The God-Shaped Hole!

2011-12-08T13:56:00.000-08:00

Time Magazine just released a highly inaccurate blurb about the My Little Pony Friendship is Magic fandom.

The picture they used is of the original ponies from the early 80's, not the current generation of toys. That's like reporting on Transformers while showing robot toys from the Atomic Age.
4chan's /co/ board was the start of the fandom, as documented elsewhere. Equestria Daily was founded later, and was preceded as a news blog by derpyhooves.com, now derpyhoovesnews.com.

Get your facts straight, Time. Being the magazine of record doesn't mean you can pull this unresearched sillyness.

And now, back to the irregularly scheduled posts.

God Is Good, Always

2011-08-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

This question, posted by Charles Glenn on a Christian philosophy email list, caught my attention:

Hi Everyone,

I was up almost all night thinking about this question Darrin asked: is God significantly free?

May I ask a question in response to this question?

According to Hume, free will belongs to every person who is not in chains. So is it possible that God possesses perfect free will in an eternal sense, but has willingly placed himself "in chains" as a part of his act of creation, specifically in his creation of the human race? In one sense, he would still possess free will, right? Willingly limiting yourself to "Good" is, after all, a choice that a perfect being could make if that being possessed free will - that choice would have been made freely.

I suppose that also means He could change his mind and break his "chains" any time he chooses too, doesn't it? That would imply God possesses the CAPACITY for evil, right?

I'm pretty sure that's not part of mainstream Christian theology though...

In any case, wouldn't we have to resolve this question in order to coherently discuss God's "goodness?"

-Charles

This is a question of literally eternal significance. It is also the question that has turned many from God who have seen and experienced the suffering in this world.

When I seek entertainment, I most enjoy works that focus on moral choices, not in terms of law or instinct, but in terms of free will. The factor that feeds the God-shaped void in my human heart is when a character makes a difficult decision out of love for another, not out of need. When a character chooses to be good, even when compromise is far easier and has greater benefits.

I believe that for God to be truly sovereign, He must be prior to (and/or the foundation of) everything that exists. That means He is not driven by anything out of His control. And that means He must be ultimately free, perfectly free, because what could chain Him but Himself?

When the serpent told Eve that if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil she would become like God, I think he was telling the truth deceptively. She became aware of what it felt like to do evil, and her eyes were opened to morality, the vast gulf between following laws by necessity, and making free choices that coincide with the laws because the laws were written by someone good and wise. Then Adam damned us all to a lifetime of making moral decisions in a fallen world, where death was let loose to ravage us all, some slowly, others swiftly, and where sacrifice became necessary.

God knows how to do evil, and could if He chose. He could be infinitely cruel, taking pleasure in the pain of others. He could ignore us, let the sun explode, and go on to make less rebellious puppets on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. He could lie. But He never does; He has "chained" Himself to love as He chained Himself to logic: He will never create a rock so big He can't lift it, because that would be a paradox.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe:

"If there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than me or else just silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" asked Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

His capacity for evil is as infinite as His capacity for good, but He has never and will never use it. And that is what makes the storyteller in me love Him so much. And that is why I praise Him: because He Is who He chose to be, and has promised His steadfast love to us eternally.

Milgram and Campbell

2010-11-30T10:24:00.000-08:00

The Milgram experiment showed that, even in the worst situations where things are going horribly awry, people prefer to have an illusion of control instead of a total loss of control. Perhaps they feared that the person instructing them to press the switches would take over and press the switches; the instructor had already proven himself sadistic and heartless, and would probably press the switch for longer than absolutely necessary.

None of them bothered to ask "why am I here", to question the assumptions of the experiment and ask why a volunteer who won a lottery had to torture the one who lost.

None of them questioned the established setup - because they were following the Hero's Journey, in which someone takes you out of the world you know and gives you instructions for dealing with your new reality, becoming your mentor in that process, and Horrible Things Will Happen if you step off the path for one moment.

Resumés

2010-11-27T17:11:00.000-08:00

A resumé is a structured poem which describes, in a rigidly traditional format, a person's work history and skills. It ends with a section which, roughly translated, means, "And if you don't believe me, here are three people who can each verify part of my story."

These poems are read by special literary critics, whose job is to verify whose poems are formatted better than the rest. Unlike other forms of literary criticism, the worst comment is no comment at all.

A Bible Without Verses?

2009-11-23T20:52:00.000-08:00

It takes time and training to learn to ignore the verse numbers, footnote indicators, and reference markers embedded in the text of the Bibles sold today. I am an avid reader; I have been since an early age. Now I want to read the narratives of the Bible as I would read any other book: without interruption, in single-column text.

The only other text I've ever seen with a built-in reference system is Shakespeare's plays, and even then, the reference numbers are in the margins. By contrast, the Phillips translation of the New Testament has verse numbers on the side, due to text recontextualization which resulted in the recombination of several verses into complete thoughts or arguments. The Message was similar, until the Message/remix edition reinserted the verse numbers.

Some Bible software, such as the ESV's WORDSearch software, allows the color of various categories of text to be altered. Turning the verse numbers the same color as the background effectively removes the verse numbers. But there are still gaps.

The verse system also makes the Bible's texts seem more uniform than they really are. The Bible is an anthology of books and letters written by forty different authors from similar but changing cultures, over a period of at least 1500 years. The literary styles include poetic narrative, historical narrative, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, law, ethics, and advice on how to live wisely.

The Books Of The Bible is a reformat of the Today's New International Version which tries to address these concerns. It formats poetry as poetry, and the rest as single-column text. It places footnotes at the end of each book, instead of at the bottoms of the pages. It puts the chapters and verses in an unobtrusive corner of the page.

But I want the English Standard Version or the New King James translation of the text formatted this way. Even if it's just available by special order, I would buy it. I would give it without reservation or preface to an unbeliever. I would also buy giveaway paperback gospels I could give to people I meet who need God's Word in their lives.

Accessibility is the key here, folks. Accessibility for people not yet trained by time to ignore the constant, nagging verse count. Accessibility for people whose brains won't allow them to ignore the embedded footnote markers. Accessibility for children more sensitive to the tedium of ignoring the language they've worked so hard to acquire. Accessibility for the unchurched, who would probably be more interested in a slightly annotated narrative than an encyclopedia of cross-references.

Would you buy such an edition?

Sorry anonymous commenters

2009-11-23T20:51:00.001-08:00

...But due to a spam attack on my comments, which for some reason Blogger won't let me erase, I've enabled a higher level of comment security. I always hate it myself when a blog does this, but I do hope you blame the spammers, not me.

Let Me Blow Your Mind

2009-11-16T23:05:00.000-08:00

Indulge me in this moment of geekery.

You already know that the Wraith in Stargate Atlantis are Space Vampires. But did you realize that the Goa'uld are Space Mummies? They come back from the dead, live a long time, and command legions.

A bit of a stretch, I know. But here's where I blow your mind.

The Borg are Space Zombies.

They inject you with nanites, you become one of them. Slow, shambling, and bad news in big mobs.

I was watching an episode of ST:TNG called "Descent" in which Data is brought to Lore so that the sons of Soong can destroy the Federation. In this episode, Lore hacks Data so Data feels emotions. He feels anger, rage, when a Borg tries to kill him, and after he has slain the Borg with his inhuman strength, Data feels pleasure.

Lore is Frankenstein's monster, and Data is the noble version of the monster.

Minds blown?

Looking For An Old Butcher

2009-11-10T07:15:00.000-08:00

The Hero's Journey is the blueprint for every halfway decent story. Like appreciation for rainbows and power chords, it's instinctual. It's built into our brains. It runs our lives, if we let it.
But the Hero's Journey gives us certain expectations of the world around us, which usually don't happen. Because we've been raised on these tales, we expect to be given the rules when we enter a new situation, a realm of experience new to us, and we freeze up if nobody does. We expect to fail, because we know the transformative nature of the Night Journey. However, not everyone finds the Sword Of Light in their Night Journey. Some people stay in darkness for a very long time.
Today, I'm going to talk about the old butcher. According to Merlin Mann, he's the guy who's been a butcher for forty years, and if you're his apprentice and you call out for two and a half pounds of roast beef, you'll get exactly that. When you put it on the scale, it's not an ounce over or under. You keep practicing, and someday you'll be him; in the meantime, he'll teach you the little things that, while they don't really make sense, they make work flow so much easier.
He's a master of his trade or art, and he's your mentor. The universe provides one for each hero.
That's what we think, because of the Hero's Journey. In reality, we need to actively seek these people out and ask them to teach us, and DO WHAT THEY SAY, because we're not storybook heroes, we're just people. The universe doesn't follow our private story arc.

Parallels - Auto Health Insurance

2009-08-12T23:00:00.000-07:00

Imagine if the government told all auto insurance companies that the only way they could stay in business was by selling only the tip-top policy possible in each state. (Here in New Mexico, that would be a $250K/$500K/$500K liability and uninsured full coverage policy with $100 deductible.)

And then on top of that, they would also have to bundle an "extended warranty" with each policy, covering all auto maintenance, even oil changes, with a $10 deductible.
Of course this type of policy costs a lot, especially with a teen driver in the house, or an older car in the driveway. So of course the government would have to have a taxpayer-funded "public option" offering an identically ludicrous policy to anyone on the street who can't afford a private plan of such magnitude.

Auto mechanics, faced with voucher-clenching hoardes, would become swamped with requests to fix jammed door handles and squeaks in the A/C. This sounds like a good thing, but it ends up costing more than planned (as has Cash for Clunkers), and taxes must be raised on lower and lower tax brackets. Eventually, rationing is implemented.

And when all the private auto insurance companies collapse when people stop buying their ridiculously expensive policies, the government would be more than willing to take up the slack - for the public good, of course.

And since maintenance of older cars simply increases the overall cost of the plan, we have to junk them sooner. Why not a mandatory fifteen years in, since that's about when vehicles start falling apart.

The sheer scale of such a scheme would be staggering. Yet it pales compared to the "health care" plan which is now before the Senata.

The faith of a child

2009-07-16T18:49:00.000-07:00

The faith of a child is wondrous.

A child knows how to receive a gift, but an adult only knows how to seek it, to minimize the cost. An adult sees a gift as a thing of economy, but a child knows it as an expression of love. This is what His Church is missing; this is what it needs.

Love Is Not Nice

2009-03-13T23:14:00.000-07:00

Love is not nice.

Love is real. Love is intense. Love is a deep truth not of this world, so deep that the world itself sees only its surface.

Love is what keeps mothers and fathers up nights, praying for their childrens' futures. Love is what makes pastors spend a week crafting a thirty minute message. Love is what drives the station managers to hold donation drives when the budget of the local Christian station falls short.

Love is what makes me ask you how you are, and what matters in your life. Love is what makes me wonder what deep pain from your past is keeping you from opening your heart. Love is what makes me hold my tongue when you say something inane or insulting or blasphemous. Love is what keeps me patient or polite while inside my heart is breaking to see you hurting others because of your hurt. Love is what makes me happy when you are happy, and sad when you are sad.

Love is what keeps God from consuming with fire or water this dark world of people who hurt people. Love is what makes Him seek you, sending annoying people and innocent people and fanatical people who all want you to join them in knowing Him.

Hate put Jesus on the cross, but love kept Him there.

This is love's promise: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

This is love's call: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

This is love's truth: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends."

Love is not just nice. Love cares about you and wants the best for you. God is love; say yes to His love, and a whole new world is opened to you.

(All scripture references from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version(TM) Copyright(C) 2000; 2001 by Crossway Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers, All Rights Reserved.)

Why churches have bad reputations

2009-02-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

One bad apple really does ruin a whole basket. A rotting apple sends out a chemical signal that makes other apples too ripe too quickly, and then spoil.

It's the same with people in groups. Churches are especially prone to this, because one of the things people think churches are good for is getting a whole bunch of good people in one place to have a nice time. (That's not what church is for, but that's people's impression.)

Coding Horror, a blog on what happens when people and computers mix, has an article on how one rotten person foils an entire group:

Groups of four college students were organized into teams and given a task to complete some basic management decisions in 45 minutes. To motivate the teams, they're told that whichever team performs best will be awarded $100 per person. What they don't know, however, is that in some of the groups, the fourth member of their team isn't a student. He's an actor hired to play a bad apple, one of these personality types:

- The Depressive Pessimist will complain that the task that they're doing isn't enjoyable, and make statements doubting the group's ability to succeed.
- The Jerk will say that other people's ideas are not adequate, but will offer no alternatives himself. He'll say "you guys need to listen to the expert: me."
- The Slacker will say "whatever", and "I really don't care."

The applications at churches are obvious. But let's be careful here! Churches are places for hurt people to go to seek solace from the Lord. It is important for pastors to see these warning signs and speak with these people; the lost lambs are the ones that need the most help.

Don't let the lost lambs lead the others astray.

To Helen Thomas

2009-02-26T23:49:00.000-08:00

Helen Thomas said that, from their point of view, terrorists are freedom fighters and American and Coalition forces are the "real" terrorists. Let's follow this train of though to its logical derailment.

What Would Aslan Do?

2008-05-07T22:47:00.000-07:00

C.S. Lewis specifically said himself that Aslan was not an allegory. I will try to explain my own understanding of what he meant.

I'll start with an example. I once read a science fiction story where Elvis was taken from the planet (and his death faked) by aliens, to be their king. (It involved swordplay, karate, and other elements.)

I would not call this character an allegory of Elvis; rather, I would call this character a fictional parallel-universe counterpart. He is not an allegory because his characteristics are not analogous to our Elvis; instead, they are identical (except for their level of reality), up to the point where our Elvis and the fictional Elvis diverged, ie, being take by aliens. Thus this specific fictional Elvis is a fictional parallel-universe DIVERGENT counterpart.

Following so far?

Let's approach the Narnia books as any other work of fantasy / science fiction.

Throughout the Narnia books, but most concretely in Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis sets up a fictional Earth. This Earth is in a specific fictional universe, which is part of a multiverse that also includes Narnia, Charn, and possibly infinite other worlds.

(Note that Narnia and Earth are not merely different planets in the same universe. The "planet" of Narnia is the center of its universe, a flat disc, surrounded by the Emperor's Country, and the stars overhead are quasi-angelic beings.)

That (fictional) multiverse was created by a (fictional) monotheistic God, a self-existing being of infinite wisdom, innovation, and leadership. That God is a fictional counterpart to the One of this universe (whether real or not), as described by Lewis' faith, Trinitarian Christianity.

In that multiverse's Earth, the Logos (the Living Word of God) was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, died on the cross for all mankind's sins, and rose from the dead as proof of the end of the curse of death for all the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve that choose to accept it.

About 1910 years after that event, in that universe, Lucy entered the wardrobe, and was transported to Narnia.

Narnia was a younger world, and one in which (according to The Magician's Nephew) there was no Fall. Evil entered the world by the hand of a son of Adam, but not willingly. Instead of being applied to everyone, only traitors were subject to judgement.

Becuase of this, the Logos (in the form of Aslan) did not have to incarnate from a specific line of ancestry as He did in that Earth's history. Instead, He could remain in a perfected body. However, for the sake of Edmund, and also for all Narnian traitors who sought forgiveness, He allowed Himself to be slaughtered in that universe as well.

Thus, Aslan is Jesus is The Logos, eternally the Son of the Father, "very God of very God"... in that multiverse. They are the same being, able to move between universes at will, and take different shapes in each. (See the end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader.)

We can further postulate that some great Fall occured to Charn before its death, or such things as the Word of Power would not exist. We can therefore assume the God of that multiverse had a plan of salvation for those Charnians willing to accept it, and that Jadis (Empress of Charn and White Witch of Narnia) was an unbeliever who brought the Apocalypse by uttering the forbidden word that ended her world.

And now that I have set the stage, here is the breakdown.

The C.S. Lewis multiverse includes a fictional parallel of our universe, just as the Marvel and DC multiverses each include at least one Earth that is recognizable parallel to our own. Aslan and Jesus are co-manifestations of the same being (the Logos) in that multiverse; there, Aslan IS Jesus IS Aslan.

Thus, Aslan is a fictional parallel-universe co-manifestation of the Logos; Christ Himself, not a Christ figure.

To be unsaved

2008-03-11T22:10:00.000-07:00

To be unsaved is to know you are a slave,
And to know the weight of every wrong choice you've ever made.

To be unsaved is to say words that sound so very true,
And to hear them ring hollow, knowing they help you not a whit.

To be unsaved is to hear others talk about a wonderful world,
And to wonder why yours is so empty and cold and silent.

To be unsaved is to know that death stalks you, that loss seeks you,
And to know that you have no defense, no shield, no sword to slay these beasts.

To be unsaved is to say, "I love you", to know it is a lie,
And to know she (he?) is lying back to you for the same reason: just to hear it said.

To be unsaved is to know pain without relief.
To be unsaved is to know that you are an instrument of entropy.
To be unsaved is to know that, in the dark of night, you might as well not exist.

To be unsaved is to see your end a hundred years away,
And to count each second, watching it, hoping it does not sneak closer when you aren't looking.

To be unsaved is to know that you are doomed.

To be unsaved is to hear His voice in the darkness
To see His light shine in the distance
To know His heart seeks you with its entirety
To ask...

To be saved is to know you have been unsaved,
And now are saved.

Moses on Mushrooms

2008-03-06T05:48:00.000-08:00

It's interesting how high heresy is being elevated to tabloid news. It's also interesting how those heresies contradict each other.

Other researchers say there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel was ever enslaved by Egypt; the theory of Moses on narcotics require the enslavement to have occured.

Other historians say that Moses' miracles (water to blood, staff to snake, frogs, plague, darkness) were the result of Egyptian temple stage magic and the death of the firstborn of Egypt was a concerted effort on the behalf of the Israelites to assassinate thousands. This would require Moses, after being FULLY CONVINCED by becoming high, to take matters into his own hands and perform stage magic replicating the effects he saw when high (staff to snake, leprous hand).

Each heretical explanation requires a DIFFERENT part of the historical account to be false, but requires THE REST to be true. It is logically impossible.

The heretical explanations all have this in common: they deny the reality of God, or His honesty or character.

The Eagle's Restoration

2008-01-03T11:22:00.000-08:00

The God-Shaped Hole in people's hearts makes them seek something greater than themselves, greater than this fallen world.

There is currently circulating the Internet a slideshow of dubious authority. It describes the legend of the eagle's rebirth and renewal. Here is a summary, taken from various sources. (Variations are given in parentheses.)

The Bald Eagle is the longest lived species of eagle, living up to 70 years (or 100). However, to reach this age, it must make a hard choice.

At the age of 30 (or 40, or 50), it flies to a high place, sheltered from the sun, where water is present, and there endures a harsh trial of endurance and change.

Its body has become overgrown with feathers, and its wings can't move as well as they once could. It plucks all the feathers from its body.

Its talons have grown curled and useless. It plucks its talons from its feet.

Its beak has grown too long and curled. It breaks its beak against a rock.

Defenseless, it cries out and waits. Other eagles hear its cry, and come to aid it in its time of renewal. They fly overhead, scaring off predators, and bringing food to their incapacitated friend.

For 150 days (or 40), it drinks the water (some variations omit the food and other eagles) and waits for its feathers, beak, and talons to grow back.

An oil sack grows on its chest, over its heart. When its beak and feathers have grown back, it pierces the oil sack and spreads the oil on its feathers. (This variation sometimes omit the feather-plucking, saying the oil "heals" the broken or old feathers.)

Many Bald Eagles don't survive this process, but those that do have the will to survive this time of change (trial, renewal, rebirth) fly away from the experience as young as a new eagle, with another 30 years of life (40, 50) still ahead.

The moral of the story varies with the teller. Christians who tell this story say it talks of God's plan, His love, His protection, His dislike for our tendency to find a comfort zone and stay there, or His requirement that we change or die.

I've seen examples of this story on sites as widely unrelated as a New Age blog and a high school's page about its mascot, the eagle. One website about home sales and marketing uses this story to illustrate that, as the market changes over time, the savvy marketer will shed its old marketing materials and sales pitches, and retrain with more up-to-date methods and materials! I can imagine using it as a political example of America needing to discard something (the military, the Social Security system, the income tax, class and race barriers) to become strong once more.

I've found at least one example of someone who would have lost her faith in a time of trial, had it not been for that story.

When a pastor presented this, noting at the time his uncertainty of its truth, I wondered if it was correct. Searching the Internet for the story of how the eagle breaks its beak, I found it to be almost wholly inaccurate.

The eagle's beak does continuously grow, like a fingernail, and the eagle sometimes rubs it against rocks to file down irregular growths, like an emery board. Breaking its beak would be a seriously life-threatening injury, and no evidence has been found that this occurs; however, someone in ancient times may have seen the filing down of the beak, and assumed it was breaking it. The hook on the end of the beak is a valuable and necessary tool for tearing meat, not an irregular growth to be discarded. It is never in danger of "freezing shut".

The eagle never plucks its talons from its feet. In captivity, their beaks and talons must be kept trimmed; however, wild eagles don't seem to have problems keeping them at the right length.

The Bald Eagle lives 30 years in the wild, at most 40 in captivity. It never goes to a high place for a time of renewal. However, it does like high places.

An oil sack never grows over its heart, to renew its feathers. However, it does have an oil gland which it uses to clean and waterproof its feathers. This process is called preening, and most birds preen.

It does not pluck out all its feathers at a single point in its life. It does molt a portion of its feathers over the summer, being careful not to become flightless in the process. This is called molting, and most birds molt to some degree.

I've dug a bit deeper since finding the birdchick.com link. It turns out that the church father Augustine presented the eagle in a commentary on Psalms 103:5. (Here is Psalm 103:1-5, ESV)

(A Psalm Of David.)
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and all that is within me, bless his holy name!
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity,
who heals all your diseases,
who redeems your life from the pit,
who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
who satisfies you with good
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.

In his commentary on the eagle, and renewal of youth, Augustine notes:

When shall my longing be satisfied with good things?
when, do you ask? "Your youth shall be renewed as
the eagle's." Do you then ask when your soul is to
be satisfied with good things? When your youth
shall be restored.

And he adds, as an eagle's. Something here lies
hidden; what however is said of the eagle, we will
not pass over silently, since it is not foreign to
our purpose to understand it. Let this only be
impressed upon our hearts, that it is not said
without cause by the Holy Spirit. For it has
intimated unto us a sort of resurrection.

And indeed the youth of the eagle is restored, but
not into immortality, for a similitude has been
given, as far as it could be drawn from a thing
mortal to signify a thing immortal, not to
demonstrate it. The eagle is said, after it becomes
overpowered with bodily age, to be incapable of
taking food from the immoderate length of its beak,
which is always increasing. For after the upper
part of its beak, which forms a crook above the
lower part, has increased from old age to an
immoderate length, the length of this increase will
not allow of its opening its mouth, so as to form
any interval between the lower beak and the crook
above. For unless there be such an opening, it has
no power of biting like a forceps, by which to shear
off what it may put within its jaws. The upper part
therefore increasing, and being too far hooked over,
it cannot open its mouth, and take any food. This
old age does to it, it is weighed down with the
infirmity of age, and becomes too weak from want of
power to eat; two causes of infirmity assaulting it,
old age, and want.

By a natural device, therefore, in order in some
measure to restore its youth, the eagle is said to
dash and strike against a rock the upper lip of its
beak, by the too great increase of which the opening
for eating is closed: and by thus rubbing it against
the rock, it breaks off the weight of its old beak,
which impeded its taking food. It comes to its food,
and everything is restored: it will be after its old
age like a young eagle; the vigour of all its limbs
returns, the lustre of its plumage, the guidance of
its wings, it flies aloft as before, a sort of
resurrection takes place in it.

For this is the object of the similitude, like that
of the Moon, which after waning and being apparently
intercepted, again is renewed, and becomes full; and
signifies to us the resurrection; but when it is full
it does not remain so; again it wanes, that the
signification may never cease. Thus also what has
here been said of the eagle: the eagle is not restored
unto immortality, but we are unto eternal life; but
the similitude is derived from hence, that the rock
takes away from us what hinders us. Presume not
therefore on your strength: the firmness of the rock
rubs off your old age: for that Rock was Christ.

Most Christian sites that cite the eagle story also mention Psalm 103:5, the believer being renewed like the eagle. It appears this is the origin of this story. Ironically, this telling is not too inaccurate, since it only mentions the eagle filing down its beak. However, it does introduce the elements of only doing it once in its life, rather violently, with renewal afterward, and better/younger plumage.

In conclusion, eagles are one of God's amazing creations. They are pilots, maintaining their body in tip-top shape for flight. They are hunters, maintaining their hunting equipment. They are long-lived birds that soar the hights. But they are not the immortal Phoenix.

So the moral of the story is, learn to distinguish data from lore, fact-reporting from storytelling, and truth from meaning. And don't hang your faith on an email from a dear friend.

====
Sources:
birdchick refutes eagle slideshow
bird expert on preening
Augustine on the renewal of youth as an eagle

====
Appendix: Preening and molting, from the middle link:

I wanted to talk about preening since we've been seeing a lot of images
showing the parents working on their feathers while they've been on the eggs.
The importance of feathers cannot be overstated as they literally mean life
and death to a bird. And so consequently, eagles spend a lot of time
maintaining their feathers, which includes cleaning them, waterproofing them,
smoothing them, etc.

An eagle will molt (shed its feathers and grow new ones) every year, although
biologists report that not all feathers get replaced in each molt. Molting is
a gradual process that occurs mostly in summer but might extend into spring
and fall. The flight feathers are not lost all at once, so the eagle is never
flightless.

In order to maintain the feathers they have, an eagle will straighten and
smooth them, often by using its bill to "zip up" the feathers, so the feathers
maintain their smooth and aerodynamic appearance.

In addition, an eagle will apply oil from its preen gland (also called the
uropygial gland), which is located at the base of the tail. The bird will
squeeze the gland to extract the oil and then work the oil into its feathers.
This oil cleans and waterproofs the feathers, and also deters feather
parasites. Although our eagle parents are spending a lot of time on the eggs
-- and not fishing as much -- they still need to have waterproof feathers so
they don't get chilled when it rains or snows on them.

Our God Is A Postmodern God

2007-12-23T22:14:00.000-08:00

Our God values us above all else. He values our freedom and our well-being, in that order.

He is a bountiful infinity, springs of living water, a burning bush; He never stops giving, producing, pouring, burning.

He is the infinite source of truth, of love, of change. He gives innovation, wisdom, and life. He is Free Will, and we are made in His likeness.

He is a positive infinity. He is so innovative that He created beings with free will, out of dirt!

He gives us a simple choice; we can be with Him forever, or we can be in another place. We can be with the Source of all good things, or we can remain in a dying universe, immortal but without protection from the corrupted free will of others stronger than us in personality and power.

Yes, He values our free will so much that He's willing to let us be apart from Him forever, as long as that's our honest choice. But He wants you to be an informed chooser, before eternity starts.

The rules for the rest of forever are simple:
1. Don't harm yourself, anyone else, or be the type of person who does.
2. Acknowledge that He is the one providing all things to you, sometimes directly, sometimes through less obvious methods, especially free will.

That's it. If #1 is too hard, He has provided a way in: Jesus' sacrifice provides legal defense, and makes it possible for God Himself to inhabit you (like a Trill, or a Tok'ra), giving you the personal resources to become that type of person over time.

If you're not the type of person who accepts that kind of story, He'll still accept you, if you choose Him and trust that He's telling the truth about the necessity of that sacrifice. His net is cast wide, seeking all who seek Him.

There are those who seek Him, who don't know His name, but who value His ideals above all else. Don't be one who loses eternity by not learning of the one who gave you those ideals in the first place.

Three arguments

2007-12-09T22:30:00.000-08:00

There are three basic arguments against Jesus and the Christian faith. Surprise, surprise, they match the three major ontological categories: Physical, Logical, Emotional.

The Physical arguments are against His existence or power, and generally include: God doesn't exist; God isn't infinitely powerful; there are many gods, each of vast but finite power; God exists only in the realm of the emotional, or in peoples' minds, and doesn't affect the real world; there are no supernatural events (miracles) because no such thing as the supernatural exists.

The Emotional arguments are against God's love or significance, and generally include: God doesn't love you; God is an abusive father-figure who punishes people on the smallest whim; God cares about everyone in general, but doesn't have time to get to know you personally; God doesn't want you to have free will; God wants to control every aspect of your life because He's a control freak; God is the bad guy.

The Logical arguments are against His truth, revelation, and intelligence, and generally include: God will take everyone to Heaven, whether they believe in Jesus or not; there is no one specific way to Heaven; God didn't write the Bible, people did it on their own; religion is diametrically opposed to science, logic, reason, and the mind in general.

These three main categories of arguments are the basic objections people have to the Gospel. Become versed in each of the arguments for Jesus, and you will be an evangelist extraordinaire.

Love

2007-12-07T19:10:00.000-08:00

I saw a movie tonight which God used to remind me that He loves me.

His love is so deep that He died for me, personally. I can't express how amazing that is.

I can't express just how revolting to me the mistakes are that people have made in trying to understand Him. He did not die for humanity corporately, but personally for each and every person.

He found a way to save everyone; He stands with outstretched arms, saying, "Come to me, learn to live, to grow and learn forever. Let me be your guide, teaching you from infinite wisdom how to make right decisions, and what things have true value and real meaning."

He started the Church, not to run people's lives, but to give us a place to be at home. He is the King, and His kingdom has free citizenship, no questions asked. Have you been a bad person, a mean and spiteful person? He will forgive you, welcome you with open arms, and help you to change, to become a better person.

He is choice, infinite choice. We are made in His image; we are expressly designed for choosing. From hands that grasp to a voice that speaks, we are built for freely choosing.

His greatest gift is free will. It is this He values about us above all: we can choose. He values choice so much that if someone says, "I don't want to be with you," He lets them. It breaks His heart, but He lets them.

Choose Him, because He has already chosen you, and is waiting.

Free Will

2007-11-25T21:50:00.001-08:00

God gave man a great and wonderful gift: free will, within the context of our lives. It is the very image of God, whose core attribute can be described as Choice, who is Himself outside of, and prior to, and master of, every context.

Free will is one of the three greatest gifts God has given to humanity. The other two are existence and salvation, and they too are great gifts; and yet, both only make sense with free will. Without free will, existence is meaningless. Without free will, salvation is unnecessary.

We exist in the realm of the moral, a realm that has been tainted by sin. Sin is the full form of entropy, the cause of decay and pain, the cause of loss. All life on Earth has been touched by Adam's Wrong Decision.

There are three types of salvation.

The first is Justification; upon our request to God that He apply Jesus' historical execution to our penalty, we are declared legally free from all punishment (though not consequences) for all our wrong choices.

The second is Sanctification; after we realize the harm we've done to ourselves, the world, and those we care about, we accept the need to be changed. The Holy Spirit starts cleansing us from the inside out, reminding us that everyone needs to be loved by us, just as God loved us all, and treated with the respect due to those whom God loves.

The third is Translation; we are taken out of the tainted context, our bodies are renewed to glorious forms, and we are given access to places and things we could never imagine with our current minds; whether by death or by the second coming, we will be saved (finally!) from the consequences of Adam's Wrong Choice.

And from then on, the possibilities (and choices) are literally endless.

And now a short break

2007-09-29T20:25:00.000-07:00

Here's a video I made on my NEW digital camera! Yay for me.

Enjoy.

No deep thoughts today

2007-09-15T15:48:00.001-07:00

Believe it or not, I've had two separate dreams that I was a lunar janitor.

His Dark Materials: Another View

2007-08-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

When I first started this blog, it was with the intention of writing essays on God's character and the universal need for His characteristics to be active in our lives. Tonight I stumbled across an essay comparing The Chronicles of Narnia and His Dark Materials, a series of books that denounce and demean the Christian Church.

Apparently, author Philip Pullman wrote the His Dark Materials series as his personal counterpoint to The Chronicles of Narnia. In his series, the Church is a power-hungry organization that controls the smallest details of a person's life, and allows them no freedom. The characters who fight this all-encompassing force, and who end up killing the god the Church worships, are heroes seeking a "humanist republic of heaven."

Because of this review, I now plan on reading this series of books. Just as I have done with writings of Nietzche, Ayn Rand, Heinlein, Jack London, and J.K. Rowling, I now intend to suck the marrow from the bones of these books.

You see, I seek the passions of others. I seek to learn their ideals. I hunger for the things they find most attractive. The authors I've mentioned above, one of the core passions that unites them is a love of free will, a love of choice.

God has given us free will. The ability to choose sets us apart from the animals. It has taken us to the moon, it has built cities and kingdoms... and torn them down. Free will is one of the greatest gifts God has given us.

Free will is the very image of God that He built us to be.

Organized religion takes it away.

When I say organized religion, I don't just mean people who agree on their beliefs. I mean organizations, institutions, authorities. When one person tells another what God's will is, and then says, "or else", free will goes right out the window. In this sense, I say organized religion like I say organized crime.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe presents a world where life is respected and valued, which are some of the values that the people of Lyra's world fight for. This is demonstrated when Aslan sacrifices himself to save Edmund's life, and then leads the Narnians in a battle against the evil forces that are oppressing the other creatures. The Church of His Dark Materials is similar to the reign of the White Witch. Both have almost absolute power over the lives of the citizens of the two worlds, and each has the power to end those lives for any arbitrary reason. Under the rule of the White Witch, it is always winter, and never Christmas. This is similar to Pullman's world, where little hope exists for those under the thumb of the Church. Aslan and his followers portray the respect for life and freedom that Pullman argues for in His Dark Materials. As well, Aslan is a true god, because he endures despite all the evils in Narnia. This validates Aslan much more than the Authority, who is kept alive merely as an excuse for the totalitarian power the Church commands. While the Authority is merely housed in a cell by the Church, Aslan comes to Narnia despite the Witch's power. As well, far from being a "feeble idiot", Aslan has the power to liberate the Narnian creatures and beat back the evil that in encroaching upon their peaceful way of life. Aslan brings to Narnia the liberation from oppression that Pullman advocates for Lyra and her company.

Kristen Hamilton's essay does what I've wanted to do with this blog: elegantly and simply expose the fact that all people, no matter how they despise the name of God, are inexorably drawn to the character of God.

Ratatouille - An inverse of Cars?

2007-07-17T16:07:00.000-07:00

When I was telling my dad how great Ratatouille was, I said it was "better than Cars." He expressed doubt toward my evaluation. Later, when I was thinking about it, I realized I had not, in my mind, actually compared the two films, both of which I liked; once I did, I learned a lesson neither film explicitely stated.

Cars is a story about a talented young star, the best in his field, who learns a lesson about his own mortality, and gives up glory for friendship and honor.

Ratatouille is a story about a talented young unknown, gifted but bereft of resources, who gains a chance to prove himself, and uses family and friends to achieve greatness.

These stories seem, at second glance, to be polar opposites - one is about giving up fame and glory for friends and family, the other is about letting go of social bonds to seek greatness.

However, there is a common bond between the two stories. They are both about passion, about what a person thinks is beautiful and worth protecting or enhancing. Cars is about Lightning McQueen's love for the town and people of Radiator Springs, Ratatouille about Remy's love for creating fine cuisine. Both are willing to sacrifice their past, and willing to deny others' expectations of them, in order to achieve their dream.

The films are vitally different in this specific aspect: McQueen unconsciously accepts, then consciously rejects, the prevalent social mentality of his community of origination (the racing community and industry). Remy consciously rejects his family's expectations from the beginning, at first subtly, then in a double life, then flat-out making his own way.

They have a striking similarity: by chasing their dreams, they achieve both a family prour of them, and fame and success, though not as originally envisioned.

Both are about a passion for success, but there is a lesson to be learned in the differences of how each story illustrates success:

To be successful, you must define success for yourself, and strive for it.

Ratatouille - A Gently Postmodern Tale

2007-07-03T18:08:00.000-07:00

I saw Pixar/Disney's Ratatouille last night. I was thoroughly impressed. I was especially impressed by Brad Bird, who directed the film, and co-wrote the screenplay. I've been impressed by his work since Iron Giant, and The Incredibles.

This is one of the most richly told tales I've seen in a long time. It surpassed what the trailer promised, and rare is the film that manages that feat.

The story managed to juggle the Hero's Journey for two characters, while weaving a tapestry of French cuisine, culture, and community. It is also a well-told funny animal tale, which is always a delicate balance between adaption of human mores and a sense of reality.

One thing that surprised me was the subtle ease with which truly dramatic elements were included in the film. Death was present at several points, as was a mention of children born out of wedlock, shown without praise or shame.

But the most startling facet for me as a philosopher was the inclusion of several postmodern concepts. They were gently but firmly introduced.

When Remy tells his father that change is the way of the natural world, my jaw dropped. According to emerging postmodern thought, as well as Eastern philosophies, change is good and stasis is bad (though sometimes useful). Modernism holds the opposite, that stasis is stability and change is decay; that concept was cribbed whole cloth from the ancient Greeks, who said that the realm of Spirit or Mind is permanent, but Body or the physical realm are subject to decay.

Later in the film, Remy rejects the social constructs of Rat and Human, and positively affirms, "I am a chef." He does not allow The System to control him, but seeks his dreams, no matter the cost. In the case of this film, The System is the antagonism between Human and Pest, between Producer and Thief.

In all, it is a great story told well, and a gentler introduction to postmodernism than The Matrix (and more easily explained).

As far as the virtues of God being revealed in a secular work of art, I can mention humility, honesty, passion for one's work, taking joy in things of beauty, a willingness to help family and neighbors, and finding the place in life that is a right fit for the talents you were given.

I can, in good conscience, recommend this film to everyone of all ages, creeds, and worldviews.

The Problem of Evil

2007-06-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

“Is God willing, but not able, to prevent evil?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing nor able?...Then why call him God?"
Epicurus

The prevention of evil events would require the prevention of evil choices. Direct prevention of any choice would befoul choice. Choice is the image of God; animals cannot choose, nor can computers; neither can be tried in a court of law.

Indirect prevention of evil choices is more difficult; it requires a person to agree to not choose evilly. There is one simple (though impossible) workaround: to have everyone love everyone else, and so eliminate evil.

One of the benefits of accepting Jesus' sacrifice is that God Himself inhabits your heart, reminding you to love others; strangers and enemies become as valued as next-door neighbors, and all believers become brothers and sisters.

God is amazing. However, He will not force you to love Him or others; He will not rape you. You must accept His proposal before He will deal with you in this way.

Omniscience and evolution

2007-05-14T23:26:00.000-07:00

God is omniscient. That word means "all-knowing". But what does that really mean?

It means that God is infinitely intelligent. He knows every fact. In fact, if He didn't, He could figure it all out again instantly.

For you computer/math geeks out there, listen up:

Jesus can solve Turing's Halting Problem.

He didn't "need" evolution to create humanity. To believe that He "needed" it is to insult God's intelligence, as well as His omnipotence. (Remember, He can move a single photon from one side of the universe to the other without disturbing a neutrino. Constructing living cells, atom by atom, is no big deal to Him.)

Now that that's out of the way, let's admit something here. God could have used evolution to create the biosphere, or the Big Bang to form the universe.

However, just as we've decided to avoid insulting His intelligence or His abilities, let's not insult His love. After all, omni-benevolence is an often-cited complementary attribute.

Would a loving God create people and animals through a mechanistic and mindless process of killing off the less fit, at some point having tribes of almost-human primates wandering the plains?

Or would He shape them by hand from the warm clay of Eden?

Spider-Man 3

2007-05-08T22:45:00.000-07:00

Great movie. Not an awesome movie like 2, merely great like 1.

The Raimis should have left Venom for movie #4, and stuck with Goblin II, Sandman, and Black-Suit Spidey. Woulda left room for the proper amount of drama. Here's how it woulda gone down:

Goblin 2 never gets the amnesia. The hatred for Peter festers, but Harry gets his butt handed to him by Black-Suit Spidey. Harry teams up with Sandman, who didn't defeat Spidey, but did get away.

Motivation for Sandman? Goblin pays for Sandman's daughter's medical bills, in exchange for capturing Spidey for Goblin to kill.

Black-suit Spidey takes out Sandman, handing him over to the authorities after torching him into a glass statue somehow.

Final fight? Goblin takes Gwen Stacy (Black-Suit Peter's new GF) to the bridge. This time, it's Peter's symbiote-powered overconfidence that causes him to try to snag Gwen with web... and snaps her neck. (And the fans cheer, not for her death, but for her comics-canon demise.)

Overcome with rage (feeding the beast), Peter attacks Harry, eventually killing him. This ends the dramatic tragedy (and trilogy) that is the life of Harry Osborne.

He realizes what he's done, and goes to the church, where the bells rid him of the symbiote... which drips onto Eddie Brock. Murderous grin, fade to black.

Movie four is Venom. Possibly Moonwolf or Lizard, both of whose stories are ready to go in the next chapter.

Oh well.

The Problem Of Evil

2007-05-04T09:47:00.000-07:00

Theologians have a concept they call the "problem of evil." Basically it is this: God is all-powerful, and yet there is evil in the world, so how can He be all-benevolent or all-loving? It is also the main point that is brought out against God by those who do not believe -- or who do not want to believe.

The answer is quite simple, and quite scary. God respects our free will. God allows us to make choices, even if they hurt other people. To do otherwise would be to deny that choices have consequences. Instead, He gave us rules to follow.

For example, cheating on someone (and breaking the commandment Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery) hurts their relationship (even if it was hurt before), and thus hurts other people. It can hurt the adulterer too, such as STDs, or if the angry husband comes looking for the dirty bastard who slept with his wife.

The consequences can be considered negated if the person repents and asks Jesus to forgive them. However, the lingering effects of that choice will generally remain in this universe. Sin is like entropy, adding disorder to God's ordered creation.

The two big causes of sin, the two main motives for hurting other people, are self-preservation and self-exaltation. (I am thankful to Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church for pointing this out, and to God for showing him this in the first place.)

In other words, fear and pride are the two big causes of sin. Self-preservation denies God's sovreignity over the world around you; self-exaltation denies God's sovreignity over you. (Sovreignity in this case means the right to determine what happens, and what to allow or not allow.)

Fear makes moral matters seem unimportant. We call a person a hero if they ignore what fear tells them to do, and instead, they do the right thing.

Pride makes other people seem unimportant. We call a person humble when they don't seek praise for their accomplishments.

However, it is not sinful to accept accolades for accomplishments; it is good to give the credit to God, who gave you the abilities and resources in the first place. And it is not sinful to reap the fruit of your labor, as long as the profit is what you earned by your efforts.

Also, it is not sinful to protect yourself. Protecting yourself from physical danger is one of the parts of life on a fallen plane of existence. Protecting yourself from emotional and logical danger is also vital to your life. Running away from psychologically dangerous people is a valid self-protection mechanism, especially when they know they have a problem and still keep hurting you.

Life is full of choices. Some are immediate, such as whether to blog from work or to jot it down for later. I don't know what the consequences will be to me for taking the twenty minutes to post this, but at this moment, it seems worth it. Some are choices that stretch out over a long period of time, such as saving up my meagers funds now for our Summer trip to Disney World. Some are choices we don't have the ability or resources to achieve, such as personally travelling to the Moon.

God gives each of the choice to accept His Son's sacrifice as the substitute for our sins. He gives us the resources and capacity to make that decision. However, we have to choose to accept it. He will not force salvation on us.

Like a marriage proposal, He asks us to become His bride, His adopted son, His younger brother, His walking temple, His messenger, His worker. He asks us each, individually, personally, to give up the fear and the pride, and accept Him.

He will help you to make the right decisions, both in life in general, and regarding salvation.

Software and Plenty

2007-04-25T12:57:00.000-07:00

The tools of software makers are freely available. It is as if a foundry was abandoned and left running with a supply of steel, awaiting the makers of anvils, hammers, I-beams, and ships. Free compilers are the tool-makers' tools.

And while other trades must be learned in college, programming is taught in high school -- and earlier! What's more, this training is subsidized!

And while other trades specialize and categorize, the lowliest hacker can rise to be the Next Bill Gates - or at least the next Linus Torvalds.

Software is inherently non-unique. Any uniqueness is simulated, as in Digital Rights Management. Even the decoding scheme for DVD encoding is available as a prime number.

This is unique in the history of mankind. Never before has there been a set of tools and raw material so plentiful, and as free.

And never again.

The parasites will create chips that cannot use free compilers. The parasites will create internet connections that require proprietary software. The parasites will take away the "free" high-school C++ courses.

The trade will die. In America.

As with the physical tradesmen, programmers will see their cost-of-living increase, so that they must work longer hours for the same pay. Competition with foreign workers will become fierce, and lower pay must become acceptable... or the programmers will starve.

This will take place over the next ten years, and at the end of it, Americans will still be flipping burgers on artificially inflated minimum wages, but they won't be sitting in front of keyboards, esteemed for their l33t skillz and paid the wages of a skilled tradesman.

Nothing is Bad Stuff

2007-04-03T21:31:00.000-07:00

The other day, someone asked The Internet Oracle an interesting question.

Oh Oracle Most Wise, who fathoms the true meaning of a lightyear,
What makes outer space so dangerous?

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

Nothing.

Lots and lots of it. Going on darn near forever
in all directions. Oh sure, there's some dust
here, a planet full of sentient creatures there,
and a perfectly matched pair of G Class stars way,
way over there, but mostly it's nothing. And nothing
is dangerous. Think about a gun. See that empty
hole at the end of the barrel, the place where
nothing is? That is by far the MOST DANGEROUS part to
place upside your temple. Or your girlfriend, think
of her. If you ask her anything -- what's up or
what she's mad about or what it is she's thinking
of and she says, "Nothing" -- Dude, you are in BIG
TROUBLE.

Nothing is Bad Stuff.

That's why they put it up there in outer space, out
of the way, out of reach.

You owe the Oracle something.

You see, Nothing is the opposite of Something. Nothing is Bad Stuff, whether it's a logical nothing, such as not telling the truth, or a physical something, such as not stopping bad things from happening, or an emotional nothing, such as not having a better purpose beyond having people see your good work toward a good purpose.

Nothing doesn't exist (duh) until we make it partially exist. Then it seeks toward being nothing again until it is. Throw a ball up in the air. Nothing holds it up (no strength, no object, no anything holds it up), so it comes back down. But on its way down, it might hit something fragile and break it.

This post was more coherent in my mind. I have less ability to articulate it right now, so I should go to bed.

If The Troops Come Home

2007-03-21T14:37:00.000-07:00

Attention fellow peace-lovers.

This is what will take place, if the troops pull out very soon, with the current useless, divided, corrupt government still in place, the militias will fight each other, stuggling for the chair, the arab jihadists will fight for their so called "Islamic" state. The Iraqi christians will perish, the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis that worked with the coalition forces will be butchered. The normal Iraqis will be tortured and killed. It will be the utmost struggle for power. The Iranians will intervene and hakeem will give them the south on a plate of gold. The turks will try and get the Kurds. The central piece will be fought over by all parties. You will have burqa women roaming the streets, that is if they even can do that. You will see children being taught how to fight with guns and kill. Iraq will no longer be the land between the two rivers. Oh no, it wont be. The bloody Iraq today will even be more bloodier. More deadly.

These are the words of a woman living in Iraq. Her husband is helping to rebuild the country after Saddam's government was thrown out. She goes by the nickname Neurotic Iraqi Wife. Her blog reveals the desparation of the people of Iraq.

Nightly kidnappings, beheadings, bombings. Seemingly random detentions by Coalition forces. Yet for all this, she would rather the Americans stay to finish the job than abandon it to the thugs and looters that lied their way into office, via those purple-stained fingers that promised freedom.

Support the troops and their mission as long as it takes.

Sayid doesn't know how much better off he is on the island.

The Gospel according to Anime

2007-03-17T01:46:00.000-07:00

People who sin say this: that they had to, to survive.
People who sin say this: that it's too late to stop.
The shadow called Sin dogs them steadily without a word.
Remorse and Agony are repeated, to finally end up at Dispair.
But sinners don't know...
... that if they turn around, there is a light...
... a light which keeps shining on them ever so warmly.

There are a few anime/manga heroes that reflect some of the character of Jesus. Himura Kenshin, of Rurouni Kenshin, and Goku of Dragonball both refuse to kill, even when their own life is threatened, and both will put themselves in harm's way to protect others. Characters like this are obviously not unique to manga or anime; most superheroes of the Western comics traditions are also devoted to such a self-sacrificial lifestyle, as is the popular conception of a firefighter, police officer, or member of the armed forces.

One of the best is Vash the Stampede from the manga and anime Trigun. As with Kenshin and Goku, Vash refuses to take the life of anyone, even his most dangerous foes, the Gung-Ho Guns. Valiant and determined, he embodies those characteristics which most people find noblest.

He almost fits the God-shaped hole that everyone has in their heart.

He gets angry whenever someone is killed, especially if someone "good" kills a "bad guy." Even the natural predation of animals is hard for him to accept, because death goes against his character. At one point, he is forced to kill the leader of the Gung-Ho Guns, Legato, which puts him into a deep depression. He only emerges from this depression by realizing that forgiving himself is essential to living in a fallen world.

The quote at the beginning of this post was a voice-over during the preview for part two of the sand-steamer episode. That episode ended the first stage of the anime; in the following episode, he met Nicholas D Wolfwood, the wandering priest, which kicked off the second stage of the anime.

The two women that follow him, Meryl Stryfe and Millie Thompson, are from an insurance society which has had to pay out on damages apparently caused by Vash the Stampede. Over the course of the first stage of the anime, they become his disciples as they learn his character. To me, they represent Martha and Mary, respectively.

By watching the Trigun anime, I have gained a deeper connection to Jesus. While ideals may not always be reached in this lifetime, stories like Trigun illustrate just how deep those ideals are in humanity's collective heart.

Finitude vs Fallenness

2007-03-07T13:04:00.000-08:00

Let's get two things straight here, folks:

People make mistakes because people are finite.
People sin because people are fallen.

How do I mean this?

I can state that 2 + 2 = 5 because I don't know better. This is ignorance, not sin.

I can state that 2 + 2 = 5 because I'm lying to someone. This is sin, not ignorance.

I can state that 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2 because I'm being funny. This is neither ignorant nor sinful. (And if you believe jokes are sinful, I'm not sure you'll enjoy Heaven...)

Sin is mostly choice-based, though the exact boundaries of where mistakes end and sin begins are dependent on whose mistake or sin it is. A teacher has the responsibility to make sure their statements to students are correct; depending on the subject being taught, this might amount to a sin rather than a big mistake.

God is omniscient. This doesn't just mean "all-knowing". It also means He is infinitely intelligent, that He knows what to do with what He knows. He could not make a mistake, because of this quality.

Eternal Weekend

2007-02-22T06:41:00.000-08:00

There are three basic types of Christians. Each believes Heaven is like part of the week.

As children, we all believe Heaven is an eternal Saturday, with games, playing, happiness, fun, and casual reading.

I know people who believe Heaven is an eternal Sunday, with worship all the time, forever.

I've heard about Christians who believe there will be work for us to do in Heaven.

That last option intrigues me, and it makes sense intellectually. After all, why go to the trouble of educating us during all our hundred year lives, if we'll never use that for the rest of Eternity?

But I believe that even if there is work, it'll be analogous to a true work week, with fun-and-worship weekends, and every work day will feel like an eternal Friday afternoon, when I'm most productive because I'm looking forward to the weekend.

Of course, I'd love to hang out with God in the Infinite Library for a good ten thousand years or so, catching up on my reading. He'll have me work when He knows I'm ready to work.

And don't get me wrong, I look forward to the purity of worshipping God in His presence; I just don't think he'd waste the other capacities of humanity, the capacities for fun, for learning, and for work that He gave us. After all, He is the God of change, of growth, and of laughter.

More Messianic Stuff

2007-02-14T21:57:00.000-08:00

A bit more of this Messianic end-of-the-world stuff, then back to the postmodern dissections of how popular culture points to God.

"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"

Paul speaks in Romans 11 of the future destiny of Israel. The chosen nation of God unwittingly sacrificed Jesus, and God accepted the sacrifice for all who call out to Him for salvation. This verse is a prophecy that the physical raising of the dead, will take place when Israel accepts Jesus as Messiah.

Many nations may be destroyed by that time, even America, but when Israel accepts the King of Kings, all wrongs will be righted, and there will be peace.

But first will come the false Messiah, and he will come with signs and wonders so great that, if God had not reserved for Himself a remnant, even Christians would accept this false Jesus.

Satan's so crafty, he'll probably find some way to fake an anti-Christ before the real one, to make people think his is the real deal. That's just a guess, folks.

Anyway...

Your thoughts?

Pre-emptive strike?

2007-01-29T16:55:00.000-08:00

According to this news story, Israel has tried two or three times to nuke Iran, only to be turned back by the USA.

Wow.

... just... wow.

Let me spin a hypothetical scenario:

If Israel did this, the entire Muslim world would attempt to retaliate... and we're right next door, in Iraq. Several well-placed nukes could take out America's ground forces, leaving us with only the big guns to defend ourselves. A defacto Pax Americana would result.

Following such an attack, religious leaders and secular leaders everywhere would demand answers. Eventually, it will be decided that a one-world government and a one-world religion is the only way to go. The people of the world, desiring safety more than freedom, will gladly cede their sovereignity.

This would set the scene for the Antichrist.

Alternately:

At the moment of escalation, someone will call out for a halt to the violence. That person will appear to be Jesus, returned at the right time to keep us from destroying the world.

"Jesus" would claim that monotheistic religion is causing all the problems, and proclaim a pantheistic religion similar to Hindu is the real truth. People would believe him. After all, it's Jesus!

Only those who know the truth, that there is only one God, and that He sent His Son to die for our sins, will hold out. We will be shunned, spited, and eventually, disallowed from public economy. We will be reduced to beggin on the streets if we refuse to follow "Jesus".

The President of Israel has a seven year term...

The Thinking Christian

2007-01-17T21:11:00.000-08:00

Tonight, Christian apologist Josh McDowell stopped in Albuquerque to give a presentation. His words matched and confirmed what God has shown me over the past ten years.

Ten years ago, God told me He loves me; He loves me so much that He died for my sins. I grew up in church, so I had always accepted it as truth, but I had never felt it, until that night.

Six years ago, He told me that He wanted me to think. He rewarded my thinking with concepts that made the world simpler to understand, and easier to deal with.

Last summer, during a study of Hebrews, He gave me a phrase: The knowledge of the character of God is the anchor of the soul.

Josh McDowell's talk focused on the character of God, the love of God, and the necessity of rational thinking in the Church and the home.

It was a masterful presentation from a rhetorical viewpoint, as well as theologically sound; he cut out the unnecessary and earnestly talked to us with the authority that comes from certain knowledge, and from caring for the audience.

I'm sure that everyone who attended came away with something new; I came away with a fuller understanding of God's love. Josh gave clear reasoning behind the commandment to remain with only one sexual partner for life, which in a Christian context also includes an endorsement of marriage. He asked why more pastors and parents avoid defining important concepts like Love and Truth.

However, I feel he could add strength to this presentation in the future by adding one point: the definition of sin. After the opening volley of questions, he could have asked, "How many of you have ever heard your pastor define sin in terms other than disobedience?"

As I've stated on this blog before (at least I think I have!), my personal definition of sin started as, "that which causes harm to oneself or others." That definition has expanded to include all choices which disregard the importance of other people in God's eyes, which potentially could cause harm, no matter how small. In its simplest form, this definition of sin would be useful for parents and Sunday School teachers, yet I have never heard it taught in any church. God had to use logic to teach me by inference at age 21! I wish I could have heard this definition at a younger age.

Other thoughts:

The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was developed here at University of New Mexico Hospital. It is effective against the most common strains, and prevents a significant number of cancers. At a public lecture given by the head of research, she said she now regrets it to some degree. You see, she knows human character. She knows it will be used by people who are not virgins (it won't help sexually active women), and by women who think it reduces the need for pap smears, thereby increasing cancers. She also knows that anything relating to womens' health issues will be rejected by some groups because it seems disgusting or shameful, even when it saves lives. The correct way to use it, she said, is to include it in the standard childhood vaccinations. probably around age eight, and yet she knows it will never happen, because it implies sexual activity at such an early age, and people don't want to believe it happens. By the way, I agree with her.

I have yet to hear a single, cogent, satisfactory definition of spirit from any other Christian. They either mean a pseudophysical, insubstantial, immaterial realm (and the beings that live there), or things that feel holy or pure or better than. Oftentimes, these definitions are mixed; they use spirit to mean both during the course of the same conversation. I have decided not to use the words spirit or spiritual unless I clearly define what I mean. However, I will say I have come to see spirit as something somewhere between mind, heart, and soul.

As always, comments are welcome.

Bad Christians

2006-11-29T17:42:00.000-08:00

Warning: This post includes a few words that are not nice words.

I've been around a few bad Christians in my lifetime. They use all the Christian language, and yet being around them takes me away from God's love into a dark and stupid place.

These are two quotes from the anti-abuse, anti-misogynist website http://www.heartless-bitches.com/ which equally apply to bad Christians, especially ones in positions of authority. Whether it's a teaching leader, a pastor, a deacon, or a choir director, these people got Christianity wrong.

To worship anything or anyone immediately sets the worshipper apart from the object of his worship. It objectifies the worshipped person(s) such that true emotional intimacy is not possible.

These bad Christians say that God is a person, they even say "Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." Odds are, they will use those exact words. Though it's true, they know it only as words. To them, God is an authority higher than the heavens... who could crush them with His Great and Awesome Little Toe.

God is a person. He thinks, He feels, and He does actions. He makes choices. He uses tools, He speaks wisdom, and He leads with charisma.

However, He uses it all for us.

He never makes a mistake. He has infinite power. He never lies. He is the Ultimate. This is what makes Him set apart. But He wants you to treat Him like a loving parent. He is one, after all, helping us to grow and mature as our parents should have done.

God is a person. When you figure out that statement, you will no longer have a static image of God, an outdated conception that relies on life's fears and doubts, as an idol in your heart.

In the book "The Gift of Fear," Gavin DeBecker defines "niceness" as a "strategy of social interaction" and not evidence of innate goodness. So what he is saying is that being "nice" merely means your behavior is not offensive but does not mean your motives are automatically pure or good. Being a "nice guy" has been discussed elsewhere so there is no need to go into great detail here, but the bottom line is that trying to "be nice" or to use one’s social charm to achieve one’s social or sexual objectives is just as manipulative as anything else. The details are different, but what is at the core is the same.

God is not manipulative; but too many of His people are. I know one who told me to smile while singing; after all, I should be happy in church. That sucked all the fun out of worship service. (That, of course, was not the only manipulation he put on me, but it's the only one I can easily remember.)

So love God, and don't trust humans that much; after all, they're not God, so they shouldn't act like it.

Freedom is Slavery

2006-11-25T20:01:00.000-08:00

When someone is your master, your choices are their choices, and their choices are your choices. That is, you do what they choose for you to do, even if you don't understand it, and what you do reflects on them, especially if you disagree with them.

Satan made it seem that God's choices for us to fulfill were oppressive and took something away from our existence; moreover, he made it seem as though the choices he would have us do were simply ours.

However, Satan's choices and freedom to sin end with chaos, entropy, and heat-death. God's choices put in place a stable arena of freedom that is sustainable. It is this mixup that causes so much trouble for Adam's house, and for the God who only wants the best for them.

In being a slave to God, we are free in ways impossible under Satan's freedom, which binds us to Satan's fate: the fate of a traitor, exiled from the Kingdom of Light.

Man's Purpose and God's Tears

2006-10-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

When God created man, He, like any good parent, wanted us to succeed. He gave us an intellect able to create the Space Shuttle, a body able to do Kung Fu, and a heart able to sacrifice oneself for another.

And yet, the first recorded thing we did with this tremendous potential -- was to fall. We used the freedom of sapience to kill ourselves.

After we fell, we continued to fall. We invented murder. We invented codependancy. We invented abuse. We invented cheating. We did everything we could to focus on playing in the dirt at our feet, and turned our back on reaching for the stars.

(And, in the metauniverse of literally infinite possibilities opened by God, even space exploration is just playing in the dirt at our feet.)

He looked on the world, and saw that man had, in a few long generations, become totally wicked, not worth saving. Except for one man.

So He told Noah to build an ark, and sent him the animals to save. And God wept.

He cried for forty days and forty nights.

We invented heartbreak.

Stunted Christianity

2006-08-07T15:43:00.000-07:00

To forever start and end with "I love Jesus because He died for me" is to never let the relationship grow beyond "Jesus is the one who saved me," and therefore, to never let oneself grow beyond "I am the sinner who was unworthy."

A stunted Christian like this can never grow beyond their own unworthiness, as fallen children of Adam and Eve. A stunted Christian like this will always feel guilt when saying "I can," "I want," or even "I need." They do not realize that their fallenness, as a state of being, ended at the cross.

Certainly, they will make wrong choices, they will make mistakes, throughout the rest of their lives. However, they can now make right choices, they can now do things without mistakes.

They don't realize that part of the package of being saved is the indwelling Holy Spirit. God, the Holy Spirit, now lives inside them, and will help them whenever they need Him, even if they don't know it at the time. This means that the normal human abilities (which God gave, like the rain, to the just and the unjust) have been supplemented by God's own abilities.

This attitude diminishes God's role in their lives, as provider, caretaker, parent, teacher, boss, and King. They cannot accept that God will provide and take care of them by giving them the means to provide and care for themselves. They cannot accept that God, as a parent, wants to see them succeed. They cannot accept that God wants to teach them, not just through discipline, but through the minds He gave them, and not having to go through a bad experience to gain that knowledge. They cannot accept that a worker who is always apologizing for their work is a worker who makes the boss look bad. They cannot accept that God is a just and kind monarch, who listens to the concerns of His subjects, and is always willing to give people a second chance.

By remaining "the lowly worm saved only because God decreed it," they are the kind of church nobody wants - spineless, weak, ineffectual.

GOD DID NOT SAVE YOU SO YOU COULD COWER AND GROVEL!!! GOD SAVED YOU SO YOU COULD GO HELP HIM SAVE OTHERS!!! GOD SAVED YOU SO YOU COULD ENJOY THE LIFE HE HAS GIVEN YOU!!!

Money

2006-06-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

Why is money so important to Physically focused people?

Let me explain. Liberal are generally Emotion-focused. Conservatives are generally Physical-focused. Libertarians are generally Logic-focused.

Liberals claim sometimes that all conservatives care about is the money. Indeed, conservatives are often money-focused. Why?

Money is a socially defined form of energy. It makes things happen.

Potential Energy is logically defined. A bowling ball resting on the ground has as little kinetic energy as a bowling ball resting on a ledge on the side of a building, but the one on the building could roll off and fall, gaining tremendous kinetic energy as a result.

Money is an even more abstract form of energy. The sun pours out light-energy, which is turned into plants and into sugar-energy. That sugar-energy is harvested, and sold. People convert their money-energy into that sugar-energy, then go out and work their own jobs, turning that sugar-energy back into money-energy.

Since energy, and its workings, are firmly in the realm of the physical, it makes clear sense that Conservatives, being Physical-focused people, can easily be focused on money.

It also reworks all of economic theory into a mass of energy, always flowing, running by the rules of energy exchange.

Choice

2006-06-08T19:07:00.000-07:00

Choice is the most dangerous thing in the universe. It is also the one thing God does not dare go against.

Every person has choice. They may not think about it. They may not use it. They may not even realize it. But choice is what makes humans "human."

I can choose, right now, to leave the seat where I'm typing, take a pen, and stab my choice of three people. I can choose to throw four or five computers and monitors to the floor to the ground, right now, just to see them break.

I can choose to continue this blog entry. I can choose to do some homework, study the Bible, or join a cribbage game online.

Any physical item can be used for multiple purposes. Many emotional and logical things can also be tools of good or instruments of destruction. It is choice that makes them so.

It is choice that turns a gun from a physical object that can propel small metal chunks at a very high speed, into a deadly weapon and a threat, instead of a glorified hole-punch.

It is choice that turns the human voice into a harsh tool of domination, a wonderful musical instrument, a carrier of ideas, information, and memes.

It is choice that defines humanity. Choice is the image of God.

How so? God is the prime mover, but because every move is planned, He is also the prime chooser. In His book, choice is the only thing that matters, in the end. What a person chooses, how they choose it, why they choose it, these are what the Bible is about.

When God says, "Do for others what you would have them do for you," He means it. He means that other people are as infinitely valuable to Him as you are. That means that they are infinitely valuable to you, as well.

Because consequences are part of the choice that spawned them, because the consequences wouldn't even exist without the choice in the first place, the consequences are as important when judging a choice as the motive of that choice in the first place.

Most people can't get past the syllogism:
1: God is omnipotent and omniscient.
2: Bad things happen.
3: Therefore, God is not good.

Their assumptions are what keep them from getting past it:
1.5: ...Therefore He has the ability to stop bad things from happening, and the full knowledge of all the bad things that will happen, when they will happen, how to stop them, and the full consequences of stopping or allowing them.
2.5: ...Therefore God allowed them to happen.
3.5: ...Because a good person would have stopped them.

My only quibble is with 3.5. Let me say that again. My only quibble is with 3.5. What does that mean? It means that God had better have a damn good reason for allowing those bad things to happen.

It turns out He does.

The prime chooser made us little choosers. We have the ability, given by Him, to make choices of utter inconsequence or life-shattering horror. We have, in a word, freedom.

It is freedom, choice, that God respects, that God will not touch. We earn the good and bad consequences of our choices. If He negated the consequences, even if they are only the bad consequences, He would be treating us as children, and not as adults. He will not be patronizing.

It is freedom that America enshrined as the highest virtue, it is choice, with its good and its bad, that our government is built on.

It is freedom that we are giving to Iraq, with its good and its bad. We hope that they will be grateful to us, we hope that they will not use their freedom to attack us.

It is freedom to make choices, an arena of possibility, that God has given to us. Our abuse of that freedom is called sin, and it is the consequences of sin that turns abused children into confused, codependent adults, that turns strapping young men into shattered veterans old before their time, that turns fear into anger into punishment for imagined crimes.

Sin is choices that hurt other people.

Change and Stasis

2006-06-03T15:10:00.000-07:00

Let me be more clear: God represents change, and Satan represents stasis.

Satan has convinced the world that this is exactly the opposite. And yet, what is power? It is the ability to CHANGE things, to make things not the way they were before.

In the Physical, change is "good" and stasis "bad", in the same way that in the Logical, true is "good" and false "bad".

This needs some minor modifications to fit the revealed truth, however.

First, though God the Father is the essence and master of Change, He does not change. After all, as He is infinitely powerful, infinitely smart, infinitely good, infinitely just, etc, any change would be to make God LESS than He is.

Second, though he serves stasis, Satan thinks he serves only himself. He is not content to serve stasis with the methods of stasis; he uses change to serve stasis. He knocks things down to their lowest energy level, he encourages entropy.

Third, though Change is one of the central aspects of God, another is Truth. Whatever is true remains true, unless the situation changes. For example, if the amount of water in a lake decreases, the number denoting its volume decreases. HOWEVER, the amount that WAS in it remains tied to the number representing its PREVIOUS volume. The same is true of actions that cause harm (sins). Murder (a subset of killing) is a sin, was a sin, will be a sin, no matter how much society changes. HOWEVER, if the situation changes such that a specific killing is no longer murder (war or self defense or the death penalty), then that specific killing is also no longer the sin of murder.

Thus, God appears to be static (His Word never changes, as He also does not), and Satan appears to be an agent of change (an angel of light): he got Adam and Eve to sin and get tossed out of the garden.

This confusion is rampant in Western Civilization. Eastern religions enshrine Change, though they do not know that they worship God the Father. Western governments act as a cancer, taking more and more resources from the productive portion of the body until the body dies, taking the cancer with it. Eastern governments are no better, because they are run by people too.

And the zombie sons of Adam and daughters of Eve remain agents of stasis. The Truth was nailed to a tree so He couldn't change the system. When He gave entropy the last bit of life in Him, it realized that it still had no hold on Him, because He had never worked for it. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus never worked for sin, so His paycheck bounced.

There's too much stasis in our churches today. As with the visible growth of a tree, it may look alive on the outside and be deadwood inside. Growth from within can survive the winter chill that kills the twigs and leaves. Anything ineffective in the church should be dropped immediately, and resources put to better use, effecting change.

Self Esteem

2006-05-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

Self-Esteem has been enshrined on one side, and derided on the other. Here's the facts.

People need to feel generally positive about themselves. People who don't are depressed.

People are worth so much to God that He died to save us from the consequences of our own choices. However, no person is worthy of that sacrifice; no person deserved it.

Self Esteem is taken to mean, variously, Self Worth, Self Confidence, Egotism, and Selfishness.

I have a high opinion of myself that is not based in my past actions and choices. It is based on my dreams, my hopes, my plans, and my upbringing.

My parents made me feel proportionally important. I was loved, but I was punished for wrong choices. I was not neglected or put aside, but I was sometimes ignored. I was not the most important person in general, but when the conversation was about me, I was important.

I have Self Esteem, but it is based on a realistic Self Image. I am a young American man, with my whole life ahead of me. It might be cut short by some as-yet-unseen illness or accident, but I may live to ninety years old. Things will happen during my lifetime that will change the world, for better or for worse, but I will still be me, no matter what happens.

Religion: Evil? PART 2

2006-04-22T15:18:00.000-07:00

As for his claims that religion should be private and nobody else's business:

If the materialists' claims are true, and nothing exists except the physical, if all thoughts and emotions that people have are just electricity in our brains, then it doesn't matter what religion someone is, everybody dies, and perpetuation of life in general and the species in particular is the highest ideal and top priority. If perpetuation of the species requires religion be silenced for the sake of world peace, then so be it.

If the monists' and new-agers' claims are true, and the spiritual and physical are only differing views of one grand and infinite reality, then again it doesn't matter which religion someone is, that person is a small fragment of the Divine anyway. If the evolution of humanity into Divine Awareness is the goal of existence, then so be it.

However, between these two extremes, there are numerous worldviews that may or may not be true, and if they are true, they have immediate ramifications in the here and now.

Mainstream Protestant / Evangelical Christianity, for example, claims that God created everything, that sin has eternal consequences, and that we each, personally, have only a short hundred years or less to repent of our hurtful actions against God and other people.

There are stated consequences of not repenting and accepting Jesus' crucifixion as paying the penalty for a person's sins: an eternity in hell.

Obviously, if this is true, everybody should know, because everybody is in danger of being separated from God in an unpleasant place forever. Obviously, it is in everyone's best self-interest to find out if it is true.

So why is there this attitude of "chill, dude, it can't be all that bad"?

Because some people believe it can't honestly be that bad.

Because other people remember the Crusades and the forced conversions of the past, and say that anyone who did such things can't be trusted.

Because it is widely reported to be a fringe-lunatic superstitious worldview with no scientific basis or merit.

There are elements of the church that have accepted the materialists' worldview, but have made statements like, "there is a spiritual reality in which the Bible is true, and it is that which our faith is focused on."

There are elements of the church which agree with the world that religion should be personal, private, and unshared. Those elements are unprepared for a physical return of Jesus to this Earth, or the trumoil that would accompany such an event.

There are those today who would go a step further than this gentleman quoted in my previous blog posting, who would ban all religions, reasoning that world peace would follow. This may indeed occur; remember, however, that most wars are not about religions. They are about control. Money. Power. They are about resources. They are about systems of government.

Beware those who say they're doing something "for your own good". I am merely voicing / typing / posting my worldview, allowing you, the reader, to choose freely. There are those who would enforce a specific worldview. There are those who already enforce their worldview. It is freedom, not coercion, that made America great. It is coercion, not freedom, that will one day ruin America.

Religion: Evil?

2006-04-12T22:45:00.000-07:00

Here's a post by a guy named "Paul" that sums up popular feelings toward organized religion.

Geez,
I wonder if organized religion is worth all of this crap.
[...]
I’ve seen more hurt and pain come from religion than I ‘ve ever seen comfort and succor.
Murder, Pedophilia, Lynching, Genocide and Mass Suicide are a few of the earthly joys brought to the world by ‘men of god.’
I maintain an earlier posts position. Religious and sexual Preferences should be kept to oneself and practiced in the company of like minded people. Also, that Freedom of Speech does not imply that satirists have any taste. So, you may expect that your religion or sexual preference may become the source of ridicule someday. Get over it. Move on.

This opinion has, unfortunately, become the norm in America. So, how do I, a Christian, respond?

First, by agreeing with several of his points. "Murder, Pedophilia, Lynching, Genocide and Mass Suicide" are indeed evils. By putting quotes around ‘men of god,’ he adds sarcasm, implying the obvious: that those who practice such things are anything but ‘men of god.’

Second, by stating the not-so-obvious: those who practice such things may not be acting according to their creeds, but rather according to general human nature. Remember, murder, pedophilia, lynching, and genocide are also practiced by the rich and the poor, the despotic and the powerless, the greedy, arrogant, and idiotic. I can't think of a mass suicide that wasn't tied to a religion, but generally those are practiced by cults and not the mainstream; also, individual suicide is just as much a tragedy, often committed by those who have lost their faith, as well as any number of tragic reasons.

There are two major factions in Christianity: those who believe that this world will continue, and those who do not.

Those who believe this world will continue generally believe that the Church will come to rule over the Earth in some manner, usually either an actual theocracy or through the general acceptance of Christian values. Within this group, there are two camps: those who take prophecy as literal future history and expect a bodily return of Jesus from Heaven, and those who take prophecy as "spiritual", and expect the church as the "body of Christ" to do the work. There are even those Christians who believe the Bible is full of some truth, but also full of a bunch of religious nonsense and cultural stuff that doesn't apply nowadays. They may even question the existence of Jesus and God.

Those who believe this world will end are generally "theologically conservative". Again, there are several views, but the diversity of them is thinner. Generally they believe that Jesus will return to Earth at the end of the battle of Armageddon, end the battle, rule over this Earth for a thousand years, destroy it, and recreate it flawless.

The second group generally accept widespread persecution of Christianity as future history. This group may focus on short-term gains in culture and politics, but also acknowledges, according to their views, that such gains are temporary at best, that the world is going down the tubes in general, and that only Jesus' return can halt the downward slide. I am in this group, and I believe this is a realistic view, given this general sentiment against "religion" in general.

The first group, those who believe in the continuation of this world, can have a self-assuredness that comes from their beliefs. This self-assuredness often turns people against them. After all, when a group says it's inevitable that they'll rule the world someday, it tends to turn people off. These are generally the older Protestant denominations, as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

The second group, those who believe in the end of this world, can have a desparation and paranoia. After all, if it's inevitable that Christianity will be persecuted by every government in the world for seven years, time is short and we'd better get working. These are generally the younger Protestant denominations, and many non-denominational churches.

This self-assuredness and this paranoic desparation are the two main extremes of emotion in the Church today, and few people enjoy being around extremists. Also, extremes tend to make people do odd things.

The extreme that gets little press is love. Not romantic love. Agape love. It's a Greek noun, coming from a Greek verb that means to be totally devoted or committed. It means loving your neighbor - caring for your neighbor's well-being as if he were a close family member. It means loving your enemy - caring for their well-being and for their salvation; after all, Jesus died for them too.

If all who called themselves Christians expressed this extreme love, this caring for others as much as you care for yourself, the church would be growing by leaps and bounds. If the church was focused on its mission of telling people the good news - that death and entropy have no hold on us anymore - the culture battles would cease as people would be informed of the right things to do by the Holy Spirit instead of some earthly authority.

If all Christians throughout history had expressed God's love for all mankind by doing the obvious - loving all mankind - "Murder, Pedophilia, Lynching, Genocide and Mass Suicide" would not happen within the church, would not be caused by the church.

If all Christians acted the way Jesus wanted us to act, there would be no talk of keeping "religious preferences" to oneself. If all Christians acted the way Jesus wanted us to act, the church would indeed be the light of God to a dark world, and salt to the Earth.

Either that, or the dark world would have gathered to extinguish the light, and Jesus would have returned a long time ago.

Three Fundamental Emotions

2006-03-19T17:33:00.000-08:00

An author and friend of mine has a blog too! This is a reply I posted to one of her posts.

http://www.mariannepowers.com/blog/2006/03/two-emotions.html

What are the fundamental emotions?
Love and Fear seem asymmetrical because they are not opposites. However, in order to classify them, we must look at their functionalities, polarities, and thus derive their categorization.
(I'll restrict myself to the most contextually sound definition of each.)
Love is a devotion to the other party in the relationship, often expressed in honest concern as well as mushy love notes. It is the emotional equivalent of two particles drawn together because of gravity or magnetism. Hate would be the opposite, the emotional equivalent of particles repelling each other. Keep in mind that relationship-type emotions can be mismatched, such as "I love my car" (when the car can't love him back) or "I hate Bush" (when Bush knows him only as a citizen of America) or "I know my girlfriend loves me" (when she thinks of him as a good boyfriend until Mr Right comes into her life).
Fear and Hope are the polar opposites regarding the future, both immediate and long-term, and even the past if the outcome is not yet known. (Think lottery results in the next morning's paper.) They are expectations, imperative-type emotions in the future tense. Their polarity is based on which outcome is desired. If met, there is satisfaction. (Which seems to explain why some people live in fear; when their expectation is justified, they don't regret the time they spent fearing.)
There are three types of emotions, relationships, imperatives, and identities. We have seen two so far.
Identity-type emotions involve value judgements, identifications, labels. Blogs are fun. My childhood was idyllic. If the moon crashed into the Earth, the result would be disastrous. Jenny is an idiot. ABC's Lost is enjoyable. Jesus has risen. This soup is icky. They can carry any person or tense, and are most easily stated using conjugated forms of the verb "to be." The highest positive identity-type emotion is a passionate positive identification of someone or something as good, great, or ideal. I might call this "faith," believing good things about someone or something. Humanists have faith in humanity. Christians have faith in Christ. Nihilists have faith in nothing except "nothing".
So the three fundamental positive emotions are Faith, Hope, and Love.

In the ESV translation:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+cor+13

In the King James, with study tools:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr013.html

"pistis, elpis, agape." The "C" button gets a concordance with word-study tools.
pistis: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1142818717-918.html

Identity-type emotions are properly the emotional equivalents of logical definitions, or of physical things' existence. A thing doesn't "exist" emotionally without an identity. People who are confused on their own identity feel as though they are insubstantial, as though they don't really exist. A solid identity allows them to feel their existence.

Many people confuse "identity" with "role", which is a term that relates specifically to the two sides of a relationship-type emotion: "Father and daughter, slave and master, husband and wife, nephew and aunt." These are not identities in themselves, though people may assign identity emotions to anyone who plays these roles, because of identities built up through life experiences, entertainment, or other forms of culture transmission. I identify the role "father" first with my own father, with his personality characteristics; second, with the Ideal Sitcom Father, Mike Brady, Father Knows Best, Timmy's Dad, Andy Griffith, Cliff Huxtable.

The Opposite Of God

2006-03-06T16:49:00.000-08:00

What is the opposite of God?

Some posit a huge and terrible evil, a force of nature equal in power to God, such that the two are locked in immortal combat for all of eternity, and for every good, there is a contrasting evil. (In other words, Ahriman.)

Others posit a rebel angel, a supervillan of vast scale, whose desires are debased, whose imagination is devious, whose schemes are cunning, and whose rebellion is destined to fail. (In other words, Satan.)

I propose nothing so grand or vast as the opposite of God.

In fact, I propose that the opposite of God is ... Nothing. And Satan serves it.

Nothing has no desires, Nothing has no strength. Nothing has no thoughts, no existence, no anything.

Nothing has negatives of all the positive attributes of God. Far from being omnipotent like God, Nothing has nullpotence, impotence. Whereas God is creative, Nothing is sterile. Where God is omnibenevolent, Nothing is omniambivalent, omni-apathetic.

God is pure, and nothing can alter Him. He is a rock. Nothing is impure, and anything can alter it.

God is love, outward-directed, other-oriented, and infinitely passionate. Nothing is fear, inward-directed, self-oriented, and infinitely uncaring.

Satan does serve self, but in doing so, he has Nothing at his core. Having tricked humanity into following self and thus Nothing, he has no reward, no crown, Nothing to pat him on the head and say, "good job." Nothing cares nothing about what Satan does for its cause.

When someone has a selfishness, if they pay it no attention, if they do nothing for it, it is as if it does not exist. If, however, someone does something about that selfishness, they have empowered Nothing in their lives, and they will reap its rewards.

I say all this on a conceptual-philosophical level, for after all, if Nothing were some spirit, it would be something, not nothing. Even my description of Nothing is not Nothing itself, it is only a description. The description is vague necessarily, because after all I am describing Nothing.

The closest things to Nothing to which we can point concretely appear in seven realms of human experience:

The Physical: Entropy, the wasting of energy and the ruining of potential.
The Logical: Nonsense, the lack of truth or information or logic.
The Emotional: Uncaring, the inward focus that cuts off all contact with others.
The Spiritual: Madness, the chaos of thought and feeling that all rational beings fear.
The Animal: Wounded beast, dying, growling and snapping at anything trying to help.
The Scientific: Broken tools and bad data, unusable to any and all.
The Moral: Wasting of freedom, conformity and laziness and actionless rebellion.

These things are not some great evil, but a sloughed-off skin of evil, in the end powerless unless someone feeds it; a singularity that pulls in and pulls in, giving nothing back.

God is the opposite of Nothing; He is Everything. Change, Truth, Love, Wisdom, Life, Innovation, Freedom. He is like a fountain that never runs out of water, a fire that never dies. He gives and gives, and gives. He values our ability to choose above all else, for that is what makes us the image of Him. He knows everything there is to know about Nothing, and has nothing to do with it.

Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead

2006-03-05T20:06:00.000-08:00

What is the God-shaped hole in this atheist humanist tome?

Choice. Love. Dedication. Idealism. Morality. Greatness.

I read this book from cover to cover. I enjoyed it tremendously. She captured the essence of choice, of strength. I am startled by her depiction of "the ideal man."

I am startled, too, by the contrast of a Christian establishment that did not recognize in her works the twentieth century it could have had.

Her egoism, her selfishness, is the God-shaped hole in her heart. She can conceive of someone who does great things, not for the adulation of others, but for the greatness of the thing. That is, in my book, true selflessness; to love something so completely that he loses himself in it, Roark is without self.

Self: defined in my mind as that thing that cares about appeasing other people's opinions, which clutters the mind with all its "what ifs" and "shoulds and shouldn'ts" and generally forces choices that would not otherwise be made.

The man who does not murder because he would be executed is not a moral man. He has morality forced on him, like a dog on a leash.

The man who does not sin because he will be punished is not a moral man. The man who does not sin because it would harm others, the man who does not sin because he does not want to, is moral.

The man who submits to God for the threat of Hell is not submitting to God, but to fear. The man who bows to God because of who God is is the true worshipper.

The person who likes what he likes because others like it is going with the crowd. The person who likes what he likes without being influenced by others is being original, no matter how many other people like it.

The person who is humble because he will be thought of more highly by others is not humble. The person who is humble because he has a low opinion of himself is not humble. The person who is humble because others have a low opinion of him is not humble. The person who is truthful about what he can and cannot do is humble. Thus, Roark is humble, though neither he nor Rand gives much thought to what he cannot do.

Jesus is honest about His abilities to raise the dead and heal the sick, about who He is and why He was here, about Himself being the only way to Heaven, no other name by which we might be saved, and thus Jesus is humble.

God has infinite ability, infinite smarts, and infinite passion. If God is 100%, I am a notch infinitesimally above 0%, as is any creation, including the angels. (If an angel had a stated percent of God's abilities, that angel would have an infinite ability too. The math is solid.) I am, in effect, nothing, compared to God.

Yet I am of the species which went to the moon in a tin can, which built the Internet and created the computer languages, including C++ and Basic. There is nothing in all creation that can rival us for creativity. Compared to a chimpanzee, to a parrot, to a dog, to a mouse, we are the most powerful beings on the planet. We can wipe out a whole culture or civilization (and have) through germ warfare and discrimination, or instantly with the press of a button.

God is an atheist. He has no one to worship, and has infinite abilities, smarts, and passion. Moral relativism is true: every choice is right or wrong in God's eyes. God can lie; He chooses not to.

Whose books and beliefs portray this God-shaped hole of beliving in one's own choices? Machiavelli, Nietzche, Rand, Heinlein, and Matthew Woodring Stover, whose blog is on this very network, and whose political leanings are (for various reasons) not the same as mine.

Clarification of methodology

2006-03-02T14:04:00.001-08:00

The Brother Bear post may not have appeared post-modern, but I used the terminology of "sin", "God", "choice", and "consequences" using my internal definitions. They capture the concept, but not the postmodern connotations.

"Sin" is anything that hurts or can hurt another. Murder, lies, and other forms of betrayal are sins. The modern definition is "disobedience of God". While that's the ultimate definition, every sin is disallowed by God BECAUSE it hurts someone or disrupts or ends a relationship.

"God" is that guy with infinite power, infinite smarts, and infinite passion for helping people. Too many people think of Him only in terms of His relationships with people, ie lawgiver, judge, jury, executioner, king, master, savior, etc.

"Consequences" are the intentional and accidental (and sometimes potential) results of an intentional or accidental choice. Given the existence of God, everything that happens in this universe is ultimately a consequence of His choice to make it and all choices He has made since then.

"Choice" is the exercise of the ability to choose; the exercise of will. This is the core of the postmodernism in my thought. To me, choice is that aspect of God that He values most in us. When He said to Himself, "Let us make Man in our image," I thoroughly believe that He meant His ability to choose to do.

I am an obsessive fan of what I call "Will-fiction". The best examples of Will-fiction are Matthew Woodring Stover's science fiction novels, Ayn Rand's atheistic self-determination, Robert Heinlein's libertarian free-marketism, and Phil Geusz's transformation stories. Nietzche's focus on man's abilities was an inspiration to all of these people.

Nietzche was reacting to an aspect of the Church that I also find repugnant: the negation of man.
Man is God's greatest creation. He made us "a little lower than the angels", and then died to be with us forever. While we are nothing compared to His infiniteness, no other ape has gone to the moon in a machine of his own making, and no other ape has created the computers on which we blog.

It is the focus on Will that I find attractive in atheism. Yes, there's a God-shaped hole in my heart too, and its largest section is devoted to God's moralism, on doing for others, on helping and on watching other people do for others.

Superheros and atheism have Choice in common. Choice is what I feel most strongly about. Excercise of Choice in the service of others (not necessarily as they direct, but as will actually help them) is my definition of Love.

Ayn Rand believed in self-sacrifice, though she thought she was fighting it.

More on that next time.

Disney's Brother Bear: Bearly New-Age!

2006-03-01T12:51:00.000-08:00

Beware: spoilers ahead!!!

The critics said it was far below par for Disney. The Christians said it would make our children worship clouds and butterflies. The historical accurists said it showed a stereotypical idyllic Native American tribe. The conservatives said it was all about "our friends the animals" and a hyper-environmentalist message.

Whatever.

The story is all about choices and consequences, and has a sadness for sin and a search for justice at its core. I do not recommend it to children, but to any strong Christian over the age of 18.

In a Stone-Age American Indian community, shelter, food, water and fire are life. One young man, Kenai, dislikes the bears because they compete for the food, and they can be dangerous.

When he hurries his preparations for his coming-of-age ceremony, he does not properly tie his fish in a tree. They fall, and are eaten by a bear.

At the ceremony, he is given the "bear" totem representing love. He thinks love is mushy and dislikes bears, so he thinks the spirits gave him the wrong totem by mistake. After the ceremony, he goes back to his fish to prepare the feast, but sees that a bear took them.

Angry and hurt, he convinces his two older brothers, Sitka and Denahi, to hunt the bear with him in retaliation. Instead of admitting his mistake in not properly tying the fish up, he blames the bear. They go hunting the bear, but the attempt ends in tragic failure: the bear gets away, but Sitka is killed.

Again blaming the bear, still angry and hurt, now driven by raging hatred, he and Denahi hunt the bear once more. In a dramatic battle, Kenai manages to kill the bear out of revenge.

The Spirits see this act, and judge Kenai by transforming him into a bear. To make matters worse, Denahi sees the ripped clothing and thinks Kenai is the bear they were chasing.

From Wikipedia:

Disoriented and barely escaping Denahi's wrath by falling into the river, Kenai awakens on the shore and in the presence of Tanana [the tribe's matriarchal shaman], who eases him through his initial shock at his change. Although she cannot understand his bear speech, she advises Kenai to find where the lights touch the mountain so that he can ask Sitka's spirit to change him back, and then she disappears without giving him directions. To Kenai's surprise, he finds he can talk with the other animals - but the only animals who are willing to talk to him are two stupid sibling moose, Rutt and Tuke, who are more interested in cracking jokes at Kenai's claims to be a man than helping him. Along the way, Kenai meets a talkative, pesky bear cub named Koda, who claims to know the way to the salmon run where the bears gather to fish and where the lights seem to hug the mountain.

The two become friends along the journey, spurred toward their goal by Denahi's grief-maddened hunt. At the salmon run, Koda reveals to the group that his mother disappeared after bringing him some fish.

Kenai puts two and two together: A bear took his fish, but he killed the bear. The times and places were right, and in a moment of stark and terrible conviction, he realizes he killed his new friend's mother.

That's right, folks. Because he wasn't willing to admit a mistake, his actions escalated, first causing his brother's death, then the death of a mother bear trying to feed her cub. This is the Christian core to this New-Age-ish movie. THIS is why "Vengeance is Mine, saith the LORD." If Kenai had done the right thing, admitted his mistake in not tying his fish in the tree properly, his brother would still be alive, Koda's mother would still be alive. There are more fish, but on the alter of his blame he sacrificed his brother and someone else's mother.

(For the purposes of the movie, which clearly shows bears and other animals talking to each other, we'll treat Koda and his mother as people for now.) He runs from the gathering of bears, realizing that it was all his fault, that his choices caused the consequences.

This is the best depiction of sin I have seen from any fiction, Disney or other secular, or even Christian. This is also the best depiction of the need to reconcile, of the need for justice.

When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, He took the sum of all punishment that we rightly deserve for all sins throughout time. He made it possible for the thousand daily hurts to be healed, and for a future world in which they don't exist. His love for us was so great that He was willing to be put to death by mankind, to loosen death's grip on humanity.

Jesus extends this offer to everyone: Accept my death as paying for your sins, and you will be adopted into God's family, be given a new heart that does not blame, hurt, or have petty selfishness. You will be transformed into what I meant you to be. You will be given an infinite lifespan in a wondrous place you've only seen in dreams. Your needs will be filled. Your life will be made whole.

The God-shaped hole in your heart will be filled. Though the world will still be the same dangerous, pain-filled place, God will give you an inner peace that the world says you have no right to have. The stark and terrible conviction you rightly feel for any bad deeds, any petty wrongs, and any spiteful hurts you may have committed... will go away.

Accepting Jesus' offer will not make your life perfect. All He asks is for you to let Him help.

Can this movie be seen in a monotheistic context? Certainly. In our reality, all who have died know the truth about God and their lives. Suppose that in the Brother Bear reality, the Spirits are all the people who have died. In the movie's reality, the Spirits take the place of angels, and have a real, lasting relationship with the Great Spirit.

The Great Spirit was saddened by Kenai's actions, and made allowance for justice by having Kenai's dead brother Sitka transform Kenai into a bear for the purpose of caring for Koda in place of the mother.

The only reason to suppose a polytheistic or pantheistic interpretation is presupposition of the metaphysic used in the film based on our polycultural society. Keep in mind that the other major fantastic element, talking animals, is just as unreal as the spiritism shown, and can be interpreted as a metaphor for clashes of competing cultures, yet nobody clamors about how it symbolically describes the white man's uncaring for black inner-city youth, or whatnot.

The monotheism metaphysic fits just as well in Brother Bear as it does in Lord Of The Rings. (See the first chapter of the Silmarillion, if you don't believe me.)

Welcome to the God-Shaped Hole!

2006-03-01T12:25:00.000-08:00

Welcome to GoSH! (The God-Shaped Hole), my somewhat postmodern Christian take on popular culture.

The name is a reference to Pascal, who famously claimed that all people have a God-shaped void in their heart; people try and try to fill it with everything from kittens to sex, but they will remain unsatisfied until God comes into their life.

So look forward to such topics as Disney's Brother Bear, political parties, mental illnesses, choice, theology, philosophy, The Matrix, Tao, Zoroastrianism, all sorts of isms, and a fan-written Narnia/Middle-Earth crossover short story.