deep talks

I had two intense discussions with the wrong people yesterday.

W and I met up after work. What was going to be coffee turned into an early dinner. Hoda's=deliciousness, even if their lentil soup is strangely lemony. The interaction was much better than I expected. True, I didn't go into my "you hurt me, jerkface. Never treat anyone like that again" speech. One can't do that in a restaurant, or at least I can't.

[E's theory is that car rides are ideal for such speeches. You drop someone off. Before they get out of the car, you say what needs to be said. They can freely leave or they can stay and talk. I think it's brilliant, but I'm not about to invest in a car just so I have a convinient way to make my brave speeches.]

We talked about movies and work and mutual friends. And then things got deep. I found myself talking about how I want to live more consciously, why new age-y religion turns me off, and how through teaching seventh graders about the historical Jesus, I am learning that Jesus was an amazing man - someone I think I should learn more about. He means so much to so many; what do they see that I don't? I'm not sure why that all came out with W. I wasn't planning on such things. I don't enjoy small talk. I like having friends with whom I talk about real things. I'm just not sure that I want W to play that role. I think we might work as friends better than we did when romantically linked. I don't care as much, which is liberating. We're meeting up to watch some basketball on Thursday. . .

I need to meet more people in this town who like sports. . .

After my theology class, which was good this week, a classmate tried to engage me in conversation. Tired and worried about missing my bus, I wasn't too into it. Especially when he started talking about how a loving God could cause AIDS. I can't believe in a omnipotent god because, given the state of the world, that god would be callous. I hate the idea of a callous, vengeful, uncaring god. But this man believes in a loving God - and that AIDS is god's plan to bring the world back into balance. Maybe that's true. If there is an omnipotent loving god, why doesn't he just make half of us born sterile & artificial conception impossible? That seems kinder. But this guy wouldn't stop. It's not like I particularly want to believe in a conscious god; I'm happy with my notions of a unconscious binding agent (like flour?) in the universe. If its good enough for theistic Buddhism, it's good enough for me. Yet he felt he needed to convince me of his beliefs. . . I thought Unitarians weren't supposed to be like that.

. . . and I missed my bus.