from mainstream christianity, the words from an old Amy Grant song had new meaning for me: <br /><br /><blockquote>"All of my friends are happy to stay here in this yard day after day<br />But something inside me has called me away.<br />I don't understand but I know I can't stay...<br /><br />'Cause I have felt for the first time<br />I can be myself<br />No more faces to hide behind<br />Just a smile and a dream that's mine<br />Even if I am the only one who wants to fly"</blockquote><br />Recently, I've come to debate certain issues relating to the Bible truth with certain mainstream christians. Let's just say that these people come from a background that considers their denomination as "theology for the rest of us." In other words, the... um... not too intelligent. I'm not going to name the denomination, but it relies on a lot of "signs and wonders" there's a lot of "flash and boom" and "talking in tongues." I think you can read between the lines. When you try to point out that there are two different stories about Judas' death, two versions of the story of Jesus raising Jairus' daughter, two lists of Jesus' ancestry, they don't listen. One is told that anyone that dares to suggest such things is arrogant, deceived by logical sounding lies and that “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools.” <br /><br />This attitude bothers me. I consider myself a seeker, especially a seeker after truth. I want to know who Jesus is. There's a lot of details missing in the Bible about him, and I want to know as much as I possibly can. Is there anything wrong with that? I'm a very curious person and I want to know - not so I can say I'm smarter than anyone. I just want to know. <br /><br />I have now come to appreciate those scholars at universities who write and teach on the subject of religious studies. One is Bart D. Ehrman, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Does this sound like someone that's looking for contradictions, or a sincere seeker? Another is John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Another is Elaine Pagels from Princeton University, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ms. Pagels has seen her fair share of tragedy, losing a young son. These are NOT scary people. In fact, they sound like seekers to me. My kind of people: intelligent seekers.<br /><br />These are people that have gone through the Bible meticulously and some of them have come out with things that don't quite fit with the message that's preached by mainstream christianity. Bart Ehrman has pointed out some very interesting contradictions in his book, "<em>Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them</em>." None of these contradictions should be dismised lightly. They should be taken seriously. One thing that deeply disturbs me is the allegation that most seminaries now teach that Paul did not write all the epistles that are attributed to him. For example, it's well known in (most) seminaries that Paul didn't write I and II Timothy. Other people wrote those letters in his name. Yet, these pastors never tell their congregations that. That sounds like fraud to me. <br /><br />So, who are the arrogant ones? The ones that refuse to listen to the facts, and open their eyes because they're frightened at what they might find, or is it those who are seeking? Personally, I think it's the former. I know that know-it-all attitude, for I, too, once thought that I knew all the answers and that anything that disagreed with the Bible was wrong and couldn't stand up to scrutiny. Isn't it arrogant to think you can't learn something from someone you may not agree with?<br /><br />The beginning of wisdom is to admit you don't know. That's the place I come from. I admit that there is a LOT I don't know. Like everyone else, I have some pet theories about Jesus, but I'm also open to the idea that I might be wrong on some things. Everything I read influences me. How is that arrogant? I really hate the idea of being ignorant, and I think God gave us brains for a purpose - to use them. I consider education very important. I would rather know the truth - even if it hurts and disturbs my comfortable worldview than be misled. I'm sure I'm not the only one.<br /><br />So, who are the arrogant ones? The know-it-alls, or the seekers who aren't afraid to challenge their boundaries?<br /><br />May God guide us all in our pursuit of truth.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-56902293702137535052010-03-11T20:19:00.000-08:002010-03-12T05:55:56.375-08:00Three Visions of GraceI posted a couple of months ago about "Amazing <a href="http://heathersmewsings.blogspot.com/2009/10/amazing-grace_20.html">Grace</a>". Grace is one of those things that it may be hard to put into words, but you know it when you see it - and when you don't. Here are some of my favourite visualizations of grace.<br /><br />One of my favourites is a scene in the movie "Gone With the Wind". It's the scene were Scarlett shows up at Ashley's birthday party. Scarlett wasn't going to go, as gossip had ripped through the town earlier that afternoon regarding Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett makes Scarlett attend the party, and leaves her at Melanie and Ashley's front door to "enter the arena alone". Scarlett stands there proudly and haughtily, daring the gossip mongers to say something. Melanie breaks through the crowd and marches directly to Scarlett. There is a moment's tension: what will she do? Will she slap Scarlett across the face? Order her out of her home? No. She kisses Scarlett on the cheek, and welcomes her, saying, "Scarlett, darling. What a lovely dress." There is a moment of confusion on Scarlett's face. This was not what she expected. It was grace.<br /><br />Another favourite is in "The Mists of Avalon" mini-series. King Arthur's wife, Gwenwyfar, a christian, never really trusted her sister-in-law, Arthur's sister, Morgaine. Morgaine was a follower of the Goddess, and in Gwenwyfar's eyes, a witch. Gwenwyfar had even gone so far as to manipulate a marriage for Morgaine in order to remove Morgaine from Arthur's court. Fleeing for her life after she's been caught with Lancelot, Gwenwyfar returns to the convent at Glastonbury where she had been before she married Arthur. Morgaine is also in the convent, and when she sees her sister-in-law, she doesn't hesitate. She embraces Gwenwyfar and welcomes her to her new home. The past was forgiven and forgotten. It was grace.<br /><br />I found another one tonight - and it made me tear up.<br /><br />Recently, I've discovered a new favourite tv program: "Glee". Being musical and being an awkward outcast in high school, I love it. Most (if not all) of the kids in McKinley High's glee club are social outcasts; they aren't cool. None of them have friends outside of glee club. They have to stick together and stick up for each other. There's a lot of grace on that show.<br /><br />There's one character, Quinn, who is pregnant. She was a cheerleader until she got kicked off the squad due to her condition. She's also president of the abstinency club and she's too scared to tell her parents that she's expecting. When Quinn's parents (who are church-going christians) find out, they throw Quinn out of the house. "What went wrong? We raised you right. Who are you?" her father asks. With tears in her eyes, Quinn says, "I'm your daughter who loves you and I need my Daddy to hug me and tell me everything is going to be all right." Both parents walk out of the room. Quinn and her boyfrined, Finn (who thinks he's the baby's father) go to Finn's house. When Finn tells his mother that Quinn's parents have thrown her out, he asks if Quinn can stay there. Without a moment's hesitation, Finn's Mom hugs Quinn and says, "Of course". It was grace. Knowing that Quinn and Finn (who came up with that name combo?) are going through a rough time, the glee club expresses their feelings of friendship and support for them in a rendition of "Lean on Me". It was grace.<br /><br />Why is it that in two of these three stories, it's the christians/church goers who just don't get grace? Is it because they've never "lived" and fallen down and scraped their knees? Perhaps, is it possible, they've *gasp* never been truly confronted with it, and if they did, they'd be confused - like Scarlett was. If Melanie had flown into a rage at Scarlett, or been icy cold, Scarlett would have understood and known how to deal with it. She was so haunted by Melanie's actions that she went home and paced the floor for hours. In Rhett's words, "So she stood by you, did she? How does it feel to have the woman you loathe cloak your sins?" I love the phrase, "cloak your sins" as that is what grace is: a mantle, a cloak, something to keep you warm.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-85894729592898165892010-03-07T11:39:00.000-08:002010-03-08T11:11:10.438-08:00It's Oscar Night in HollywoodWell, it's that time of the year again when Hollywood hands out the hardware. As in past years, I'm going out on a limb and predicting tonight's winners in some of the major categories:<br /><br />Best Picture: Avatar;<br />Best Animated Feature: Up<br />Best Actor: Jeff Bridges;<br />Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (even though I'm hoping Meryl Streep wins);<br />Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz;<br />Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique;<br />Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow.<br />Best Special effects: Avatar<br />Best original score: Up<br />Best Costume Design: The Young Victoria;<br /><br />I'll update this post later to see how I did, and my impressions of the show.<br /><br />Edited to add:<br /><br />Well, with one exception, my predicitons were bang on. I was wrong in the best picture category, as The Hurt Locker won. I haven't seen it yet, but I knew it was Avatar's biggest competitor in the best picture race. I agree with the awards that Avatar did win: special effects, cinematography and art direction. Those were its strong points. (even though, personally, I thought the art direction in Sherlock Holmes was excellent and would probably have voted for it or The Young Victoria). <br /><br />I missed hearing the nominated songs being performed. I generally enjoy those. I wasn't overly impressed with the dancers performing during the performance of the nominees for best original score. I didn't feel they added anything to the music; in fact, I found them distracting. Glad to see Up win for best animated feature and score. I *loved* that movie.<br /><br />Though I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, I still think that Meryl Streep was robbed. She was fantastic as Julia Child. I didn't care for Mo'nique's acceptance speech: "I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics." Um, you just <strong>DID</strong> make it political. <br /><br />Best dressed list: Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz (surprise, surprise!), Anna Kendrick. I liked Rachel McAdams' and Kristen Stewart's dresses, but not their hair. I liked Sarah Jessica Parker's dress and hair, but not her makeup (looked like it was sprayed on). Another pleasant surprise was Jennifer Lopez.<br /><br />Dresses/ensembles I didn't like: Maggie Gyllenhal, Miley Cyrus, Nicole Richie, and Charlize Theron (what *were* those things that looked like they were grabbing her breasts, cupcakes?). I didn't like all the fruff of the bottom half of Zoe Saldana's dress, either. Made her look like a Zigfeld girl.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-64489788897846768472010-03-06T13:54:00.000-08:002010-03-06T15:18:31.336-08:00Something has changed...When I was growing up, Canada always sucked at the Olympics. It seems we came in third - at best - to either the USSR or the US. It seemed that we couldn't compete with the best in the world. And we accepted it, or at least seemed to.<br /><br />Now things have changed. Ever since the Calgary Olympics in 1988, Canadian medal counts have slowly gone up. The only thing that was missing was an olympic gold medal won in Canada. This time, in Vancouver, everyone knew it would be different. It wasn't "if" a Canadian athlete would win a gold medal, it was a question of who and when. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait long. Alexandre Bilodeau won his gold medal on the second day of competition. The whole nation rejoiced. Our embarressing legacy of being the only host country not to win a gold medal was over. Bilodeau predicted that more would follow. By the end of the first week of the games, Canada had nine medals - at least one per day. There were those who criticized this, saying it wasn't good enough. I was happy - as I remember a final total of five or six medals for the whole games.<br /><br />Then, the floodgates opened: the women's hockey team won gold, two gold medals and a bronze in men's short-track, a silver in women's curling, followed by a gold in men's curling. The crown jewel awaited: the men's hockey. In some ways, no matter how many gold medals were won, if this one eluded Canada, it would be disappointing. <br /><br />The men didn't make it easy on themselves, getting by Switzerland in a shootout and losing to the US in round one. We waited nervously with bated breath to see what they would do against the Russians. Turns out, we needn't have worried. It was a rout: 7-3 Canada. Next up were the Slovakians. After going up 3-0, Slovakia got two late goals in the dying minutes, and Canada hung on to advance to the gold medal game against the US. Once again, the men kept a nation in suspence: after going up 2-0, the US tied it in the third period, and it went to over-time. Thankfully, it was settled quickly. Sidney Crosby was the hero and scoring seven minutes into it. For the second time in three Olympics, Canada was double gold medal winners in hockey. The nation went nuts. It was delirious. By the end of the games, we won 26 medals, our best haul over - and 14 of those were gold - a record for *any* country. <br /><br />Canadians are quiet patriots. We aren't pushy about it. Yet, you could sense in the air with this Olympics - even before the opening ceremonies - that there was something special about to happen. There were splashes of red and white all over: flags waving from cars, homes and office buildings, people dressed in red and white, etc. We just needed the occassion to show it off, that's all. <br /><br />We've changed these last three weeks. We are no longer meek and mild and just happy to be invited to the big dance. We are now fiercely competitive and can definitely say that we can compete with the best. The days of Canada sucking are long gone.<br /><br />Thank you, Canadian Olympians. You made us all proud.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-66057597747036816962010-02-23T01:01:00.000-08:002010-02-23T09:59:42.584-08:00An Olympic MomentI love the Olympics. Whenever they are on - summer or winter - I try to watch as much as I can. It's rather odd, as I'm not a sporty person. I always sucked at sports. I figure skated as a kid, but failed my second badge as I couldn't perform a certain manuever for the required amount of distance on the ice. Thus ended my Olympic dreams. Pity, as I would have been the perfect size for a pairs skater.<br /><br />Every now and then, you come across a moment at the Olympics that really epitomizes what it's all about - the true Olympic spirit. Tonight was one of those nights. Tonight was the free dance segment of the ice dancing competition. The Canadian team of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were in the leading heading into tonight's competion. Their closest rivals were the American team of Meryl Davis and Charlie White. Turns out the teams train together and are the best of friends. White and Davis skated first to the music of <em>"Phantom of the Opera."</em> They laid down the proverbial gauntlet and skated a fantastic routine. They received excellent marks, with a slight deduction as one of their lifts was too long (like anyone other than the judges would have caught that). Then came Virue and Moir. They were magical and skated flawlessly. The look on their faces at the end of their routine was priceless. He could be seen saying, "I love you so much" to her. Canada held its collective breath. Would their marks be enough to move them into first place with two teams left to skate? Yes!<br /><br />CTV hypothesized that the two teams had performed so well that perhaps double gold medals might be in order. When it was all decided, Virtue and Moir were first, Davis and White, second and the Russian team of Domnina and Shabalin were third. It was a historic night as no North American team had ever won gold in ice dancing before. While being interviewed backstage after the win by CTV, Virtue and Moir were interupted by Davis and White who came by to say "Hi!" and then proceeded to hug, kiss, and congratulate them. They were genuinely happy for their rivals. Apparently at some point they said, "We're so proud of you." Wow. The feelings were reciprocated, as Moir told CTV that they were proud of Davis and White and, "without them... we wouldn't be here." During the medal presentation both teams were glowing and very excited with their medals. The skating and the conduct of all four skaters impressed me. After the medals had been handed out, the teams went for a victory skate. I felt slighly embarressed for the Russian team as they were the only team that didn't have a flag to skate with.<br /><br />It's good to see that sometimes at the Olympics, the Olympic spirit does, indeed, shine through. Congratulations to both Virtue and Moir and Davis and White. All four of you are a credit to your families, your countries and your sport. I wish both teams well and I look forward to watching them skate for many years to come.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-9192625474445857112010-01-25T10:55:00.000-08:002010-01-25T18:26:34.381-08:00Truth vs. The LessonRecently, I was sent a youtube video called, "This will make us all think" and an invitation to join a group called "Keeping Christ in the Classroom" ("KCITC"). This person also posted it in a public place where other people could see it. You can see it <a href="http://media.causes.com/564010?p_id=111853311">here</a>, and the group that posted it. I hate to ask this, but I'd encourage you not to watch the video and give them the readership in order to inflate both their numbers and their egos. I'll provide a link to the complete story in the next paragraph. I'd heard the story years ago; this was nothing new, but alarm bells went off in my mind because the story claimed that the events happend "recently". Me, being me, I went to snopes.com - that great debunker of urban myths and legends. It's a great resource for checking out all those stories that you come across on the internet.<br /><br />Just as I thought: It's false. They had the <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp">story</a> posted there with different variations. It's nothing but an urban legend. I hit the roof; I was so angry.<br /><br />I was angry that this KCITC would post such a story without either (a) checking their facts or, (b) posting this propaganda knowing it was myth and legend in order to further their cause, which is a blatant violation of the separation between Church and State and a violation of the U.S. constitution and is illegal. If you want Christ in the classroom, send your children to christian school. Either that, or home school them. Your choice. There is room for both secular and relgious education in this society. Even if you agree that Christ should be in the classroom, don't you want your viewpoint represented by solid facts and not urban legend? The fact that they would use myth and legend to propagate their illegal agenda just made me livid with rage because most christian people wouldn't even bother to check the story; they'd just blindly accept it.<br /><br />Let me define what I mean by myth and legend. Merriam-Webster describes myth as: <em>a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society</em>. It's a<em> belief </em>not facts. Legend they define as: a<em> story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable</em>. In this case, the story is insupportable. I don't mean to say that myths are lies just because they didn't happen. They are just stories and often there is a moral or lesson to them. They are that: just stories.<br /><br />I let the person know that forwarded this story and invited me to join this KCITC (obviously she hadn't even bothered to read my blog, or she'd know where I stood on such things) that this was just legend and guess what I was told? It didn't' matter. It was the lesson that was important - standing up for what one believed. Several other people chimed in the same. Not one other person had an issue with it. I couldn't believe it. If the story was told as an anecdote or prefaced with, "There is a story about a professor..." but it wasn't. It was told as an actual event that happened USC.<br /><br />I was told that this was no different than a movie or a novel where the lesson was what was imporant. I disagree. Novels and movies often have disclaimers stating that "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance between the characters or actual events is mere coincidence." Or, if the story is based on actual events, they will say certain parts of the story/dialogue were changed for dramatic purposes. There is <strong>NO</strong> such disclaimer here. Jesus spoke in parables, but he didn't try and pass the stories off as actually having happened - and his audience knew that.<br /><br />I was told that "I once knew the truth" and that I'd been "deceived by a logical sounding lie." Yet, I've done far more research, reading and study on all these topics than the lot of that group put together. In any other field, I'd be regarded as an amateur expert and my knowledge taken seriously. But not when religion's myths are exposed as just that and people's worldviews are in jeopardy. No way. Then it's me who's in the wrong.<br /><br />I posted again asking the people that had responded saying they were fine with the story being just a lesson, "Which one of you would have checked this out? I bet you none of you would have. You would have just accepted this as fact if it hadn't been for me doing some research". Do I get any thanks? No. Guess what? I got an email entitled "enough venom spitting" and the thread was deleted - with the exception of the original post. This person obviously isn't interested in truth or rational discussion but simply propagation. <br /><br />I love the hypocrisy of KCITC's statement, "...if we simply have faith and one person stands up for him. There is a lot of power in faith and we need to keep it strong so that when people do try to break it we can hold on". I seem to be one of the only ones that's interested in standing up truth against these devious manipulators.<br /><br />This really bothers me. Deeply. On many levels. First, that KCITC is using myth and urban legend to affect public policy. If that's the best they have as evidence, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Any judge would dismiss this in court. Second, that when the story is exposed as urban legend that it doesn't bother people. Third, that someone would shut down a discussion leaving the story in place without the disclaimer that the story is just legend thereby helping propagate this myth leading others to believe it's true.<br /><br />So who is right? Is it important to expose things like this as myth and urban legend that are told as historical events when the group telling the story is using it for political ends, or is it the lesson that's important? I'd really like to think I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-66781111006055836912009-12-27T20:07:00.000-08:002009-12-29T05:16:45.114-08:00Sherlock Holmes 2009I first fell under the spell of Sherlock Holmes before I was ten years old. I can date that fairly accurately as I remember reading <em>"The Hound of the Baskervilles"</em> that I took out of my public elementary school library(I switched to Catholic School in grade four, so that's why I can date it). At least I think it was that book; I can't be sure now. When I was 20, I received a book containing all the Sherlock Holmes short stories for Christmas and immediately began reading them and thorougly enjoyed them. I now have the complete works of Holmes in one volume.<br /><br />When I heard that Madonna's soon-to-be-ex-husband Guy Ritchie was doing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. I knew I would be seeing it. <br /><br />I confess that I am a bit of a fan of Robert Downey Jr. He was the best thing about Tropic Thunder and I think if it hadn't been for Heath Ledger dying, Downey would have won the Oscar this last year for Best Supporting Actor. He was absolutely brilliant. <br /><br />Downey wasn't the stiff, loner, Sherlock Holmes. No, he was more physical. Downey's Holmes can box and shoot a gun. There are a few sequences when you are allowed into his thought processes as he quickly analyses and assesses his situation. He was a convincing Brit, and carried it off well. He doesn't take himself too seriously. I am not a fan of Jude Law; I would have preferred to see Ewan McGregor in the role of Dr. Watson, but Law handled himself well as Holmes patient, loyal friend.<br /><br />True to the spirit of the stories, Holmes and Watson are roommates, with Watson engaged to be married to his beloved Mary. We see that Watson takes notes and keeps records of their adventures, which, of course, are the basis for the stories. (If you remember, Watson was the narrator of the stories). You may also remember that Holmes was a frequent user of cocaine. There is only the faintest of hints of that in this tale.<br /><br />Excellent re-creation of Victorian-era London; art direction and costumes were well done. Along for the ride is Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, who was immortalized as "the woman" from the story <em>"A Scandal in Bohemia"</em>. From what I remember, she was the "love" and passion of Holmes' life - and only woman who ever bested him. I was thrilled to see that they had they had brought that character into this story. McAdams plays the role with perfect zest and spunkiness - and looks great in the luscious period costumes she's given. I did, however, find her makeup a tad distracting, as I thought it was a little overdone for the period.<br /><br />A thorougly enjoyable adventure which leaves the door open for a sequal. In fact, it's almost necessary.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-21576604681942326542009-12-23T14:49:00.001-08:002009-12-23T14:58:14.971-08:00Merry What?Born December 25th to a virgin mother;<br />Son of God;<br />A travelling preacher who had 12 disciples;<br />Performed miracles;<br />Known as the "good shepherd", "the way the truth the light", "redeemer", "saviour"<br />Died at Easter<br /><br />Sound familiar? Well it should. However, I'm not talking about who you might be thinking I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Jesus; I'm talking about Mithras.<br /><br />The cult of Mithras pre-existed Christianity for at least 600 years. The similiarites between Jesus and Mithras were so similar and the early Church fathers were so fearful that their sheep would discover this that they claimed that the devil went back in time and created the story. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your life??<br /><br />Oh, and Mithras isn't the only demi-god that was born at Christmas and killed at Easter. There was Attis, Adonis and several more. Like the Mithras story, all those demi-god stories pre-dated Christ by several hundred years.<br /><br />So, this begs the question. Which one is historically true? Which ones are myth? To me, it's obvious that <em>NONE</em> of them happened and they are all myth. Here's why:<br /><br />One: We know that Caesar Augustus NEVER ordered such a census as Luke says he did. As I've said before, we have excellent records of that period of Roman history and no census was ever recorded. It would also have been logistically impossible.<br /><br />Two: Look carefully at the geneologies in both Matthew and Luke. They contradict themselves. I've heard the contradictions explained away by being told that one lineage was Mary's and the other was Joseph's. Not true. Luke clearly states that it's Joseph's family tree and not Mary's.<br /><br />Three: There was no massacre of the innocents by Herod as Matthew describes. There is absolutely no historical proof of this. Herod was a tyrant and despised by the Jews, but this is one crime he didn't commit.<br /><br />Four: Quirinius and Herod were not contemporary. Herod was dead by the time Quirinius was governor of Syria, which Luke claims he was in his attempt to date Jesus' birth. <br /><br />We all know that Christianity stole (or borrowed) things from the cultures it imposed itself upon. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about outright plagarism. There were no copyright laws back then, so no one had an issue with it. However, Christianity is the one religion that claims this stuff actually, historically happened. They claimed Jesus was unique. Obviously not true when so many parallels existed between Jesus and the other demi-gods. It doesn't bother me that Christianity stole the date of Jesus' birth. After all, Queen Elizabeth was born in April and the official celebration of her birthday is the Trooping of the Colour ceremony in June. However, if you strip away all the myth that pre-existed centuries before what are you left with? Um, not much. In fact, nothing at all.<br /><br />If Jesus was so important, why don't we know more about him? The only records we have of him are in the Bible and a reference in Josephus. Yet, we now know that the reference in Josephus was a forgery. It was added by a monk a very long time later.<br /><br />I'm not saying Jesus never existed. I don't know; I suspect he did, but I'm not sure. To me, however, it's obvious that he's not what we were told in the Bible. <br /><br />So, where did all this mythmaking come from? I have read enough to be convinced that it was Paul - for many reasons. Paul was from Tarsus, which was a seat of the Mithras cult. Eating bread and drinking wine in a ritual meal was also part of the Mithras cult/Greek Mystery Religions. We know that I Corinthians (an authentic Pauline letter) was written before the gospel stories, so guess who made that up? You guessed it: Paul. Also, remember, since drinking blood or eating food with blood in it was forbidden to Jews, Jesus NEVER would have said, "This is my blood." I quote Hyam Maccoby (who, obviously, is Jewish):<br /><br /><blockquote>“This is not to say, of course, that Jesus did not distribute bread and wine to his disciples at the Last Supper. This was quite normal at a Jewish meal... The leading person at the table would make a blessing (blessing is the original meaning of the word Eucharist) and then break the loaf of bread and pass a piece to everyone at the table. Then at the end of the meal, grace would be said over a cup of wine, which would be handed around at the end of grace... This procedure, which is still practiced today at Jewish tables had no mystical significance; the only meaning of it is to thank God for the meal He has provided. The addition of mystery religion trappings (i.e. the bread as the body of the god and the wine as his blood) was the work of Paul, by which he turned an ordinary Jewish meal into a pagan sacrament. Since the blood of an animal was forbidden at a Jewish meal by biblical law (Leviticus 7:26) the idea regarding the wine as blood would be found disgusting by Jews.” The Mythmaker pgs 115-116</blockquote><br />Sometimes I wonder why I even post this stuff. After all, those that know this stuff don't need me "preaching to the choir" and those that want to believe in Santa Claus still will. I get tired of people telling me I've been deceived by "logical sounding lies" when they haven't read anything about church history and the origins of christianity. But if I can convince one person to look at the house of cards christianity is built on and rationally examine their beliefs by looking at the cold, hard facts, it will be worth it. This is shocking; heck, I know. It's as shocking to the modern day christian as Gallileo's heliocentric model of the universe was to those who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, Gallileo was the one that was right. Experts say that mainstream christianity has only one or two more generations left. I hope so. When one wakes up from this myth, one feels as silly as if they were 21 years old and still believed in Santa Claus.<br /><br />Merry Mithras, Happy Holy Days (whatever you chose to celebrate) but please try and keep the myth in Christmyth.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-53142962163675714702009-11-02T21:28:00.000-08:002009-11-02T22:35:24.046-08:00It's a Sad DayIt's a sad day in the stitching world. If you aren't a cross-stitcher, the name Teresa Wentzler probably won't mean anything to you, but for us stitchers, she was a well-known designer. <br /><br />I first discovered her work in 1993. My first chart was her <a href="http://twdesignworks.com/Designs/rap_l.jpeg">Rapunzel</a>. So far, I've completed only one of her designs, a freebie, <a href="http://www.novalogos.net/heather/angelfinished.jpg">Jeanne Love's Angel</a>. I don't have all her charts, but I have most that I want; there's just one or two more that I would like. Going through my "stash", it's her designs that I have the most of. In many ways, she is my favourite designer.<br /><br />She specialized in mythological and fantasy pieces and almost singlehandedly brought cross-stitch out the dark ages of aida cloth and tea towels, and made it something special, and created wonderful art. <a href="http://twdesignworks.com/Designs/pk_l.jpeg">Peaceable Kingdom</a>,<a href="http://twdesignworks.com/Designs/egyptian_l.jpeg"> Egyptian Sampler</a> <a href="http://twdesignworks.com/Designs/mer_l.jpeg">Mermaid</a>, and her Four Seasons Faeries rank high as some of my favourites of her designs. She was known as the "Queen of the Blended Needle" due to the profiliery of blended colours in her designs. Not only was she a very talented designer, she also had the reputation of being one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet.<br /><br />Economic times being what they are, it's not longer feasible for her to keep her business running. It's a real shame. It's always sad to hear of a designer or a Local Needlework Shop/Online Needlework Shop ("LNS/ONS") going out of business. It's a loss to the stitching community. <br /><br />Good luck, Teresa, and thank you. You will be missed.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-29161323712396067732009-11-01T11:37:00.000-08:002009-11-02T10:19:30.960-08:00The Slippery Slope to LegalismI've heard it suggested that if we followed the Ten Commandments, those are "standard moral laws". I find that interesting. You see, Christians are supposed to be "under grace" and not "under law". So, if one is trying to follow those and use the Ten Commandments as a guidepost because they are "good moral laws", then one is not following grace, but law. That's my definition of a legalist, someone who follows rules to the letter of law instead of the spirit of the law.<br /><br />I submit that most Christians violate those Commandments every week. I'm referring to "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". How is that? That's because most churches meet on Sunday and not the Sabbath (Saturday). Early Christians began meeting on Sundays and not Saturdays in order to distinguish themselves from Jews who met on Saturdays. <br /><br />As James said, if you are guilty of violating one commandment, you are guilty of violating them all. (James 2:10). In other words, one is guilty of murder, committing adultery, bearing false witness, taking God's name in vain, etc. all because church meets on Sunday and not the Sabbath.<br /><br />One could say that we don't have to worry about keeping the Sabbath because we are now under grace, but then that's a slippery slope, isn't it? What other commandments do we decide not to keep based on that? I eat bacon and shellfish; always have, and I see no reason why I would give them up based on some ancient rule. Both are forbidden under Jewish law (though not the Ten Commandments), so all my life I violated the law and was, by association, guilty of murder, etc. That seems overly harsh, doesn't it? And what choice did I have? None. I didn't decide when Church met; I was a child taken there by my parents. So, therefore, there were sealing my doom by taking me to a church that didn't line up with what the Bible said. Does that seem just? The church that I was raised in - and all that I've ever attended - therefore, were all not following the law. What about the grand total of 613 laws the Jews had? I can imagine some people saying that it doesn't matter to a christian if they eat such things as bacon or shellfish. But again, the slippery slope. If you throw out that, then you can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian, and claiming to strive to have your life "line up with God's word", or claim that your church follows the word of God because you are picking and choosing which rules to follow. Hey, I have no problem with not keeping the Sabbath or eating bacon, but then I'm not claiming to be a Bible-believing, Christian. All I'm saying is that if you are claiming to be such, you'd better think about what you are saying in order to be consistent in your arguments. Either one changes all church worship services to Saturday, or one admits that one doesn't have to follow the Ten Commandments. <br /><br />If things like eating pork and/or keeping the Sabbath can be dismissed because one is now under grace, then one has to seriously think about the other laws that one doesn't follow anymore because we are no longer under the law but under grace. If one considers that the Ten Commandments are good moral laws, and that the biblical punishments for breaking those laws are just, then we need to be executing people for taking the Lord's name in vain, stoning those that work on the Sabbath, etc. Surely one must see how ludicrus this is because the Law does not just constitute the Ten Commandments.<br /><br />Doing good deeds wasn't forbidden on the Sabbath. The Pharisees understood that. Jesus understood that. The Pharisees were somewhat pragmatists. They understood that sometimes you have to answer to a higher law. They, like me, had natural law tendencies. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. In fact, I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was himself, a Pharisee. Please see Hyam Maccoby's <em>"Jesus the Pharisee"</em> and <em>"The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity"</em>. Jesus words' in Mark 3 where he is quoted as saying that "the sabbath was made for man" was actually a Pharisaic motto according to Maccoby (but he doesn't cite his source for saying that). It was <em>not</em> original to Jesus. So, there was no way he was arguing against the Pharisees as the writer of Mark suggests. He was actually quoting Pharisaic doctrine and beliefs. The Pharisees were more traditional Jews and "of the people" and the Sadducees were nothing but Hellenized Roman quislings. The two groups hated each other and did not get along. I first heard of that in Bible College, and that seems to be confirmed by all the readings I've done. In the verses immediately following the story in Mark 3, it says that the Pharisees "began plotting against him [Jesus] with the partisans of Herod to see ow they could make away with him." This was impossible; there was no way the Pharisees would have done that, as the Pharisees were against the Roman occupation and the Herodians were for it. The word should not be Pharisees, it should be Sadducees. (<em>The Mythmaker </em>page 34). I can't recommend that book enough; it's fabulous and sheds a whole new light on Jesus and Paul. It's sad Maccoby is not better known that he is.<br /><br />That also goes for the story in Mark 2, where Jesus and his disciples eat grain from a field in violation of the Sabbath rules. I quote: "One may violate all laws in order to save life, except idolatry, incest or murder." (Palestinian Talmud, Seviitt, 4:2 (35:a); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a). When Jesus was questioned about the grain eating incident by the Pharisees, in Pharisaic tradition, Jesus recites the story of David eating the shew bread (which was forbidden) while David was fleeing from King Saul. It was a case of severe life or death, and so, therefore justified. All the Pharisees were doing when questioning Jesus was checking out the facts; they weren't accusing him. <br /><br />My point is, one cannot get bogged down in rules and dogma. If one does, one will go crazy (almost literally) trying to keep every single piece of the law. Believe me; I've tried. In fact, it's impossible. Some of those rules were meant only for the times anyways due to the unsanitary conditions. They didn't have toilets or disinfectant soap and they had no idea of bacteria and infections and how germs and contagion could be spread.<br /><br />I highly doubt Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." If someone was to say to you, "If you love me, you will obey me," what kind of person is that? That certainly does not show love, which Jesus supposedly came to do. That's something that an abusive, tyrannical wife-beating husband would say to his wife. Anyone that would obey under such circumstances is anything but free; they are under bondage and are obeying out of fear, not love. Either Jesus was nothing but a demanding control freak, or he did not say those words. I find the latter the most likely scenario. Here's why: Jesus supposedly said those words at the Last Supper. If so, why were they not recorded in the other three gospels? In no other gospel does he say anything like that. John was the oldest of the gospels, written possibly as late as 135 C.E., and it's authenticy was hotly disputed because of the gnostic teachings that pervade it. To quote Maccoby, "In the Fourth Gospel, that of John, Jesus has become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose <strong>Hellenistic</strong> mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. Here the authentic Jesus has been lost in the post-Jesus myth. It is not here that we find the genuine Jesus, rooted in the Jewish religion of his time, and pursuing aims that were intelligible to his fellow Jews." (Jesus the Pharisee p. 136) Note the word I highlighted, Hellenistic, not Judaic.<br /><br />One doesn't find grace by meditating on rules and law, but by looking beyond them to what the goal should be. I've never discovered anyone who followed a rulebook to the "last jot and tittle" that was gracious; in fact, quite the opposite. Jesus was willing to break some rules because of a higher goal, and I agree with him.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-63117900378299509352009-10-31T15:50:00.001-07:002009-10-31T20:07:10.506-07:00Some People Just Don't Get itI just have to laugh at some people and shake my head. I really feel sorry for those christians who don't understand grace. They can talk all they want about it, but they are simply "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals." I feel sorry for them, as they are missing out on so much. Anyone that would point to a list of mission groups and try to discuss grace on the level of "the doctrines of grace" just doesn't get it - especially if they name their blog after a <a href="http://www.beginningatmoses.blogspot.com/2009/10/missions-calvinism-hand-in-hand.html">lawgiver</a>. It's so ironic. I really feel sorry for such people, as they are living under law and not grace. The sad thing is, they don't realize it I pity them. Yet I can't be too harsh, for I once was the same way.<br /><br />Ryan O'Neil said, "Love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'" in the movie "<em>Love Story</em>". When I first heard that line, I really didn't get it. I think I understand it better now, as in many ways, you can substitute the word grace for love in that sentence. You don't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" and keep beating yourself over the head. God knows your heart. You don't have to keeping coming to him cowering and saying "I'm sorry". They even make fun of that in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhLDo09D68&feature=PlayList&p=BA7EACBC723B5995&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=33">Monty Python and the Holy Grail.</a> (Be warned: some people may not share the same sense of humour). You don't have to continually keep track of your errors. After all, sin just means that you've missed the mark. It's not a moral word. It means you've missed the goal, the target mark. That's what the word meant. It means you didn't score 100% on your test, or win the gold medal.<br /><br />Do you really like people that continually pick at you and demand perfection, or you you prefer to be with people that accept you just as you are, warts and all? I know I certainly prefer the latter. Isn't that the way God is supposed to be? Then why do some people think that you have to keep confessing, or examining your heart and conscience before God? Doesn't grace mean that you are now a son of god and that you have the spirit of God inside of you guiding you? If so, how could you go wrong?<br /><br />Grace means you don't refer to some church's doctrines on the subject. It's something that happens on a personal level, and it can mean different things to different people. It's an experience and not one that can be found by reading doctrine. The legitimate letters of Paul talk about "radical" grace. The disputed letters contradict the legitimate Paul. Grace means that "If it pleases you to please the Lord, you can please yourself." No one has the right to judge you.<br /><br />Martin Luther may have talked grace, but since he was a well-known anti-semite, he was definitely missing out on the whole point of grace. Yet, he was definitely on to something. However, no one that could say the things he did about the Jews really didn't understood grace. That being said, anti-semitism was rife in the culture, and he was a product of his times.<br /><br />I remember a class in Bible College where the teacher was talking about groups of people in the church. There were those who could be hurt by your actions, by your "eating meat offered to idols". Those people you should be sensitive to. To put it in modern terms, be considerate and sensitive to people: don't go indulging in a bottle of wine in front of someone that has a problem with alcoholism. However, there are other peopl in the church, who run around and think they have the right to tell other people what to do: "Don't do that. You'll offend somebody!" These people weren't offended themselves; they were just control freaks justifying their actions by telling the person that they "might" offend someone. Such people one didn't need to be worried about upsetting.<br /><br />Since I don't like control freaks, I have no problem ignoring such people.<br /><br />It's just sad, and is a big part of the reason I no longer attend church, as I've said before.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-7697732844891647402009-10-20T18:30:00.000-07:002009-10-21T00:48:48.811-07:00Amazing GraceWhy is it that one so often finds more grace outside the church than inside? That's something I've wondered about for a very long time. Let me start this off by saying that I am not writing this from a victim's standpoint, whining and bitching that I've been hurt by people in the church and that's why I no longer attend. No. If I did, I would be extremely hypocritical, as I know that I, too, can be extremely ungracious; I still wrestle with it at times. To those I've hurt, I am deeply sorry. This may sound a tad hypocritical coming on the heels of my last post, but it needs to be said.<br /><br />When I first started dating DH 12 years ago, he told me that he was a "radical gracist" in the Pauline tradition. When he at first explained to me where he was coming from, I really didn't understand it. I was one of those that really liked rules: black and white. I liked defined lines where I knew where I stood and understood my boundaries. If I stepped outside those boundaries, well I knew there would be consequences for my actions - but at least I knew that. I had a very sensitive conscience, and hated breaking rules. I didn't like things that were subjective. The funny thing is, I should have liked math, as there are always right and wrong answers, yet due to my chromosomal deficiency, I hated it. Oh, sure, I talked grace, but somehow I had missed out what it really was. I really didn't understand it. I didn't realize that at the time; I thought I did. But I didn't. I very much had a rod up my you-know-what and was a stick-in-the-mud and could be extremely judgemental. For example, I really didn't understand how certain denominations could justify ordaining gay ministers. I mean, it was right there in black and white in the Bible that they were going to hell. How could they not see it?<br /><br />Yet, on the other hand, I always felt that it was more important to show people love than rules. I really didn't see how throwing a bunch of rules at someone would encourage them to come to church or convert them to christianity. Showing them that you cared was the only way to make them see that you had something special that they might be interested in knowing more about. Launching a lot of scripture at them would not be the appropriate thing to do.<br /><br />In schools of legal thought, I would consider myself a natural law person, as opposed to a positivist. Let me take a moment to explain that. Natural law means that there is a higher law or higher principle than man-made rules. For example, if a pregnant woman was speeding to the hospital because she was miscarrying her baby and a policeman pulled her over, the right thing to do by natural law would be to let her off: there was a higher goal, preserving the life of the baby. Now, if the policeman was operating under positive law, he would give her the ticket: she had violated the law, and should therefore receive the ticket, even if there was a reason.<br /><br />The whole idea of radical grace was a little disconcerting to me. I mean, Paul does say that everything is acceptable, but that made me uncomfortable. Everything??? When I thought of the ramifications, that made me very uncomfortable. Then I met some of DH's friends. They were some of the most gracious people that I've ever met. I haven't always been that gracious towards them, I'm sorry to say. Yet, they had something that I admired.<br /><br />Slowly but surely, I felt some of my legalism and judgementalism strip away. It wasn't working anyway. The more I tried to be good and failed, the more miserable I was. I wanted freedom. Not because I was planning on running around abusing my freedom, but inwardly, I've always hated rules for the sake of rules. Sure, we need some rules to function by as a society, but there was enough of a rebel in me to say that some rules weren't worth keeping. Just because it's a rule doesn't necessarily make it right. For some rules, there is no basic moral reason behind them. For example, we don't drive on the right-hand-side of the road in North America because it's immoral to drive on the left.<br /><br />As someone said to me, "If it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself." I began to realize that who was I to judge someone because they were gay? What did it matter to me? Wasn't it between God and their conscience? Why was it any of my business? Why did I think I had the right to judge them? When I realized that, it was a tremendous relief. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I realized that I had been very arrogant in thinking that I could play judge and jury. People are grown ups and can be responsible for their own decisions. Now, I may not necessarily like what a person may do, but it's not my place to judge. Here's an example: I don't like abortion - not by a long shot. Yet, I don't feel I have the right to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. All I hope is that she makes an informed choice.<br /><br />It reminds me of the novel, <em>"In His Steps"</em> in which a group of church members took a vow that for the next year they would do nothing without first asking themselves the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" How they anwered that question was between them and God. No one else in the group that took the pledge was to question a choice that another member had made. A decision one person made would not be the same decision that another person made. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live like that? Wouldn't it be intensely freeing?<br /><br />I'm not saying that <em>*everyone*</em> inside the church is ungracious; I'm talking more about the institution in general. I think Jesus was right when he said, "If your neighbour is taking you to court and on the way you meet up with him, settle it there." The reason would be it's better if you the two parties can work it out together; the minute you get an institution involved, you end up handing over some (or all) of your autonomy and nobody gets the result they want and often justice isn't served. The same thing with church; it's an institution. It seems to be the nature of institutions. The minute they are involved (whether government or churches), rules, protocol and procedure come into play and the whole goal of the exercise is lost. The rules are there so that people have guidelines of behaviour; so that people can "expect" others to behave in a certain way. The church, sadly, becomes more about keeping the flock in line than showing grace. How often has a person in a church either unconscionably or consciously done something unexpected? I don't need to elaborate; we've all seen the reaction and fallout when that happens.<br /><br />A long time ago, I know of an individual who was going through a tough time (Person "A") and the church didn't make it easy on them. Yet there was one person (Person "B") who stepped up to the plate and went and did something very loving and gracious for Person A. I know some people thought that perhaps Person B was condoning what Person A had done. Who cares? I'm sure what Person B did was a real bright moment during what was otherwise a very very painful time for Person A.<br /><br />Perhaps because we're all walking wounded and it's those that are disturbed by the legalism they've come across in the church that it's those of us who are outside can understand grace more than those inside. (Notice I said <em>*can*</em> not <em>*do*</em>). I'm not perfect - far from it. As I said, I still wrestle with legalism and ungrace. I still lose my temper (as evidenced by my last post). I'm a pilgrim on this road searching for truth - just as you are. Where your path may go, may not be the same as me. And I'm all right with that. I don't expect you to agree with me 100%. Wouldn't it be ironic if I got hate mail for this post? I think it would just go to prove exactly what I've been saying...Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-20165553493171489442009-10-08T16:10:00.000-07:002009-10-31T20:09:31.728-07:00Coming out of the Closet - The FalloutThis is specifically addressed to the person who responded to my blog post and decided to set up a blog themselves to show me the evil of my ways. You can see what they did <a href="http://beginningatmoses.blogspot.com/2009/10/concluding-remarks-on-biblical.html">here</a>. I find it interesting that the person would call his blog <em>"Beginning at Moses"</em>. Considering Moses was the lawgiver, you can see where the person is coming from: legalism and definitely NOT grace.<br /><br />Dear sir,<br /><br />Unless one has spent the time reading all the books on church history, origins of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">christianity</span></span>, religious studies, and watched the hundreds of hours worth of documentaries that we have, then one really can't comment by saying "no contradiction" in one or more blog posts. Once you have read our list of books – and maybe come to a different conclusion, then we can possibly communicate. Then, perhaps, only then can we talk. I know where you are coming from. I’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> been where you are and changed. Yet, you do not know where I am coming from. Until you have walked in my shoes we cannot have a rational discussion about this. I cannot go back to where I was. If you see no contradictions, that's fine. I, for one, do.<br /><br />The comment “bravo” was meant in the original context of the word, “brave” as my husband was proud of me for having the guts to actually speak my mind. I knew the potential consequences and I did it anyway. Because I’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> read dozens and dozens of books on these subjects, it’s hard for me to articulate in an abbreviated space what these authors have said in volumes.<br /><br />It's well known in academic circles that Paul never wrote II Timothy. It’s generally agreed that Paul’s genuine works are: Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Galatians and Philippians. Most Bible Colleges, supposedly, teach that (but the pastors NEVER tell their congregation that). Please see <em>The First Paul </em>by John Dominic <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Crossan</span></span> and Marcus J. Borg. The rest were written “in his name” but not by Paul himself. Today we would call that plagiarism, but no one had issues about it back in the first century. In legal terms, he would have no subject matter jurisdiction to do a raid on the people of Damascus. It was out of his jurisdiction and he had no authority there. I know there are contradictory statements in Acts about Paul’s conversion experience and what Paul says happened in his letters, but I can’t find what book that was in. I think it was <em>The First Paul</em> I mentioned above. Paul was from Tarsus, a seat of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mithas</span></span> cult. (Tarsus/Taurus both meaning “the bull.”) I’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> read convincing arguments that what Paul was doing was basically rewriting the Greek mystery religions for Jews and that he was no Pharisee. No Jew would EVER have drunk blood – it was forbidden in the book of Leviticus. Jesus NEVER would have said, “This is my blood...” as Paul claims - even if it was meant as a symbol. I was stunned when I read that. I should have known that all along. It seemed so obvious to me when I saw it before me, but why <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">hadn</span></span>’t I seen it before? Even you can’t refute that drinking blood was forbidden to the Hebrews.<br /><br />I'm not saying I know it all - heck no. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else. I challenged what I believed - and found it sorely wanting. If you challenge yourself, and it stands, I'm happy for you. For me, the Bible that I thought I knew (and I thought I knew it well) didn't stand up to too much scrutiny. It bothers me that something like Jesus' divinity came down to a vote – by someone like Constantine who had an agenda for political control. Some archaeological digs do support some things about the bible - some don't. It's estimated by the Jesus seminar that up to 84% of what we are told about him in the Bible never happened. And, how do you reconcile the stories of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mithras</span></span>, Adonis, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Attis</span></span> that all <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">pre</span></span>-dated Christ by hundreds of years, or are you going to side with the church fathers who said the devil went back in time and planted the story? Surely you must see how ridiculous that claim is. But before judging me, go read them for yourself. James Frazer’s “The Golden Bough” also retells some of those myths. If you are content with believing that only one of those is history and the others are simply myth, that's all right. I, personally, had to be honest with myself and say I couldn't accept that. The stories are too close to be coincidence. Go and do some research on the cult of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mithras</span></span>. You should be shocked at what you find and how much <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">christianity</span></span> stole from it.<br /><br />These men and women who talk about the contradictions I’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> mentioned have spent their lifetimes doing this work. A lot are people like Bart D. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ehrman</span></span>, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and was (In his own words) "a committed Bible believing christian" and was "certain that the Bible, down to its very words, had been inspired by God. Maybe that’s what drove my intense study… Surely knowing them intimately was the most important thing in life.” Some are like John Shelby <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Spong</span></span>, Episcopal Bishop of Newark for many years before his retirement. Unless you have put in the hours and years of study that these – and other - men have, you can’t just simply dismiss them. To say that, “the heart of all Biblical challenge is spiritual unbelief, not intellectual incompatibility, though the latter is often sited and held onto for dear life, ironic as that is, by those who professing themselves to be wise have become fools” is pompous and arrogant on your part – when you have not walked in these men’s shoes. You do not know them, nor the journeys they took. How dare you be so self-righteous that you would call them deceived by the devil. You should at least listen to what they have to say. How dare you say they don’t know what they are talking about and that their research does not stand. The fact is you say that because you don't want the research to stand, and not because you know anything about them or their work. Your opinion is formed in sheer and utter ignorance. You’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> never read what they’<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">ve</span></span> said, nor read the manuscripts they have. Once you have, then you can form an opinion. Until then, you have no right to speak.<br /><br />The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are <em>NOT</em> sound, and I quote Mr. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ehrman</span></span>, “Matthew left out some names in the fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian disaster. In 1:8, he indicates that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Joram</span></span> is the father of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Uzziah</span></span>. But we know from I Chronicles 3:10-12 that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">Joram</span></span> was not <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">Uzziah</span></span>’s father, but his great-grandfather. In other words, Matthew has dropped three generations from his genealogy.”<br /><br />Do I know what happens when we die? No. And if you were honest, you don’t know either. You believe something. Belief and knowledge are two quite different things. I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">wouldn</span></span>’t be surprised if this is all there is, but I don’t know.<br /><br />I find your accusation that I am a “dead soul” very insulting, especially when you don’t know me. In fact, I find myself in a far happier place spiritually and more healthy emotionally and a more tolerant and gracious person now than when I was a Bible believing christian. I look back on the person I was then with shame. I now consider myself a “<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">gracist</span></span>” and believe that “if it pleases you to please the Lord, then you can please yourself” and I won’t question it. I would just hope that I would receive the same from you. When you spoke of churches “<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">dummying</span></span> down” I do understand what you are talking about. Now that I see things differently, I want to chew on some meat and not the milk I was fed at church. I now read the academic stuff; the books one reads in upper level theology classes. I find the stuff one finds at the average christian bookstore much too <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">dummied</span></span> down for my liking and trite. I consider myself fairly well read, and fairly intelligent – though my academic career is nothing compared to a lot of people. Heck, all I have is a one year Bible Certificate, my paralegal certificate and a love of reading and learning.<br /><br />When I was in Bible College, we had a teacher that said that when he was a pastor, his goal was to work himself out of a job – to get the congregation to the place where he <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">wasn</span></span>’t needed anymore. I remember thinking how brilliant that was of him. As time goes on, I think more of him for it. To bring a person to the point in their (spiritual) life where they can stand on their own should be the goal. I don’t know what psychology you may or may not have studied, but when a person goes for counseling, they can develop “transference” and it’s up to the counselor/psychologist to make sure that transference – as painful as it may be for the patient – is broken. The movie <em>“Holy Smoke”</em> with Kate <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">Winslet</span></span> portrays it quite graphically. Kate’s cult <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error">deprogrammer</span></span>, Harvey <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">Keitel</span></span>, in order to break transference slaps her across the face in order to force her to break from him. Perhaps those that have left the church have broken the transference and have the ability to stand on our own. Perhaps it’s us who “saw through a glass darkly, but now face to face.” My walk is my walk – and yours is yours. Surely after all this time you don’t need someone to tell you how to live your spiritual life. I have a theory that those who are still in the church are still afraid of their father (be it heavenly or earthly) and are too scared to stand on their own and need someone to tell them what to do. Once they grow up and are a little more spiritually mature, they, in theory, should no longer need that. God wants us to be spiritual adults – not simpering, whimpering, cowering children. He gave us brains for a reason: to use them to think. He <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span></span>’t make us robots.<br /><br />As for Genesis, I know of a pastor in the C&MA church who <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span></span>’t think there was a literal tree in a literal garden. I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span></span>’t understand him at the time, but I do now. Are you going to say he’s going to hell for that because you see something different?<br /><br />As for Judas, I suggest that you try and find a copy of <em>“Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil”</em> by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hyam</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error">Maccoby</span></span>. It’s out of print now, but I was fortunate enough to get a copy a few years ago at a reasonable price. His basic premise is that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error">christians</span></span> used the character of Judas as an excuse to propagate 2000 years worth of atrocities on the Jews. Actually, it would appear that Andrew Lloyd <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">Webber</span></span> got it right in his musical <em>“Jesus Christ Superstar”</em> where Jesus tells Judas before the betrayal to (I’m paraphrasing) “wear the black cloak with pride”. The recently discovered Gospel of Judas seems to verify that. If Jesus was solely a spiritual leader, and had nothing to do with politics, why do as many as five of his disciples have ties to political groups (Judas Iscariot being one of them, Simon the Zealot being another). That figure of up to five I remember being told back in my NT class at Northwest Baptist. Are you going to say that he was wrong, too and/or just dismiss it because you don’t agree? Speaking of the disciples, can you even name all twelve? There are contradictions in those lists, too, depending on which gospel you read.<br /><br />In the words of Steve Martin, “You know what your problem is, it’s that you haven’t seen enough movies – all of life’s riddles are answered in the movies." I would also say that there are a lot of life’s riddles answered in books. You need to do more reading – far more than what you can find in your christian bookstore. You need to read books that were written by Jewish scholars like <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hyam</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">Maccoby</span></span>. After all, Jesus was Jewish and who better would understand Jewish culture than a Jew? You need to read books written by academics – real academics from real universities like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, not some bible-paper-mill. People like Elaine <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pagels</span></span>, Bart D. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ehrman</span></span>, etc. The more you learn, the more you will find you don’t know – and that’s the beginning of wisdom: admitting you don’t know. The word virgin did NOT mean a young woman that had not had sex; it meant maiden, an unmarried young woman. It was mistranslated. If <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error">Jeconiah</span></span> was so evil that God took the throne away from his descendants, then why did God promise David that his throne would be established forever? (II Samuel 7:11-16) <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error">Isn</span></span>’t God contradicting himself, which God supposedly cannot do?<br /><br />If you are going to say that God cursed <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error">Jeconiah</span></span> and took the throne away from him because he was so evil, then do you condone the horrors of slavery that were imposed on Africans by their christian “<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error">massers</span></span>” because Ham was cursed by Noah, and Africans are (supposedly) his descendants? That was the justification that “good Christian white folk” used. Are you saying that the estimated nine million Africans that died on slave ships <em>en route </em>to America somehow got what they deserved because of something that supposedly happened several thousand years before? Are you going to condone witch trials because all women were cursed through Eve? Are you saying the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">pogroms</span> and the holocaust were justified because the Jews supposedly rejected Jesus? Surely to be consistent, you must.<br /><br />If someone from the 15<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span></span> or 16<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span></span> Century were to time travel to our time and tell us that the earth was flat and it was the centre of the universe, would we believe him? No. Science has proven that’s not true. If he was to tell us that animals are “automatons” and feel no pain, would we believe him? No. (I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Rene Descartes would say something so stupid). Would we believe him if he said that you <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error">couldn</span></span>’t trust a woman’s word in court simply because she was a woman? No. Would we believe him if he said a woman must be a witch because he came down with a head cold after seeing her in the street (or some such nonsense?) No. Then why would we trust anything he would have to say about religion and the authority of the church? That would also go for the London Baptist confession of faith, too.<br /><br />My hope lies in the fact that, if there is a god, he will not cast anyone out who genuinely seeks truth. I want to know who the historical Jesus was. I want to know, so much that I am willing to go beyond the borders of the playground I was told was safe to play in to find out who he was. Short of going back in time, the best I can do is read about him. No doubt he is disgusted, as I am, at the atrocities that have been – and still are committed in his name. Most recent of which is the Iraq war which President Bush said was to “avert Gog and Magog” and Sarah <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palin</span></span> called, “A Mission from God.” My hope does not rest in a two thousand year old book that that’s unreliable as history and science and contradicts itself. I believe Luther was onto something when he said, “faith alone” but I don’t take everything he says as true as it’s well known he was a raging anti-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error">semite</span></span>, so that taints some of his sayings which coincides with what I said in the previous paragraph.<br /><br />How can I explain how it changes lives? Easy. It’s because deep within us, we passionately want to believe that we are important to God. It reaches deep into our psyche, something very primal. We want to believe there is something more to this life than the miseries we see every day. How can I explain how it’s lasted this long? Again, that’s easy. You obviously don’t know anything about church history and how much control they had to ask such a question. Can I explain why supposedly over 5,000 documents agree? Sure. It’s called <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error">scotoma</span></span>: the eyes see what they want to see. If you are determined not to see errors in the scriptures, you won’t. You are wearing rose coloured glasses. I’m not saying the Bible <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span></span>’t have a place in the world, but I do have problems with everything in it being taken as literal fact, when I’m convinced that not everything is. There was no divine author. The stories were written down by men – sometimes many hundreds of years afterwards. And these men had agendas. If and when you realize that some of it is metaphor, you will find yourself in a much happier place spiritually with new eyes to see. You will see so much more than what is in front of you and see the bible as a richer document and you will wonder why you <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_53" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span></span>’t see it before. As I said in my last post, I am not going to be the one that stands up says which part is which (even though some things are more obvious than others).<br /><br />You just haven’t seen it yet. You may never. Until you do, we cannot communicate. Please do not speak of this again; I do not wish to communicate with you ever again. There is no point, as we will probably never agree and it’s just not worth the time effort, stress and heartache on my part. Until your eyes are opened, this whole exercise is pointless. It’s not because if you don’t agree with me, you <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_54" class="blsp-spelling-error">aren</span>’t welcome to talk to me. It’s just I don’t think there is enough common ground to have a rational discussion. I have made a conscious point of weeding out people like you from my life: legalistic <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_55" class="blsp-spelling-error">christians</span> that really don’t understand grace. What gives you the right to say to me "Turn to Him"? What gives you the right to ask me when last I asked the Lord for guidance? How dare you presume I don't. Who made me answerable to you? Arrogant, ignorant, condescending, paternalistic, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_56" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">chauvinistic</span>, holier-than-thou attitudes and beliefs wrapped in the hypocrisy of “caring” like what you have displayed are what drove me and millions like me from the church. The Inquisitors said the same thing when they were torturing their victims: they were doing it for the good of the person’s soul. Based on your comments, I think in another day and age you would have been one of them – persecuting anyone who disagreed with you. Perhaps no one (especially a woman) has ever dared say these things to you, but since I will not be communicating with you ever again, I have no problem of telling you exactly what I think of you. Your brand of "<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_57" class="blsp-spelling-error">christianity</span>" needs to die. The sooner the better.<br /><br />You may never have the eyes to see, but I pray your children do one day.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-40157930779274330792009-10-03T23:53:00.000-07:002009-10-03T13:07:38.769-07:00It's Time to Come out of the ClosetHa! Bet that title got your attention. I guess it's time I do something I normally don't do: talk about something personal on the Internet. This is going to be a very long post. Okay, let's start:<br /><br />I was raised a (Protestant) Christian, went to Catholic elementary school, a horrible Pentecostal high school, and Baptist Bible College. I always got "A's" in anything to do with religion or the Bible. I sailed through my One Year Bible Certificate at Bible College. I was heavily involved in church and church-related activities. I sang in the choir, led music teams, taught Sunday School, was on the Missions Committee, etc. etc. I believed the Bible was the literal, inerrant word of God, that Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth to die for our sins and that all who believed in his message of salvation would go to Heaven.<br /><br />Yet, deep down, I always had issues. I struggled with a lot of things. How could a loving God demand that the Israelites wipe out whole communities of people, including innocent children? These were people that didn't have the chance to hear about the Israelite god or given a chance to convert, and God demands they are wiped out and sent to Hell? I had problems with that big time. I saw one or two other things in the Bible that bothered me, too: why are there two stories of Judas' death in the New Testament? One is in Matthew 27, the other in the first Chapter of Acts. One says he hangs himself, and the other says he trips in a field and his intestines spilled out. There was no way I could reconcile the two stories. Then there were the crucifixion stories where one gospel says that the thieves that were crucified with Jesus both reviled him and another says that one begged Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom. Okay, I could gloss over that one a bit. Two different people at the crucifixion were there at slightly different times. One missed the thief begging for forgiveness. Yet, still it bothered me.<br /><br />It also bothered me that no matter how hard I struggled with my weaknesses, they never improved. No matter how much I really tried - and I did - I just kept failing. It was discouraging. I would continually fall into despair and dejection and a vicious cycle of legalism. I looked around at the people I was in church with and found myself incredibly lonely; I must be a very bad person if I was wrestling with this stuff - it seemed they had it easy. No one else seemed to be wrestling with the issues and questions I was. I just kept getting told to "have faith." I found those platitudes really unhelpful and insulting. I learned to keep my mouth shut.<br /><br />Then, one day, I met DH. It was refreshing to talk to him, as he had wrestled with the same isues and questions. He suggested that there were others that had, too. In fact, a of of very intelligent people wrestled with those same issues. When I read Freud's <em>"The Future of An Illusion"</em>, I was blown away by his statement that we try to gain god's approval as the same way we tried to gain our father's. It was true. I knew it. That's exactly what we do. DH also talked a lot about "radical" grace. It helped me see things in a new light. For several years I was still a mainstream christian and still believed, but then something else happened: I had an epiphany; a crisis. My world was ripped apart, and I would never see things in the same way. It was Easter 2001 and I read a book called, <em>"The Hiram Key"</em>. It was a history of freemasonry; I wasn't expecting anything too radical, and I was interested in the masons and the Templars. But there was something in the early chapters that changed my outlook on everything I'd ever been told. In that book, there was a list of demi-gods that were born to human mothers and divine fathers around Christmas and sacrificed/crucified around Easter. Here are some of them: Mithras, Adonis, Attis, Dionysis. I was stunned - and these all predated Christ by hundreds of years. In all my readings, I'd never heard of any of this. I'd never even heard of Mithras. That was it. In that moment, it was like "scales fell from my eyes" and I never saw things the same. There was no way that I could dismiss the rest of those demi-god stories as myth and say that the one that I was raised to believe was the only one that was historically true. There was too much that could just be dismissed lightly. That was the end for me. From that point on, I could no longer accept Christianity as literally true. I walked away never to return. I've since done more readings that include those names and more. If you read Fraser's<em> "Golden Bough"</em> you'll come across more myths that are very much the same as the Jesus story. In fact, the parallels between Jesus and Mithras are so close, it's scary. So much so that the early church fathers claimed that the devil went back in time and screwed with the space time continuum and planted the story. Yeah. Right. It's sad to think that a lot of people bought that nonsense.<br /><br />Around the time I started reading <em>"The Hiram Key,"</em> DH was reading a book called, <em>"The Templar Revelation"</em> and, at one point, he leaped out of his chair and said, "Have you seen the Last Supper?" I said, "Of course I've seen the Last Supper." He asked me to pull up a picture online, and I did. He pointed out the person sitting on Jesus' right (our left) and he said, "That's a woman." I had to agree; it looked like a woman to me. Little did we know that within two years, millions more people would see it too with the publication of <em>"The DaVinci Code"</em> but I'm getting ahead of myself. It was one of those moments you never forget. You look at the painting, and look at it and wonder why you hadn't seen it before. It could very well be scotoma: the eye seeing what it wants to see. Does that mean that I <em>want</em> to see a woman now? Perhaps. I'm not ruling that out. Art historians claim that John was often painted very effeminate looking (look at Leondardo's painting of John the Baptist to see what I'm talking about. You can see it <a href="http://www.bestpriceart.com/vault/wgart_-art-l-leonardo-04-6stjohn.jpg">here</a><br /><br />The next year (2002) I read, <em>"The Holy Blood, Holy Grail"</em> "(<em>"HBHG"</em>). DH had been trying to get me to read that for quite some time and I was now ready. I was captivated from the first chapter. It started with the atmosphere of a detective novel about a priest called Bérenger Saunière in southern France in a small place called Rennes Le Chateau. The priest found "something" under his church and suddenly he became <em>VERY</em> wealthy. He was visited by all sorts of important people and even went to Rome. He never spoke of where the money came from. There is some talk that he trafficked in masses, but that doesn't explain how filthy rich he was. When he died in 1916, he was refused the last rites by the attending bishop who walked out of the room ashen faced. The writers went on to hypothesize that what Saunière found was documentation that proved there was a bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that the royal houses of Europe traced their ancestry back to them ("the divine right of kings"). That line of kings were called the Merovingians. They were later betrayed by the Catholic Church who replaced them with the Carolingian line.<br /><br />Now, I'm not saying everything the authors said was right - even they don't claim that. Yet somehow, it made a lot of sense to me. The Hebrew word "messiah" meant earthly king; it was <em>not </em>meant to be a heavenly king. The Jews were right in expecting that. It also made sense to me that the Jews would have kept track of David's royal bloodline and heirs. No, I'm not talking about the census in the Gospel of Luke; historically, that never happened. Augustus <em>NEVER</em> ordered such a census. We have excellent records of that period of Roman history and there was no such census ordered. It would have been logistically impossible. Also, Herod was dead by the time Jesus was born (approximately 4 B.C.) and he (Herod) was not contemporary with Quirinus who Luke claims was governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born). While reading <em>HBHG</em> and it's sequel, <em>"The Messianic Legacy"</em> I could literally feel the physical healing of my soul.<br /><br />Yet, I was confused. I was in a place Joseph Campbell would call "The Dark Night of the Soul" and I wasn't sure where I stood on a lot of things. I was convinced that a lot of the Bible was metaphorically true and not historically true. I was sure that Jesus giving a blind man sight could easily be giving him the gift of spiritual sight and curing spiritual blindness and not curing physical blindness. To me, they were both miracles. Was I going to stand up and say, "This one is history; this one is metaphor? No way.<br /><br />The more I read about the early church and church history, the more repulsed and angry I became. Constantine was no christian; he was lifelong member of the Sol Invictus/Mithras cult and converted to Christianity on his deathbed. (I've wanted to trademark that phrase for a long time now: "Constantine: The Original Deathbed Catholic"). I found it very easy to believe that there was an agenda to cover up the fact that Jesus was married and possibly fathered children. On one side, there was the matter of secrecy, in order to ensure the survival of the family and, two, there was the agenda of disparaging Magdalene (and thereby denegrating all women) as the church fathers were misogynists. It's estimated that millions of European women were denounced as witches and tortured to death by the church. And guess who benefited? The Church. For the lands and properties of those victims of witch killings were seized by the Church. One tends to think there had to be more motivation than just the elimination of heresy: it was greed. Today, when I see photos of St. Peter's and the Sistine Chapel, I no longer see the beauty, I see blood money and I am repulsed. I think to myself, "How many innocent women paid the ultimate price for this?" Monty Python got it right in their scene involving a witch trial in <em>"Monty Python and the Holy Grail."</em> You can see the scene <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g">here</a>. You may laugh, (and it <em>is</em> funny) but if you know church history, sadly, the logic they follow is fairly accurate. In an episode of the Simpsons where they recount the Pilgrims coming to America, Bart denounces Lisa as a witch. Her response is, "Bart, the ability to do double-digit addition does not make one a witch." (or words to that effect, I'm can't find the exact wording). And I'm only talking about women; the church's treatment of Jews is another matter. It's shocking to think that the attitude that "the Jews killed Jesus" still persists. The facts are they didn't. Jesus was crucified, which was a Roman form of execution - not Jewish. The Jews used stoning as a form of execution. Since Jesus was not stoned to death, but crucified, the Jews were <em>NOT</em> responsible for his death. Sadly, it's led to a lot of horrors perpetrated against them: pogroms, expulsions, and, of course, the holocaust.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this was all before <em>The DaVinci Code </em>was published. As DH said, "I'm so glad you read all that stuff before it became cool to believe it." When <em>The DaVinci Code </em>was published in 2003, I knew I would have to read it, and I did. My only problem with reading the book was that I knew where he was going with the story; we'd read the same books. DH never read it (he very rarely reads fiction), but we saw the movie opening weekend and he was impressed and said, "He [Dan Brown] did his homework." When DH had read <em>"HBHG"</em> way back in the 80's he said he felt the premise would make for a good thriller and said Dan Brown did a far better job than he ever could have with it.<br /><br />I am constantly amused and frustrated at the vitriol that is thrown at the book. Come on, people. It's fiction. To me the arguments they throw at it are "straw man" arguments; they weren't attacking the real issue. If you want to address the real issues Dan Brown raises, then attack <em>"HBHG" </em>and the other books like <em>"The Templar Revelation"</em> that Dan Brown used as the basis for his research - the books that are non-fiction. The one argument that amuses me that people raise is, "If Jesus was married, it would be in the Bible." Well, I'm not sure about you, but I see a lot of information missing about Jesus in the Bible: What were his first words? How old was he when he began to walk? What subjects did he like in school? Who were his playmates? What were his favourite foods? etc. etc. The Bible is not some reality t.v. or <em>"The Truman Show"</em> where the cameras were on him 24 hours a day capturing his every moment for posterity. The Bible never said Jesus (to quote the Steven Curtis Chapman song), "...cried when he was hungry; did all the things that babies do. He rocked and he napped in his mother's lap and wriggled and giggled and cooed." The Bible never talks about those things, but one can assume that they happened since Jesus was fully human. I've heard arguments from an evangelical perspective (can't remember where, but it might have been at bible college) where I was told that, based on Hebrew culture at the time, that it would have been unusual for Jesus <em><strong>not to</strong></em> have been married, as it was a Jewish young man's <em><strong>duty</strong></em> to marry and bear sons.<br /><br />Okay, so if it would have been normal for Jesus to have been married, who would be the most likely candidate based on what we know? It seems (almost) obvious: Mary Magdalene. Legends persisted that she went to France after the crucifixion taking the grail with her and was accompanied by a "dark-skinned servant girl" named Sarah. Woah, nelly. <em>San greal</em> (Holy Grail) was probably a copyist's error; it should read <em>sang real, </em>which means royal blood, or blood royal. Think of the drink sangria: it's red. So, Mary Magdalene goes to France with the blood royal accompanied by a servant girl named Sarah? If you know the meaning of the name Sarah, you should be stunned: it means princess. Is it so far fetched to believe that someone who was fleeing for their life and wanted to conceal her child's royal connections would refer to her as a "servant" (think of both Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament - they both did the same thing when it came to their wives; they referred to them as "sisters"). Is it so hard to believe that people would have had to cloak this in metaphor and symbols for the protection of the family?<br /><br />In order to tarnish Magdalene's reputation, the Church called her a prostitute. She was no such thing - yet the stigma remains. There was a Jewish tradition that God had a wife, but the Catholic Church did all they could to wipe out the sacred feminine. However, belief in the "goddess" survived. She was transplanted in the belief that Mary, the mother of god (not Mary Magdalene) is the Queen of Heaven and the intermediary between man and God. (Hey, that's what I was taught at Catholic School). The final scene of the mini-series "<em>The Mists of Avalon"</em> depicts it beautifully. You can see it: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diutr0B8Iwg&feature=PlayList&p=4796E1983CCD619C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=36">here</a>. That's Julianna Margulies as Morgaine (Morgana Lefay) who is also narrating the scene.<br /><br />I know that C.S. Lewis said that Jesus was either a lunatic, liar or Lord. But, as I read in Bart Ehrman's <em>"Jesus Interrupted"</em>, Lewis was missing another category: legend. I am fairly convinced that there was a Jesus (though Jesus is a title, and not a name). I've read convincing arguments that Jesus was a pharisee. If that was true, that would be an even stronger argument that Jesus was married, as you had to be married in order to be a pharisee.<br /><br />This brings us to the other night when we watched a documentary called <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Bloodline-Bruce-Burgess/dp/B001DRF824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254595366&sr=1-1">"Bloodline</a>". We were unsure if it was going to shed any new information on the subject, and we were both stunned. For guess what? It would appear that they have found Mary Magdalene's tomb <em>in France</em> - just as the stories claimed she was. In the words of the first Lord of the Rings movie: <strong><em>History became legend. Legend became myth - and for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.</em></strong> Yes, Tolkien was in on it, too. He knew. Aragorn was definitely a Merovingian. Aragorn's father, just like St. Dagobert (a Merovingian king who was betrayed and murdered) was killed with a spear through his eye, and Aragorn had the ability to heal, which was characteristic of the Merovingian kings.<br /><br />Don't shoot the messenger. In the words of the <em>X Files:</em> "The truth is out there" for those that wish to see. History proves that Christianity is built on nothing but a pack of cards, violence, and lies. It's high time that Christianity as we know it is destroyed. Go read for yourself. Here are a list of books I've read that have highly influenced me:<br /><br /><em>Holy Blood, Holy Grail</em> by Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh;<br /><em>The Woman with the Alabaster Jar</em> by Margaret Starbird;<br /><em>Mary Magdalene - Christianity's Hidden Goddess</em> by Lynn Picknett;<br /><em>Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contraditions in the Bible (and why we don't know about them)</em> by Bart D. Ehrman;<br /><em>Jesus for the Non-Religious</em> by John Shelby Spong;<br /><em>The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity</em> by Hyam Maccoby;<br /><em>Jesus the Pharisee</em> by Hyam Maccoby;<br /><br />If you read the same books and come to a different conclusion, I don't mind. I was shocked to discover so many contradictions in the Bible. There's a lot more than I believed possible. I have no issues with people that challenge their spiritual beliefs and may come to a different place. As the pastor that married DH and I once said, "There is truth in all places." For me, this was where my journey took me. In no way am I saying that I have all the answers. In fact, the more I read, the more I realize I don't know and am always open to re-evaluating my beliefs. New archealogical discoveries are always being made; new books are always being written. Do I still consider myself a christian? Yes and No. Yes, because it's the mythology that's influenced me the most. No because I don't believe the doctrinal statements. I consider myself somewhat of an "emergent christian". I refuse to ever again attend a regular church, but enjoy discussing religious issues and subjects with DH and a few other friends who no longer attend church. I do miss the sense of community, but I just don't fit in anymore - and there's no going back. What has been seen, cannot be unseen. Do I believe in God? Perhaps - but certainly not the vengeful, bloodthirsty god that's depicted in the Old Testament. Yet, I've seen too much of some divine guidance (for lack of another word) to completely dismiss a spiritual realm.<br /><br />In the words of Bill Maher, in his documentary <em>"Religulous",</em> (which I highly recommend) "If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler - a mafia wife."<br /><br />But one thing I am sure of, I WILL NOT be a mafia wife any longer. I wasted over 30 years of my life believing something that was nothing more than mythology and a fairy tale. I plan to spend the rest of my life working to bring it down. If you've made it this far doing this extremely long post, thank you.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-32632718542078788852009-09-16T10:00:00.000-07:002018-05-12T14:09:14.556-07:00Mr. President, I agree with you.Something President Obama and I agree on: Kanye West is a "jackass". <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/6196938/Kanye-West-Barack-Obama-jackass-tape-posted-by-TMZ.html">Here's</a> the story.<br /><br />Sunday night, at the VMA's, rapper Kanye West made another of his imfamous classless moves during Taylor Swift's acceptance of her award for Best Female Video. He left his seat, went up on the stage, took the microphone away from Taylor and said that Beyoncé had one of the best videos "of all time." The camera panned to the seated Beyoncé, who was clearly embarressed at West's remarks.<br /><br />This is a guy that's famous for charging the stage when he lost an award in Europe and for claiming in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that President Bush, "Didn't care about black people." I really wonder at the mentality of someone that doesn't realize how ridiculous it makes them look. What kind of a person would deliberately ruin someone's moment to shine? Even if Beyoncé did make it up to Taylor later (which was the right thing to do) the moment was still ruined. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to his opinions. He does. It's what he did - and in the name of someone else.<br /><br />Some people really shouldn't open their mouths in public.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-73876786294121161462009-09-15T21:58:00.000-07:002009-09-16T09:16:45.584-07:00R.I.P Patrick SwayzeIn a year that seems to have claimed more than its fair share of Hollywood-types, late yesterday afternoon we learned that actor Patrick Swayze had died after valiantly battling pancreatic cancer for over a year.<br /><br />I was very saddened to hear this. Though I wouldn't consider myself a *fan* per se, I did like him and I liked the movies that I'd seen him in. Not only was he handsome, but he was talented. Back in the 80's and early 90's when musicals were out of style, he was one of the few "triple threats" in Hollywood that could sing, act and dance. Now that musicals are "back" we're seeing a few more people show off their singing and dancing skills, like Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellwegger, Richard Gere, Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, Meryl Streep, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman to name a few. Personally, I would have liked to have seen what Swayze would have done with the role of Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago; not that Richard Gere was bad (he was quite good) but I think Swayze also could have pulled it off. (He placed the role in the Broadway revival).<br /><br />I'm not sure which role I liked him best in. It's a toss up between Ghost and North and South. I loved him in both of those. Yes, he was also very good in Dirty Dancing, but it's those two that have a special place in my heart. I always felt it was a pity he didn't become a bigger star than he was.<br /><p>He was not one of those who was in the tabloids; he kept out of the limelight pretty much - that's something I liked. His 34 year marriage to wife Lisa Niemi was another. It's not often you read of that in Hollywood, the graveyard of so many marriages. </p><p>He fought his disease with courage and dignity and brought attention to a cancer that has a 90% fatality rate. </p><p>Rest well, Patrick. You will be missed.<br /></p>Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-29944613832641126152009-08-31T20:27:00.000-07:002009-08-31T20:53:42.822-07:00Sleep Well Sweet Princess.Wow. Time sure does past fast. It was one of those evenings that started off like normal. It was Saturday, August 30th, 1997. I was over at a family friend's where we were doing needlework and watching old movies. We used to do this a lot.<br /><br />Then sometime around 8:00, we heard that Princess Diana had been in a car accident. I distinctly remember thinking, "She'll be all right. She's Diana." We turned off the movie and turned on the tv to CNN. Within minutes it was confirmed that Diana was indeed dead. I was devastated. <br /><br />I stayed way past midnight, glued to the tv. When I got home, I continued watching. It was surreal. I couldn't believe it. It just couldn't be true. I finally went to bed sometime around 3:00 a.m. It was then that I let loose all the tears I'd been holding back and cried myself to sleep.<br /><br />I felt like I had lost a friend. I had been an admirer of hers since 1981. She had her faults; we all do. I don't agree with some of the decisions that she made in her personal life - but who am I to judge? <br /><br />I was in London the summer she got married. Almost every store was decorated for the event and selling memorabilia of some kind. It was then that began my love of all things royal.<br /><br />I met her in 1986 when Prince Charles and Diana came to Expo 86. My best friend and I got up very early and waited three hours at Central Park to see them. It was worth it. We couldn't believe our luck when they rolled out the red carpet right in front of us. There was a child next to me getting squashed against the barricade. Diana bent down to talk to the child and said, "Dear, are you squashed?" She straightened up and looked around at her bodyguards and said, "Can't we do something?" Prince Charles shook his head and said, "It happens everywhere we go." I managed to hand her a single red rose and a note. I even managed to snap a few pictures. I was struck by her beauty. She was stunning. No picture ever captured how truly beautiful she really was - I'm not exxagerating. The afternoon I met her was the day she fainted in the California Pavillion at Expo 86. A few days later, I received a reply to my note. It's a treasured momento (even if was only signed by her secretary). <br /><br />It's so sad that someone so beautiful was snatched away so young. Thirty-six is far too young to die. To think that her death was completely unnecesary. For all that I don't really care that much for Prince Charles, it is a credit to him that William and Harry have turned out so well. <br /><br />Rest well, Diana.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3918464762167210922.post-15316008460779918002009-07-30T21:03:00.000-07:002009-07-30T21:04:48.401-07:00Happy BirthdayWow. Time sure has flown. My little blog is two years old today. Not that I post as often as I should. I'll try to do better; I seem to post in fits and starts. Here's hoping this starts a few flurry of posts.<br /><br />Here's to the first two years - and to more to come.Heatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13285209101550051403noreply@blogger.com1