To Be in Love with Love

I've been reading a few blogs about a guy seeking out love. As in, he wants love. I definitely am not one of those people; I will take it when it come, but until then I'm fine.

I think being in love with love is a bit unhealthy. It causes a person to wear his heart on his sleeve for anyone to take it. When that happens, awful relationships are more probable. I think this because the person won't evaluate who his interest is, rather he'll evaluate only how much his interest is attracted back.

This is very prevalent in homosexual relationships. A guy will want a boyfriend so bad but only to have a boyfriend. Not a relationship. Sure, it's nice to have someone there; however, it's better if that person wants to be there as much as you do. Homosexual relationships are generally short-lived anyway. It's a general characteristic of them, at least until a guy has matured enough to handle long-term committment and loyalty. Or just becomes good at hiding his cheating, but anyway.

I know I am too young for that sort of long-term committment. I think guys take much more time to achieve any sort of maturity level that is ready for "love." So my general advice is fall out of love with love. Love a person, not a condition. Don't seek it out, let that person come to you. Realize that you are in love, do not conjure it.

"The Kingdom of God Is Inside You"

Today someone quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson to me; the quote that is the title of this blog. "The Kingdom of God is inside you."

When I heard this sentence I fell in love with it. It is exactly what I have been thinking ever since I rediscovered spirituality this semester. I don't feel as though I need a mediator to have a relationship with a Higher Power. While I am still exploring different ideas about Him among the many religions of the world, I am always coming to the conclusion that nothing exceedingly organized is necessary for happiness or spirituality.

It is quite apparent that all religions contain truth, yet culture as well. For some reason, homophobia sprang up in the Arabian Penninsula as well as post-Roman Europe. Why this happened, I am unaware. Yet, the idea of homosexuality being sinful and unacceptable made its way into their religions' doctrines. The line between culture and religion is rather vague, although if one tried hard enough then they could distinguish between the two. I do think that if homosexuality were truly sinful, then the eastern religions would teach against it, too. It has not always been unacceptable to the homosexual in the religious world, especially if one looks back to antiquity.

It makes me angry to hear a Molly Mormon or Peter Priesthood draw a parallel between homosexuality and having tendencies towards drugs or alcoholism. They are absolutely different in every sense. Homosexuality was programmed into my mind insomuch that I can be attracted to another human being by just looking at him. If I had a tendency toward drugs, saw a pill and did not know what it did, I would not necessarily be compelled to want it.

Because sexuality is a major component to a person, built into their schema basically, I do not think it can be considered wrong. Unless the Creator is a cruel being that intends to bring misery and suicide to a select group of people, then it is a tool to bring happiness and growth to individuals. As I said in a previous post, He blessed me with homosexuality. I have grown so much and opened my mind to such a greater capacity than I would have otherwise, and that is not sinful.

I was not created in sin; I was created by God. He built His Kingdom within me, including my homosexuality. It is just a pillar in my being, and there is no sense in tearing part of me down. I don't think He wants that, or he would not have put it there. The Kingdom of God is inside me, and it is inside you, too. What blessings has he given you?

Naïveté Is the Opposite of Wisdom

I was thinking about what the difference is between someone who is naïve and another who is mature. Certainly, the mature person has experienced more than the naïve, but what exactly was it that caused the innocent person to act differently from the experienced? Elders (not church-related; rather, I mean people who are older) are wiser than youth, and it is because they have experienced life already. Elders are experienced, wise, and mature; youth tend to be (but definitely not always) naïve, immature, etc. Yet, a younger person certainly can be smarter than someone older than he. So it must be, the difference between the mature and immature is the amount of wisdom they wield.

Wisdom, to me, is the ability to make good decisions based on experience or what is known. Naïve people generally cannot make good decisions because they are unaware or do not know enough of the world. Street-smarts is a term that could be related here rather than book-smarts. Wise people know enough of the world to understand what makes it turn and why things are the way they are. I feel that the naïve are that way because they are idealistic and hopeful, stemming from not experiencing the world or other ideas enough. Hope is not wrong, but in an idealistic sense it can be unreal. I have plenty of hope, but I do what it to be realistic.

I used to think that wisdom was the opposite of ignorance or stupidity. However, I feel that one can be exceedingly smart while unwise and naïve. Wisdom extends beyond science and math to being able to examine the human condition through personal experience and understanding of others. It utilizes that knowledge to act in a manner that promotes realism.

I suppose one could argue that "Inexperience is the opposide of wisdom," but for some reason the word "naïve" has the conotation that I am looking for. It is not negative, just a condition.

And at this point I have lost my train of thought. I hope that entry made sense to you, and if I come back when I am not excessively tired then I will edit this to make more sense.