But now I find myself wondering - what if you are so very different from other people that being real alienates them? To what extent should you then adopt the behaviours of others, to make them feel more comfortable, and to give yourself a chance to ... not 'fit in', as that is impossible, but on some level to be accepted? And what if, in doing so, you feel you are getting further and further from your 'real' self?

And then what about the fact that as Christians we are to 'die to self'? Does this contradict being 'real' at some level?

I find it hard to know exactly what God wants in this respect. Although perhaps I haven't actually stopped to ask him directly. Because only in writing this now am I putting it into words in my mind. It has been there in my mind, but not in words, so I couldn't pray it as a question.

I realise my understanding of the church's attitude to such things is limited to my own church experiences. I've been to a lot of churches, because I've moved a lot, but they have mostly been fairly similar churches, in that they were evangelical. I have also been on various missions, but again, those attract the evangelical Christians. So I don't know a lot about the other kinds of churches that are more formal and don't do evangelism. Not that evangelism is relevant to my topic, but I just mean that I am aware that there are some very different kinds of churches out there with which I'm unfamilar.

But getting back to singleness versus marriedness, I have found there tend to be two main and conflicting teachings about it.

The first goes along the following lines: 'The apostle Paul said "It is better to be as I am" - he is thus saying it's spiritually better to be single. You can serve God better if you are single because then you can give God your undivided attention. But Paul also says "It's better to marry than burn", which refers to the many people who simply can't be single. They need to marry because they have such strong sexual desires which would consume them if they weren't satisfied. Most people are like this. But God grants some people a special gift of singleness, where they can be satisfied being single. Being single is a very special gift!'

The second (which is sometimes a retaliation against the first) goes something like this: 'Being married is the natural state of mankind. God made us to be married. Marriage is a wonderful and a beautiful thing. Being single is not the natural state, but obviously some are single, for unavoidable reasons, and God still loves single people. [much in the same way as he loves sick people even though it's not nice to be sick, the unsaid implication seems to be!]'

I have heard both these views preached quite a bit. The first tends to be preached either by single people, or by married people trying to encourage single people. The second tends to be preached by married people. These two views are what I mean about the church seeing things so much in black and white - attributing moral values to things which are simply different ways of life. I find both views ridiculous. Most single Christians I know actually want to be married. Some are resigned to the fact they are single - but it is more often a resignation rather than a celebration of singleness. They do not have a magical gift of singleness, where they have no desires for a partner. I, on the other hand, apparently have this 'magical gift'! I have never wanted to be married. I've never had any sexual desires at all. Never even a crush on anyone. I'm what is apparently known as 'asexual'. But, this does not make me extra spiritual at all. It is only a gift in that any aspect of ourselves is a gift - as in all that we are is what God has provided. It is nothing special. Asexuality is apparently more common among people with autism or Aspergers, in fact (although not all of them, of course) - just a difference in the way the mind works. Oh, and because I was thinking about this very black and white thinking of so many Christians - the 'if you're different from me there must be something wrong with you' mentality - I decided out of curiosity to do a google search for Christians and asexuality, and came across an article where asexuals were decried as 'sub-Christian'! How daft - as if our faith is defined by our sexual passions or lack thereof!

Now, moving on the second argument, that being married is the 'natural' thing for people to do and is thus right and superior. The whole 'natural' argument flummoxes me. It is also used by Christians against homosexuals. Now I realise homosexuality is a more complex issue, because some interpret the Bible to say that God says that homosexual sex is a sin, so that is different from singleness, which is never seen as being described as a sin. But if the reason is that it is a sin, that should be the reason alone, not that it is not 'natural'. Because there is nothing at all to suggest that Christianity is synonymous with naturalness. Is it 'natural' to turn the other cheek, for instance? Or to love our enemies? So to say that something is a sin because it's not natural makes no sense to me. But it does illustrate the whole teenage thing where people think that anything different from their own frame of understanding must be wrong and bad. That they are normal and that different people are abnormal. And I think this is why Christians so often have so much more of an issue with homosexuals than with people (including themselves) who do other things they would class as a sin. It's the whole 'different is unnatural and therefore scary' thing. They can identify with someone who does the 'natural' kinds of sins that they do ('natural' because they understand them, and it is easy for them to commit them) but when it is something they don't understand, it becomes scary and unnatural - and they convert this fear into a harsh judgement.

But, having said that about the church being teenage, I think in a way it is not just the church. I think maybe everyone is, as lanark said. I think maybe it is more obvious in the church because the church's views are different from the world's. Our society outside of the church generally says it's okay to be gay, for instance. But if we go back a few decades, society also thought it was wrong. And the teenageness is more obvious in the church, because in the church different things are seen as moral inferiority. Whereas in the non-religious society they are often seen as weirdness. People, whether church people or not, will often say 'Why is that person single? He seems like a really nice person.' Or 'I wonder what's wrong with her, that she's still single.' As if finding a partner happens when you are nice, and if you are single, then clearly it's due to some deficit within you! But then I suppose this is because a lot of people have a fear of being single for the rest of their lives, so once they find a partner, then they move on to the 'Phew, I'm safe! I'm normal!' side, and everyone who is single is on the scary side, the side they avoided, and represents all the fears they had about themselves when they were single. Perhaps also a reason people are homophobic - they might have a subconscious fear of being gay and they want to separate themselves from this scary side.

Anyway, I realise this entry is a bit of a rant as well as trying to examine it logically, because I do get fed up with the attitude that being single means a person has failed, or that being single is a dreadful thing to be pitied. I honestly think that if society (and the church) were more enthusiastic and genuinely embracing of singleness, then more people would actually like being single. But then maybe not, because I know people do have these desires that I don't have, so I can't identify. I guess I just find it quite isolating that I am the only single person I know who actually chooses to be single, and has no desire to not be single! I remember in my twenties when a lot of my single friends were always saying how sad they were to be single and how they really wanted a partner, it actually made me feel dissatisfied, because then I began to think that clearly something was missing from my life, even though I'd never felt that before, because everyone else who was single was so unhappy with it, so the majority must be right. So I actually went and got a boyfriend because I felt that must be the thing to do. And I didn't like having a boyfriend. I tried it three times. Three boyfriends. Not at the same time, of course - one after the other. But I didn't like it. Partly, it didn't seem right because my feelings towards them were no different from my feelings towards my friends. And also I didn't like the feeling of being a couple - I found it very confusing and overwhelming having another person to think about all the time, who was somehow 'attached' to me in a way that my friends weren't. But because all my friends hated being single and thought that everyone needed a soul mate, I found it very confusing and felt that I must have a secret subconscious desire for a partner that I wasn't aware of. So I think there is a lot of peer pressure - especially in the church - to have a partner, or to feel discontent if you don't have one. Kind of like when I didn't have a TV, and everyone was telling me how much I was missing out, and how I really should have a TV because TV is so great, and they would always talk about the TV programmes they watched (like how people talk about their partners, and it makes you feel left out even though you don't want one!). And eventually my dad said 'This is ridiculous. You need a TV. I'm buying one for you.' (Gosh, I'm so glad it doesn't work that way with husbands in British society!). And so now I have a TV. Which I don't watch.

Um... I think I've got off track here, because I don't think TVs or lack thereof are judged morally within the church. So I'll end my entry now before I digress even further and any point I may have been making gets totally lost!

You know how when people are teenagers, it is very important to them to fit in and be the same as everyone else. And when anyone is different, they mock them or bully them, and let them know that any difference as inferior and wrong. Now, I try to analyse people's behaviour a lot, because I find people hard to understand, and the conclusion I have come to from observing teenage behaviour is that it is motivated by black and white thinking and fear. Say it's the 'in' thing to wear your shirt tucked out. That all the teenagers do this and feel comfortable that they are doing the 'right' thing. And then say a new teenager comes along, with her shirt tucked in, and is quite happy to have her shirt tucked in. She is a threat, because the fact that she is happy with her shirt being tucked in suggests that having one's shirt tucked out is not the 'right' way of doing it. And therefore, to the teenagers' black and white way of thinking, if she thinks having her shirt tucked in is great, then she must be also thinking that having one's shirt tucked out is wrong. The idea that people are different and some might prefer one thing and others another, and that neither are intrinsically 'right' or 'wrong', doesn't come into the equation. So the teenagers will try to get this teenager to tuck her shirt out, or at least to make it utterly clear that shirts tucked in are wrong and she should feel inferior about it. I'm pretty sure my theory is correct, because I've created really eccentric teenage characters on online communities, and observed how other teenagers behave towards them. Although sometimes the teenagers I create become something of a cult figure, and people decide they are great. And then once a few lead figures in the community have decided they are great, all the teenagers follow suit, and change their hatred to admiration. It is very interesting. Especially as when I was a teenager, I wasn't like this at all - I didn't fit in and didn't care about fitting in, because I was in a world of my own. So it interesting now to look back at when I was a teenager, and understand the people in my class in the light of the theory I've now developed.

But, back to the church. I think churches are like this too. Because with churches, 'right' and 'wrong' is very much part of how they operate. Because of course, there are moral considerations, and lists of commandments in the Bible. But sometimes it seems to go beyond what the Bible teaches, and the idea of right and wrong infiltrates every aspect of a person's life. So, to use my silly example, whether one tucks one's shirt in or out could, in theory, become a moral issue in the church. An example springs to my mind. When I was in my twenties, I loved travelling. I would still love it, because I am very curious about the world, but I have developed an irrational fear of flying, and my health is not so good, so I rarely travel now. But in my twenties I travelled a lot. And I remember coming back from a mission trip in the former Soviet Union, about ten years ago, and I was telling my flat mate how wonderful it was, and how travel really broadens your mind, and how everyone should do it. And she got very snappy with me, and said that I am wrong, and that travelling doesn't broaden your mind, and she kept putting down travelling. I was quite bewildered and argued back that it does indeed broaden the mind, and how could she even judge as she'd never been abroad. And she told me that I thought I was so holy and I wasn't at all, and I asked what holiness had to do with it, and so we argued and there were bad feelings. Then eventually she told me what the problem was - she said that she had never travelled and never wanted to travel, so when I said that travelling is good and broadens the mind, it was like I was judging her for being narrow minded. And to be honest, maybe I was, just a little bit, because, well, she was narrow minded in my view. But what had happened is that we'd both made travelling into a moral issue. Which of course it isn't. Travelling is not a requirement of being a Christian. A Christian who never travels at all can be a much more devout Christian than one who has travelled the world - and vice versa.

I can actually now think of another example where travel became a moral issue. This is interesting. I was actually going to focus on singleness versus marriedness, and the church's attitude to homosexuality, as those issues were what inspired the entry, but then the examples of travelling popped into my head, and in a way I prefer the travelling example because it's not one that is usually used. I've never heard anyone talk about it before. But I remember returning from my travels to the church which I had previously attended. It was a very conservative church - the kind where people walked out in disgust if a chorus was sung more than once. Anyway, I'd been the oldest of the 'young people' at this church, and when I returned I found that the young young people (who'd all been in their early teens when I'd been at university) were now getting married. It seems to be a common thing amongst church people in my experience, that they get married very young. Mostly they get engaged when they are at university, and then get married as soon as they graduate. Anyway, a few of us went to the pub - they were not so conservative that they wouldn't go to pubs - and I was telling one of the engaged girls that I really love travelling and I'd like to do more. She sniffed in a superior way and said 'Travelling is just an escape really.'

I'd never heard this view before, and was fascinated. 'An escape from what?'

'From reality.'

I was somewhat confused. 'How do you define reality?'

'Well, you know, settling down, getting married and having kids.'

I was totally amazed. I really should also write about the singleness versus married issue in the church too sometime, because it is fascinating. I had no idea, at that point, that getting married and settling down was seen as morally superior. It seemed utterly bizarre to me, for the reason that I then expressed to this girl. 'But Jesus travelled. He didn't settle down and get married.'

To give her her due, she then said, 'That's a point.' And then her fiance came along with their drinks and sat down, and she told him what we'd been talking about, and my point about Jesus.

'Well yes,' he said, with an authoritative tone. 'But Jesus didn't travel abroad.'

I blinked. I wasn't quite sure what travelling abroad had to do with it. 'Well, they didn't have aeroplanes back in Jesus's day,' I pointed out.

'No,' he said, 'but the apostle Paul travelled abroad, even without aeroplanes.'

By this point, I'd totally lost the thread of the argument. He was proving me wrong, apparently, but I could not see the logic. But anyway, that was another example of how travelling (apparently) became a moral issue. And now I shall stop writing because this is very long, and will look even longer when it's posted, because the entries are in such a narrow box. But I will write more about this issue of whether church is a bit teenage, because it interests me and I've been thinking about it.

I don't think I feel uncomfortable with reading about another's illness or suffering. I hope that doesn't make me a voyeur. I simply always assume that if someone is posting something publicly on the internet then it is somehow cathartic or helpful for them in some way, and that they want people to read. There are times when I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to comment though - it depends on many things, such as what sort of internet community it is, the personality of the blogger, and whether they have commented me before, and indeed if I have anything to say or not. But if I am not sure, then I don't comment. Whether I read or not depends more on if I find it helpful or interesting to read - for instance, if someone expresses something in a way I can identify with, or writes about things I understand, or has a perspective that is interesting and shows me things in a way I hadn't thought of before. And I think if I am going through a hard time, it is somewhat reassuring, in an odd sort of way, to know that I am not the only one, even when others' struggles are different. Or if I have got to know the person quite well, even though it's just over the internet, then I read as a friend, and try to offer support.

So I guess I don't find that sort of thing uncomfortable to read. I am really only uncomfortable with reading things where I think another person's confidence is being betrayed. If someone writes very personal things about him or herself, I am not uncomfortable, I don't think - or at least, I can't think of a situation where I have been uncomfortable with that. It never occurred to me before that people might be uncomfortable with it. I now am wondering whether I've ever written anything to make people uncomfortable. If I ever do write something that makes any of you uncomfortable, then just don't read it, and I won't mind at all.

When you read blogs (from all over the internet - not specifically here) is there a point at which the blogger writes things that seem too personal and make you feel uncomfortable? Are there some feelings and experiences which are too personal to be shared? A point of 'inappropriate disclosure' (to use the jargon we learn at college!)?

For myself, I have sometimes been uncomfortable reading blogs (not here, but elsewhere on the internet) where people have posted an intimate email they received, or an intimate MSN conversation they have had, which was clearly meant for their eyes only. This gives me the sense of eavesdropping and so I stop reading in this case. However, this kind of thing is more an issue of bloggers breaking confidence, which is not quite what I mean in my question.

My question is more about whether a person can be too personal about themselves. Obviously, posting full name, address, credit card details would be highly inappropriate - but I mean more in terms of their feelings and experiences. Are there some feelings and thoughts and experiences which you believe should be kept to oneself? Are there some types of personal things that make you feel uncomfortable to read? (And not just sex, because it occurs to me now that that is probably one that everyone will think of.)

I am realising my utter ignorance of Easter traditions. I had no idea that it was traditional to watch the sunrise at Easter, let alone to go to water to do so.

I didn't watch the sunrise. My church had a 6:00am service, which now I think of it must have been to honour the sunrise tradition thing, but I simply thought 'How crazy having a service at that time of the morning!' and didn't attend.

There was also a service at 10:30am, which ... er ... I also didn't attend. I planned to, but failed to set my alarm clock. Total knackered-ness and much sleep seem to be a theme of my life lately, as my course has been extremely demanding this term.

But I will go the the St Pixels online church this evening. I joined that site a week ago, and am quite enchanted by the idea of online church. In many ways I like it better than real life church. In real life church I am aware that as I sit in the congregation the preacher can see me and may very well see all my facial expressions, and then I become self-conscious and wonder what sort of facial expression is expected in response to each thing he says, and then I get confused and I don't feel free to react naturally, and I end up blushing, and it is quite distracting and bothersome. But in an online church no one can see your face, and you can react in whatever way comes naturally to you. Also, in real life church I always feel awkward after the service - I don't know whether to stay seated or stand up, and whether to talk to people, and if so, who to talk to and what to say, and at what point I should go to the coffee room to drink coffee, and, well... I feel a bit like a lemon! But in an online service you just stay there in the chat room and you don't have to stand up or sit down - you don't have to do anything. You can just stay there without feeling like a lemon. So it is quite good from the not-feeling-like-a-lemon perspective. :-)

But sometimes I get in a mood where I like to find some music to listen to, and I go onto YouTube to find songs that I like. Today I was looking for hymns, and I found lots of my favourite hymns to listen to, sung by various people. And I found a singer with a really pretty, fresh voice, singing 'Just as I am'. She is called Emily Gray, and I'd never heard of her before, but then it could be that she's famous and that other people have heard of her, because I haven't heard of a lot of people that others have heard of. Anyway, I thought I'd post the YouTube here, for other people to listen to as well, because it really is a very sweet voice - and also I thought since this is a Christian site, I should post something inspirational as well as all my self-indulgent thoughts! :-)

I remember in the lead up to Easter being very aware that I was going to get a chocolate egg, and being very excited about this. And very impatient too - many times I declared that I wanted it to be Easter right away so that I could eat the chocolate egg.

And then Good Friday came and I knew this was Easter so I asked for my egg. And my mother told me with great sternness that this was the day when Jesus died, so it would be very wrong to enjoy eating chocolate when we should be feeling very sad that poor Jesus suffered and died. We could only eat chocolate on the Sunday, because that's the day when Jesus rose again, so that's the day when we are supposed to be happy and celebrate that Jesus is alive.

So very impatiently, I waited till the Sunday. I remember the delight of finally being given my chocolate egg. My sisters and I sat together unwrapping our eggs, all excited to eat them. And then our mother came in and said, 'Did any of you think to remember that today is when Jesus rose from the dead?'

'Oh no, I forgot about that,' I said, with my usual frankness, and my mother frowned at me with a look of great disappointment and disapproval.

'Yes, I remembered,' piped up my good sister, the one who has always known the right thing to say and said it, even when it's not strictly true. And she smiled her winning smile and got lots of praise and approval for it. While I sat munching my Easter egg, thinking that surely Jesus was happy for me to have a nice chocolate egg and didn't really mind me not thinking about him dying and rising again whilst I was eating it.

Now of course this is many years ago, and lots of Easters have happened since then, but in a way I still find myself just as bemused about Easter. I know that Jesus died and rose from the dead, and that this is the essential message of Christianity. I am very grateful for it, because it means that I can have a relationship with God. But the fact that Jesus died and rose again is something I am always aware of, and I find it very confusing to have a day when I am supposed to be sad and feel guilty, and then a day when I am supposed to rejoice. I can't select my emotions at will like that.

I will be very honest here, and say something which you are not supposed to say as a Christian, but I have a problem with the whole idea that I am supposed to feel utterly ashamed because 'Jesus died and it's my fault - I, along with everyone else, killed him!' I don't feel guilty that Jesus died for me. I am very grateful, and I also think it is very sad that he had such a horrible suffering and death, but I don't feel guilty. Because my understanding of the Bible is that I had no choice about my sinful nature. I was doomed to be sinful before I was even born, as a result of the fall of man. There is nothing I could do to stop it. As a human, there was no way I could avoid sinning - the apostle Paul says that the law was put into place to show us that we can't keep it. So while I recognise that sin is wrong, and it is not a good thing to be sinful, it's not a question of saying 'Oh no - I could have prevented Jesus dying if I'd been good!' Because that is an impossibility.

I do think it is different once we become a Christian, because then we have the power of Christ in us, and we can choose to submit to Jesus and for him to live through us, or we can choose to follow what we want and let that take precedence, and it really is a choice. But before we are Christians we do not have this choice. For instance, it is a bit like this. I am short sighted, because I have inherited that from my parents, and it's not a good thing to be short sighted, and I'd rather have good vision, but at the same time it is not something I could have prevented, so it's not something I need to say sorry about or feel guilty about. So I am very confused by the emotions we are supposed to have regarding Jesus' death and resurrection.

And I still don't think Jesus expects people to be thinking about his death and resurrection while they are eating their chocolate eggs! The very sensual and absorbing experience of eating chocolate doesn't mix very well with deep spiritual reflections on the meaning and cost of our salvation. Well, I suppose maybe some people can concentrate on both simultaneously, but I can't.

Then I remembered that I actually do have a vocation - which I'm not actually doing - which God revealed to me several times over my childhood and early adulthood. I haven't started doing it yet. Partly because I don't know if God wants me to yet. And partly because I'm a perfectionist, and I am afraid of doing badly. And partly because it seems like a self-indulgent vocation, and I think I would do it the way I want to, rather than listening to God to hear how he wants me to do it. And partly because it's something I would do in my own time, and would be self-employed as such, and I might not make a living out of it, or it might be a few years before I do, so I have assumed I need to get a 'proper job' first. And I wanted my 'proper job' to be something that is actually a profession, that you train to do, rather than the previous jobs I have had, where I have needed no training, which got rather boring, and for which the pay is very low.

And now, honestly, I don't know if I am doing the right thing. I dislike my course for many reasons. The content of what we study is actually very interesting, or it would be, if the teaching was more structured, and the expectations of what we must do were made clearer. As it is, I find the course confusing and depressing. If I were to quit it now, I would feel very relieved. But I don't know if my dislike of the course is a sign that I am not following God's will by doing it, or if it is simply one of those difficult things in life which God puts there to help us grow, and that this is a necessary step in my Christian growth. I have no idea. I do know that I prayed that I would only get accepted onto the course if it was God's will - but then I have prayed that with many courses I have applied for, and got accepted on all of them, and then changed my mind for some, realising they were not what I wanted, so I don't think the mere fact that I got accepted is a sign that it's God's will. Only that God wasn't actively stopping me doing it.

I am roughly half way through my course now. And it has reached a kind of climax of difficulty - not difficulty in the academic stuff, because I am generally fine with that, but difficulty in that the demands they are making of me are too much, and I am often exhausted and unwell. And unmotivated. I keep going out of stubbornness, and also because quitting would be a big decision, and I feel too tired to make a big decision. And because I am scared of doing the wrong thing - what if I would quit and then totally regret it.

But as for my vocation, I have no time to do it while I am training. And so I wonder if I have pushed what God wants out of my life.

These are my thoughts, and I know there are no easy answers. I can only pray for guidance and hope that God makes things clear to me.

Odd things about me:

• I am generally very confused by life and by people, and I don't understand things unless they are explicitly explained to me.
• No doubt due to this constant confusion, and also a great desire to understand things, I am very strongly motivated by curiosity, and I ask a lot of questions. Which sometimes seem to other people like really obvious questions that I should understand implicitly, or that don't need asking because the reasons are unimportant. But I don't understand implicitly and the reasons are always important to me.
• My sense of humour tends to be an enjoyment of the ridiculous, but I don't really understand how to do banter.
• I say things directly, and I do not have double meanings behind what I say - unless I am really obviously joking and being silly and drawing attention to my silliness.
• I take things quite literally, and so if people are offended with me they have to say so directly, because if they hint at it or do it in a passive aggressive way I simply take what they say at face value.
• I notice all the little details that no one else notices and I remember everything that everyone else forgets.

So those are some of the odd things about me, which I am becoming more and more aware of lately, as I am in a situation which requires good communication skills, and I realise more and more that my communication skills are not normal, and that my mind works exactly as if I have Asperger Syndrome, from all the books I've read about it, and that this is seen as a bad thing in society.

Someone said to me that when I meet new people I should explain first that I express myself in a bit of an odd way, so that they are prepared and don't think I'm rude or anything. I don't actually do that in real life but I am doing it here. I used to think that online it is different and I can pass as 'normal' because I am writing, so I have chance to think what I will say, but lately I realise I can't, and I still offend people without meaning to. So anyway, I thought I'd explain all that in case I inadvertently offend anyone, or if people think I am expressing myself oddly or anything.

There are also more odd things about me, but I'll save the rest for another time.