More Credible Advice on Hospitality from Another Random Blogger Who Has Probably Never Entertained Guests

Although hospitality is generally a culturally-imposed idea, it is also a biblical one. We are commanded to be hospitable (1 Peter 4:9). I think it's because Christians are supposed to be loving or something. The jury is still out on that one.

So in our quest to be hospitable, parents and teachers will find themselves in some mad rush to "instill" some form of an idea of hospitality in the children under their guidance. Because it is, as mentioned, a culturally imposed ideal, how polite and hospitable the children under one's care appear to be directly reflects the guardian responsible. So it is often more "coerced" rather than "instilled" into them, because of the parents' or guardians' pride.

Still, some avoid learning hospitality altogether. Up to a certain point, one may blame the parents for acquired rudeness, but when someone is old enough to drive, dress themselves, go to law school, etc., and can't figure out the concept of, say, feeding their guests, the blame falls squarely upon their great, logical shoulders.

When hospitality is involved, there are deviations. Yet even with cultural differences in different countries, what remains the same throughout are these two opposing ways to view the same subject. There are two types of hospitality that are "instilled" or "coerced," and they are as follows:

1. Hospitality from Reception - "Do not be an inconvenience"
2. Hospitality from Giving - "Nothing is an inconvenience, you are guests"

The two are very different, even though the focus for both is on not being "impolite." However, Hospitality from Reception focuses on the receiving end of hospitality, while Hospitality from Giving focuses on the giving end. One is self-centered, the other is focused on other people.

In the doctrine of Hospitality from Reception, what's being taught is not hospitality, but rather the opposite. The theme is "Don't be an inconvenience! Don't put people out of their way." The children are taught that this is what being polite is - not being noticed. But this is actually rubbish. Because the emphasis is on how those on the receiving end behave, entertaining others will become almost impossible. Besides the fact that guests are few and far between in these types of homes, everyone is taught that it is impolite to be an "inconvenience," therefore they will be quick to see the "impoliteness" in their guests, making it extremely difficult to tolerate them at all.

Most people who teach their children Hospitality from Reception are those whose pride is greater than Mount Everest, deeper than the ocean, and fatter than that man at Burger King. They are intensely afraid of being noticed - they are paranoid of discovery. They often have a facade of neatness that is their only security. Hospitality is their enemy, because guests or hosts may discover the inner-workings of their lives, and that it isn't as pretty as it first appears. And, as fatty-pride takes over, it becomes a horrifying fear.

Not only does this grossly analytical approach make it impossible to teach true hospitality, but it makes it exceedingly difficult to teach manners. Not only is the comfort of the guests not even considered (because people are simply objects of which to calculate cost and expense), but the focus is disgustingly on self, money, and pride. If we follow this doctrine devoutly to its end, we will find that it is not actually a type of hospitality, but rather a disguised Anti-Hospitality. Too afraid to accept gifts from others, Receptionists will often rudely disallow Givers the pleasure of hosting them. Even though:

The doctrine of Hospitality from Giving states that while someone is a guest, it is the host's pleasure to entertain. What is overly emphasized is that it is extremely rude to not treat guests like royalty. Not only is anyone welcome for however long they desire, the Giver-host will be extremely embarrassed and/or appalled to find that their guest has been uncomfortable in any way, or needed something and didn't ask for it. The theme is "You are not an inconvenience. When you're under this roof, you are a guest, and will be treated like one." The guest is treated like a human instead of like an object of capital.

What you'll find is that with Hospitality from Giving, the Giver-hosts are taught to try to be as accommodating as possible, so they are in a sense at the guests' mercy. Because of this, they will often make better guests, because they will understand politeness to be whatever type of guest they would like to host themselves. Therefore, because the emphasis is on others, politeness as a guest never really needs to be taught, because they will already have a mindset of trying to accommodate and please others that will remain even when roles are switched.

The difference between the two angles is that one of them looks at the self, and the other looks inherently to others. One loves with true hospitality, while the other pretends to be polite, so that no one can hold them accountable or topple their self-importance. One treats the guests like human souls, the other like capital. Unsurprisingly, it all comes back to love.

While Christians are told to be hospitable, it seems important to also figure out what exactly that means. And since Christians are to love others like Christ loved us, it is only natural that love should find its way into the discussion.

"Without love I am nothing." And without love, so is our hospitality.

More Credible Advice on Relationships from Another Unknown Blogger Who is Probably Single

As you probably guessed from the title (and rightly so), this post is primarily about illiterate and ignorant fools who have the audacity to get involved in relationships with other people without the slightest notion of how to absolve conflict, and with very little desire to either.

No, this is not a joke. There are actual, breathing people who wonder why they have no prospective mates lining up at their doors, why they have no one really close to them, and they actually have no desire to ever work problems out. So I suppose I could go on and on about how it is completely logical to work things out when you get in an argument with someone you desire future friendship with. But being that that falls under the illustrious category of “common sense,” I feel as though stating it will do no good. Let’s face it; if you don’t see the importance of solving conflicts, some intellectual stimulation will be as useful to you as underwear on a bowling ball. Digression.

It would seem the fathomable idea would be for me to instead list the top eight logical ways friends and abhorrent apes can dare scale the great Mount Ego and lower themselves and their guttural grunts to the level of understanding befitting humanity, in order to form a more perfect friendship with harp music and dancing angelic beings that are hopefully not demonic. Digression.

Top Eight Logical Ways:

#1 Actually Have the Desire to Solve the Conflict. This seems like it would be a given. But then… it seems like it would be a given that toilet paper would be available in public restrooms, but a quick trip to Europe reminds us that sometimes we as humans overestimate the mental capacity of other people and their foresight (I’m certain the construction of a Taco Bell would quickly change their no-toilet-paper policy, but as of yet, you may want to bring your own).

It doesn’t seem like it should need to be said, or written, but this actually seems to be a common problem in relationships with all types of people. They have no actual desire to work out problems and then they go about the earth in a confused and appalling manner, masticating large chocolates, drooling heavily from their crooked lips, and wondering why on earth they are not in the midst of some wondrous friendship. The reason is that while they may say they are working problems out, in reality they are being immature, sniveling three-year-olds, crying about their problems but never explaining their feelings.

I would guess the reason they don’t like talking about their feelings is that they have convinced themselves they do not have any feelings. Which is ridiculous, for how else would they be in this mess to begin with, and why else would this very rude blog post offend them so much?

#2 Communicate. This cannot be overstated, although I will attempt to. When someone is involved in a relationship of any type, it is of the most basic practicality that those two people must develop some means of communication. If you have some aversion and repugnance to speaking with someone, why are you even friends? What do you expect, for Charles Xavier to read your mind for you and then broadcast your thoughts and emotions onto your friend or partner so you don’t have to bother with the tedious and arduous task of moving your mouth into shapes that will convey the secrets of your heart? Because I don’t think that sounds very fair, both for your friend or for Charles Xavier. Do you think he really has time for that? He has a mutant school to run, the Scarlet Witch to mentally obstruct, the government to war with, not to mention his good friend Magneto who hates humanity. Your little spat will mean nothing to that bald, crippled genius. And really, if you won’t explain yourself, why should it mean anything to anyone else either?

#3 Communicate. I told you I would attempt to overstate it. There is no greater importance to solving conflicts than having that simple ability to work things out. And here are some good tips to keep in mind whilst “communicating.”

      a.       Listen. If you want to understand their point of view, listening to them when they say things is essential. If most of this stuff sounds like obvious rubbish everyone should already know, that’s probably because it is. But just because something is obvious rubbish that we know we should do does not automatically mean we do it without reminders, nagging, and/or a good humiliatingly mocking blog post.

      b.      Listen more, because simply not talking does not equate listening. There must be an active engagement of the mind, focused on the words that spill forth from their mouths, not simply to ensnare them in their words, but to actually understand what they mean by them. Try to empathize with their pain, which should be easy, since their pain was probably caused by your senselessness and lunacy.

      c.       Speak. There will come a time when you must draw yourself out of that gloriously kingly shell and lower your humble royalty to the level of your friend or partner in order to tell them exactly what the issue is. This does not mean you rip into them with your witty sarcasm or overpower them with the sound of your commanding, mighty voice. This means you treat them with the same respect you are at that very moment expecting they have for you, and that respect does not and should not be determined by whether or not they are affording it to you at that time, otherwise it is relative respect and therefore nonexistent. If you have any respect for them (and if you don’t, stop being friends), then act like it even when you feel slighted by their attitude.

      d.      Give and take. This does not mean a compromise. If it did, I would be compromising the extreme rudeness with which I address you, perhaps crossing off most of the words already written (the last thing I want to be is a hypocrite!). But as you may have noticed, I did not write “compromise,” neither have I compromised one word on this frigging post. Give and take means that as you are listening to their point of view, you are ready to admit you may have been wrong, and be willing to try to understand their grievances, just as you hope for them to understand yours. A conflict involves two people; the resolution ought to as well.

      e.       Avoid being cruel or apologizing when you don’t mean it. If there is one issue, whether or not the pain that was heaped upon you was intentional or not, their meanness doesn’t actually make any difference in how you treat them. They are responsible for what they said, not what they “made you say.” You alone are responsible for your actions and for your reactions. Don’t make it two issues by compounding the argument into a cesspool of your depraved selfishness.

And what good does a sarcastic apology do when things are already heating up? That only makes the word “sorry” into another weapon, and weapons are mean. Do not be mean to people, or you are a Nasty. And if you’re a Nasty, you don’t need any good people surrounding you, being mistreated at your royal expense. Your meanness alone should be enough. After all, aren’t other people just crutches to help you when you need them, and at all other times they can just suck it? That’s what meanness conveys. It’s mean.

#4 Communicate. Isn’t that what most of the problem comes down to? Obviously if they still don’t know what the crap is wrong with you, your communicating is as workable as the seventh draft of the mysterious healthcare bill proposed to congress. It’s rubbish. Try again. If you really think that dangling a donut in front of them to entice them to approach you so they can ask you all the right questions until they have figured out the problem is equivalent to communication, think again, hairy ape. Turns out, there is a difference between two friends, and the CIA, just as there is a difference between telling someone your problems, and having to be water-boarded and interrogated in order to spill the beans.

Spilling the beans is a nauseating idiom that Americans really had no reason to invent, and even less reason to use, so I must apologize for that. Calling all readers hairy apes is one thing. Using the spill the beans expression is another. I beg your forgiveness, which brings us to the next Logical Way.

#5 Apologize for Your Single-minded Dumptitude. I know, “dumptitude” isn’t a word, but I kind of think it should be, because it reminds me of the dumpy attitude involved when someone thinks they are so much far above all others that they have no reason to ever think about apologizing to another human being. For some people, the thought of uttering a sincere apology makes them convulse violently and it curdles their milk. Surely there is merit in not wanting to taint your magnificent lips with the sounds of repentance, especially towards inglorious scum such as your friends and acquaintances or whatever objects of affection these meager beasts that surround you are titled. It makes no difference.

#6 Avoid Feudal Friendships. Familiar with the feudal system? As a brief reminder, there were mean lords and there were cute peasants. The peasants worked in the fields that the lords owned – the peasants did all the dirty work, and they didn’t even get to reap the rewards for their labor; it all went to the fat lords up in their castles. The only benefit they got from the whole rubbishy ordeal was the ability to claim protection in the castle from wild people.

Some people are self-proclaimed lords, and unfortunately, befriending them makes you a peasant. You are required and expected to chase them, labor for the friendship, do all the dirty work, resolve all the conflicts, and you don’t even reap the benefits of having their appreciation or even the acknowledgement of your horrifying existence in their extraordinary lives. The only thing you gain is perhaps security in having someone to alleviate loneliness. Or perhaps security knowing that you are not being mean. But does that matter if they don’t even notice your daily sacrifices? You’re just a peasant after all, and the lords are much too busy to bother with you. Go muck the cows.

But seriously, relationships are not impossible if both parties cooperate. And I’m not talking one person is the lord and the other is the peasant. When two human beings or even a human and a bestial creature of scum such as yourself come together in friendship, there is a sense of equality that has to be striven for, or it is not really a friendship: it is slavery by the manipulation and egotistical superiority of the being purporting to be more important than the other through words and deeds.

Overthrow the paper kingdom of meanness. Refuse to muck the cow. Do not become the supplier of narcissism, forsaking all other roles and identity for the sake of one selfish beast. And for the love of the entire kingdom, don’t demand others to muck the cows either. You are not the lord.

#7 Be Attuned to Other People’s Feelings. I really don’t care what lame excuse you are coming up with right now. You and I both know how pitiful it will be, when it only reflects your own selfishness. Other people have feelings. You do too, or you wouldn’t be so nasty. The trick is remembering that just because they aren’t YOUR feelings does not mean they are up for dismissal.

#8 Be Willing to Bend and Change. There is no reason to notice other people’s feelings if you are not willing to do a confounded thing about it. Since there is no known cure for prolific farmyard tendencies to act like a bovine or sow, this type of decision must be up to the beast in question. You cannot expect others to do all the heavy lifting for you; this is not a volunteer work day (there’s always that one guy).

If there is no change, there was no logical purpose for the whole conflict. Envision each argument and clash as an opportunity to become a better friend, partner, brother, sister, etc. In that way, even though fighting is bad, it can be for what is usually known as “the greater good.” But let’s face it; the “greater good” phrase is a bunch of rubbish. If you’re so selfish that you have to be told to communicate, commit, humble your royal self, and listen to the person with whom you have the conflict, why in the name of Adolf Hitler would you be concerned with the good of all people?

Wherein I Sell Your Selfishness Back to You: So let me sell it back to you, Mr. Selfish Beast, he that resides in each of us, to whom this post is addressed. Let me tell you the secrets of friendship, although it will sound sickening to those who prefer the self-righteousness of not feeling as selfish as they really are. But let’s be honest.

A friendship wherein both parties are sacrificing, stretching, growing, and changing into better people together will feel much more fulfilling and rewarding than being even the king in a feudal friendship. The service, love and commitment will all mean so much more, because it wasn’t demanded. It was earned.

“I Love You”

It takes much cruelty to kill a man

Whilst happy and so whimsical

Which pain is more unbearable?

Emotional or physical?

Beaten to a bloody pulp

Is still a better deal

Than getting beaten in your soul

At least the body heals

Love songs may be love songs

But love cannot be love

To be in love or to be in lust

Or is it all of the above?

We say we love someone

Because that person gives

That person makes us happy

That person makes us live

Our idol isn’t that person

But the feelings that’re invoked

If our idols are our feelings

Love’s the punchline – we’re the joke

Our hearts are many-layered

A tangled stratification

And all along we’ve loved ourselves

Love: instant gratification

How dare we say I do!

And promise to love ourselves?

We stand there at God’s alter

And propagate for hell

Lucifer the Laugher

As we play into his hands

As we lie straight through our teeth

And slip on the betting bands

“I [bet] I’ll always love you”

You lie to the man with the Bible

(“Unless I don’t really love her later

“With divorce papers I’m not liable!”)

Love is not what’s broken

It’s not even in the equation

What we sell is mutilated

Like a butter knife with serration

We feel this lust and think it’s love

In a way it’s true, if you delve

For there may be love in the picture

But the love is for ourselves

How else can you say one day

“I love you with all my heart”

And the next day decide the opposite

Like erasing a work of art

How else can you murder a man?

How else can you disown him?

As he finds out those promises

Are like spit in the raging ocean

If after all it’s better

To be physically demolished

Death is best served bodily

Than to be symbolically abolished

It would be better if you hated him

And disdained him like a cist

Than to ignore his painful presence

Like he doesn’t even exist

If you’ve made him dead to you

Like the bitterest of daughters

You’re not guilty of ignorance

But of emotional man-slaughter

How dare you take a spark of love

And in your stupid foolish brain

Because you didn’t understand it

Just wash it down the drain?

How dare you murder in your mind

And sear the deepest wounds

And in your cowardly pitiful fear

You cannot even visit the tomb

I think the greatest cover-up

Is pretending to be fake

As souls pile up behind you

Decaying in your wake

If in a house surrounded by souls

You’d be Samson and break down the pillar

Is it just a sickness or are you angry?

You sweet little serial killer