Killing Distraction Potential

 So, I've decided to do an experiment.  What has spawned this experiment is an idea.  I'm frequently that person who will inevitably find himself watching YouTube as I am going to sleep.  However, I want to be clear that 90% of what is on my watch list is intrinsically informational or educational.  This is just a habit I've had with variances in intensity over the course of my adult life.

It's true, there's a lot of good information available on the internet.  There is a lot of good information on things ranging from how to cook the perfect fillet mignon and perform basic maintenance on a vehicle to video series covering a breadth of cerebral topics meticulously broken down into 10 minute easy to understand chunks.  I'm not going to be escaping the world of information any time soon.

I am going to disable the YouTube app on my phone.  I intend for this to prove something that I've been saying for years.  Namely that what seems like an insignificant action can really make a huge difference in the long game.  Disabling or removing an app, while keeping a subscription to an online service has the potential of improving what others critically say is our "relationship" with technology.

If we consider how the word relationship is used in our modern society I think it can't be used to describe our interaction with technology.  I assert that it is a lack of temperance or self control that impacts how much or little we interact with computer based systems.  This lack seems to manifest itself in the modern tendency to prefer escapism and be combined with a careless thrust of ourselves into less cerebral and purely frivolous activities.  What ever happened to occupying our "down time" with taking a walk or reading a book?

So, I am going to do three things:

1. Disable the YouTube app on my phone for the remainder of the month.
2. At times when I would watch YouTube (before bed, breaks at work, performing research) I will instead read a book or take a walk.
3. If I want to watch YouTube I will need to use a computer or the Chromecast device on my TV.

I'm not going to cut YouTube completely out of my life.  What I'm doing is better directing where I watch YouTube.  My hypothesis is that if I'm already in bed, why would I pull myself out of bed, walk to my office, boot up my computer, and launch my web browser?  I already know that I'll see this as a bunch of extra steps that I won't want to deal with.  So, also I'm banking on my preference to do things in the most effort and time inexpensive way.

Wish the best for me.  I'm sure this will require that I come back to write about this again.

Surrounded By Hypocrites

As humans we are capable of amazing feats.  It was not that long ago when we were putting our first steps on the moon.  We have made innovations throughout history that have taken us from dwelling in caves to now populating the Earth.  We have gone from drawing stick figures on the faces of rock to writing blogs and connecting through social media.  From hunter gatherers on the plain to sitting in Athens discussing goodness and truth, indeed humanity is capable of so much positive and good in this world.  In a sense we should be compelled to congratulate ourselves for all of our accomplishments thus far.

But we have one of the most invasive pests in our midst.  A pest so clever that even after hundreds and thousands of years we have not be able to shake loose from its luxurious accommodations.  Hypocrisy is a disease, and unfortunately there is no cure or vaccination for this.  It seems as though we are stuck in a continuous cycle of great achievements followed by some of the most embarrassing follies we can devise!  What is more astonishing is that we take more pleasure in performing our hypocrisies than we do in those things we do well.  Rewarding and intellectual pursuits such as science, philosophy, and theology seem to take the back seat to our hypocritical pursuits.  For an unknown reason we much enjoy playing the hypocrite more than those things that make us reach higher than ourselves.

But, why?  Why is it easier for us to give in to hypocrisy time after time?

The short answer is because we are human.  It is an intrinsic property of our natural state of being.  However, I think we like the simple answers because humans are prone with ready heart and mind to accept overly simplistic answers and solutions.  We do not like long winded explanations, or dissertations.  We have not the patience for those things which may require a bit more effort, and yet we repeatedly implore others to have more patience with us than we are ready to render to them.  How is that morally correct?  It is not.

Use of reason vs. our ego

It is interesting to note that we are the only known species that we are aware of that has the amazing ability to reason.  We use the neurons in our brain to form words and attribute meaning to them.  We call this language.  We use it to communicate, but only as we will.  When we are angry or have some sort of grievance against another we find very clever passive aggressive ways of coping with our perceived feeling of being rejected, offended, or forgotten.  In our self complacent pride we endeavor to be at the very top of those around us.  It is subjectively desirable to be perceived by others as morally and virtuously superior.  None can dare upset the equilibrium of our egos.

We are unknowingly as gods unto ourselves, and anyone who so much as threatens our self complacency and confirmation bias are as devils proudly exclaiming "Non serviam!" (I will not serve!)  Ergo, our response to the disgusting parasitical demon that is our fellow man is the same as is attributed to St. Michael the Archangel: "Who is like unto God?"  The irony is that what we really think with our subconscious inundated by our ego is: who is like unto me?  This is where any basic form of communication truly becomes void and impossible.

The conspiracy theorist

Then we have the conspiracy theorist.  Ironic we use theorist, a word used to indicate someone of scientific intelligence, to describe the nonsensical rubbish that oozes from the mouths of the self obsessed.  It is hypocritical to be a conspiracy theorist because it goes completely against reason.  Let us examine a likely position he may take.

As much befits the attributed stereotype this man has a vendetta against technology.  Technology is some evil force that is responsible for Original Sin and therefore is used against society as the weapon of choice for the government--who is a tyrant--which has allowed the erection of all the "big box stores" and "big tech" corporations to exist entirely to spy on him, and take away his freedom.  It is not inaccurate to say that the man here in our example takes to social media--that is to use technology--to announce his "great" discovery that only a 30 pack of cheap beer can inspire.  Of course let us not dismiss his use of social media to share political sound bites and articles written by fellow conspiracy theorists.

We see the flaw in his argument (and in the method he chooses to deliver his argument) in that it is the utmost of absurdity.  It is absurd because it can be very quickly deduced by reason that the government is not spying on him, and quite frankly has no care for who he is.  However, this man will be the subject of his own self fulfilling prophecy when he accidentally says something with the intention of arousing the interest of the authorities.  The man is a lunatic and consequently cannot be trusted, and yet he is somehow able to inspire trust by others.

The reason the conspiracy theorist is able to inspire trust in others is of course due to the propensity of man to be gullible, as well as experience periods of mental dullness.  The details in his conspiracy theory are so incredible, vague, and yet are subjective enough that disproving his claims would appear to take more effort and dedication than is warranted.  Therefore, to the gullible his claims are true.  However, to those who are willing to set aside the temptation to be hypocritical and dishonest the reward is a very well done refutation that brings light to the darkness that the conspiracy theorist brings.

Conspiracy "theories" do not just have to be about technology either.  Any range of topics can be used for conspiracy theories.  Climate change, politics, education, religion, vaccines, university fraternities and sororities, among many other controversial and "hot button" topics can easily fall victim to the undermining efforts of conspiracy theorists.

The emotionally reactive

Imagine if you will someone of reasonable wealth and affluence who will never be able to be bothered to help one of the many homeless in their city and is always ready to profane and demolish anything and everything that does not digest well with their personal fantasy of how the world should work.  Enter the emotionally reactive.

The emotionally reactive is a hypocrite in much the same way as the conspiracy theorist.  Both are more satisfied with their own ego and confirmation bias than they are with actually having experienced any form of civility or rational thought.  They thrive on their buzz words such as "tolerance," "equality," "racism," "shaming," "gaslighting," and other words that ignite a passionate reaction to protest the littlest inconvenience or distressing moment some person, somewhere in the world, God forbid, might experience.  In fact they may even genuinely feel like something has to be done because of reasons A, B, and C.  If formulated in an otherwise rational state of mind in a calm, introspective demeanor it could be argued that perhaps some thing should be done about this or that situation.

However, on the contrary we find that everything is reactive.  Their coffee is a degree hotter than expected.  Bring on the lawyers and blame the employee for discriminating against their veganism!  The level of absurdity flirts with the boundary where most psychologists would agree delusion begins and a healthy mind ends.  This is serious.  It is serious because the many, many individuals who experience this type of hypocrisy may never become fully aware of it.  The reason for this is because self preservation and even herd mentality not only go hand in hand but magnify a perceived threat to be bigger than just something that is noticed.

Similar to the conspiracy theorist, the emotionally reactive have the flaw of absurdity in their argument.  This happens when we make an argument based on emotion rather than reason.  It could actually be argued that the source of all disagreements in the colorful history of humanity that have either escalated to total war or long term animosity is precisely the human temptation to let emotions take the lead on decision making.  This tendency needs to be tempered otherwise the great ambition of humanity of living among the stars may never come to fruition.

How hypocrisy is resolved

Let it be revealed to our minds that there is no easy remedy or solution to hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is going to continue to infect the human condition as the bubonic plague infected millions in Europe during the 14th century.  It is a most unfortunate Achilles heel to the foot steps of the human species that if left uncontrolled will mean the slow, progressive destruction of everything that we possess any affection for.  Your trip to Starbucks.  The freedom to worship Almighty God.  The ability to acquire an education or provide for your family.  All of these things which every day we take for granted could be snuffed out like a candle or left to rot like road kill if hypocrisy is allowed to persist.

Indeed hypocrisy is an integral part of human nature, and as such demands our attention and respect.  Respect for the destruction it can bring to our own lives and to our society and culture.  Attention to its symptoms will help us to recognize how we too are in need of introspection and self examination.  When do we say what we think is right, but when given the opportunity do anything but what is right, and then give our selves every excuse?  When do we give in to false information, become enraptured in the hype of a news story, or allow our passions to become inflamed over some trifling thing?  Ah yes, hypocrisy is like an unattended fire in the wilderness.  All that is required is for one action to spark a reaction that destroys hundreds of acres of beautiful landscape, and thus this is what hypocrisy does to the soul of every person who has ever traversed the world.

Contra Sede Vacante

There is an unfortunate phenomenon on social media.  A movement full of vitriol, relentless trolling, antisemitic and other racial slurs, and just plain ignorance of actual Catholic teaching.  I am speaking here of sedevacantism.  What exactly is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the belief that, at very least since 1958--upon the death of Pope Pius XII--that every Pontiff of the Catholic Church has been, and is, an "antipope."  However this is the tip of the iceberg.  There are as many different versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists!  There are some I have encountered who claim that Pope Pius XII was a heretic and therefore an anti-pope.  Still there are even those whom claim that we may not have had a valid Pontiff since Pope Pius IX.  As mentioned prior, there are as many versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists.  In a word, adherents to sedevacantes position are divided over what constitutes a valid Pontiff, and with most of them claiming to be laypersons of the Catholic Church it is very easy to see that they have read a handful of erroneous propaganda and have developed a disordered point of view of the Church.

Similar to them, and just as problematic, are the conclavists, however I will not address them at this juncture.  I should now address a brief history of sedevacantism as far as it relates to our modern history.  I will show the brief history vis a vis the crazed time frame that occurred after the Second Vatican Council (hereafter Vatican II).

It all began when nine Priests, now formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, brought up objections to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during the late 1970s.  The controversial Archbishop was having difficulty among many prelates within the Church, however was still allowed to teach and form those Seminarians who desired to be taught by him.  The nine Priests objected to Abp. Lefebvre maintaining not only ties with the Vatican but also fidelity to Pope Paul VI who was the Supreme Pontiff (e.g. the Pope) until 1977.  Abp. Lefebvre maintained that as he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, as he had sworn fidelity to the Holy Father when we was consecrated a Bishop, and would continue to do so.  This did not sit very well with these nine Priests and so they began teaching those under them to resist the instructions of Abp. Lefebvre.  Circa 1983 the late Archbishop expelled those nine Priests, who in turn took with them their own students, some of whom waited to be ordained by Abp. Lefebvre prior to leaving the SSPX.  Those who left, or were expelled, formed together to found the schismatic Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  Thus sedevacantism is a split from the Church.

In my personal point of view these nine Priest committed an act of schism by refusing the guidance of their superior and therefore the Church.  Their schism de facto cut them off from communion with the Church, and therefore they cannot be considered Catholic.

Let us flash forward 36 years.  What began as nine Priests acting in disobedience has spiraled into several splinter groups.  It could be argued that SSPX did not seem traditional enough, and so the sedevacantists severed ties with Rome; similar to how Martin Luther did in 1517 when he thought that the Church could not meet his personal standards.  From SSPV there are others who split because SSPV was not traditional enough because they held that Pius XII was a valid Pontiff.  This spiral continues similar to how John Calvin thought that Luther was too Catholic and promulgated his own brand of bad theology that one is predestined to Heaven or Hell arbitrarily because somehow the mercy of God is void and favoritism is the name of the game.

Today there exists sedevacantists who claim to be from a Catholic monastery in New York state.  These effectively are taught that SSPX, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and other communities that use exclusively the liturgical books of 1962 are not Catholic and say invalid Masses.  This of course is not true!  One can observe from their style of ad hominem attacks, quoting of obscure situations from the recesses of Church history, and at times even antisemitic stances that they are only interested in one thing: showing how their version of Jesus is better than the next person's, and so on.  I have seen this before in the vitriol preached from the pulpits of some protestant sects who claim wrongly the usual objections of the Catholic faith (i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Pope, the Eucharist, etc.).  So one can ask themselves, "How are sedevacantists different from mainstream Protestants?"  The short answer is that they are no different, and in some ways just as extremist as the Westboro Baptist Church.

But cannot their arguments be verified?  This is where it can be easy to get wrapped up in their arguments and be fooled into thinking that they're correct in their position.  Recently, in a discussion I was having with a sedevacantist I proposed that Christ promised that "the gates of the Hell shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18) against the Church.  In response I was given the counter argument, citing Pope St. Leo IX as the source, "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." Taken at face value this would seem to indicate that when a Pontiff states something that is contrary to what the Church has always taught that it immediately invalidates the Papacy and the one who is Pope fails to be the Pope.

In the same conversation it was claimed that I am "rejecting Christ's words that the gates of hell will never prevail because [I am] effectively saying that the 'gates of hell' are sitting at the VERY TOP of His Church." This is an absurd take, because it essentially states that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has no power to protect His Church against Her very Bishops and Pontiff! That is as the first Pope, St. Peter, defines in his second epistle (letter) as a "personal interpretation." (2 Peter 1:16-20) I could give more examples, but we would be here all day.

What is contained in the very eloquently stated arguments and talking points is something nefarious. Hiding beneath the facade of appearances of zealous devotion to the Church and Her teaching are superfluous arguments, circular logic, and a twisting of what the Church teaches to satisfy a hidden desire to deceive all who are unprepared into believing that they are correct. For any who do not know their faith well enough they will be easily taken into the charm of their claims. Simply put their claims address the overwhelming crisis in the Church by manipulating the emotions of those who at the moment, and for good reason, feel that the Church is falling apart. And what an opportunity the sedevacantists have chosen. That they have chosen to capitalize on the crisis in the Church by taking to social media to promote their deception is the only thing I can say is a point in their favor.

What makes sedevacantism so appealing is that it appears to solve a crisis in the Church. But at what cost? Accepting the sedevacantist position means falling into a similar error that unfortunately many who took and ran with the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" fell.

Ultramontanism is the error that everything that falls from the mouth of the Pope is infallible and therefore to be taken, believed, and acted upon with immediate effect. This is not true. The First Vatican Council discussed Papal infallibility in these words, "For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation of the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles." From this we know that the infallibility of the Pope is only when speaking of faith and morals. It is well worth it to research, in depth, the documents of Vatican I because in no way does it make out the Pope to be some sort of super king with a hyper infallibility. Yet this is what both sedevacantists and some who adhere to the craziness of the 1970s "spirit of Vatican II" conflate Papal infallibility to mean, which is contrary to Vatican I!

To conclude, the problem with sedevacantism goes much deeper than one can write about in brief. Sedevacantism is a misappropriation of Church teaching and is therefore a true poison to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Once you have backed them into a corner, and they run out of arguments, they return ad hominem attacks, and if you're Catholic claim that you are excommunicated. These "excommunications" are not valid, nor should they ever be treated with more than a good laugh, since only a Bishop (including the Pope) can excommunicate someone, so really it just takes on the appearance of an overzealous "citizen arrest" situation that just goes to further demonstrate that truly, no matter what they claim, they are just as knowledgeable about what the Catholic Church actually teaches as someone who listens to a protestant pastor drone on about the alleged heresies of the Roman Catholic Church.

Reminiscence of Social Media Past

Recently, my wife and a couple of friends were discussing social media and how exhausting the internet, with all of its drama, has become.  The conversation eventually became a nostalgic guide through the late 1990s and early 2000s as well as a reminder of the "prehistoric" world that existed before Facebook and Twitter.

My Story...

Back in 1998 I was one of many thousands of people who had a LiveJournal.  LiveJournal was a blogging service filled with everything from the first fan fiction writings to the angst filled verses of amateur poets and song writers trying to express themselves.  Around that same time GeoCities was beginning to take off as the premier FREE website publishing server (now I think it's part of Yahoo! or something).  I had a GeoCities website which functioned as an outlet of my creativity and experimentation with HTML.  With a website or blog you didn't have a comment thread or any of that nonsense; you had this thing called a "guest book."  Across the web you could count on seeing the phrase: "Sign my guestbook!"

(Man it was a simpler time by comparison!)

Also at this time was a phenomenon called a "web ring."  Web rings were the thing that connected your website or blog to other websites or blogs.  To make your website/blog part of a web ring you would paste in an HTML code into your website.  Every time someone would find or visit your page they would be able to scroll to the bottom and click next and would immediately be taken to the next website in the web ring.  Eventually you could make it all the way around - hence the "ring" in web ring.  Web rings proved to be very useful for websites and blogs that had a common topic or interest.  I had a website (GeoCities) that was all about helping people learn HTML and was part of a web ring of the same topic.

All this was short lived though because something was emerging that would be the predecessor of all social networking:  Myspace.

Oh Myspace!  I set up my Myspace in 2003 and immediately noticed I could have a blog and website combined with a continuous comment thread!  It was the birth of the social network, although, at the time, no one I knew called it that.  The world of convenience was at your finger tips.  With Myspace users could "friend" someone and there was such a thing as having your top 8 friends.  It was a way that through blog posts, comments, and who your top 8 was that you could finally compare yourself to your friends.  The race for the most angst filled blog post and most edgy profile (profile songs too!) had begun!

In 2006 I received an invitation to join Facebook.  Since I was working as a college computer lab tech I was able to use my college email to sign up for Facebook.  Back then you could do more than just poke your friends - you could throw a sheep at them or even defenestrate them!  Facebook wasn't serious.  It was that thing you did to keep up with friends and brag about getting enrolled in classes.  When you signed up you had to belong to a "network" which meant that you had to have a valid university email address.

The rest as they say is history: Facebook eventually opened itself up, so now everyone and their five cousins and their grandma are on Facebook.  Heck, I've heard a rumor that some places have started Facebook classes that teach people how to use it!

What has it all become?

It seems anymore that not just Facebook, but all of social media has become an outlet for the very worst of society.  We have become as the sophists of ancient Greece, neither caring for, or much less interested in, what is true, real, and good.  Even our politicians (i.e. President Trump) have given in to and have enabled a culture of living within the borders of 280 characters.  Social media has indeed become competition what 20 years ago was considered normal social interaction.  And at what cost?  We hate each other!  Rather, we hate what we perceive through our narrow lens of social media.

On the contrary it must be said Facebook and Twitter have been great ways for me to keep up with family and friends who live far off.  I mean, it really brightens my day to know that a former colleague got that job he wanted, or that my niece is enjoying school, or that old acquaintance from class was finally proposed to by the man of her dreams!  All this is absolutely wonderful, and I enjoy all the positive.

If there's one thing I wish social media was more of an outlet for, besides catching up with friends, I wish that it provided a constructive forum where ideas weren't needlessly trolled or savagely shot down with prejudice.  Perhaps I'm just babbling incoherent thought vomit, but could it be that maybe this is something?  At least, I enjoyed a cathartic reflection of a time, not long ago, where things seems - at very least - a bit more civilized.

Utilitarian Relationships Refuted

This is something I wrote on Facebook a few years ago that I think is very much true today as it was when I originally wrote it.

---

What's wrong with society nowadays is that we no longer really care about anything other than our egos. There is a trend whereby we love others so long as they remain perfect or at best beneficial to us. This is what makes most relationships one way. Essentially society has slowly led us to accepting utilitarian means as a normal part of relationships. Now this isn't to say that a business, or professional, relationship with an employer or a restaurant that one may frequent is bad, or somehow wrong. It is clear that there is an appropriate place for every kind of relationship. However here I focus on those relationships where no transactions of goods and services occur.

So what happens when we deem someone a "disservice" to us, or they come into some hardship, or perceive that someone has done some "irreparable wrong" to us? We typically react in one of two ways.

The first way is passive aggressive wherein we cower away from said person. We seem to develop an irrational fear which over the long haul prevents us from ever really having closure, or even seeking out opportunities to really reconcile or repair the break in the relationship. We choose to dehumanize that person and see them as a potential enemy, because that makes coping with the situation immediately easy. Thus we continue on our way never really attaining understanding. We just simply cut them off, because how could someone ever really be capable of good decisions when they made a less than perfect decision? In our minds we rationalize that every good decision really was not a good decision, and therefore was a lie disguised through whatever rose-colored lens we chose to see them in.

The second way is much more vicious. We attack them. We deliberately make them feel as though they are not capable of being good. We kick them when they are down. We say things that while to our perception seems good are actually negative things that bring the person down. We trap the person in a box with a label be it liar, thief, cheater, stupid, worthless... it's all negative. When that other person moves on with their life and in our eyes attempts to get out of the box we are quick to shove them back in. We make demands and bargains for the person to obey that are so ridiculous and impossible for the person that we give them no choice but to stay in the box. Because that is what we want. We want revenge! We want blood! And we want it two weeks ago!

While it feels good at the moment, because we get to be the one to make a stand, dispense discipline and punishment, be the one who wins, we miss out on an opportunity to really make peace and reach a common understanding. Because a juicy, vivid lie is much better than the dry, seemingly uninteresting truth.

If I may propose an alternative. What if we stopped crucifying every person who crosses us in some way? What if we stopped scapegoating someone just because we don't like them or don't like what they have to say. The next time someone crosses us, let us aim to understand. Come to understand what is going on in the person's life. Yeah, it's the hard way. Yeah, it doesn't make us feel good. But let's take a moment and realize that it's not about us or even the other person. It's about the dignity of the human person. It's about the fact that whether we like it or not that person is going to exist and keep existing on the same planet as us, and we might as well actually put in the effort to actually reach the peace we so often claim we desire - without seeking blood or revenge.

However, this is difficult. It requires we have to put aside how we feel about the person or situation and actually take the time to extend the olive branch and bury the hatchet. And for many, many people this seems like such an impossible task. Who knows, maybe the other person is offering the olive branch and you have your head jammed so far up your own butt that right now you can't see that.

Philosophical Musing: You May Now Kiss The Bride

Oh the thoughts that travel through my mind in early hours of the morning! I was recently thinking about THAT line we hear at just about every wedding any one has ever attended. We see it on TV and in the movies. The image of a couple standing before a minister or Priest saying their vows culminating when the officiant of the wedding says, "You may now kiss the bride." Wait, what does that really mean? My mind drifted slightly and thought about the courtships of 200+ years ago.

Perhaps my mind has been formed by the media to think of William Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet as the "perfect" couple or that there was a time when man and woman's first kiss was indeed at their wedding, but the question remains: what does that phrase really mean? As I continue to think I realize that culturally in the past 200 years the world has changed many of its customs. You don't have to go very far to find a couple making out on a park bench. 200 years ago there seems to be a different custom. Things were "proper." It wasn't common at all to see a couple prior to marriage kissing. Now it's very common to know someone who has had sex outside of marriage.

Is the phrase you may now kiss the bride merely a ceremonial phrase? Or is it in fact granting permission for the couple to finally kiss? What does a kiss even mean?

What a Way to Begin Blogging!

I've been very much inspired by a great friend of mine who has helped me to realize and to acknowledge some of the problems with the world and how they impact my life. Also, this friend has greatly encouraged me to get back into blogging, something I haven't done since I left Myspace a few years back. And so I bring you things I dislike about the world...

1. When people think that they are better than everyone else just because they think that they are better than everyone else.
2. When people judge the messenger and not the message. Think about it... if the most deranged, narcissistic, immoral person stated that he was converting to Christianity and that Jesus is Lord, would we believe him? Afterall, if he says that Jesus is Lord, isn't that the truth? Does it really matter WHO speaks the truth? Or do we put people into boxes and thus limit their capacities?
3. When we deliberately place people into boxes of social prejudice just because they don't align precisely with our personal world view.
4. The fact that most people will not want to read to the end based on the content of the next statements and the above stated.
5. People who will admit that a person is intelligent and gifted but will avoid them out of fear or feeling inferior without getting to know the person. Think about it... if a person is THAT intelligent or gifted wouldn't it seem logical to get to know the person and thus perhaps risk gaining knowledge making you smarter?
6. When people who know the truth, know what is logical and intelligent, and acknowledge what is real do not act in accordance to it. Think about it... if you know that jumping off the Grand Canyon will kill you and you still (for the thrill of it) jump off the Grand Canyon without a rope or another safety device, doesn't that seem a little dumb?
7. People who ask questions and will not wait to hear the response but rather assume that what you have to say is not important.
8. People who make assumptions about other people based upon their social status, mental capabilities, or world views without hearing them out and getting to know them. See also #3.
9. People who learn one thing about another person and thus assume that they are not worthy of love.
10. The superficial and people who are satisfied with it.
11. The cliche.
12. The fact that over the course of my life I have been guilty of ALL of the above statements.

Know this: I am a Christian, but the worst sinner. I know the Truth, but sometimes do not live it. I desire to be a Saint, but sometimes feel more comfortable being wretched. I desire to evangelize to people the Truth, but sometimes only if I feel like they deserve it. I talk about the importance of temperance and humility, but sometimes pridefully allow myself to eat and drink myself sick. I talk about how we should pray always, but often will make excuses why not to pray.

I sin EVERY day, but I try with every chance I get to say with emphatic conviction: I confess to Almighty God, and to you brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed.

So what's my problem with the world? Me.