To Grow

To present a structured argument to one's parent and remain strong throughout

To not start neurotic motion such as nail biting or leg shaking

To not break down into powder and start bringing up 100 year old issues in a high pitched tone

To not feel like the worst person in the universe and to feel that you actually believe in what you've pushed yourself to talk about

Is a sign you're grown

...
..
.

Showing Affection

"So this thing where we all keep our distance and pretend not to care about each other, it's usually a load of bull."

That was something I heard on Grey's Anatomy last night, or the night before, I don't remember

I thought it was a concept just I had in mind, or a few people around me

You know, when you just look the other way when someone catches you looking at something that concerns them with any sort of affection

Compared to people I know who do this, I really don't do it much, I like people to know I feel for/towards them.

Anyway, seeing someone on a TV show say it, made me realize how universal it is

Merideth felt sorry for her step sister for having a sick child, then was thrilled to see her back in her mother's arms, but pretended she didn't care about either events.

A couple of days ago, I overheard some girl I vaguely know saying there was this book she couldn't find anywhere. I thought of looking for it for her, not intensely, because she had probably looked for it everywhere popular. But at least ask about it, If anyone I know has it or something.

Then this thought kind of imposed itself in my head, that even if I find it. I wouldn't give it to her. Because then she'll think I care about her, and I don't want that.

Then I asked me (and kind of beat me up for it), why on earth wouldn't I want that?!

Why do people do that anyway?

I couldn't think of a proper reason

I wish they didn't.

I wish I didn't too.

I just took a decision to try not to ever consciously do this, at least until I think of a reason.

Feelings (?)

This topic provoked me because of how feelings felt by teenagers are often described as ''unreal''.

To make it clear, this isn't me being defensive or blindly rejecting of this description. But rather, trying to get to the bottom of it.

The fact that feelings could be ''real'' in the first place doesn't make much sense to me. What does real mean? Is it that they would have a physical existence? That would make no feelings real to begin with. Is it that everyone else would feel them too? If so, it's nearly impossible. It's rare that everyone would feel the same about one thing, let alone everything. Is it about their sincerity? Because I'm sure I'm honest with myself about my feelings and my answer is the same to myself when I ask me twice.

The very definition of feelings is quite vague, the dictionary definition (in a nutshell) was ''emotions''. And the definition of emotions did come down to ''feelings'', and in other attempts to explain both, only examples of different sentiments were given. This made me smile actually, I felt the logic was almost as clueless as I am about this and not as certain as it seemed to be. People tend to talk about this so confidently. 98% of the times when I try to discuss anything feeling related with an older person they lay in the fruit of their glorious expertise and call my feelings fake. It just made me frustrated one way or another. If everything I feel is fake then none of my feelings is of worth anyway, so my happiness isn't happiness, my sadness isn't really sadness, and my affection for another person is a mere illusion. It's all just an illusion. So I should either feel okay with living a lie (which would never happen), or lock myself up in a cellar until my feelings are real enough. The silent frustration was broken by the emerging of a third option, people's description of my emotions is not true, or rather, inaccurate.

The word ''unreal'' is very much a subconscious or inaccurate conscious replacement of ''volatile''. That would suggest that ''real'' feelings have to be everlasting in order to exist anyway. For me, or anyone else my age, most feelings do come and go easily (emphasis on most). Easier than it does for older people. So the word ''volatile'' does apply.

The thing is, even though adult feelings have a lower tendency to evaporate, they often do. The affinity for adolescent feelings to just fly away is only relative. I'm not saying that all adult feelings are unreal, I am suggesting that quite a lot are.

I still haven't been lucky enough to encounter feelings between people that I could describe as ''everlasting''.(which makes me question their existence to be honest), but I've met a few who are sincere and selfless. They felt real for some reason.

So the one measure I have so far reached for a feeling to be real is, the sincerity of it.

It does need more standards, not just for the sake of it. But for the fact that sincerity alone isn't enough. The feelings of children are sincere, but they are not always built on good enough judgement.

I don't have a strong closing statement, my thoughts always end with a question mark.

So sharing thoughts is much needed!

What God Wants

I've been reading a book with that title for a while now, I decided to stop though. It was becoming too confusing for me. The facts I'm sure about concerning God are still sinking in. The content of the book was starting to mess with them.

For the first 13 chapters it went on and on about how the world thinks they know what God wants and are acting upon it while in fact, they know nothing. The writer discussed how thinking we know what God wants affected our beliefs about all different things in life such as gender roles, war, life and death, homosexuality.. etc. He was quite right about how huge and deep the scar is, but it was nothing new. 13 chapters was way too much for that. I kept reading and hoping that what I actually got the book for, would emerge, sometime.

Untill I hit chapter 14, which was said to contain the real essence and bottom line of what God wants.


It was two blank pages


The writer suggested that what God wants, is nothing.


I didn't finish the book, so I'm not a proper judge. But I read a bit after that. He justified that by saying that if God is perfect, flawless, the essence of all life, and can do anything he wants. It's irrational to suggest that he would want something. He said there's a difference between wanting and preferring. Wanting is needing, God doesn't need anything. But he does have preferences, and his preferences are what we want, because of some other theory he suggested about God being the collective of all life, meaning that If no life existed, God wouldn't exist. But that's not the point anyway.

My point of all this is, It is irrational that God would want anything. Even prefer anything. Wanting and preferring are both weaknesses. They both mean you'll end up just a little less happy or satisfied if you don't get your preference. It's irrational for God to have desires, since - being so powerful - he can fulfill them all. It's irrational for him to put his preferences in our hands, the flawed fallen humans.

So where does the sin/good deed theory stand on this? If it stands at all, being contradictory to it?

If God can't want anything, and doesn't have preferences, why would it matter if we 'sin' or we don't?

This is getting very confusing, I'm even confused as I write.