![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I hate buying furniture. This is why my furniture is over ten years old and falling apart. Because I hate buying it. Everything about it -- making a decision, spending money on it, worrying about whether it is assembled and will arrive in one piece. I cannot assemble it. I am not handy. And I do not know people who are that are willing to help with that sort of thing.
Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a Broadway musical or a vacation. I don't like spending money on furniture. I realize this makes me a wee bit eccentric, but there it is.
Sorry for the rent, but I've been looking for pre-assembled arm chairs on the internet again. Crate and Barrell's are ridiculously expensive, but Pottery Barn may be doable, assuming of course they are preassembled like Crate and Barrell. Wayfair's weren't. You have to put on the legs, which may be doable.
2. Reading Meme
I'm reading two books at the moment. Neither are exactly "enthralling me" and I feel this weird craving for a gooey romance novel. What can I say, it's that time of month and I've an itch I need to scratch. (Too Much Info? Tough boogies. I'm also cranky. Again that time of month. And well, it's cold, March, everything looks dead -- although some things are making a valiant effort to sprout even if the frigging weather can't make up its mind. Today - 20 degrees, tomorrow - 50 degrees, Sat - 60 degrees...no wonder the plants are confused. I'm confused.)
Book 1: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams --- I'm at loss as to why people adore this book so much. Feel sort of left out actually. I really want to love this book. I keep trying to love the book. I keep thinking something will happen and I'll love it. (Uhm..58% of the way in and it doesn't look good.)
Had the same reaction to Terry Prachett and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens, and Gaiman's American Gods. Everyone online adore the books, I was going to sleep on the train reading them. My sense of humor is rather dry and I've never understood the appeal of puns. No one in my family does. In fact it took us a while to come up with an example of a pun. Your brain either works that way or it really doesn't.
I guess if you relate to the character of Arthur Dent, it works for you? Or maybe you just love satire and sketch comedy? Or puns? Or play on words? Or you aren't into character driven stories/relationships and you prefer a book that has a lot of philosophy and speculative science and absurdity? I don't know. (shrugs). I honestly can't figure out why people love this book and it just isn't working for me. Feel sort of embarrassed that I don't love it. Like I missed the boat or something. Is there anyone out there who isn't a huge fan of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Who is willing to admit it??? I mean reading and loving this book seems to be a geek right of passage.
I'm sticking with it...because I'm 58% of the way through and I can't remember what happens next, even though I saw the film. It's no better or any more memorable than the film in my opinion. I think I may have gotten the wrong copy of the book? And there's another really good version of the book out there...you ever wonder that when reading reviews or reading a book that your friends LOVED and you...just didn't? That maybe they got a better copy? Or version? And you got the wrong one?
It does feel that way sometimes. As if we are just reading different books.
I've read that people experience/perceive reality differently. So, while watching television tonight I was struck by how limited my own perception of things is. I can't see the entire room without turning my head, and even then, nope. A mouse could be living in my apartment with me and I'd never know it. Well not unless I got a cat.
Book #2 -- good transition to the other book I'm reading for a Religious Ed class that I'm taking at Church, more as a means to get more involved with church than anything else, also to learn more about the Unitarian Universalist view of Christianity, which is a bit different than everyone else's and I'm discovering closest to my own. (And here I was thinking that no one else perceived it the way I did.)
The book is ...I can never remember the name of it..."Christ for Unitarian Universalists - A New Discussion" (UU's deal with Christianity from a more rational basis than most Christian faiths, yet also look at it from a religious or spiritual perspective. There are a lot of Christian UU's and theist UU's...I'm a theist/Christian UU in my own way. Also, I know more about religion than people realize...because I've studied in in school, in religious studies, and attended various churches, etc. I find religion interesting and theology interesting. But I would not describe myself as religious -- religion irritates me at times. I am NOT a fan of ritual. I try to do rituals, but they seem silly to me and I can never remember them. It's not deliberate, I just forget to do them. Sort of similar to the rules to various card games. In one ear, out the other.)
Anyhow the portion of the book that I've read to date, which the first two-three chapters, discusses the difference between the pre-Easter Jesus and Post-Easter Jesus or rather, historical Jesus who actually existed, and the Jesus of Faith that his Disciples wrote extensively about in the Gospels, and believed in and experienced post Easter. They wrote the Gospels 40-70 years after he died. Think about that for a minute. And many of the phrases they attributed to him, he never said or spoke while alive.
What is interesting, or rather never really occurred to me before but I sort of always intuitively believed...is that both the Pre-Easter (Historical) Jesus and Post-Easter Jesus (or Jesus of Faith) are real in their own way. It's about perception or rather how one perceives reality. The people who wrote the Gospels, experienced post-Easter Jesus, they heard him, they saw him, he was real to them.
It wasn't just "belief", they felt his presence, to them he was real. And to them, he was the "Living God" or the embodiment of God or the Son of God.
This does not mean that the historical Jesus was any less real. The one who historical record states existed, was a son of a carpenter, at the age of 30, took off on spiritual quest and became a follower of John the Baptist, then started his own movement, with many of John the Baptist's followers joining him. He was an activist of sorts. And some of his actions got him into trouble with the authorities, leading to his execution. He was also a spiritual advisor, prophet and wise man. Who preached that people should turn the other cheek, not resort to violence, care for one another, take care of the sick and infirm, and poor. He had major issues with the dominant class and the class discrepancies. To him the Kingdom of God was on earth...and could be actualized on earth -- by caring for others and letting go of worldly desires. He didn't see himself as the Messiah or the King or the Son of God per se. He just wanted to make the world a kinder place. (That's the historical record of Jesus, outside of the Gospels. Written by Tactus - Roman historian and other historians during the time period and found in the records.)
Post-Easter Jesus, the one of spirit and faith is another matter, and who's to say he's not real? People did experience and perceive him. Paul changed his entire system of belief and his views after an interaction with Post-Easter Jesus. How people perceive and saw him varies.
It is possible to believe in both or perceive both as real. It's possible to believe in the second one, post-easter Jesus without seeing him as the son of God or God. There's different ways of perceiving this.
It's...sort of like how you view Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You either "grok" it or not. Heck it's like the word "grok" -- it either makes sense or not...or something in between. There are a million different ways that the human mind, soul, spirit can perceive reality. We do have a choice in the matter, not a lot, but some. At least that's what I've discovered lately.
And however you perceive something...I think is an individual and personal thing. I don't think there is a good or right or wrong way of perceiving things necessarily. I think it just is. No value judgement needs to be placed on it. Which I think is a problem in our culture, too often we feel the need to place value judgements on things. (ie. You don't LOVE Hitchhiker's Guide? What is WRONG with you! Or you don't LOVE Buffy? You are crazy! You Believe in Jesus? Seriously? ...when the truth is, people just think differently and perceive differently. I think this is very hard to deal with emotionally and to understand. I know it is hard for me. Until I find myself on the opposite side of the argument, where all the cool people love say Hitchhiker's Guide and I don't. That's when I realize that...perception varies and that's okay.)
Anyhow...this book is examining how that is okay and the difference/distinctions between the Jesus who existed or the rational/scientific/factual view or the Jesus of the mind and the Jesus of faith, the one who people felt in their bodies and souls, and perceive through the hearts.
Reality and perception are funky things.
Personally, I'd rather spend the money on a Broadway musical or a vacation. I don't like spending money on furniture. I realize this makes me a wee bit eccentric, but there it is.
Sorry for the rent, but I've been looking for pre-assembled arm chairs on the internet again. Crate and Barrell's are ridiculously expensive, but Pottery Barn may be doable, assuming of course they are preassembled like Crate and Barrell. Wayfair's weren't. You have to put on the legs, which may be doable.
2. Reading Meme
I'm reading two books at the moment. Neither are exactly "enthralling me" and I feel this weird craving for a gooey romance novel. What can I say, it's that time of month and I've an itch I need to scratch. (Too Much Info? Tough boogies. I'm also cranky. Again that time of month. And well, it's cold, March, everything looks dead -- although some things are making a valiant effort to sprout even if the frigging weather can't make up its mind. Today - 20 degrees, tomorrow - 50 degrees, Sat - 60 degrees...no wonder the plants are confused. I'm confused.)
Book 1: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Addams --- I'm at loss as to why people adore this book so much. Feel sort of left out actually. I really want to love this book. I keep trying to love the book. I keep thinking something will happen and I'll love it. (Uhm..58% of the way in and it doesn't look good.)
Had the same reaction to Terry Prachett and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens, and Gaiman's American Gods. Everyone online adore the books, I was going to sleep on the train reading them. My sense of humor is rather dry and I've never understood the appeal of puns. No one in my family does. In fact it took us a while to come up with an example of a pun. Your brain either works that way or it really doesn't.
I guess if you relate to the character of Arthur Dent, it works for you? Or maybe you just love satire and sketch comedy? Or puns? Or play on words? Or you aren't into character driven stories/relationships and you prefer a book that has a lot of philosophy and speculative science and absurdity? I don't know. (shrugs). I honestly can't figure out why people love this book and it just isn't working for me. Feel sort of embarrassed that I don't love it. Like I missed the boat or something. Is there anyone out there who isn't a huge fan of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Who is willing to admit it??? I mean reading and loving this book seems to be a geek right of passage.
I'm sticking with it...because I'm 58% of the way through and I can't remember what happens next, even though I saw the film. It's no better or any more memorable than the film in my opinion. I think I may have gotten the wrong copy of the book? And there's another really good version of the book out there...you ever wonder that when reading reviews or reading a book that your friends LOVED and you...just didn't? That maybe they got a better copy? Or version? And you got the wrong one?
It does feel that way sometimes. As if we are just reading different books.
I've read that people experience/perceive reality differently. So, while watching television tonight I was struck by how limited my own perception of things is. I can't see the entire room without turning my head, and even then, nope. A mouse could be living in my apartment with me and I'd never know it. Well not unless I got a cat.
Book #2 -- good transition to the other book I'm reading for a Religious Ed class that I'm taking at Church, more as a means to get more involved with church than anything else, also to learn more about the Unitarian Universalist view of Christianity, which is a bit different than everyone else's and I'm discovering closest to my own. (And here I was thinking that no one else perceived it the way I did.)
The book is ...I can never remember the name of it..."Christ for Unitarian Universalists - A New Discussion" (UU's deal with Christianity from a more rational basis than most Christian faiths, yet also look at it from a religious or spiritual perspective. There are a lot of Christian UU's and theist UU's...I'm a theist/Christian UU in my own way. Also, I know more about religion than people realize...because I've studied in in school, in religious studies, and attended various churches, etc. I find religion interesting and theology interesting. But I would not describe myself as religious -- religion irritates me at times. I am NOT a fan of ritual. I try to do rituals, but they seem silly to me and I can never remember them. It's not deliberate, I just forget to do them. Sort of similar to the rules to various card games. In one ear, out the other.)
Anyhow the portion of the book that I've read to date, which the first two-three chapters, discusses the difference between the pre-Easter Jesus and Post-Easter Jesus or rather, historical Jesus who actually existed, and the Jesus of Faith that his Disciples wrote extensively about in the Gospels, and believed in and experienced post Easter. They wrote the Gospels 40-70 years after he died. Think about that for a minute. And many of the phrases they attributed to him, he never said or spoke while alive.
What is interesting, or rather never really occurred to me before but I sort of always intuitively believed...is that both the Pre-Easter (Historical) Jesus and Post-Easter Jesus (or Jesus of Faith) are real in their own way. It's about perception or rather how one perceives reality. The people who wrote the Gospels, experienced post-Easter Jesus, they heard him, they saw him, he was real to them.
It wasn't just "belief", they felt his presence, to them he was real. And to them, he was the "Living God" or the embodiment of God or the Son of God.
This does not mean that the historical Jesus was any less real. The one who historical record states existed, was a son of a carpenter, at the age of 30, took off on spiritual quest and became a follower of John the Baptist, then started his own movement, with many of John the Baptist's followers joining him. He was an activist of sorts. And some of his actions got him into trouble with the authorities, leading to his execution. He was also a spiritual advisor, prophet and wise man. Who preached that people should turn the other cheek, not resort to violence, care for one another, take care of the sick and infirm, and poor. He had major issues with the dominant class and the class discrepancies. To him the Kingdom of God was on earth...and could be actualized on earth -- by caring for others and letting go of worldly desires. He didn't see himself as the Messiah or the King or the Son of God per se. He just wanted to make the world a kinder place. (That's the historical record of Jesus, outside of the Gospels. Written by Tactus - Roman historian and other historians during the time period and found in the records.)
Post-Easter Jesus, the one of spirit and faith is another matter, and who's to say he's not real? People did experience and perceive him. Paul changed his entire system of belief and his views after an interaction with Post-Easter Jesus. How people perceive and saw him varies.
It is possible to believe in both or perceive both as real. It's possible to believe in the second one, post-easter Jesus without seeing him as the son of God or God. There's different ways of perceiving this.
It's...sort of like how you view Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You either "grok" it or not. Heck it's like the word "grok" -- it either makes sense or not...or something in between. There are a million different ways that the human mind, soul, spirit can perceive reality. We do have a choice in the matter, not a lot, but some. At least that's what I've discovered lately.
And however you perceive something...I think is an individual and personal thing. I don't think there is a good or right or wrong way of perceiving things necessarily. I think it just is. No value judgement needs to be placed on it. Which I think is a problem in our culture, too often we feel the need to place value judgements on things. (ie. You don't LOVE Hitchhiker's Guide? What is WRONG with you! Or you don't LOVE Buffy? You are crazy! You Believe in Jesus? Seriously? ...when the truth is, people just think differently and perceive differently. I think this is very hard to deal with emotionally and to understand. I know it is hard for me. Until I find myself on the opposite side of the argument, where all the cool people love say Hitchhiker's Guide and I don't. That's when I realize that...perception varies and that's okay.)
Anyhow...this book is examining how that is okay and the difference/distinctions between the Jesus who existed or the rational/scientific/factual view or the Jesus of the mind and the Jesus of faith, the one who people felt in their bodies and souls, and perceive through the hearts.
Reality and perception are funky things.
no subject
Date: 2017-03-24 07:40 am (UTC)I had the same reaction as you recently to the original Howard the Duck comics, which are similar in many ways.
no subject
Date: 2017-03-24 10:38 pm (UTC)That's actually a really good summation of my experience of this story so far. A lot of seemingly random, absurdities happening, while the characters jump around asking what it all means. I'm guessing Addams was not particularly happy with his life? He goes on a lot of side-tangents that have zip to do with the story, but were kept in because mildly amusing on their own.
Never read the Howard the Duck comics...tried to watch the movie once, did not get very far.