One of the things I've struggled with in being Catholic is Confession. I never really *got it*. Possibly because I've never done anything that I really felt bad for? I mean I've done bad things, just like anyone else but I've never done anything REALLY bad that I felt bad about? If that makes sense.
Add to that the fact that I'm a fairly private person, about things that actually matter. My family, I think I've mentioned, is not the most open and sharing of peoples? We're loving, but there are things that we don't share. And I'm probably the worst of my family.
Which would be why they all think I was an angel growing up while my sister rightly earned the nickname Demon Spawn. I did a lot worse things than she did when we were growing up, I just never got caught and I know how to keep my mouth shut!
But I think I've finally got it. The Confession thing, I mean. Still not my favorite thing in the world, but it makes sense to me now.
I did a thing.
A BAD thing that I knew was bad and I did it anyway and it doesn't matter what it was, except that in the list of Ten Commandments kind of sins it's literally right on there in the Thou Shalt Not's. But I did it anyway and I felt sick about it immediately afterwards but it was already done and you can't go back in time and slap yourself before you do the stupid thing.
And sure, people have done far worse things in the history of the world, but this was...pretty bad. And high up on the list of things I swore I would never do because I'm not that kind of a person. But it happened and I just...there's no such thing as harmless flirting, okay? Flirting leads in a very specific direction and you should not be going that way with inappropriate people. But I can see now how people who probably don't even mean to do it wind up having affairs because it's a million tiny steps that don't seem bad on their own until you look back and you have wandered way, WAY, off the path you thought you were on.
I was sick about this the whole week, and I couldn't talk myself down from the knowledge that I had done something very wrong. So I got my butt in gear and did an examination of my conscience and hey, what do you know I had some other things that I felt I should bring up.
My parish holds confession on Saturday and it sounds ridiculous but I had to talk myself into going every step of the way. But I made it and I confessed and it was awkward and wonderful all at the same time.
I feel *better*.
I've done my penance and I have the Father's advice on what to do to help myself not fall down that path again. Maybe it seems silly to people, it probably does, it used to seem silly to me too but I don't feel sick about it any more. I don't think that what I did was right, or that I'm not culpable for my own actions but...I don't know how to explain it.
I got it off my chest, in an epic sort of way.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
People are allowed to change their minds, right?
Right.
A couple of years ago I made a big series of posts about how it was possible to be a Christian (specifically Catholic) and still support the death penalty. And I totally believed that at the time. I was all for executing people who had been found guilty by the courts.
My assumption, then, was that the system caught more bad people than it did good/innocent and that while an innocent person's death would be deeply unfortunate it was just a consequence of making sure that terrible people were off the streets.
This thinking was based on the idea that there would be a very small number of innocent people dying. Again, not saying that I thought that was a good thing, just that I thought the system worked more often than it didn't.
I've recently been listening to a lot of podcasts. Some of these are fictional (horror, because why not?) and then some of them are Catholic and some of them are true crime. It's the true crime ones that have made me rethink my position on the whole death penalty thing.
Because I honestly never realized before how many people are falsely accused, arrested and convicted. I'm not talking about the people who continue to claim their innocence, but people who are actually, legitimately, provably innocent. People who are eventually released by DNA or other kinds of evidence. People who, if they had lived in a death penalty state, would have been dead long before their innocence was proven.
Listening to their stories is just sort of chilling after a certain point. How many people have been put away for life because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or because they were the wrong background, the wrong skin color?
My default has always been to trust the system. I was raised by an ex-cop after all. I've only ever experienced the good side of the system. Even when I've been pulled over for speeding, I've been treated with respect and kindness. And I have been doing the things I've been stopped for. Admittedly I've never been caught doing anything *exceptionally* bad, but I still feel that if I was caught, let's say, shoplifting that I would be treated generally well. Given that I would be in the middle of committing a crime and all.
But I'm white. White in the South. I've never *had* to be afraid of the police, or anyone else in the judicial system. My experience is not the experience of all. Donna, my friend and movie buddy Donna, happens to be African-American. She's also Native American, but that's less obvious from just looking at her. She is the least racially sensitive person I know. She was raised on a reservation up in the mountains of New York and racism was apparently just not a thing that happened where she was raised. And even she has noticed that she gets pulled over rather frequently while driving home from her job - she works the night shift and is getting home at two, three a.m. sometimes. Pulled over on some rather slim reasoning at times, by the way.
And I still think that the system, generally, is meant for good. And the vast majority of people working in the system are good people. But there are flaws in the system. Mistakes are made. Not everyone is a good, honest citizen. Not even the people meant to police the rest of us. Prejudice can't be removed just by a little training and lip service to the thought that everyone is equal under the law.
So now I think I'd rather have a guilty person go free because we can't prove their guilt than have an innocent one locked up or put to death in error.
A couple of years ago I made a big series of posts about how it was possible to be a Christian (specifically Catholic) and still support the death penalty. And I totally believed that at the time. I was all for executing people who had been found guilty by the courts.
My assumption, then, was that the system caught more bad people than it did good/innocent and that while an innocent person's death would be deeply unfortunate it was just a consequence of making sure that terrible people were off the streets.
This thinking was based on the idea that there would be a very small number of innocent people dying. Again, not saying that I thought that was a good thing, just that I thought the system worked more often than it didn't.
I've recently been listening to a lot of podcasts. Some of these are fictional (horror, because why not?) and then some of them are Catholic and some of them are true crime. It's the true crime ones that have made me rethink my position on the whole death penalty thing.
Because I honestly never realized before how many people are falsely accused, arrested and convicted. I'm not talking about the people who continue to claim their innocence, but people who are actually, legitimately, provably innocent. People who are eventually released by DNA or other kinds of evidence. People who, if they had lived in a death penalty state, would have been dead long before their innocence was proven.
Listening to their stories is just sort of chilling after a certain point. How many people have been put away for life because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or because they were the wrong background, the wrong skin color?
My default has always been to trust the system. I was raised by an ex-cop after all. I've only ever experienced the good side of the system. Even when I've been pulled over for speeding, I've been treated with respect and kindness. And I have been doing the things I've been stopped for. Admittedly I've never been caught doing anything *exceptionally* bad, but I still feel that if I was caught, let's say, shoplifting that I would be treated generally well. Given that I would be in the middle of committing a crime and all.
But I'm white. White in the South. I've never *had* to be afraid of the police, or anyone else in the judicial system. My experience is not the experience of all. Donna, my friend and movie buddy Donna, happens to be African-American. She's also Native American, but that's less obvious from just looking at her. She is the least racially sensitive person I know. She was raised on a reservation up in the mountains of New York and racism was apparently just not a thing that happened where she was raised. And even she has noticed that she gets pulled over rather frequently while driving home from her job - she works the night shift and is getting home at two, three a.m. sometimes. Pulled over on some rather slim reasoning at times, by the way.
And I still think that the system, generally, is meant for good. And the vast majority of people working in the system are good people. But there are flaws in the system. Mistakes are made. Not everyone is a good, honest citizen. Not even the people meant to police the rest of us. Prejudice can't be removed just by a little training and lip service to the thought that everyone is equal under the law.
So now I think I'd rather have a guilty person go free because we can't prove their guilt than have an innocent one locked up or put to death in error.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
It's Lent!
Or, well, Ash Wednesday.
Which counts.
One of the guys who works the press here knows that I'm Catholic - we're not close enough for me to talk about the ups and downs thereof with him, so it's simpler to just say 'Catholic' because it's still true? Technically.
Anyway. When he came up for a replacement plate this afternoon he asked me where my ashes were. He, being a pressman, had his smeared on his forehead, where they were almost indistinguishable from the ink on him. The press is a messy, messy place. I think they might roll in it sometimes. I don't know why. Pressmen are weird.
Nice, but weird.
I told him that I'd wiped them off.
Which...is true. I hauled my butt out of bed at an ungodly hour, especially considering I worked nights last night, and went to the 7:30 Mass.
Because I miss it.
And that's kind of weird, right?
Right. It's weird.
But true.
I miss going to Mass and just generally....being Catholic. This is rather a new feeling, but maybe I shouldn't be all that surprised.
After all, I went to confession before I flew up to visit Heather last year. Just in case the plane crashed. That way I was covered, in the event of my death.
Which maybe sounds silly to people, I'm sure. But I felt better.
And I feel better having gone to Mass and gotten my ashes (even though I washed them off because I have a twitch, okay?) and doing my fast like a good Catholic girl. Or as close as I can come to it.
I've been here before, though, and burnt myself out right after conversion. So I'm easing back into it, testing the waters so to speak.
Some things still don't make sense, but at least at the moment I feel like maybe that doesn't matter so much.
In the mean time, I've become obsessed with podcasts (seriously, it's good that I've never done drugs, my personality tends towards the 'WOW, THAT WAS AWESOME!!!! LET'S DO IT AGAIN UNTIL WE PUKE!!!!') and the musical Hamilton. I'm at the point where I could listen to the original cast recording on repeat for forever.
This too, shall pass.
Though the Hannibal obsession hasn't yet, but that's a different problem.
Which counts.
One of the guys who works the press here knows that I'm Catholic - we're not close enough for me to talk about the ups and downs thereof with him, so it's simpler to just say 'Catholic' because it's still true? Technically.
Anyway. When he came up for a replacement plate this afternoon he asked me where my ashes were. He, being a pressman, had his smeared on his forehead, where they were almost indistinguishable from the ink on him. The press is a messy, messy place. I think they might roll in it sometimes. I don't know why. Pressmen are weird.
Nice, but weird.
I told him that I'd wiped them off.
Which...is true. I hauled my butt out of bed at an ungodly hour, especially considering I worked nights last night, and went to the 7:30 Mass.
Because I miss it.
And that's kind of weird, right?
Right. It's weird.
But true.
I miss going to Mass and just generally....being Catholic. This is rather a new feeling, but maybe I shouldn't be all that surprised.
After all, I went to confession before I flew up to visit Heather last year. Just in case the plane crashed. That way I was covered, in the event of my death.
Which maybe sounds silly to people, I'm sure. But I felt better.
And I feel better having gone to Mass and gotten my ashes (even though I washed them off because I have a twitch, okay?) and doing my fast like a good Catholic girl. Or as close as I can come to it.
I've been here before, though, and burnt myself out right after conversion. So I'm easing back into it, testing the waters so to speak.
Some things still don't make sense, but at least at the moment I feel like maybe that doesn't matter so much.
In the mean time, I've become obsessed with podcasts (seriously, it's good that I've never done drugs, my personality tends towards the 'WOW, THAT WAS AWESOME!!!! LET'S DO IT AGAIN UNTIL WE PUKE!!!!') and the musical Hamilton. I'm at the point where I could listen to the original cast recording on repeat for forever.
This too, shall pass.
Though the Hannibal obsession hasn't yet, but that's a different problem.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
So what is the basic definition of Christian, then?
Have you ever tried to have a really awkward conversation in a public place?
I do this on a semi-regular basis.
My friend Donna was raised on an Indian reservation in the mountains of New York. And, mind you, she is older. So all in all she comes from a rather different world. Sometimes things that are understood to be impolitic for general conversation don't strike her the same way.
And it's hard, on occasion, to convince her that maybe we should talk about these things at a later time. When we're not in a crowded theater waiting for a movie to start, for example.
Which is how I wind up trying to explain things quietly.
Today it was about Christianity.
Mind you, Donna was raised Episcopalian. She considers herself to be a Christian, though her education in such was basically - 'this is what we are, we do ABC'. *shrug*
The conversation started with her asking me what a Christian was. And I'm pretty sure that we've had a conversation about this before...actually I know that we have. There was a very long, late night discussion over why a person who believes that Jesus was the literal son of God (in the Greek/Roman gods sort of definition) couldn't be a Christian. The Trinity featured heavily in that one.
She was asking, this time, because of a plaque that she bought for decorating her apartment. When I was over there the other night we were talking about design ideas and she was showing me her fathers' fencing foils. Donna planned to mount them on her wall and I suggested that she get a family crest kind of thing to go beneath them to help complete the look.
Donna took my suggestion and found a coat of arms online that she purchased. It is, from her description, one that has a lion and a lamb on either side of a cross, with the banner reading 'Christian' over top. She bought that one because she is a Christian and while some of her family does originally come from England, they certainly don't have an actual familial coat of arms or crest. She was happy with her purchase until she saw an news story about the son of a gay couple who was denied access to a private school because his fathers are gay.
She was very upset that the school denied this boy due to the fact that the school was 'Christian' and she wanted to know if it was an actual Christian stance that homosexual couples are forbidden. Because if it was, she was going to have to un-declare herself a Christian.
Happily I could tell her that while it is the stance of a certain section of the Christian population there are plenty Christians who do not hold to this belief and so she can continue to be Christian without compromising her belief in marriage equality.
However, I'd have been even happier if we could have had this conversation almost literally anywhere else.
That, of course, is not the actual point. Just a side-note of 'my God, she's lucky I love her' kind of friendship angst. :)
Donna wanted to know what the definition of a Christian was, as I said before. And while I think we cleared up the actual heart of the issue, she still wanted to know what the definition actually was.
I told her the most basic definition is that of a 'follower of Christ', but that for the most part people accept as the base level of faith that a Christian is a person who believes that Christ was God (in some way) and that he was incarnated and sacrificed to expiate the sins of all of humanity.
Which, to me, is the most basic definition. I mean, okay, I know that there are a lot of different forms of Christianity and I'm sure somewhere out there there is a branch that doesn't believe some aspect of what I just said. But, honestly, to me? If you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then...then you're not a Christian. You're not a bad person, by any means, and hey, call yourself what you like, but you don't meet the definition of Christian that I understand.
Mind you, I don't meet that definition of Christian, so throwing no stones here.
The conversation did make me wonder though, what is the most basic belief that a person would have to espouse in order to meet your definition of Christian?
I do this on a semi-regular basis.
My friend Donna was raised on an Indian reservation in the mountains of New York. And, mind you, she is older. So all in all she comes from a rather different world. Sometimes things that are understood to be impolitic for general conversation don't strike her the same way.
And it's hard, on occasion, to convince her that maybe we should talk about these things at a later time. When we're not in a crowded theater waiting for a movie to start, for example.
Which is how I wind up trying to explain things quietly.
Today it was about Christianity.
Mind you, Donna was raised Episcopalian. She considers herself to be a Christian, though her education in such was basically - 'this is what we are, we do ABC'. *shrug*
The conversation started with her asking me what a Christian was. And I'm pretty sure that we've had a conversation about this before...actually I know that we have. There was a very long, late night discussion over why a person who believes that Jesus was the literal son of God (in the Greek/Roman gods sort of definition) couldn't be a Christian. The Trinity featured heavily in that one.
She was asking, this time, because of a plaque that she bought for decorating her apartment. When I was over there the other night we were talking about design ideas and she was showing me her fathers' fencing foils. Donna planned to mount them on her wall and I suggested that she get a family crest kind of thing to go beneath them to help complete the look.
Donna took my suggestion and found a coat of arms online that she purchased. It is, from her description, one that has a lion and a lamb on either side of a cross, with the banner reading 'Christian' over top. She bought that one because she is a Christian and while some of her family does originally come from England, they certainly don't have an actual familial coat of arms or crest. She was happy with her purchase until she saw an news story about the son of a gay couple who was denied access to a private school because his fathers are gay.
She was very upset that the school denied this boy due to the fact that the school was 'Christian' and she wanted to know if it was an actual Christian stance that homosexual couples are forbidden. Because if it was, she was going to have to un-declare herself a Christian.
Happily I could tell her that while it is the stance of a certain section of the Christian population there are plenty Christians who do not hold to this belief and so she can continue to be Christian without compromising her belief in marriage equality.
However, I'd have been even happier if we could have had this conversation almost literally anywhere else.
That, of course, is not the actual point. Just a side-note of 'my God, she's lucky I love her' kind of friendship angst. :)
Donna wanted to know what the definition of a Christian was, as I said before. And while I think we cleared up the actual heart of the issue, she still wanted to know what the definition actually was.
I told her the most basic definition is that of a 'follower of Christ', but that for the most part people accept as the base level of faith that a Christian is a person who believes that Christ was God (in some way) and that he was incarnated and sacrificed to expiate the sins of all of humanity.
Which, to me, is the most basic definition. I mean, okay, I know that there are a lot of different forms of Christianity and I'm sure somewhere out there there is a branch that doesn't believe some aspect of what I just said. But, honestly, to me? If you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then...then you're not a Christian. You're not a bad person, by any means, and hey, call yourself what you like, but you don't meet the definition of Christian that I understand.
Mind you, I don't meet that definition of Christian, so throwing no stones here.
The conversation did make me wonder though, what is the most basic belief that a person would have to espouse in order to meet your definition of Christian?
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
I don't always post, but when I do it's randomly and about religion
I don't know if you all remember, but my Dad and I don't discuss religion. Mostly because he lacks the ability to have a conversation about religion and not let it get personal.
Or so it's gone in the past.
However, the other night over dinner we managed to have a conversation without anyone getting their feelings hurt.
It started out as a discussion about Mother Theresa being named a Saint. Oddly, my Dad was raised Catholic but his parents had a problem with the church and left to become Mennonites-lite. So he doesn't know a whole lot about the Catholic church or what they believe since he missed out on CCD classes and actually participating in the life of the church.
So we went over how Catholic Saints are recognized and why people pray 'to' the Saints. Somehow though we segued into a theological discussion about the nature of God.
To preface, my parents are both currently non-denominational Christians. And in my opinion their understanding of Christian theology is less comprehensive than it should be. But that's fine, not everyone enjoys theology and arguing about things that can never be proven or disproven.
I know, I don't get it either. What better fun is there?
Still, they read the Bible and they *believe*, even if trying to pin them down on certain positions is like herding cats. You get nowhere but frustrated super fast.
Back to the conversation. In the discussion about how Saints are people who are recognized by the church as being in Heaven, not *created* by the Catholic church, we wound up talking about the omni's of God. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.
My Dad has no problem with the all powerful, being *everywhere* parts of this. His wrinkle comes at the all knowingness.
His stance is that he thinks God can set something into motion but not know how it's going to turn out. That otherwise God might get 'bored' with knowing everything. Which is…not a sustainable theological perspective in the Christian faith, as far as I know. I did tell him to ask his pastor because presumably the man has had more theological training than, say, me who has had none. I doubt he'll ask though.
My argument against his theological opinion basically runs as follows:
1. Christians accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. God, via angels for the most part, spoke on occasion to people directly but other than that He gave people the information that He wanted to get out and let them write it in their own fashion.
2. Even though it is inspired and therefore there are different writing styles, etc., the Christian belief is based on the fact that God would not allow the important parts to get messed up. So anything that God causes to be said about Himself must be what God meant to have said about Him.
3. God says, in several places, that He knows everything. There are references through the Old Testament and the New. So God knows everything, according to the Bible.
4. God also says that lying is a sin. That's pretty much up near the front, starts in the whole Ten Commandments thing.
5. Therefore, if God says that He is all-knowing, but is not actually all-knowing, then you have two options. Either the Bible can't be trusted to be accurate on what is said of God - and therefore the whole thing must be called into question - because there was no divine editorial board, or God lied about being all-knowing. And if God lied about being all-knowing, then God has sinned. And God cannot sin and be a *good* God.
This is all, of course, assuming Christianity, which assumes Judaism as the base.
Pagans don't, as far as I know, expect 100% honesty from the gods, depending on which god they happen to be dealing with. But I could be wrong. Paganism, aside from a brief foray into the beliefs of my ancestors, is not really a thing for me. There's a lot about it I don't know.
Not really sure how Muslims would feel about the whole thing. I still have trouble with the whole belief that God caused the people to believe that they were killing Jesus but really it was someone else. It still feels a lot like lying to me. Which doesn't sit with the concept of a good God.
Anyway.
I don't know, maybe there's some deeper theological theory that I'm unaware of that makes it possible for God to set something up where He doesn't know the outcome, but it doesn't feel right. It doesn't mesh with my understanding of theology and divinity as a whole.
Another question he had that came out of this was why would God bother to create humanity if He knew that we would screw it up in about the first five seconds.
I told him that most(many?) people believe that God created out of Love. Almost like a function of being Himself. He didn't create out of boredom or loneliness or a desire to see what would happen, but because the purest expression of the Love that He has was to create …. everything and humanity as well. Even knowing that people were going to muck it up.
What do you all think?
Or so it's gone in the past.
However, the other night over dinner we managed to have a conversation without anyone getting their feelings hurt.
It started out as a discussion about Mother Theresa being named a Saint. Oddly, my Dad was raised Catholic but his parents had a problem with the church and left to become Mennonites-lite. So he doesn't know a whole lot about the Catholic church or what they believe since he missed out on CCD classes and actually participating in the life of the church.
So we went over how Catholic Saints are recognized and why people pray 'to' the Saints. Somehow though we segued into a theological discussion about the nature of God.
To preface, my parents are both currently non-denominational Christians. And in my opinion their understanding of Christian theology is less comprehensive than it should be. But that's fine, not everyone enjoys theology and arguing about things that can never be proven or disproven.
I know, I don't get it either. What better fun is there?
Still, they read the Bible and they *believe*, even if trying to pin them down on certain positions is like herding cats. You get nowhere but frustrated super fast.
Back to the conversation. In the discussion about how Saints are people who are recognized by the church as being in Heaven, not *created* by the Catholic church, we wound up talking about the omni's of God. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.
My Dad has no problem with the all powerful, being *everywhere* parts of this. His wrinkle comes at the all knowingness.
His stance is that he thinks God can set something into motion but not know how it's going to turn out. That otherwise God might get 'bored' with knowing everything. Which is…not a sustainable theological perspective in the Christian faith, as far as I know. I did tell him to ask his pastor because presumably the man has had more theological training than, say, me who has had none. I doubt he'll ask though.
My argument against his theological opinion basically runs as follows:
1. Christians accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. God, via angels for the most part, spoke on occasion to people directly but other than that He gave people the information that He wanted to get out and let them write it in their own fashion.
2. Even though it is inspired and therefore there are different writing styles, etc., the Christian belief is based on the fact that God would not allow the important parts to get messed up. So anything that God causes to be said about Himself must be what God meant to have said about Him.
3. God says, in several places, that He knows everything. There are references through the Old Testament and the New. So God knows everything, according to the Bible.
4. God also says that lying is a sin. That's pretty much up near the front, starts in the whole Ten Commandments thing.
5. Therefore, if God says that He is all-knowing, but is not actually all-knowing, then you have two options. Either the Bible can't be trusted to be accurate on what is said of God - and therefore the whole thing must be called into question - because there was no divine editorial board, or God lied about being all-knowing. And if God lied about being all-knowing, then God has sinned. And God cannot sin and be a *good* God.
This is all, of course, assuming Christianity, which assumes Judaism as the base.
Pagans don't, as far as I know, expect 100% honesty from the gods, depending on which god they happen to be dealing with. But I could be wrong. Paganism, aside from a brief foray into the beliefs of my ancestors, is not really a thing for me. There's a lot about it I don't know.
Not really sure how Muslims would feel about the whole thing. I still have trouble with the whole belief that God caused the people to believe that they were killing Jesus but really it was someone else. It still feels a lot like lying to me. Which doesn't sit with the concept of a good God.
Anyway.
I don't know, maybe there's some deeper theological theory that I'm unaware of that makes it possible for God to set something up where He doesn't know the outcome, but it doesn't feel right. It doesn't mesh with my understanding of theology and divinity as a whole.
Another question he had that came out of this was why would God bother to create humanity if He knew that we would screw it up in about the first five seconds.
I told him that most(many?) people believe that God created out of Love. Almost like a function of being Himself. He didn't create out of boredom or loneliness or a desire to see what would happen, but because the purest expression of the Love that He has was to create …. everything and humanity as well. Even knowing that people were going to muck it up.
What do you all think?
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
No but really...
I'm going to a new doctor, after my last one told me that 'some people are just fat' and couldn't come up with any helpful ideas to help me keep losing weight. Which is an issue, okay? I feel like that is not the appropriate answer to someone who needs to lose weight and is looking for ways to supplement diet and exercise.
Anyway. There's always the first little interview, with the nurse, where they ask about family background, etc. and while I can give the information for my mother's side I have no information on my father's side of the family.
Which, while certainly not ideal, is hardly an unusual circumstance, though you would have thought so given how many times the nurse had to repeat 'unknown' to me.
Nurse: 'Father?'
Me: 'Unknown.'
Nurse: *puzzled look*
Me: 'As in, I do not know anything about him. Un. Known.'
Is that really such an unusual state of affairs, do you think?
The other thing that amused me was the doctors disbelief when I told her that I don't drink. She's put me on a medication that will make you sick if you drink alcohol while you're on it. She kept repeating that I couldn't drink *at all* while on this and I kept telling her it wasn't a problem, since I don't drink. At. All.
I know that people my age are expected to be...alcoholically active, lets call it. But there are plenty of people who don't drink for one reason or another.
Anyway, I left the appointment happy with the doctor but feeling like I might be a little weird. Which is okay since I suspected as much already.
And it all sort of reminded me of the interview that I had when I was converting to Catholicism. The deacon asked me why I was interested in Catholicism and I had an answer about how I was looking for the "original" version of Christianity and Catholicism seemed best.
He asked me if I was looking for the oldest, why not convert to Judaism.
I had a flippant response about how I didn't want to give up bacon. Because Bacon.
Years later and I wonder about the obsession with bacon and generally pork related foods in the South and maybe elsewhere? I don't know how prevalent Pork is King is elsewhere in the country. I mean pork is delicious, sure, but it's not all that good for you actually and why are we so obsessed with getting to eat pork?
Anyway. There's always the first little interview, with the nurse, where they ask about family background, etc. and while I can give the information for my mother's side I have no information on my father's side of the family.
Which, while certainly not ideal, is hardly an unusual circumstance, though you would have thought so given how many times the nurse had to repeat 'unknown' to me.
Nurse: 'Father?'
Me: 'Unknown.'
Nurse: *puzzled look*
Me: 'As in, I do not know anything about him. Un. Known.'
Is that really such an unusual state of affairs, do you think?
The other thing that amused me was the doctors disbelief when I told her that I don't drink. She's put me on a medication that will make you sick if you drink alcohol while you're on it. She kept repeating that I couldn't drink *at all* while on this and I kept telling her it wasn't a problem, since I don't drink. At. All.
I know that people my age are expected to be...alcoholically active, lets call it. But there are plenty of people who don't drink for one reason or another.
Anyway, I left the appointment happy with the doctor but feeling like I might be a little weird. Which is okay since I suspected as much already.
And it all sort of reminded me of the interview that I had when I was converting to Catholicism. The deacon asked me why I was interested in Catholicism and I had an answer about how I was looking for the "original" version of Christianity and Catholicism seemed best.
He asked me if I was looking for the oldest, why not convert to Judaism.
I had a flippant response about how I didn't want to give up bacon. Because Bacon.
Years later and I wonder about the obsession with bacon and generally pork related foods in the South and maybe elsewhere? I don't know how prevalent Pork is King is elsewhere in the country. I mean pork is delicious, sure, but it's not all that good for you actually and why are we so obsessed with getting to eat pork?
Monday, September 7, 2015
So....that happened....
I got my DNA results from Ancestry.com finally!
In spite of what my co-workers believed, it turns out that I'm not an alien. *Or* there's a huge conspiracy to cover up my alien origins and the Men in Black will be coming soon. One of those two things. :)
In the totally not a surprise category, I'm Super Super White. Super White. Like...IDK. White.
Filed under, kind of a surprise....there's a lot of Scandinavian in there. Which, to be fair, the Scandinavian DNA blob covers a chunk of Germany, as does the Eastern European DNA blob. And I know there's some Czech in the family on my Grandfather's side, so that all makes sense really.
The Irish thing is new. Though, looking at the blob, it covers Scotland which is where I was told my biological father's family is from. So that might just be a matter of genetic semantics, I guess. It thrilled my other coworker though because we've had this fun Ireland vs. Scotland thing going and now she says I have to come to her side since I'm Irish. Bah.
Jamie Fraser forever!!! LOL
I do find the Italy/Greece trace kind of interesting. I'm guessing that that's likely from my father's side as well, since my mother's side is all German/Easter European. And I keep remembering that little old lady at the Greek Orthodox church who insisted that I *had* to be Greek. Well, okay, maybe a little then. :)
The trace regions that are less than 1% I find more interesting, even though from what I read on the site they may turn up to mean nothing because they're such a low percentage. But if they *are* true genetic traces, how far back are they that they even show up at all?
All in all though, no real surprises.
The Vikings clearly Got Around though. :D
And now my Peruvian coworker (she who declared me an alien) has agreed that while I'm not an alien I must be a Viking vampire - since Romania is included in the Easter European DNA blob and Vlad Dracula is part of the little write up Ancestry does on the region.
I can work with that.
In spite of what my co-workers believed, it turns out that I'm not an alien. *Or* there's a huge conspiracy to cover up my alien origins and the Men in Black will be coming soon. One of those two things. :)
In the totally not a surprise category, I'm Super Super White. Super White. Like...IDK. White.
Filed under, kind of a surprise....there's a lot of Scandinavian in there. Which, to be fair, the Scandinavian DNA blob covers a chunk of Germany, as does the Eastern European DNA blob. And I know there's some Czech in the family on my Grandfather's side, so that all makes sense really.
The Irish thing is new. Though, looking at the blob, it covers Scotland which is where I was told my biological father's family is from. So that might just be a matter of genetic semantics, I guess. It thrilled my other coworker though because we've had this fun Ireland vs. Scotland thing going and now she says I have to come to her side since I'm Irish. Bah.
Jamie Fraser forever!!! LOL
I do find the Italy/Greece trace kind of interesting. I'm guessing that that's likely from my father's side as well, since my mother's side is all German/Easter European. And I keep remembering that little old lady at the Greek Orthodox church who insisted that I *had* to be Greek. Well, okay, maybe a little then. :)
The trace regions that are less than 1% I find more interesting, even though from what I read on the site they may turn up to mean nothing because they're such a low percentage. But if they *are* true genetic traces, how far back are they that they even show up at all?
All in all though, no real surprises.
The Vikings clearly Got Around though. :D
And now my Peruvian coworker (she who declared me an alien) has agreed that while I'm not an alien I must be a Viking vampire - since Romania is included in the Easter European DNA blob and Vlad Dracula is part of the little write up Ancestry does on the region.
I can work with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
