During the school year, I attend Covenant College, which is home to about 1000 undergraduate students and very few graduate students. This summer I am living at Clemson university, home to around 14000 undergrads and 3000 graduate students and post-docs. Clemson has more faculty than Covenant has students.
Knowledge of this disparity in size led me to two notable expectations.
First, I believed that the larger size of Clemson's campus meant I would take longer to get everywhere. This is false. Certainly, there's no way I can sprint all the way to the physics department and back if I want to drop off a paper. It's close to a mile round trip. However, the food is, in truth, closer than it was at Covenant, due to the fact that even on most days I cook in my apartment, and on the others, Clemson has spread the edible joy around by building several cafeterias. And, most importantly, I don't know most of the students at Clemson. I never realized until I strolled across campus one lazy sunny afternoon, that it is rare for me to pass five students at Covenant without at least smiling and saying hello to one or two, and, most likely, striking up a conversation. It can take me hours to make the few hundred meter walk to the library. My comparative isolation is not sad. I have friends at Clemson, and I live in a world where most of my friends are no more than a phone call away. It is, however, causing me to smile fondly as I think of all my kind and faithful friends and acquaintances on the mountain.
An irony connected to the first expectation is that one would think summer-school at a major university would involve ghost-town reminiscent environments. To the contrary, there is quite a bit of life at Clemson, although it is a little more spread out than I am used to. Covenant is, after all perched on a mountaintop. In fact, I am already a little bit concerned about the sheer number of people around. What's going to happen in the Fall! Will everyone be lost in a sea of antlike undergraduates rushing hither and thither? Will the spacious-seeming anterooms, courtyards, and monuments be clogged with the academically-minded future of the nation?
I comfort myself by supposing the administration at Clemson has dealt with this problem in the past. Anyway, they have at least an entire building all to themselves, so I can't imagine them not being able to come up with some sort of viable plan.
In the meantime, I will walk long distances per conversation and find the ratio of campus size to distance to food to be smaller than anticipated.
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Monday, June 08, 2009
Thursday, July 10, 2008
German Longsword: An Academic Pursuit?
Regardless of how tired some of my readers may be of hearing me explain to them in person how much I like Western Martial Arts (WMA for short -- think sword-fighting), I thought it was worth a few minutes to share some visual evidence.
The first of our evidences is a video by "The Real Gladiatores", who appear to be group of longsword enthusiasts. Not only their swordplay, but their costumes, setting, camera-work, and music are impressive.
The second evidence is another video by the same group, in which the camera shows multiple angles of each stage of several sequences, which the makers have reconstructed from ancient German texts written by swordmasters Sigmund Ringeck and Peter von Danzig. Translations are provided in the side panel.
The second video in particular reveals a curious notion which you will soon become acquainted with if you research WMA, that the study of swordplay is to some degree an academic subject. As far as I know, there is no such thing as Swordfightology, yet the makers of these videos, and many others, spend a great deal of time, thought, and study, on their "hobby." Professors of language help them study the texts, and I have even come across written arguments over the meanings of particular German technical terms. There are recognized authorities on the different techniques, and hearty debates concerning old and new interpretations. Given some formalization involving academic papers and titles, we might see the study of ancient martial arts become a legitimate field!
While I am partly poking fun at mine and others' mania, it does raise some interesting questions. All current academic fields were once not recognized as such. I wonder to what degree ancient followers of even more ancient philosophers were considered to be "enthusiasts" pursuing a "hobby," and had to fiercely defend their expenditure of means in its continuance. The sword enthusiast can claim physical, mental, and historical benefits from his hobby. Should it be looked down upon as *sniff* "unacademic" simply because it involves physical exertion?
With this said, there remains the truth that WMA would be absurd as an academic field, reminiscent of the Beverley Hillbillies in a mansion. Why? Because academia has a well-defined look: it must be scientific, well-established, and, well, respectable. Attack any field in academia, and some of the members of that field are prepared to defend themselves with forceful intellectual arguments. The idea of disenfranchising any field has a faint aura of anathema surrounding it on campus. WMA is on the outside of academia, so such staunch loyalty and self-importance is silly applied to it. Just imagine people walking around in coats and ties on a billion dollar campus built for the sole purpose of studying how people in the middle ages defended and attacked with sharp implements!
So the question for today is, would my field, Physics, or any other academic field look the same way if it did not have the academic aura around it? Physicists and their forebears have claimed for centuries that ultimate understanding of the universe is just around the next order of magnitude of magnification, or at the end of the next chain of calculations. Is it not silly that some continue to make such claims, even though they have been wrong every single time before? The profession does not deserve slander; I pursue it with hopes of doing real good in the world and bringing glory to God! But I and others who together are the creators and sustainers of academia would do well to notice and guard against arrogance in themselves and their fields.
Guards. Oh yes, that's something you can learn about with swords.
The first of our evidences is a video by "The Real Gladiatores", who appear to be group of longsword enthusiasts. Not only their swordplay, but their costumes, setting, camera-work, and music are impressive.
The second evidence is another video by the same group, in which the camera shows multiple angles of each stage of several sequences, which the makers have reconstructed from ancient German texts written by swordmasters Sigmund Ringeck and Peter von Danzig. Translations are provided in the side panel.
The second video in particular reveals a curious notion which you will soon become acquainted with if you research WMA, that the study of swordplay is to some degree an academic subject. As far as I know, there is no such thing as Swordfightology, yet the makers of these videos, and many others, spend a great deal of time, thought, and study, on their "hobby." Professors of language help them study the texts, and I have even come across written arguments over the meanings of particular German technical terms. There are recognized authorities on the different techniques, and hearty debates concerning old and new interpretations. Given some formalization involving academic papers and titles, we might see the study of ancient martial arts become a legitimate field!
While I am partly poking fun at mine and others' mania, it does raise some interesting questions. All current academic fields were once not recognized as such. I wonder to what degree ancient followers of even more ancient philosophers were considered to be "enthusiasts" pursuing a "hobby," and had to fiercely defend their expenditure of means in its continuance. The sword enthusiast can claim physical, mental, and historical benefits from his hobby. Should it be looked down upon as *sniff* "unacademic" simply because it involves physical exertion?
With this said, there remains the truth that WMA would be absurd as an academic field, reminiscent of the Beverley Hillbillies in a mansion. Why? Because academia has a well-defined look: it must be scientific, well-established, and, well, respectable. Attack any field in academia, and some of the members of that field are prepared to defend themselves with forceful intellectual arguments. The idea of disenfranchising any field has a faint aura of anathema surrounding it on campus. WMA is on the outside of academia, so such staunch loyalty and self-importance is silly applied to it. Just imagine people walking around in coats and ties on a billion dollar campus built for the sole purpose of studying how people in the middle ages defended and attacked with sharp implements!
So the question for today is, would my field, Physics, or any other academic field look the same way if it did not have the academic aura around it? Physicists and their forebears have claimed for centuries that ultimate understanding of the universe is just around the next order of magnitude of magnification, or at the end of the next chain of calculations. Is it not silly that some continue to make such claims, even though they have been wrong every single time before? The profession does not deserve slander; I pursue it with hopes of doing real good in the world and bringing glory to God! But I and others who together are the creators and sustainers of academia would do well to notice and guard against arrogance in themselves and their fields.
Guards. Oh yes, that's something you can learn about with swords.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Creative Tongues
Consider the following article:
New Dictionary Words
Does it seem strange that new words are coming into being? It is quite to me to consider that they are now, but before, were not. If any of us went back in time and used them, they would be meaningless, dead. I find this poetic.
I wonder how much it has to do with being made in the image of of the Creator who spoke the world into being through words, or "The Word." Words, communication, and creation ("and stories!" interjects the author in me) seem linked in the actions of God.
Finally, I wonder if there are articles out there about the words that are disappearing, dying, so that if we went into the future and used them, no one would know what they mean.
New Dictionary Words
Does it seem strange that new words are coming into being? It is quite to me to consider that they are now, but before, were not. If any of us went back in time and used them, they would be meaningless, dead. I find this poetic.
I wonder how much it has to do with being made in the image of of the Creator who spoke the world into being through words, or "The Word." Words, communication, and creation ("and stories!" interjects the author in me) seem linked in the actions of God.
Finally, I wonder if there are articles out there about the words that are disappearing, dying, so that if we went into the future and used them, no one would know what they mean.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Subway Apologizes to Homeschoolers
Directly after commenting on my post, "Subway Fresh to Homeschoolers" I googled for any updates.
I was quite glad to see that Subway issued an official apology. Here it is on their news site.
I was quite glad to see that Subway issued an official apology. Here it is on their news site.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Subway Fresh To Homeschoolers
Dear Readers,
My father pointed me to a blog describing a recent Subway contest. Examine Subway's official "Every Sandwich Tells a Story" page, if you like, but the one line of the contest rules that I am writing about is that which states "Home schools not eligible."
Five minutes of reading online turned up two speculations as to why Subway chose this exclusion.
First, because Subway believed homeschool entries, if allowed, would be of better quality than those submitted from other schools. I believe this to be true on the average, and assert that recent spelling bees and writing contests support my belief by showing a level of homeschool involvement and success disproportionate to the number of homeschoolers relative to other students.
Second, because the grand prize includes $5000 dollars of athletic equipment for the winner's school. To extend this speculation further, I suppose the planners of this contest believed that it would be a waste of publicity to give this gift to a homeschool (a family).
If the first reason is correct, I would like to complain to Subway that they are affirming a low standard, and excluding a higher one. Children in private and public schools may be accoladed for accomplishments that mean much less than they are given to believe, if some of the competition is barred from participation. Homeschooled children may well get a negative impression of their educational experience as inferior, whereas I wholeheartedly believe that it is (again, on the average) superior to other types of schooling. I have often noticed people who were or are homeschooled talking about their experience of homeschooling as if it were inferior to private and public school. Yet most of these people began college "early" and successfully.
If the second reason is correct, I would like to complain to Subway that they are being absurd. Homeschools need funds for athletics far more than private and public schools. Homeschools are not only short the tax support public schools receive, they are doubly short of it because they have to pay it! Most states ban homeschools from involvement in public school athletics, despite the fact that the parents of homeschool families pay taxes to support those athletics. A homeschool family receiving $5000 dollars worth of athletic equipment would be able, in most situations, to put it to excellent use. Homeschool homes and cooperative groups starve for lack of land, land maintenance, equipment, clothing, and funds for athletic fees. Homeschoolers profiting from this award would have reason to be far more grateful than a school, and it is the headmasters of homeschools who decide where their children eat for supper!
As my dad put it, Subway clearly communicated to him, as the head of a homeschool, that his business is not appreciated. Subway has said "no homeschools" and homeschools may respectfully give them what they asked for and withdraw their business. I myself might consider boycotting, but I barely ever eat at Subway to begin with.
What then is my point? To get a little rant out of my system, to add my 2 cents (whatever that means) to the murmur of disapproval, and perhaps to put forward some ideas readers may not have previously or thoroughly considered.
My father pointed me to a blog describing a recent Subway contest. Examine Subway's official "Every Sandwich Tells a Story" page, if you like, but the one line of the contest rules that I am writing about is that which states "Home schools not eligible."
Five minutes of reading online turned up two speculations as to why Subway chose this exclusion.
First, because Subway believed homeschool entries, if allowed, would be of better quality than those submitted from other schools. I believe this to be true on the average, and assert that recent spelling bees and writing contests support my belief by showing a level of homeschool involvement and success disproportionate to the number of homeschoolers relative to other students.
Second, because the grand prize includes $5000 dollars of athletic equipment for the winner's school. To extend this speculation further, I suppose the planners of this contest believed that it would be a waste of publicity to give this gift to a homeschool (a family).
If the first reason is correct, I would like to complain to Subway that they are affirming a low standard, and excluding a higher one. Children in private and public schools may be accoladed for accomplishments that mean much less than they are given to believe, if some of the competition is barred from participation. Homeschooled children may well get a negative impression of their educational experience as inferior, whereas I wholeheartedly believe that it is (again, on the average) superior to other types of schooling. I have often noticed people who were or are homeschooled talking about their experience of homeschooling as if it were inferior to private and public school. Yet most of these people began college "early" and successfully.
If the second reason is correct, I would like to complain to Subway that they are being absurd. Homeschools need funds for athletics far more than private and public schools. Homeschools are not only short the tax support public schools receive, they are doubly short of it because they have to pay it! Most states ban homeschools from involvement in public school athletics, despite the fact that the parents of homeschool families pay taxes to support those athletics. A homeschool family receiving $5000 dollars worth of athletic equipment would be able, in most situations, to put it to excellent use. Homeschool homes and cooperative groups starve for lack of land, land maintenance, equipment, clothing, and funds for athletic fees. Homeschoolers profiting from this award would have reason to be far more grateful than a school, and it is the headmasters of homeschools who decide where their children eat for supper!
As my dad put it, Subway clearly communicated to him, as the head of a homeschool, that his business is not appreciated. Subway has said "no homeschools" and homeschools may respectfully give them what they asked for and withdraw their business. I myself might consider boycotting, but I barely ever eat at Subway to begin with.
What then is my point? To get a little rant out of my system, to add my 2 cents (whatever that means) to the murmur of disapproval, and perhaps to put forward some ideas readers may not have previously or thoroughly considered.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Marginally Interesting
Dear Readers,
Today I continue my new practice of self-plagiarism. I composed the following a week or two ago for one of my classes, in response to reading selections of Job from a compilation of readings on the cultural heritage of the West. To give the drift of the paper, allow me to insert a quote I just received via internet from home. It is the quote of a British evangelist who only recently died:
So when I watch my friends and family going through “the valley of the shadow of death,” whether it be serious injury or illness, deaths close to them, struggles with horrible sins, financial hardships, or romantic disappointments, I find it both hard to understand what they're going through, and easy to understand that it must be really bad!
My reaction to the book of Job must be the same. I have never had great wealth, a family of children, and my health and rest taken from me in the space of just a little while. But I can imagine to some degree what it must have been like, especially as Job, irked by his friend's accusations, describes how he feels to have these things happen to him. And, as God says, they happened “for no reason” -- Job is a righteous man.
I have had many more opportunities in the past year at college than I had previously to be around Christians who were suffering. So, while little has occurred to cause me to suffer, I have been much more aware of suffering in the world around me. As a result, I have tried to understand better how Christians are to react to suffering. Studies in Job have, of course, been very useful.
Job is brought so low that he would very much like to die, or, better yet, to never have been born. It is difficult to blame him. Christians are called to rejoice in the Lord always. But that is not quite the same as calling Christians to be happy and excited to have all the things they hold dear on Earth be stripped away from them.
I was prompted to write on Job when I noticed in my used copy of our textbook I noticed a note in large letters in the margin. “God is...” began the note, but the rest was marked out with pencil. I finally made it out “...arrogant [bad word]” it read.
I laughed at first, but then tried to get into the head of the student who had come up with this conclusion from reading Job. How should I react to it? Had the author of the note been in the room with me, should I have come down hard, rebuking them for flying the face of God's majesty? How can God be arrogant when all the things He says are true, and we, His creatures, say just this sort of thing back to Him? Or should I not act upset, and quietly try to reason with the author, using the text of Job itself to reason with him or her?
The note was beside 39:26-30, and 40:1-2 were circled with what appeared to be the same blue pen that had written the blasphemy in the margin:
I wonder if in reading Job the author had run out of intellectual excuses for ignoring God's greatness, and had tried to dismiss what they were reading by questioning God's character. Was God just posturing to look big? Was He throwing around His weight? After all, He does go on to give Job back twice what was taken away (that part was underlined in the blue pen). He Himself admitted He took it “for no reason”. Did God, after blustering at Job for a while, quietly make restitution for injustice?
If He did, He owes a lot of apologies to my friends.
I had a conversation about sin and suffering with a friend yesterday evening. We considered how we didn't deserve for Christ to die for us – we were not “worth” Him – yet God the Father sent Him, in a sense assigning a value which neither of us could see. We agreed we certainly wouldn't have done what Jesus did. Anything good is better than we deserve. We know from our Bibles and pastors that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So Job “deserved” what he got. But as God said, and backed up by his rebuke of Job's friends, it was not for some sin that He let Satan hurt Job.
It seems that at least part of it was to show Satan, the “Sons of God” and every person throughout history who has heard of Job, that God is the reward. Those who serve Him, get to have Him as their God and all the richness that relationship entails! Riches, health, life, friends, spouses, are blessed additions.
This summer a few of those blessings were taken from me against my will. I complained a lot. It seems God was teaching me that I was not poor if I only had Him. If He chooses to take away the people and things I love, and give me in their place more of Him, I can mourn my loss, but how can I not rejoice in my gain? A man will serve God for nothing, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because God Himself is the reward.
I expect God shamed the Devil with Job. I can think of little greater honor than to be held up by God as an example to prove the Devil, and perhaps whoever wrote that note, wrong.
Today I continue my new practice of self-plagiarism. I composed the following a week or two ago for one of my classes, in response to reading selections of Job from a compilation of readings on the cultural heritage of the West. To give the drift of the paper, allow me to insert a quote I just received via internet from home. It is the quote of a British evangelist who only recently died:
"The only time you can really say that Christ is all I need, is when Christ is all you have." ~Leonard RavenhillCompared to most of the people I know, my life has not been very hard. I have lived through the deaths of three of my grandparents, suffered a few painful injuries, and occasionally have been treated wrongly by others.
So when I watch my friends and family going through “the valley of the shadow of death,” whether it be serious injury or illness, deaths close to them, struggles with horrible sins, financial hardships, or romantic disappointments, I find it both hard to understand what they're going through, and easy to understand that it must be really bad!
My reaction to the book of Job must be the same. I have never had great wealth, a family of children, and my health and rest taken from me in the space of just a little while. But I can imagine to some degree what it must have been like, especially as Job, irked by his friend's accusations, describes how he feels to have these things happen to him. And, as God says, they happened “for no reason” -- Job is a righteous man.
I have had many more opportunities in the past year at college than I had previously to be around Christians who were suffering. So, while little has occurred to cause me to suffer, I have been much more aware of suffering in the world around me. As a result, I have tried to understand better how Christians are to react to suffering. Studies in Job have, of course, been very useful.
Job is brought so low that he would very much like to die, or, better yet, to never have been born. It is difficult to blame him. Christians are called to rejoice in the Lord always. But that is not quite the same as calling Christians to be happy and excited to have all the things they hold dear on Earth be stripped away from them.
I was prompted to write on Job when I noticed in my used copy of our textbook I noticed a note in large letters in the margin. “God is...” began the note, but the rest was marked out with pencil. I finally made it out “...arrogant [bad word]” it read.
I laughed at first, but then tried to get into the head of the student who had come up with this conclusion from reading Job. How should I react to it? Had the author of the note been in the room with me, should I have come down hard, rebuking them for flying the face of God's majesty? How can God be arrogant when all the things He says are true, and we, His creatures, say just this sort of thing back to Him? Or should I not act upset, and quietly try to reason with the author, using the text of Job itself to reason with him or her?
The note was beside 39:26-30, and 40:1-2 were circled with what appeared to be the same blue pen that had written the blasphemy in the margin:
“And the Lord said to Job:I did not come to a conclusion; I could not determine in what spirit the author had scribbled the note, more than that they had much better handwriting than I, which was something I would not expect from someone who said such things about God.
'Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
He who argues with God, let him answer it.” -Job 40:1-2
I wonder if in reading Job the author had run out of intellectual excuses for ignoring God's greatness, and had tried to dismiss what they were reading by questioning God's character. Was God just posturing to look big? Was He throwing around His weight? After all, He does go on to give Job back twice what was taken away (that part was underlined in the blue pen). He Himself admitted He took it “for no reason”. Did God, after blustering at Job for a while, quietly make restitution for injustice?
If He did, He owes a lot of apologies to my friends.
I had a conversation about sin and suffering with a friend yesterday evening. We considered how we didn't deserve for Christ to die for us – we were not “worth” Him – yet God the Father sent Him, in a sense assigning a value which neither of us could see. We agreed we certainly wouldn't have done what Jesus did. Anything good is better than we deserve. We know from our Bibles and pastors that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So Job “deserved” what he got. But as God said, and backed up by his rebuke of Job's friends, it was not for some sin that He let Satan hurt Job.
It seems that at least part of it was to show Satan, the “Sons of God” and every person throughout history who has heard of Job, that God is the reward. Those who serve Him, get to have Him as their God and all the richness that relationship entails! Riches, health, life, friends, spouses, are blessed additions.
This summer a few of those blessings were taken from me against my will. I complained a lot. It seems God was teaching me that I was not poor if I only had Him. If He chooses to take away the people and things I love, and give me in their place more of Him, I can mourn my loss, but how can I not rejoice in my gain? A man will serve God for nothing, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because God Himself is the reward.
I expect God shamed the Devil with Job. I can think of little greater honor than to be held up by God as an example to prove the Devil, and perhaps whoever wrote that note, wrong.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Textual Criticism
My new bell number is __________
That's how it started, about a week ago. I laughed at whoever had texted me and flipped my phone closed. Then it buzzed again.
This time there was a name, followed by the number. I knew one person who had the first name given, but the second name was uncapitalized, unfamiliar, and, by the wording of the message could have been a dramatic typo of a part of the sentence, not a name after all. I wondered if I should call the number, but why bother? The first time one of us wanted to get in touch with each other, we would find out whether my mystery texter had the correct number or not.
That all changed a few days later.
My phone buzzed early in the morning. I was downstairs at the computer waking up.
My mom's in the emergency room. Pray for us.
The urgency and frustration caught me a hefty blow in the stomach region, as I realized that if this was someone I knew, I wanted to know who it was right away. I should have called then, but if whoever it was didn't have time to call, they certainly didn't want me calling them while their mom was in the ER (especially if we didn't even know each other).
So I prayed for whoever it was' mom, and sent the following, rather obscure message on facebook to the friend whom I thought might be the culprit.
Hey bro, how are you and your family? I'm keeping you in my prayers.
I felt this message would convey situation-appropriate sentiments and actions for either a normal situation, or one of my friend's mother being in serious medical trouble. I spent the rest of that day waiting for a response. Not only did I receive none, but my acute Facebook stalking skills told me that my friend had no activity at all that day. I decided to call the number back soon thereafter, which turned out to be this evening, a good 36 hours after the startling text.
The initial exchange was the type you expect from two people, both at least partially expecting someone else, one of whom is in the middle of something else and not expecting to be called upon to understand convolutions of any variety.
We finally sorted out that this person was indeed the name mentioned in the text, and had no idea who I was. It was time to go...
"Sorry to ask this, but," said I, with grace typical of myself on the telephone, "how's your mom?"
I was gratified to hear she is much improved.
"Well, that's great. And I was praying for her."
Turns out my new acquaintance thought my number was one of his pastor's.
(This just goes to show you that you really never know who is praying for you.)
"Well, if I ever call you by accident again, I'll know who you are!" said my new friend, and we said goodbye.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
I Judge this Serendipitous
The following is an anecdote which will hopefully edify my readers.
This afternoon I was thinking. I do that occasionally, and today I stayed home from church in the morning and evening because I am ill. So, sometime this evening I was on our back porch reading a re-write of Jonathan Edward's sermon entitled "God at Work," but my mind, at least at times, was elsewhere.
I was considering a series of events and conversations which had transpired over the past year which had caused my to look more closely at what all this judging and not judging in the Bible is about. My thoughts this afternoon were along the lines of realizing that I really didn't know where the Bible stood. I thought it would be nice to get some reading material and study up on it. That was page, oh, 66, where Pastor Edwards was talking about pride being a big snare for people in a revival.
Yeah, I sure have the pride, I thought to myself, not making the connection between pride and looking down on other people. I mean, if God says something is a sin, and someone does it, then I can consider it to be, or "judge" it, if you will, to be a sin, right? Well, my pride in being a sin-detector extraordinaire was probably oozing out my pores, and some notion that it was a problem for me filtered through my grey matter as I read. Then I got to page 71.
read the heading.
I'm not the kind to get all exited about things like this (that's why I'm writing it up on my blog), so I just thanked God for his amazing providence which had in this case saved me a trip to the church library, and helped get my mind back on what I was reading. Pastor Edward's primary point was that God, and only God, sees the heart, and we as people have neither the ability or the right to declare a professing Christian an unbeliever. Pastor Edwards is rather straightforward, which is probably a good thing for me:
He proceeded on page 72 to toss in a list of Bible verses to show the truth of his statements.
I am also concerned that I will get spoiled by these reading materials materializing in front of me right after I am prompted to study them. But it certainly is nice.
My only real concern is that tricky "living good lives" statement, which is never qualified. My readers' thoughts, applicable Scripture verses, and other such comments are welcomed.
Meanwhile, enjoy the serendipity
God at Work was prepared by Gary Benfold. © 1995 Grace Publications Trust.
This afternoon I was thinking. I do that occasionally, and today I stayed home from church in the morning and evening because I am ill. So, sometime this evening I was on our back porch reading a re-write of Jonathan Edward's sermon entitled "God at Work," but my mind, at least at times, was elsewhere.
I was considering a series of events and conversations which had transpired over the past year which had caused my to look more closely at what all this judging and not judging in the Bible is about. My thoughts this afternoon were along the lines of realizing that I really didn't know where the Bible stood. I thought it would be nice to get some reading material and study up on it. That was page, oh, 66, where Pastor Edwards was talking about pride being a big snare for people in a revival.
Yeah, I sure have the pride, I thought to myself, not making the connection between pride and looking down on other people. I mean, if God says something is a sin, and someone does it, then I can consider it to be, or "judge" it, if you will, to be a sin, right? Well, my pride in being a sin-detector extraordinaire was probably oozing out my pores, and some notion that it was a problem for me filtered through my grey matter as I read. Then I got to page 71.
C. Let us beware of judging others,
read the heading.
I'm not the kind to get all exited about things like this (that's why I'm writing it up on my blog), so I just thanked God for his amazing providence which had in this case saved me a trip to the church library, and helped get my mind back on what I was reading. Pastor Edward's primary point was that God, and only God, sees the heart, and we as people have neither the ability or the right to declare a professing Christian an unbeliever. Pastor Edwards is rather straightforward, which is probably a good thing for me:
"We will see that declaring people to be unconverted who claim to be Christians and are living good lives is forbidden by Christ in the New Testament. Since he forbids it, his disciples must not do it."
He proceeded on page 72 to toss in a list of Bible verses to show the truth of his statements.
I am also concerned that I will get spoiled by these reading materials materializing in front of me right after I am prompted to study them. But it certainly is nice.
My only real concern is that tricky "living good lives" statement, which is never qualified. My readers' thoughts, applicable Scripture verses, and other such comments are welcomed.
Meanwhile, enjoy the serendipity
God at Work was prepared by Gary Benfold. © 1995 Grace Publications Trust.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
History
Today at work I started up a conversation with an elderly customer. She was resting her legs, and was glad to talk. She is eighty-one, her last name is Loid (I believe that is the correct way to spell it), and she has lived in the Fayetteville area for a long time. She remembers when my boss was born and teases him about things he did when he was a toddler. This is not something many people can do.
Hearing her talk about the past was amazing; what affected me most was hearing about her husband. He was in the marines, third division, in World War II. He and the rest of his unit, two hundred plus men, fought at Iwo Jima, where only six survived (I'm not sure if she meant survived unwounded or survived, period). He died about five years ago.
I'm sure there are plenty of stories like this, but you don't hear them from these men's wives everyday.
I got paid during the course of the conversation, but I would have payed to have it.
And that's not only because she wished her hair were as curly as mine.
I have lots to say about grandparents and history, but I think I will leave most of it for another time. Let's just say that I would have thoroughly regretted not having the conversation I had today. I will probably never get a chance to hear that lady's wisdom and history again.
Hearing her talk about the past was amazing; what affected me most was hearing about her husband. He was in the marines, third division, in World War II. He and the rest of his unit, two hundred plus men, fought at Iwo Jima, where only six survived (I'm not sure if she meant survived unwounded or survived, period). He died about five years ago.
I'm sure there are plenty of stories like this, but you don't hear them from these men's wives everyday.
I got paid during the course of the conversation, but I would have payed to have it.
And that's not only because she wished her hair were as curly as mine.
I have lots to say about grandparents and history, but I think I will leave most of it for another time. Let's just say that I would have thoroughly regretted not having the conversation I had today. I will probably never get a chance to hear that lady's wisdom and history again.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Absolute Truth or The Gospel?
Which should a Christian address first? If someone does not believe in absolute truth, is it worthwhile sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them, or is a belief in "truths" being just as real for you as they are for me more important?
After all, how can someone believe that there is only one God when they believe that two people can believe in two different Gods and both be just as correct!?
Personally, I prefer to avoid questions. For instance, when I am writing an outline in church and the Pastor says that his first point is "Why can Christ save us?" I write: " I. Why Christ can save us." After all, the point is the answer, not the question. [This is why the title of this post, along with the majority of the sentences in the first two paragraph's are questions. Go figure.]
I was hoping the above would somehow apply to my topic, but I don't think it did. Anyway, let me rephrase my question. Can God save someone before they believe in absolute truth? An attached question: does someone who believes in no absolute truth really mean the same thing when they say they believe something, as someone who does believe in absolute truth? Can I possibly make my sentences any more complicated?
The latter question will be answered soon enough; the former I will answer immediately: Of course not! If you really and truly do not believe in absolute truth, you cannot really and truly believe in anything. Of course, most relativists, when smacked in the face, would find that what was true for you (smacking) was true for them (being smacked). So there are few people who do not believe in any absolute truths.
It seems, however, that a pretty good number of people are convinced that they can believe one thing in their "spiritual life" and another in their "real life.' Despite the 'real' in front of the one, these two things are supposed to be just as true. They just don't affect each other.
This utter separation is foolish. Some things can be regarded as having no affect on each other. Take, for instance, the affect my sneezing here has on the star Deneb. None at all (as far as I know). The problem is that God claims to be very involved in the world and our lives. Believing in Him must have an affect on all our many "lives".
So, we should try to convince people through logic and reason that there must be absolute truth, and then share the gospel with them.
No.
The very fact just considered -- that God is involved in everything -- should give cause for pause before we assume that his gospel is insufficient to bring men to a knowledge of the truth. Certainly, it must be heard and believed. But the Gospel is not an argument with certain assumptions we must hold before we can accept it. Paul writes in Romans 1:16 "...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."
Ah, yes, but they must first believe it!
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2: 8). See I Cor 12:9 and Romans 12:3 as two other references for the nature of faith as a gift of God.
The assurance of the unseen reality of God and His works is another of his works, not ours. While a lack of belief in absolute truth may be the defense someone uses against believing on Christ, it is not the real reason. The real reason is that we are all dead in our sins and will not believe -- until we are made alive through Christ. Take away every defense that can be given, and still no one will believe without a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to make them alive together with Christ.
If someone believes that there is no absolute truth, God can quite easily work in their heart to make them believe in Him. They may not realize it, but they now believe in absolute truth. Now, many believers, whether consciously and vocally or not (I am included among them), pretend that they do not believe in absolute truth. This is not something that should be ignored, and there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing absolute truth with an unbeliever. But God will deal with a Christian who tries to hold relative truths, and He is quite capable of saving people who do not believe in absolute truth. The Gospel, therefore, should be the priority. Christians and unbelievers in conversation should not bog themselves down talking about absolute truth when the much larger issue of God and man is unaddressed. The power of God is the Gospel. The power of my reasoning skills, however fabulous, can't hold a candle to it. Thank Him for that!
After all, how can someone believe that there is only one God when they believe that two people can believe in two different Gods and both be just as correct!?
Personally, I prefer to avoid questions. For instance, when I am writing an outline in church and the Pastor says that his first point is "Why can Christ save us?" I write: " I. Why Christ can save us." After all, the point is the answer, not the question. [This is why the title of this post, along with the majority of the sentences in the first two paragraph's are questions. Go figure.]
I was hoping the above would somehow apply to my topic, but I don't think it did. Anyway, let me rephrase my question. Can God save someone before they believe in absolute truth? An attached question: does someone who believes in no absolute truth really mean the same thing when they say they believe something, as someone who does believe in absolute truth? Can I possibly make my sentences any more complicated?
The latter question will be answered soon enough; the former I will answer immediately: Of course not! If you really and truly do not believe in absolute truth, you cannot really and truly believe in anything. Of course, most relativists, when smacked in the face, would find that what was true for you (smacking) was true for them (being smacked). So there are few people who do not believe in any absolute truths.
It seems, however, that a pretty good number of people are convinced that they can believe one thing in their "spiritual life" and another in their "real life.' Despite the 'real' in front of the one, these two things are supposed to be just as true. They just don't affect each other.
This utter separation is foolish. Some things can be regarded as having no affect on each other. Take, for instance, the affect my sneezing here has on the star Deneb. None at all (as far as I know). The problem is that God claims to be very involved in the world and our lives. Believing in Him must have an affect on all our many "lives".
So, we should try to convince people through logic and reason that there must be absolute truth, and then share the gospel with them.
No.
The very fact just considered -- that God is involved in everything -- should give cause for pause before we assume that his gospel is insufficient to bring men to a knowledge of the truth. Certainly, it must be heard and believed. But the Gospel is not an argument with certain assumptions we must hold before we can accept it. Paul writes in Romans 1:16 "...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."
Ah, yes, but they must first believe it!
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2: 8). See I Cor 12:9 and Romans 12:3 as two other references for the nature of faith as a gift of God.
The assurance of the unseen reality of God and His works is another of his works, not ours. While a lack of belief in absolute truth may be the defense someone uses against believing on Christ, it is not the real reason. The real reason is that we are all dead in our sins and will not believe -- until we are made alive through Christ. Take away every defense that can be given, and still no one will believe without a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to make them alive together with Christ.
If someone believes that there is no absolute truth, God can quite easily work in their heart to make them believe in Him. They may not realize it, but they now believe in absolute truth. Now, many believers, whether consciously and vocally or not (I am included among them), pretend that they do not believe in absolute truth. This is not something that should be ignored, and there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing absolute truth with an unbeliever. But God will deal with a Christian who tries to hold relative truths, and He is quite capable of saving people who do not believe in absolute truth. The Gospel, therefore, should be the priority. Christians and unbelievers in conversation should not bog themselves down talking about absolute truth when the much larger issue of God and man is unaddressed. The power of God is the Gospel. The power of my reasoning skills, however fabulous, can't hold a candle to it. Thank Him for that!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Why the Bible is Not #1
I'm having two thoughts.
My first thought is that the Bible shouldn't be on my favorite books list. No, I do like it, actually. A lot. I probably read it more than anything but my Calculus book (I suppose that rules out using reading-time to determine what books I like : ) ). My concern is for reverance. Of course it's a great book! It's the Word of God!! In fact, it's so good that putting it on my favorite books list seems a little like putting Gilbert and Sullivan at the same level as, as NSync. Isn't that a little disrespectful? If you have the integers one through ten, and infinity, and put them in order from least to greatest, do you simply put infinity the same distance from ten as you put ten from nine? Is that really accurate?
My second thought is more of a counter-thought. Shouldn't the Bible always be there? Shouldn't it be the book I like and enjoy most of all?
So, instead of putting it on top of the list, or not on the list at all, I put it somewhere near the bottom. Joben has lost his mind.
I suppose so, but this may not be the appropriate example of my insanity.
You see, this is a favorite books list. I haven't taken it to be a of books I learned the most from, found to be the most spiritually enlightening, correct, inspired, or holy!
The list, it seems to me, is for books I enjoy reading, was entertained by, and found to be of good quality both in style (good medium) and content (good message). The Bible has the best message ever. The medium, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is also the best ever. The style, for a large part, however, is not, shall we say, inspired! Some of the human writers of the bible were not quite masters of the written word. Others were. The Bible is a lot history and record, sometimes giving specs and materials and building techniques for buildings. Some of that is boring to me, other parts of it give me chills. It also has a lot of poetry, prophecy, and address. Weighed out, all in all, I enjoy the Bible a lot...so it's on my favorites list.
But that doesn't seem sufficient -- especially if I don't put it at the top. I need to explain. I just have. The Bible is the Word of God, containing Salvation through the Gospel -- good news -- of the Son of God becoming man and dying for the men who rebelled against their maker. All who believe on Him and His sacrifice to atone for their sins will be saved. What glorious truths! What a story, the true story, that all others can only imitate or pervert! What condescension on the part of God to bring us word of these things! To do these things! Is the inspired word of God not the only perfect thing in this universe? Even Creation is changed and twisted and cursed -- our foe, not our friend. The word speaks Hell to the unbeliever, but only to warn, and to show the way of escape, the way to Heaven! On a list of most important, best, or true-est books, I would always put the Bible first and others far behind.
But that's not how I treated the favorites list; so, the Bible isn't at the top.
Of course, maybe it should be my favorite -- my most enjoyable read. If we characterize books, it is certainly a closer friend and companion to me than any other book, and I put a lot more trust in it than any other book, by the merit of it's divine inspiration (God-spoken-ness) and illumination (God-lit-up-ed-ness). I am not so concerned about not being more entertained by other books than the Bible. The Truth isn't neccessarily so entertaining as it is riveting. Perhaps I should treat it a little more expectantly, as if everything I said about its inspiration were true (imagine that...).
So, I shall strive to love my Lord and Saviour and His book more. Would it not be good to be taught by God to love Scripture above all other books and past-times, to read and sing it's message like food and drink? In the meanwhile, I have honestly ranked it, and written a lengthy explanation for why.
[It took me about five minutes to realize I had not given justice to the Bible in this post, so this is the new and improved version, which is, sadly, still errant and uninspired.]
My first thought is that the Bible shouldn't be on my favorite books list. No, I do like it, actually. A lot. I probably read it more than anything but my Calculus book (I suppose that rules out using reading-time to determine what books I like : ) ). My concern is for reverance. Of course it's a great book! It's the Word of God!! In fact, it's so good that putting it on my favorite books list seems a little like putting Gilbert and Sullivan at the same level as, as NSync. Isn't that a little disrespectful? If you have the integers one through ten, and infinity, and put them in order from least to greatest, do you simply put infinity the same distance from ten as you put ten from nine? Is that really accurate?
My second thought is more of a counter-thought. Shouldn't the Bible always be there? Shouldn't it be the book I like and enjoy most of all?
So, instead of putting it on top of the list, or not on the list at all, I put it somewhere near the bottom. Joben has lost his mind.
I suppose so, but this may not be the appropriate example of my insanity.
You see, this is a favorite books list. I haven't taken it to be a of books I learned the most from, found to be the most spiritually enlightening, correct, inspired, or holy!
The list, it seems to me, is for books I enjoy reading, was entertained by, and found to be of good quality both in style (good medium) and content (good message). The Bible has the best message ever. The medium, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is also the best ever. The style, for a large part, however, is not, shall we say, inspired! Some of the human writers of the bible were not quite masters of the written word. Others were. The Bible is a lot history and record, sometimes giving specs and materials and building techniques for buildings. Some of that is boring to me, other parts of it give me chills. It also has a lot of poetry, prophecy, and address. Weighed out, all in all, I enjoy the Bible a lot...so it's on my favorites list.
But that doesn't seem sufficient -- especially if I don't put it at the top. I need to explain. I just have. The Bible is the Word of God, containing Salvation through the Gospel -- good news -- of the Son of God becoming man and dying for the men who rebelled against their maker. All who believe on Him and His sacrifice to atone for their sins will be saved. What glorious truths! What a story, the true story, that all others can only imitate or pervert! What condescension on the part of God to bring us word of these things! To do these things! Is the inspired word of God not the only perfect thing in this universe? Even Creation is changed and twisted and cursed -- our foe, not our friend. The word speaks Hell to the unbeliever, but only to warn, and to show the way of escape, the way to Heaven! On a list of most important, best, or true-est books, I would always put the Bible first and others far behind.
But that's not how I treated the favorites list; so, the Bible isn't at the top.
Of course, maybe it should be my favorite -- my most enjoyable read. If we characterize books, it is certainly a closer friend and companion to me than any other book, and I put a lot more trust in it than any other book, by the merit of it's divine inspiration (God-spoken-ness) and illumination (God-lit-up-ed-ness). I am not so concerned about not being more entertained by other books than the Bible. The Truth isn't neccessarily so entertaining as it is riveting. Perhaps I should treat it a little more expectantly, as if everything I said about its inspiration were true (imagine that...).
So, I shall strive to love my Lord and Saviour and His book more. Would it not be good to be taught by God to love Scripture above all other books and past-times, to read and sing it's message like food and drink? In the meanwhile, I have honestly ranked it, and written a lengthy explanation for why.
[It took me about five minutes to realize I had not given justice to the Bible in this post, so this is the new and improved version, which is, sadly, still errant and uninspired.]
Monday, September 25, 2006
Speaking of Virtual
I suppose we were only "speaking" in a virtual sense.
Anyway.
After reading Ben's blog and comments on all the virtual things going on, I wish to relate something that will make all the virtual-lover's dreams come true.
secondlife.com
Note the amount of U.S. currency spent in the last 24 hours.
My computer programming professor told us this morning of an article which described virtual fashion designers who are now able to support themselves by converting their virtual earnings back into U.S. currency.
Comments and speculations, please.
Well, back to the real world.
Anyway.
After reading Ben's blog and comments on all the virtual things going on, I wish to relate something that will make all the virtual-lover's dreams come true.
secondlife.com
Note the amount of U.S. currency spent in the last 24 hours.
My computer programming professor told us this morning of an article which described virtual fashion designers who are now able to support themselves by converting their virtual earnings back into U.S. currency.
Comments and speculations, please.
Well, back to the real world.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
"Counter-Productive" adj:
In the last three days I have spent five or six hours draped over chairs reading my PE text.
It seems that a lot of people in our country, and most others, are dying from sedentary lifestyles.
My PE book goes to great, boring, flowchart-enhanced lengths to explain to me just how these people die (slowly and often painfully, not to mention expensively) and just how many steps of "self-programming" I need to go through to save myself from this fate (six). I felt the atherosclerosis beginning even as I sat there.
If only I hadn't had so much reading I would have gone to the gym.
It seems that a lot of people in our country, and most others, are dying from sedentary lifestyles.
My PE book goes to great, boring, flowchart-enhanced lengths to explain to me just how these people die (slowly and often painfully, not to mention expensively) and just how many steps of "self-programming" I need to go through to save myself from this fate (six). I felt the atherosclerosis beginning even as I sat there.
If only I hadn't had so much reading I would have gone to the gym.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Holy Infiltrating Socialism, Batman!
My "Concepts in PE" section is using a secular textbook. This has not bothered me. Our instructor starts each topic by building (or asking us to research) its Biblical foundation, and then uses the book for the technical/medical aspect.
In fact, if this textbook was, shall we say, following the Holy Spirit rather than the spirit of the age, I probably wouldn't have anything to blog about right now. So I'm actually thankful for the secular book.
That said, let me just quote some things to you out of Concepts of Fitness and Wellness, 6th Ed., by Charles Corbin, Gregory Welk, William Corbin, and Karen Welk.
p4: "Wellness has been recognized as the positive component of optimal health, as evidenced by a sense of well-being reflected in optimal functioning, health-related quality of life, meaningful work, and a contribution to society." -- So you are not healthy, I take it, unless you feel good about yourself and are contributing to society, among other things.
Still p4: "Some people include environmental and vocational dimensions in addition to [the ones they use].... In this book, health and wellness are considered to be personal factors. Environmental factors, including the factors in the vocational (work) environment, are considered to be factors that influence the five dimensions of personal wellness." -- So some people do not think you are healthy unless the environment around you is healthy, and you have a good job. But this book, though noting the claim, does not buy it. Thank goodness. Check back in the 7th edition, though.
The kicker: p5: In a definition of Emotional-mental Health:
"A[n emotionally, mentally well] person...possesses emotional wellness."
In the following definition of Emotional/mental Wellness:
"...ability to...deal with personal feelings in a positive, optimistic, and constructive manner. A person with emotional wellness is generally characterized as happy instead of depressed."(my italices).
--A mentally healthy person, therefore, is happy. An unhappy person, therefore, is mentally unhealthy. How do we treat mental illness? Counseling, therapy, drugs.
It is no longer acceptable to be unhappy. If we are unhappy, the medical/pshychological/governmental worlds must intervene with presriptions, therapy, counseling, and money for these things.
When will it stop? When we're happy.
What is one of the goals set for 2010 by Healthy People 2010 and promoted by my text?
"Eliminate health disparities."
I would like everyone to be happy. I'm glad my PE text wants them to be.
If we are a lot happier in 2010, well and good.
So long as it's not because we've been talked and drugged into believing that we and everything else is hunky-dory when it's not.
Do not set your heart on doing something yourself that you by yourelf cannot do.
Anyway, that just gave me the creeps. If anything I said sounded like I wanted everyone to be unhappy, or die or not get adequate medical treatment, please comment specifically and I'll respond.
In fact, if this textbook was, shall we say, following the Holy Spirit rather than the spirit of the age, I probably wouldn't have anything to blog about right now. So I'm actually thankful for the secular book.
That said, let me just quote some things to you out of Concepts of Fitness and Wellness, 6th Ed., by Charles Corbin, Gregory Welk, William Corbin, and Karen Welk.
p4: "Wellness has been recognized as the positive component of optimal health, as evidenced by a sense of well-being reflected in optimal functioning, health-related quality of life, meaningful work, and a contribution to society." -- So you are not healthy, I take it, unless you feel good about yourself and are contributing to society, among other things.
Still p4: "Some people include environmental and vocational dimensions in addition to [the ones they use].... In this book, health and wellness are considered to be personal factors. Environmental factors, including the factors in the vocational (work) environment, are considered to be factors that influence the five dimensions of personal wellness." -- So some people do not think you are healthy unless the environment around you is healthy, and you have a good job. But this book, though noting the claim, does not buy it. Thank goodness. Check back in the 7th edition, though.
The kicker: p5: In a definition of Emotional-mental Health:
"A[n emotionally, mentally well] person...possesses emotional wellness."
In the following definition of Emotional/mental Wellness:
"...ability to...deal with personal feelings in a positive, optimistic, and constructive manner. A person with emotional wellness is generally characterized as happy instead of depressed."(my italices).
--A mentally healthy person, therefore, is happy. An unhappy person, therefore, is mentally unhealthy. How do we treat mental illness? Counseling, therapy, drugs.
It is no longer acceptable to be unhappy. If we are unhappy, the medical/pshychological/governmental worlds must intervene with presriptions, therapy, counseling, and money for these things.
When will it stop? When we're happy.
What is one of the goals set for 2010 by Healthy People 2010 and promoted by my text?
"Eliminate health disparities."
I would like everyone to be happy. I'm glad my PE text wants them to be.
If we are a lot happier in 2010, well and good.
So long as it's not because we've been talked and drugged into believing that we and everything else is hunky-dory when it's not.
Do not set your heart on doing something yourself that you by yourelf cannot do.
Anyway, that just gave me the creeps. If anything I said sounded like I wanted everyone to be unhappy, or die or not get adequate medical treatment, please comment specifically and I'll respond.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry's Famous Speech
Everybody should read this.
It includes:
Respect for those in disagreement.
Straightforward and impassioned opinion.
His responsibility is to God first! Then country.
It's almost prophetic, too: we were severely outnumbered and under-equipped. And God did indeed raise up allies, in the form of the French.
Even without looking at its context I consider it an excellent speech
Everybody should read this.
It includes:
Respect for those in disagreement.
Straightforward and impassioned opinion.
His responsibility is to God first! Then country.
It's almost prophetic, too: we were severely outnumbered and under-equipped. And God did indeed raise up allies, in the form of the French.
Even without looking at its context I consider it an excellent speech
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
One Lump or Two?
This post is, in the main, for my friends back home. I listened to an excellent chapel speaker yesterday, Dr. Peter Jones, a Christian author and lecturer. His topic was "Are We Loosing Our Christian Voice and Mind?" and there was a sub-topic which I didn't write fast enough to get down.
His primary thesis was that the greatest danger facing rising college students (the next generation that will be engaging in the adult world, as it were) is not a shift toward secularism, but "neo-paganism," or monism. Dr. Jones spent the majority of his time defining neo-paganism, but gave several examples of its popularization, including yoga, which claims that God and nature are one, and a recent bill passed in California legislating the re-write of all (all) of California's school textbooks to reflect positively on transexuality, thereby "outlawing the wrong of traditional marriage," as a congressman put it. Dr. Jones shared a quote by mid-to-late 19th century British Prime Minister William Gladstone.
"The result of the rejection of Christianity is not secularism, but paganism."
Mr. Jones outlined five basic points of neo-paganism, adding a piece to an illustration with each one.
1) All is one and one is all. Dr. Jones drew a circle.
2) All humanity is one. A number of dots appeared. Dr. Jones explained that when men believe they are all, they begin to attribute to themselves, to their souls especially, god-like attributes of eternality and omnispresence. Devotees to monisms have claimed to be god.
3) All religions are just a slice of the pie. Dr. Jones divided the circle into slices.
Note: At this point I almost lost all composure, jumped up, and screamed "monism says we're all a giant pepperoni pizza!!!!" I suppose I know what I would be if I weren't held captive by God's free grace.
Regardless of this, Dr. Jones pointed out that, just like a pizza, the neo-pagan model depicts religions as having seperate, hard, exterior crusts, but as also meeting in the middle in a gooey, squishy, yummy combination of everyone's ideas.
4) Unfortunately, mourns the monist, we have forgotten our oneness (somehow, somewhy) and therefore we have all these problems. Dr. Jones drew a jagged line through the pie. This is why we believe that we are mortal individuals, and that the physical world exists, and that there is a God seperate from the world.
These differences must be eliminated. A slight chill should get you right about now.
5) The one solution lies within. There are plenty of methods, "sacred technologies," ways to get within. Dr. Jones drew an arrow toward the center of the pie where all the pieces meet.
Well, how do we respond? We, as Christians, do not fit in the pie. Mr. Jones here made a very simple statement. "All is not one. All is two." Of course, our model does not stop with a simple numerical judgement, as monism does, or would like to. We have Creator and Creature. The Creator and His Creation are not the same thing. Upon this very basic concept are built all the truths of Christianity. Dr. Jones pointed out that being nothing more than a nice person is useless in combating neo-pagansim. Christ is our friend, yes. He is also God, Lord of the Cosmos. We must be witnesses to the truth, even if it costs us everything, as it did Christ. And, while on the subject, who is the only One to ever span the gap between Creator and Creature? The God-man, of course.
I have met neo-pagans, one in particular, who clearly stated each of these five points. At the time I was not familiar with his religion (he thought is was his own personal spirituality) and had difficulty responding. After all, his worldview did its best to swallow up mine and make it pointless what I believed. This lecture was of great benefit to me, and I hope will be useful to me, and you'all at home, in combating the idea of monism.
His primary thesis was that the greatest danger facing rising college students (the next generation that will be engaging in the adult world, as it were) is not a shift toward secularism, but "neo-paganism," or monism. Dr. Jones spent the majority of his time defining neo-paganism, but gave several examples of its popularization, including yoga, which claims that God and nature are one, and a recent bill passed in California legislating the re-write of all (all) of California's school textbooks to reflect positively on transexuality, thereby "outlawing the wrong of traditional marriage," as a congressman put it. Dr. Jones shared a quote by mid-to-late 19th century British Prime Minister William Gladstone.
"The result of the rejection of Christianity is not secularism, but paganism."
Mr. Jones outlined five basic points of neo-paganism, adding a piece to an illustration with each one.
1) All is one and one is all. Dr. Jones drew a circle.
2) All humanity is one. A number of dots appeared. Dr. Jones explained that when men believe they are all, they begin to attribute to themselves, to their souls especially, god-like attributes of eternality and omnispresence. Devotees to monisms have claimed to be god.
3) All religions are just a slice of the pie. Dr. Jones divided the circle into slices.
Note: At this point I almost lost all composure, jumped up, and screamed "monism says we're all a giant pepperoni pizza!!!!" I suppose I know what I would be if I weren't held captive by God's free grace.
Regardless of this, Dr. Jones pointed out that, just like a pizza, the neo-pagan model depicts religions as having seperate, hard, exterior crusts, but as also meeting in the middle in a gooey, squishy, yummy combination of everyone's ideas.
4) Unfortunately, mourns the monist, we have forgotten our oneness (somehow, somewhy) and therefore we have all these problems. Dr. Jones drew a jagged line through the pie. This is why we believe that we are mortal individuals, and that the physical world exists, and that there is a God seperate from the world.
These differences must be eliminated. A slight chill should get you right about now.
5) The one solution lies within. There are plenty of methods, "sacred technologies," ways to get within. Dr. Jones drew an arrow toward the center of the pie where all the pieces meet.
Well, how do we respond? We, as Christians, do not fit in the pie. Mr. Jones here made a very simple statement. "All is not one. All is two." Of course, our model does not stop with a simple numerical judgement, as monism does, or would like to. We have Creator and Creature. The Creator and His Creation are not the same thing. Upon this very basic concept are built all the truths of Christianity. Dr. Jones pointed out that being nothing more than a nice person is useless in combating neo-pagansim. Christ is our friend, yes. He is also God, Lord of the Cosmos. We must be witnesses to the truth, even if it costs us everything, as it did Christ. And, while on the subject, who is the only One to ever span the gap between Creator and Creature? The God-man, of course.
I have met neo-pagans, one in particular, who clearly stated each of these five points. At the time I was not familiar with his religion (he thought is was his own personal spirituality) and had difficulty responding. After all, his worldview did its best to swallow up mine and make it pointless what I believed. This lecture was of great benefit to me, and I hope will be useful to me, and you'all at home, in combating the idea of monism.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
[See Previous Post]
That was fun! Actually, I am a little lonely, but I am also surrounded by some excellent new friends. It's the fact that they aren't my other friends...who know me many times better, and have known me for longer. I'm really stretching it when the connection to people I talk to is "They're an ex-church member family's distant friends' daughter's high school classmate." As opposed to "we grew up together." Errgh. But I am very glad that the Lord has put me here, and He is giving me grace to follow Him. And pretty soon classes will start and I will fondly remember these memories of boredom. So, now that I have used this blog to release, analyze, and deal with my emotions, I will retire.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Meists Miss the Point
Another, even better worldview illustration is that there are really only two worldviews, Theism and Meism.
The Meist worships himself. What he believes is supreme, and, whether he actually burns incense to himself or to another "god", he still does it all for himself. If he sacrifices to help others, he has a selfish motive. If he gives up his life for others, it is so he will look good.
The Theist is alive, having seen the one in whom is Life, "and the life was the light of men." The Theist knows that God became a man and died for him, and He knows the God that became a man and died for him. He loves God. If he does anything for himself, it is so God will be glorified. If he sacrifices for others, it is in obedience to God. If he gives up his life for others, it is because his God, Brother, and Dearest Friend did the same for him.
The Meist worships himself. What he believes is supreme, and, whether he actually burns incense to himself or to another "god", he still does it all for himself. If he sacrifices to help others, he has a selfish motive. If he gives up his life for others, it is so he will look good.
The Theist is alive, having seen the one in whom is Life, "and the life was the light of men." The Theist knows that God became a man and died for him, and He knows the God that became a man and died for him. He loves God. If he does anything for himself, it is so God will be glorified. If he sacrifices for others, it is in obedience to God. If he gives up his life for others, it is because his God, Brother, and Dearest Friend did the same for him.
Viewworld
I recently read The Universe Next Door, by James Sire, save the last two chapters. It was a good, actually entertaining read, if one doesn't mind dragging a little. It included lots of interesting illustrations, historical stories and writings, and mind-boggling philosophy on a grand scale.
What Mr. Sire set out to write was a worldview catalog, analyzing in chronological order most of the major worldviews from about 1500 onwards. The chapters went in this order:
Theism -> Deism -> Naturalism -> Nihilism -> Existentialism -> Eastern Monastic Pantheism -> New Age -> Postmodernism.
Let me try to give an incredibly brief explanation for why each of these worldviews followed upon the heels of its predecessor.
Thesim requires a relationship with One Creator God. Seperation from this God means that we cannot know Him unless He reveals Himself to us. So, when He did not do so, Deism arrived.
Deism assumes the One Creator God, and historically holds the same values as Theism, but claims that God has backed out of the universe, and either no longer cares, or cannot be known by special revelation, only by what He made. This begs the question, how do we know God was there in the beginning? So we move to naturalism.
Naturalism desposes with God, claiming that matter is the end-all and be-all. Values still exist, for some reason, but now we need not feel guilty about breaking the rules, after all, there is no God to hold us accountable. This leads to Nihilism.
Nihilism assumes that the entire idea of value is preposterous. Being entirely material, we cannot even know that we are. The chances that we are percieving reality with our senses are slim. We may not even really exist, nor may anyone else, and if we do, we are but a pillar of salt, a tower of matter with specific reactions. Nothing matters. Life cannot have meaning. No worldview can be correct. Nihilism leads to suicide, which, as a matter of practicality, has never been a predominant worldview.
Here is an interesting branch in the road. Nihilism leads to suicide, so how did we get to existentialism? By not thinking. Nihilism is arrived at by two facts being true: 1) the Nihilist does not have a right relationship with God. 2) the Nihilist thinks carefully and logically.
The Nihilist cannot change 1), but would very much not like to commit suicide, so changes 2), and assumes Existentialism, in which matter and thought are two entirely seperate fields, the objective and the subjective. The objective world may be entirely explainable a la Naturalism, but the subjective world is still there. So, one may seclude thoughts of God, value, good, and evil to the subjective mind, and strongly hold in the objective world that God is scientifically impossible, good and evil nonexistant, and value pointless. This defies reason.
Once reason is defied, Existentialism can be improved upon by Eastern Pantheistic Monism. All is one, matter is not reality, the point in life is to become part of the one. "This too is vanity."
New Age and Postmodernism fare no better
The whole point of this abstract, overly generalized, error-riddled progression is to point out an illustration.
Faith in God, knowing God, is at the apex of the illustration. Falling from that the thinking person falls through Deism and Naturalism and, finding no rest, lands in Nihilism, which, truly believed, becomes suicidism. Most people don't want to die, and so cease to be thinking people and fall even farther, if that is possible, into mindless existentialism, etc.
What people need is a right relationship with God. We must realize that the Truth, when it is shown to man, leads to despair in the absence of the Truth-giver. If we know how things really are, and Christ is not present in our hearts, we become nihilists. If Christ is present, we become Theists.
Anyways, I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.
What Mr. Sire set out to write was a worldview catalog, analyzing in chronological order most of the major worldviews from about 1500 onwards. The chapters went in this order:
Theism -> Deism -> Naturalism -> Nihilism -> Existentialism -> Eastern Monastic Pantheism -> New Age -> Postmodernism.
Let me try to give an incredibly brief explanation for why each of these worldviews followed upon the heels of its predecessor.
Thesim requires a relationship with One Creator God. Seperation from this God means that we cannot know Him unless He reveals Himself to us. So, when He did not do so, Deism arrived.
Deism assumes the One Creator God, and historically holds the same values as Theism, but claims that God has backed out of the universe, and either no longer cares, or cannot be known by special revelation, only by what He made. This begs the question, how do we know God was there in the beginning? So we move to naturalism.
Naturalism desposes with God, claiming that matter is the end-all and be-all. Values still exist, for some reason, but now we need not feel guilty about breaking the rules, after all, there is no God to hold us accountable. This leads to Nihilism.
Nihilism assumes that the entire idea of value is preposterous. Being entirely material, we cannot even know that we are. The chances that we are percieving reality with our senses are slim. We may not even really exist, nor may anyone else, and if we do, we are but a pillar of salt, a tower of matter with specific reactions. Nothing matters. Life cannot have meaning. No worldview can be correct. Nihilism leads to suicide, which, as a matter of practicality, has never been a predominant worldview.
Here is an interesting branch in the road. Nihilism leads to suicide, so how did we get to existentialism? By not thinking. Nihilism is arrived at by two facts being true: 1) the Nihilist does not have a right relationship with God. 2) the Nihilist thinks carefully and logically.
The Nihilist cannot change 1), but would very much not like to commit suicide, so changes 2), and assumes Existentialism, in which matter and thought are two entirely seperate fields, the objective and the subjective. The objective world may be entirely explainable a la Naturalism, but the subjective world is still there. So, one may seclude thoughts of God, value, good, and evil to the subjective mind, and strongly hold in the objective world that God is scientifically impossible, good and evil nonexistant, and value pointless. This defies reason.
Once reason is defied, Existentialism can be improved upon by Eastern Pantheistic Monism. All is one, matter is not reality, the point in life is to become part of the one. "This too is vanity."
New Age and Postmodernism fare no better
The whole point of this abstract, overly generalized, error-riddled progression is to point out an illustration.
Faith in God, knowing God, is at the apex of the illustration. Falling from that the thinking person falls through Deism and Naturalism and, finding no rest, lands in Nihilism, which, truly believed, becomes suicidism. Most people don't want to die, and so cease to be thinking people and fall even farther, if that is possible, into mindless existentialism, etc.
What people need is a right relationship with God. We must realize that the Truth, when it is shown to man, leads to despair in the absence of the Truth-giver. If we know how things really are, and Christ is not present in our hearts, we become nihilists. If Christ is present, we become Theists.
Anyways, I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Food for Thought
Most people take themselves much too seriously, but take their lives not nearly seriously enough.
The difference between dogs and humans is subtle. Humans spend about half their lives in retirement. About half of all dogs spend their entire lives in retirement.
The difference between dogs and humans is subtle. Humans spend about half their lives in retirement. About half of all dogs spend their entire lives in retirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)