The line between good and evil runs down each of our hearts

The other day we addressed in class if humans are naturally evil or good.  I had previously done some research on the topic and this is what I have concluded based on looking at the bible and consulting my dad.
In the beginning it was good, everything was good including people. But sin came and took everything that was once good and corrupted it, including people. At this point humans have a sinful nature and are evil and hopeless.
However this isn't the end of the story because Jesus comes.
He comes and dies in our place and changes everything. He redeems us. He saves us from our sin and restores us. His death bridges the gap between us and God and He allows us to be reunited with him.
When he leaves the earth the Holy Spirit comes and dwells among us.
For people who proclaim to be Christians and have accepted the Holy Spirit, they now have the Holy Spirit living inside them.
We are now guided by the Holy Spirit so in that sense we are good. However, we still live in a world full of sin and we still have sinful flesh so we cannot be perfect.
Sad to say our human souls are trapped in sinful flesh (bodies) that have a sinful appetite. This explains why "good" people, although they do good things can never be perfect. Because of God's grace, the Holy Spirit acts as a guide and leads us towards making the right decision, however until we are reunited with God we can't experience the good and true nature that humanity had in the beginning of creation.  For right now we only get glimpses of what God originally intended the world to be. It is not humans who are good but rather God who is good and working through us who helps us to fight our sinful flesh.
My dad likes to say that the line between good and evil runs down each of our hearts. Instead of just a yes naturally evil or naturally good it is a mix because we have a soul that craves to return to it's intended good state but it is trapped inside a sinful body and they are constantly at battle, the Holy Spirit helps us to fight that internal conflict and gives us guidance and power to make wise decisions. No one is perfect, God is perfect, and because He loves us He sent his son to restore us, we get a glimpse of what a perfect world would be like.

I have a few biblical references from where I have made my conclusions.

Galatians 5:16-17  Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 But I did find this: God created people to be virtuous, but they have each turned to follow their own downward path.

2 Corinthians 5:17 This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!

We are blessed

A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini was a beautiful story with a hopeful ending and I totally loved it.  Not only did it give an insight to life in the Middle East but it also told a heart breaking story that ended positively which was genius. The insane amount of difficulties the women of this story went through opened my eyes to how many things we, especially in America, take for granted.
First of all, the fact that the story took place during war with rockets always being fired and no consistant control of government shows how although American politics are not perfect they are at least somewhat reliable.  Prior to reading this book I had no knowledge of what it is like in Afghanistan and according to this book it was completely opposite from what the news tells us.  The constant change in leadership and the knowledge that at any moment a rocket could come and destroy everything and everyone you love is a huge weight so many people had to carry.  A lot of people, me included, don't really get too involved with politics or just spend hours arguing on Facebook about who should be able to get married and what drugs should be legal. I am not trying to belittle our rights, however in comparison to the political issues in other countries who are being consistently overpowered and there is no order whatsoever we have it easy. Although our government isn't perfect we don't have to be afraid to leave the house because of warlords or bombs, this book showed me how I should be grateful for the safety provided for me by my country.
Another thing that the story showed I should be thankful for is my relationship with my parents.  Mariam had a tough relationship with her mother as well as her father. Her parents never approved of or supported her because she was illegitimate. When Jalil sent her away I was so upset because the relationship between her and her dad was not real. Laila also didn't have a great relationship with her mother because she was so upset about the deaths of her sons. I am so blessed to have two parents who love me and are dedicated to give me the best life has to offer.
The last part of the story that really stood out to me was the way the book ended with the marriage of Tariq and Laila.  The one night when they were together and the little boy came in in the middle of the night and Tariq willingly got right up to take him back to bed was just a beautiful moment.  They had gone through such hardship that the fact they were all together under the same roof in a safe spot outweighed any complaints they could have about getting woken up.  I think about some of the romantic comedies about couples who are parents and don't get any sleep and how horrible it is for them.  What in our society is considered a nuisance was a blessing for the family in Pakistan. That to me is just too incredible. It makes such a huge statement about the differences in our two societies.  We don't appreciate the things that are sometimes impossible in other countries.
Reading a book like A Thousand Splendid Suns can take you to a different world and open your eyes to the fact that we take so much for granted. If you never experience life outside what you already know you never can truly appreciate all the wonderful, blessings we have here in the States.
We are so blessed.

Why did I like the Awakening

This past month we finished reading The Awakening by Kate Chopin and while reading it I realized I was truly enjoying what I was reading.  Now upon reading the back cover and seeing that is a book about a married woman who discovers "the power of her own sexuality" and I thought why do I like this book about a married woman cheating on her husband? Usually when that happens in a book I no longer enjoy it because it goes against my moral code but it's because it wasn't a story focused on adultery, that wasn't the main statement. This was an empowering statement about individuality and how women are given roles by society.
When I started reading the book I really enjoyed the atmosphere the imagery put me in.  The beach in the Gulf of Mexico is definitely a more desirable place to be than wintery Pennsylvania.  I also enjoyed reading about Edna's friendships with the people they met on vacation.  The dinners together and music to me was lovely.
Upon reading the book I discovered the social commentary that Chopin was making about the treatment of women.  Now I'm not a crazy feminist, I like guys opening doors for girls and I believe in a marriage there are certain things husbands and wives should do. However, what the book addresses and what I also believe is that anyone, man or woman, needs their own identity before entering a relationship. The reason I liked this book was because Edna realized that she had no identity besides the one handed to her, being a wife and a mother, and discovered she was more than that. She was a human being, she had feelings and thoughts and emotions.
However she also recognized that society was not going to accept her and so she swam out into the ocean and killed herself. Another part of books I don't usually like, however Edna's choice to me was empowering.  Compared to Okonkwo and Invisibleman Edna's suicide did not seem like the end, it was more like moving on to the next thing.  The way Chopin wrote the story and built up to it there was no other way to end the book.  The ending was inspiring rather than depressing. I'm not saying I condone suicide but for the statement Chopin was making the ending was perfect.
Now, Edna was not without fault. The concept of her liberation that I did not approve of was her choice for adultery as a way of finding herself.  She was depending on a man to help her to find herself, which is not a weight another human being can handle.  This is a huge problem for people in relationships.  They become consumed with the idea of the other person so much that they begin to become their identity. When people refer to them instead of calling them their name it becomes so-and-so's girlfriend or boyfriend.  They also find their self worth in how that other person views and treats them.  Edna was guilty of this and it is the one aspect of her finding herself I didn't like because she is on a path towards self discovery and it was as a result of falling in love with one man and sleeping with another.  Even though both instances were steps towards her self discovery it sent a mixed message.
Now, in this whole process of reading I was wondering how I could fit my faith into my interpretation of the Awakening. The statement made by the novel was that we need to find ourselves and women at this time period were not allot the ability to find themselves.  Edna never actually found herself completely she started the process however moved on to the next life.  It spoke on the fact that we as humans are all empty and need to be filled.  Edna was first established on her roll as a wife and mother, then she tried to fill herself with the affection of a man, and even physical affection, however none of these were sufficient.  However that hole can be filled with the Holy Spirit.  I don't mean to get all wacky and spiritual, however Jesus is where I ground my identity.  When I think about who I am the answer is I am a beloved daughter of Christ.  I am strong in that, and because that is in the core of my being it transfers itself throughout my life and I am filled with confidence. I also know I am loved by my family and friends.  Being loved by God first grounds me in who I am and then from there it's the love of other people.  People change and are inconsistent which is why they can't be used to define us. God is constant.
Because this books addresses the emptiness caused by sin and also addresses the importance of finding ourselves I can say with confidence that I really liked the Awakening.

Paradoxical Truth

The entire concept that "There is no absolute truth" is a paradoxical statement because it in itself is claiming a truth.  The idea that our feelings aren't a truth but only a result of our culture is in itself a feeling from the author that could be a result from his culture, however maybe for me, in my culture it teaches that my feelings are the truth so it contradicts itself.  In Cultural Relativism, claiming that "there is no universal truth" is claiming a universal truth.  This is a contradiction that happens when people try to claim certain things don't exist.
For example in Waiting For Godot and the philosophy of existentialism they say that life is meaningless unless you give meaning to it and that there is no universal values save the ones we make for ourselves.  Having no universal values gives a universal value to the existentialists it is just that they have no value.  In this sense the existentialists cancel out their own beliefs by contradicting themselves.  Plus, if everything in life was meaningless save the things given meaning then society wouldn't exist, for example if language was only meaningful because we give it meaning and it wasn't given meaning then there would be no communication, just as the article states about how societies need certain things to survive.  Existentialism states things in society only have the value we put in them, however without things things there would not be a society so this whole concept can not work.  If something is meaningless its absence isn't noticed, but there are things in society that without them we can not survive.
To connect with society this paradoxical truth idea shows up in Agnostic and Tolerance beliefs.
Agnostics believe that there is no God and nothing is definitely true when it comes to religion.  However that right there is a truth about religion, that there is no truth.  By saying they can never be sure of anything when it comes to God, they are saying there are sure of something, they are sure that they are unsure.  It's a contradiction and goes against what they are saying.
The article addresses tolerance and says that we need to be tolerant of other cultures and other people who are different and also talks about the different views on homosexuality.  I feel like this Cultural Relativism does show how people brought up differently will have different opinions no matter what and that should be respected, with some exceptions.  However, today in America, the idea of tolerance is extremely popular and there are tons of advocates for gays, African Americans, women, the disabled, you name it.  However, this whole tolerance idea also contradicts itself, because if they were truly tolerant they would respect everyone, even those who are intolerant. But, as seen in the news, no matter how "tolerant" we are we have an intolerance for the intolerant.  By claiming they are tolerant but do not respect the views of people who are intolerant contradicts the idea that they are tolerant.
In my opinion this article was very intriguing.  I enjoyed reading it because James Rachels showed how this theory can't be completely true, but also showed how it has some things that should be learned from it.  It made me think about things in our society that seem like they give a sound answer but actually contradict themselves and don't give an answer to questions.  To me it is frustrating that people claim there is no truth, there is no meaning to things, when they are claiming truth, and there must be meaning to things or else nothing would exist.  For me, being tolerant should mean being tolerant even towards the intolerant, otherwise it is a false claim.
In conclusion, saying there is no truth is a truth, so no matter what you say or belief there is truth.

What is a tragedy?

This past week in English we discussed what defines a Tragedy by reading the Aristotle and the Arthur Miller definitions of tragedy as it applies to literary works.
The Google definition is "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, esp. one concerning the downfall of the main character."  
Aristotle's definition was much more specific, it needs a complete process of working out a single motive, the fall of a man who is good, believable, and consistent as well as high rank, a fall caused by an error, a release of emotions from the audience, and to explore the question of the way of God to mortals.
Arthur Miller argues that tragedy is more about the common man, and a flaw that applies to all people, and that there should be fear and terror from the examination of the unchangeable environment.
In my opinion, both are ways to go about tragedy.
In our society today I believe a tragedy is an accident or horrible event that causes the suffering of people who were not asking for it.  For example the Sandy Hook shooting or 9-11 are examples of tragedy because the people who died or were hurt were not people who deserved it or where asking for it.  It was a tragic accident.
In terms of literature I believe that a number of aspects could contribute to tragedy.  I think that, especially since I am in the middle class, the fall of someone higher ranking than me is more comforting than the fall of the common man.  The fall of the common man is more tragic.
When we see that people "above" us have the same flaws and problems as us lower class people it is reassuring that we are all equal and there really is no one above us.  This has to do with insecurities and other internal issues but a lot of it is true.  Just go to the grocery store and read the magazine headlines in the check out line.  We love the drama of the calamity of celebrities, we feed off of it.  It helps us to feel better about ourselves.  How else do you think shows like Toddlers in Tiaras survive?
However, I do not believe this kind of tragedy causes the release of emotion and pity that Aristotle said was key to a tragic work.  This sort of drama causes more of a contempt towards other people as well as a self-comfort in our own imperfections.
As I society today, I think this pity and release of emotion comes from the downfall of a common man who has to deal with forces outside his or her own control.  The news, the stories about everyday people thrust into horrible situations unwillingly is what causes us to really get emotional. The new movie Captain Phillips about the Captain who was captured by Somalian Pirates while navigating a cargo ship, was the most emotional movie I have seen in awhile.  The Captain was just a regular guy with a family, who was doing his job, when he was captured and help hostage.  He didn't ask for it, he was just doing his job, and seeing a regular guy forced into an extraordinarily horrible situation was very hard to watch.  I think today to see the accidental suffering of regular people is a true tragedy,  it isn't the kind of tragedy that boost our self esteem, but rather a tragedy that causes a release of emotions and a true feeling of pity.
Tragedy is the unplanned suffering of the everyday man.

Are we fated?

A theme we have been thoroughly discussing in English class this month is fate.  We read Oedipus a drama where by trying to escape his fate Oedipus actually makes his fate come true.  The entire play stated the message that fate is inevitable and there is nothing we as humans can do to escape it. However I am not entirely sure that this is true.
As a Christian I believe that God has given us free will and He is all knowing, however there are certain things that are predetermined or fated.  For example where you were born, who your parents are, and what you look like (naturally) are all things decided for you.  There are plenty of things that happen in our lives that are not a result of anything we do, like if a family member dies or you lose a job that's not something that you chose to happen out of free will, that happened because of things out of your control.
Another perspective on fate is the butterfly effect where everything is related to each other and the littlest thing can change the course of someone's life, or even the world. The movie we watched in class, Run Lola Run, showed how just because the main character didn't buy a bike off of a guy he ended up getting beat up for a bike and then at the hospital met a girl, fell in love, and got married.  That seems so ridiculous to me that one little interaction can change his life like that.  Yes, her refusal made him keep the bike, however he made the choice to drive down the street with the muggers, and he made the choice to ask the nurse out, and she made the choice to say yes.  There are things that can influence our decisions but ultimately you decide for your self.  This is the way I'm starting to see life as a constant flow of individual choices that direct our lives and cause us to interact and cross paths with one another however certain things are always out of our control.  However there are certain interactions that can be life changing so how are we suppose to know which ones are and which ones are meaningless.
Some may argue that their career was fate and they were destined for one job.  I believe part of that is true and part is false.  I believe that God has given everyone certain talents and traits that would be best fitted for certain jobs however that doesn't necessarily mean its destiny but rather a natural ability. I am gifted with abilities in math and science so I want to be an engineer.  Is that my destiny? Who knows? I could have chosen to want to be a teacher or a scientist or plenty of other things but I feel like what I want to do is engineering. Which is a choice I have made for myself not because I am "supposed" to be an engineer.
Another thing is soul mates. The idea that there is only one person who is a perfect match for you. The more I think about it the more I've come to realize there is no way to determine if this is true.  Yes, there are certain people who are compatible with you but there is no way to be positive that out of  all the people on the planet the one you found is the only one for you, unless you personally meet everyone in the world.  Say I meet someone in college who has all the characteristics I look for in a guy and we get married, how would I know if there was another guy who went to college across the country who I would have married if I went there instead?  There is no way of knowing that he was the only guy I could love however because we found each other it worked out.
Now through talks with my dad and other friends I've started to figure out where God is in all of this. What role does He play.  I looked up some verses that had to do with fate. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says that everything has a time placed by God and He has set everything for us "11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end (Ecc. 3:11)" so this alleviates worries about the future.  However in Proverbs 16:9 I think it gives a perfect answer to where God is involved. It says "The heart of man plans his way, but The Lord establishes his steps."  This is exactly what I was thinking. Basically we make choices, but God still intervenes and can allow things to happen.  
To say there is only fate or just free will is too one sided to be true.  We make decisions every day that shape our future, although a few things along the way are out of our control, God is there every step of the way.

The "Ideal Relationship"

One of the Socratic Seminar questions from the Fountainhead addressed the relationship between Dominique and Roark and states than Ayn Rand wrote their relationship to be the ideal relationship.  Now first of all the start of their relationship is a bit unorthodox, starting with rape as Dominique calls it.  But, in the reading the way their relationship begun was with her going out just so she could see him and finding a way for him to come to her house.  The fact that she really wanted to be with him but then struggled and fought him when he had her shows the complexity of their relationship.  From my stand point this was a very erotic scene for a book written in the 1940s so it is obvious to me that the manner of their relations was important to Rand.  Ayn was showing that these two people did not have any morals, or standards of the world and they went after what they wanted the way they chose.
From there their relationship becomes a battle with a theme of conquering one another.  Dominique attacks Roark in his career and then she goes to his house at night so he can physically conquer her.  However, she wants to punish herself and marries Peter, and then marries Gale.  She forces herself not to need him.
Roark never seems to need her, he loves her and doesn't mind having her around, but when she isn't there he isn't missing her, he is the same with or without her.  As cold hearted as this may seem I find this is a healthy part of any relationship, no codependency.
Personally and through observation of teenage romance I have noticed that when people are in relationships they being to depend on and need each other.  However, when this happens people become clingy, paranoid, and controlling.  If someone depends on you for everything, their happiness and how to make decisions you gain so much power over their life.  But they become clingy and paranoid because if you leave them their "whole life" is gone. This is not a healthy way to have a relationship.  I've been in a place where a guy liked me too much and in his mind needed me, and it wasn't something that I could handle, because that is too much for another human being to take.
Ever since then I have decided that I want to be in a relationship with a guy where we don't need each other because its not a healthy way for a relationship to be.  I enjoyed reading that aspect of Roark and Dominque's relationship because it is a principle that I follow in my life and that I believe others in relationships should too.  They took it to the extreme however the basics of it are important in all relationships.
Another aspect of their relationship that I thought made them ideal was in their manner of speaking to one another.  They were very straight forward and didn't beat around the bush, they were brutally honest.  Although I have issues with this, as does everyone, I hope that I can reach a security in who I am where I can be completely honest with people.  I also like how they don't have trite conversations, no small talk.  Sometimes this could be annoying you do want someone who can express their feelings, however they just were very blunt and purposeful in their conversations which I find interesting to read.  From viewing others I have seen that a lot of problems arise from lies and hiding things and not blatantly telling the other person the truth for the sake of their feelings or saving a reputation.  Roark and Dominique don't have these worries and so their relationship works.
The most important part of any relationship is having someone similar to you with a similar purpose in life.  These two demonstrated that and also led an example without neediness and full of honesty. These aspects of their relationship I commend and I hope to be able to demonstrate in my future relationships.