The Answer to Life, the Unverse, and Everything

Why are we here? This seems like a question only someone without a knowledge of the truth would ask. Obviously we as Christians know, right? God made us. Why the question is...why? What are we put on this earth to do?

Many would say we are put on this earth to spread the gospel--to witness. Without being harsh I answer to that an emphatic no. Man cannot be created to witness because without sin, a result of man's own disobedience, there would be no need to witness. Eden needed no evangelists, and neither will heaven. Also, God can (and often has) brought men to Him entirely without our help. Witnessing is a blessing for us in participating in God's plan, but it is not our chief end.

Our chief end, the reason we were created and still exist, is to glorify God. This is why we were made. This is why He gave us a will--because we can praise Him better than any animal.

I've been thinking about this as we discuss Worship in the class Foundations of Church Music. Since worship is our purpose, it must be pretty important to God. But why?

When I was a little kid the hardest part of prayer for me to understand was praise. How do you praise God? I started by simply saying, "You are a Great God." But, I thought, didn't God already know this? How can it satisfy God to hear us telling Him what He knows infinitely better.

This leads to another important fact I have come to believe--Our worship does not benefit God. It pleases Him, yes, but it does not improve Him or change Him at all. God cannot grow, cannot be made greater by our praise or anything else. What do you get the God who has everything?

So why does He want worship? It often strikes us as strange how much God likes to focus on His greatness. He commands us to praise. As I said in an earlier note, He often even breaks us down just so that we realize how much we need Him. Is this pride? Obviously not, because He deserves it. But still, it sometimes seems petty, like something a pagan god would demand, to demand our praise. How can our praise mean anything to Him?

I submit that He wants our praise more for our sake than His. God is a God of order. He desires things to be as they should be. The natural order is for the weak to praise the Almighty. Even the rocks and trees know this--as they are all prepared to sing if we slack off. So He created us--vessels to praise Him, because that's the way things are supposed to work.

That's why He likes to break us--not so He can stand over us and say, "I told you so. I told you you needed me." But because when we are lying on the ground, our back broken and face crushed in the mud, we can finally have peace. We can stop trying to do things ourselves and let Him take care of it. It's much better for us to rest in the medical tent than to try and run into a battle only He can win.

Worship should never be done with a selfish attitude. Our goal is to praise God, not to benefit ourselves. But as we worship Him, we find ourselves overwhelmed with the peace that comes from things being as they should. And somehow, in some inexplicable way, the refuse that we offer up as praise is a sweet smell in His nostrils, and our feeble attempts to do Him justice put a smile on the face of the God who cannot be improved upon.

Why Can't We Be Friends?

In chapel today Dr. Anderson made the comment that we live in a fractured culture. He made this comment in reference to the generation gap, but it got me thinking about the idea of a broken society. Has our culture broken itself? Does it undo the very ideals it is trying to achieve?

Look out For Number One
One of our chief "virtues" in America is independence. The day most people equate with patriotism is Independence Day. We frown at the collectivism the Chinese displayed in the Olympic ceremonies. Many still consider our greatest enemy to be communism. (Communism is a very flawed idea, to be sure, but mainly because it is too perfect. Such an ideal is not possible, though if it were it may be sound.) But Americans think the problem with communism is simply the fact that everyone looks out for each other instead of themselves. We cannot grasp the concept of caring more for the group than the individual. This thought scares us--if we start seeing our communities as more important than ourselves, we will become mindless Borg.

Individualism Brings Isolation
What has this mindset achieved? What is the result of unbridled individualism? This brings us back to the fracturing of society. It is my opinion that our individualism has brought us only isolation. We try to be our own people--and in the end that is all we are.

Consider the counter cultures for a minute. A Goth teen will say that he is tired of doing what everyone else is doing--he will be his own person. But in the end he is just like every other Goth. Though he claims he doesn't need support, in reality he simply goes elsewhere--to a counter culture--to find it.

Everybody... Needs Somebody...Sometimes...
In this way many Americans don't seem to realize how much they need companionship. We think we can do it all on our own--and the solution to all of our problems is to separate more and more from those we are dependent on. This has led to the degradation of an important part of society--Friendship.

Take, for example, the way people look at brotherly love. It is not acceptable in our culture for two guys to hug or say they love each other without bad connotations. People watch Lord of the Rings and immediately think Frodo and Sam are gay because they have a true friendship. Two guys can only be friends in the capacity of hanging out and having fun--but imply that they care about each other and assumptions are made. The same thing happens with a guy and a girl who are genuinely "just friends."

I think a lot of this has to do with our "me" mentality about friends. I have friends because they do something for me--provide enjoyment or amusement, or for the sake of romance. Once a friendship stops benefiting me, I end it. And in a paradoxical way, when you reach that point, friendships don't benefit at all.

I think this is specially true among guys. I have the blessing of great Christian friends. But it is still awkward sometimes to talk about something serious with a friend with whom you joke around a lot. Now that I know my friends very well, I can switch from Chuck Norris jokes to discussing temptation or struggles with sin. But for many this is not easy.

Why have we become so awkward about discussing our feelings with each other? Why is it so hard to rely on a friend and trust them with private information? Maybe it is because we wouldn't want to hear our friends bare their souls to us. A friendship needs to be for the sake of our friend, not ourselves. Only then can we truly benefit from the friendship, and have a deeper relationship than discussing whether Batman would beat Jackie Chan in a fight.

I don't presume to be a scholar of social trends, but it seems to me that our friendships have become more selfish and superficial, and by focusing so much on ourselves we are hurting not only potential friends, but ourselves as well. Fellowship is a foundation of Christian living, and our nation truly is lost if we have forgotten how to make friends.

Why Do We Fall?

Recently I re-watched the movie Batman Begins, obviously in connection to the recent sequel. This post will not be a review on either of those excellent movies, but rather a comment on a line from the first.

In a style similar to Uncle Ben's famous power/responsibility phrase, Bruce Wayne is inspired by a quote from his father of which Alfred later reminds him. The line is, "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up."

This is one of my favorite lines from the movie, but thinking about it I realized that it is only half true. We do fall in order to learn a lesson, but are we learning to pick ourselves up?

This summer I worked at a summer camp as a counselor. It seems like a job that is all fun and games, but anyone who has counseled before knows that a full summer of 24-hour days with kids is both physically and spiritually draining. We are responsible for the physical safety, fun, and spiritual growth of all of our campers. And every week seemed to be a struggle for at least one counselor. One would get a concussion, another would become ill, another would have a cabin of rebellious or unruly kids. It got to the point where I would ask "Why?" It seemed like camp was hard enough without all of these difficulties.

But this summer I got closer to God than I have ever been. I was forced to develop better devotions and more honest prayer time, because without that connection with God, I would have collapsed. And just when I thought I knew what I was doing and began to be confident in my counseling abilities, God would send another rough week of camp. I soon realized I could do nothing without God.

After this experience I would like to reword Mr. Wayne's famous phrase. Why do we fall? So we stop trying to pick ourselves up and reach out a hand for God. God breaks us so He can put us back together. He puts us through hard times to force us closer to Him.

At first glance this seems barbaric. God delights in knocking us down just to remind us how much we need him? This seems more like the actions of a petty Greek god than a perfect Lord of Creation.

But the reason God does this is not pride. God delights in His own glory, yes. In a man this would be pride. But God cannot be prideful, one reason being that He actually deserves glory, unlike anyone else. Another reason is that God's desire for praise and recognition is not for His own benefit, but ours. God knows what is best, and out of love always does what is best for us.

And God knows that we will never be truly happy unless we realize our relationship to Him. The hard times He sends to break us are merely so we do not try to stand against even greater storms. He allows us to stop trying to stand up on our own feeble feet and finally lean on the only One who can hold us up.

Some Thoughts Allegorical

Recently I watched the movie Prince Caspian in the Chronicles of Narnia series. I will try to keep this from being a review (though I do like reviewing) but I wanted to share my thoughts on allegories. I have heard time and time again that the Narnia stories (and, an even more ridiculous claim, Lord of the Rings) are allegories. These claims are not only false, they annoy me. C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien both stated clearly that their works were not allegory.

A nice claim, but can they prove it? Well, check the definition of an allegory. Dictionary.com calls an allegory "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms." An allegory must represent something spiritual by something physical. Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory. Christianity, Despondency, Vanity; these are all represented by people, swamps, cities.

Now take, for example, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. People cite this as the most blatant allegory because the correlation to the cross is so obvious. But take a second look--is Aslan dying on the Stone Table a physical representation of a spiritual event? Absolutely not--and this thinking can be dangerous. Christ's death on the cross was neither abstract nor primarily spiritual. It was a physical, real, historical event. Aslan was not a picture or type of Christ--He was Christ.

Anyone familiar with the series can tell you that Aslan the Lion was simply the form Christ took coming to Narnia. In the world of men, He came as a man. In a world of talking animals, He came as an animal. Narnia is not a world where the spiritual is made physical--it is portrayed as a world where real, physical things that happened on Earth such as Creation and the Crucifixion happen in a slightly different way, but just as real and physical.

What I find interesting is that some say Prince Caspian is less allegorical than the first book. I disagree. Neither are allegorical, but Prince Caspian includes some physical representation of spiritual events. It is less clear in its purpose because it does not portray a past Bible event--it portrays a struggle we have today. Peter tries to fight the battle in his own strength--and loses. His failure is graphically shown as many die for his choice. But when he puts his trust in Aslan, all is well. We do not fight physical battles, but we still need to trust in God. Only by His strength are we kings and queens.

That said, I would like to return to the idea of allegory. It is important that we realize that things portrayed in so-called allegories like Narnia and Lord of the Rings are just as real as they were in the stories. The events described in the Bible are not abstract, and they are by no means only spiritual.

There is a difference between having a spiritual point and being an allegory. Any good movie or book will have a spiritual point. This often leads to ridiculous claims of type and allegory. Superman is often compared to Christ (especially in Superman Returns) because he is a hero. I have even heard Harry Potter called a type of Christ because he was willing to give his life to help is friends. This is missing the point! Any good hero will be self-sacrificial! This does not mean he is anything like Christ, and it is nigh blasphemous to presume so. Yes, most protagonist show Christlike attributes, but this is because Christ is the ultimate example. Anything anyone does right is Christlike.

I look forward to more Narnia movies--while some cite the first as the best because the symbolism is most obvious, I like many of the others because they give lessons not just in the events of the Cross, but in the character of God and in righteous living (though the first had much of this as well). Be careful not to spiritualize the events of the Bible or carry allegories too far. Don't look for symbolism where it's not there when watching movies based on Christian tales--just try to see where you can learn from what the characters learn. Every allegory falls apart eventually--even the parables of Christ cannot be taken as detail-by-detail correlations. But a good story giving deep spiritual points--these will last a long time.

see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes


see more song memes

Dayenu--It is Enough

דַּיֵּנוּ

LORD,

It would have been enough if you had created the first man perfect, but you provided a test to prove his faith.
It would have been enough if you had provided a test, but you promised a redeemer when he failed.
It would have been enough if you had promised a redeemer, but you gave us a law to remember that promise.
It would have been enough if you had given us the law, but you also chose a people to protect that law.
It would have been enough if you had chosen a people, but you allowed those not chosen to partake of blessing too.
It would have been enough if you had allowed Jews and Gentiles to partake in the law, but you provided a Lamb for those unable to obey the law.
It would have been enough if you had only provided a Lamb, but you sent him as flesh to dwell among us.
It would have been enough if he had dwelt among us, but he also committed no sin.
It would have been enough if he had committed no sin, but he died to defeat Satan.
It would have been enough if he had defeated Satan, but he also defeated sin and death.
It would have been enough if he had died for our sins, but he rose again.
It would have been enough if he had risen again, but he also gave us the Holy Spirit.
It would have been enough... but you also gave us eternal life.
It would have been enough... but you gave us the ability to do good.
It would have been enough...but you give us spiritual blessing on earth.
It would have been enough...but you give us peace and joy.
It would have been enough...but you give us physical blessing.
It would have been enough...but you give us suffering to bring us to you.
It would have been enough...but you give this to any who will come.
It would have been enough...but you spread your gospel so all can hear.
It would have been enough...but you let us partake in this miracle by ministering through us as vessels.
It would have been enough...but you give us rewards in heaven for work you do through us.
It would have been enough if you had offered all this to any who will accept it, though sinful man's heart cannot and will not. But you chose some to be regenerated and able to accept your gift.
It would have been enough if you had chosen some...but you chose me.

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory...Amen.
--Ephesians 3:20-21

Let Us Feast

I intended to post this on Good Friday, but my time was otherwise occupied. Easter is a fitting day to post this as well, though.

America has many holidays. The bank closes on days such as Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, and Valentine's Day. These are usually just an excuse for corny ads and a day off of school, however. Few consider the origins of the holiday or observe the holiday in any major way. Catholics celebrate many days of the year for their religious significance. But as American Protestant Christians, we do not have many holidays that we actually celebrate. Palm Sunday is usually just an occasion for special music at church. Good Friday is sometimes ignored entirely, though it commemorates one of the most important events in history. And many events the Catholics observe, Protestants ignore.



What's the point of bringing this up? Well, I thought of it because of some unique circumstances this year. Easter is unusually early, so Passover, which usually falls close to Easter, is now a month later. But another Jewish holiday falls on the same day as Good Friday--Purim. Purim is the celebration of the events of the book of Esther--the preservation of the Jews under the Persian Empire.

Christians rarely celebrate Purim. Neither do many celebrate Passover, though both these feasts commemorate Old Testament events, which are of course included in our Bible as well as the Jewish one. Even Hanukkah, a holiday many think is simply a pagan version of Christmas, is an event that affected Christians--if the Jews had not been preserved through the events of Passover, Purim, and Hanukkah, Jesus would not have been born and we would still be in our sins. The salvation of the Jewish race was vital to the salvation of Gentiles, so we should celebrate as well.

We as Christians tend to think of Judaism as ritualistic and legalistic. But especially in the feasts, Jews have an advantage. A Gentile nonbeliever would not be as prepared as a Jewish nonbeliever to hear the gospel--because much of it Jews already know. Jesus is clearly seen in the feasts of Israel--and we have much to learn from Jewish Christians in this respect.



Besides giving us a picture of Christ, I believe celebrating Jewish feasts would greatly benefit our Christian culture. We have so few true religious holidays--Thanksgiving does not even have roots in the Bible, and is nearly as commercialized as Christmas. Easter is often simply forgotten aside from wearing pastel colors one Sunday.

Easter is one of my favorite holidays because it is always so joyous. Christmas is a peaceful time--I enjoy it the most in the evening with Christmas lights and singing soft carols. But Easter is a time for enthusiasm! Singing "Christ Arose" or "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" always puts an excited smile on my face. Holidays should always be time of rejoicing--and Jewish holidays are no different.

We tend to think of somber holidays like the Day of Atonement when we think of Jewish feasts. But think of the Feast of Tabernacles--an enjoyable time of camping in self-made tents outside while celebrating God's provision. Purim is a happy feast--cheering at mentions of Mordecai and booing at Haman's name.

Purim includes one interesting tradition I discovered this year. Celebrants dress up in costumes like Esther, Mordecai, or simply random costumes like mimes or cowboys. This has to do with the theme of mistaken identity which permeates the book of Esther. Xerxes was unaware of Esther's identity as a Jew. Haman thought the king wanted to honor him instead of Mordecai. And one presence is hidden throughout the book. The name of God is never mentioned in the book--but He is clearly behind the scenes dictating every event. This hidden identity is celebrating through the use of costumes. Everyone likes dressing up--and celebrating Purim is a way to enjoy this activity without supporting Halloween.


The point? I think American Christians have too few holidays where God is truly celebrated. God wants us to be full of joy. We should celebrate Him constantly, but frequent holidays remind us of this too. The Old Testament is as much a part of our faith as the New, so there is no reason not to celebrate Old Testament feasts. We would have more occasion for appropriate and godly celebration, and more importantly, we would be often reminded of the great things God has done.

I Need a Hero

As a minor note of news, you can now view comments to a post while staying on the main page of this blog--just click the "X Comments" link and it will pop open.

On to the post.

With recent changes in superhero movies and the increased popularity of fantasy stories, the concept of "hero" has changed dramatically. Should the hero of a story be infinitely powerful and morally perfect, like the early concepts of Superman? Should the hero be constantly challenged by inner conflict, likeFrodo? Should the hero even be a hero?

The fantasy genre is especially going through this conflict, with its many subgenres such as sword-and-sorcery, high fantasy, and low fantasy. The main difference between genres within fantasy, besides types of mythology used, seems to be the concept of heroes. I realize I am now in the minority as a fan of high fantasy.

High fantasy is a dying art--because it includes admirable heroes. And the trend seems to be away from this type of hero. Many people don't want to look up to the characters in a book--they want to relate to them.

Role-playing Games
When did this trend start? Besides the simple fact that moral heroes make our increasingly sinful world feel uncomfortable, there is another factor. Fantasy has seen a comeback since the days of Tolkien largely due to role-playing games.

Role-playing games began as a form of cooperative storytelling--everyone assumes a character and describes that character's actions based on their personality and character traits. Not surprisingly, the more popular these games became, the more corrupted they became. The word "game" led people to believe that the object was winning, not coming up with a good story. So players built their characters to do whatever would make them stronger and wealthier, not what would be most realistic.

When role-playing games moved to computers and video games, the game obviously had to become about growing stronger and wealthier, not about the story. Who would play a computer game where the goal wasn't to get stronger? So the heroes no longer wanted to save the world, as much as they want to make money and gain experience.

The Mercenary
For a player who wants to make a character that will gain wealth and experience fast, the easiest character to create is the mercenary. This character does not care about other people unless helping them will earn him rewards. He may do good or evil--whichever helps his personal gains.

This character is almost necessary is computer and video game RPGs. But because of the popularity of RPGs in general, this character has spilled over into standard fiction. Fantasy books are full of characters who only wish to serve their own ends--and these are more often than not the favorite character. No one respects a true "good guy" any more.

Heroes and Anti-Heroes
This doesn't mean that heroes can't have struggles. The anti-hero can be a great character in a lot of fiction--someone who can't decide whether he is good or evil, someone who does evil thinking he is doing good, or someone who tries to be good (or evil) and constantly struggles with crossing the line. No character should be perfect. However, there is a line crossed. A good guy should be good. Never perfect, but someone one can admire. I want a hero to be someone at least a little better than I am--but so many stories have even the main characters behaving worse than the average person. And if the writer wants to get across that a certain person is a good guy, I should know that he's a good guy--and in the end he should have conquered at least some of his demons--not given in to them.

The Hero and the Mercenary
An example of the breakdown of heroes is the Pirates trilogy. Take Jack Sparrow in Pirates 1. He's an antihero. He mostly does everything for his own benefit--or so we thought. He just can't bring himself to betray the good guys even when it was in his best interests. He does things that he calls "incredibly stupid"--he can't explain why he does good, but he does it. Jack Sparrow was a man one could respect, yet retained the mystique of a "bad boy" nature.

But in Pirates 2 and 3, this changed. Writers noticed that it was Jack's bad side that attracted viewers, not his good side. So they played this up in the next movies. He changed into the mercenary. He no longer had any conscience at all. Any good he did was only because he thought it would benefit him more. He changed from a mysterious, intriguing anti-hero to a selfish, grubby, pitiable mercenary. This, I believe, is why these movies were not received as well as the first by many. As much as people say they want to relate to a character, everyone wants someone they can look up to.

This is why Spiderman is more popular than, say, The Punisher. Spiderman is relateable in that he possesses weaknesses and flaws, but he does what is right when he can.

Mercenaries can be great characters in fiction--as can anti-heroes. But sometimes, it's refreshing to have a character "just trying to do the right thing in a mixed-up world"--someone doing good, simply because it's the right thing to do.

Shedding the Blood of Prophets

This post is sort of a pet peeve, but I have reanimated that decaying corpse quite enough--so I will refrain from using that term in this post.

I was reading Matthew 23 recently, and came across this passage--

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" (Matthew 23:29-33, NASB)

The Pharisees boasted in their descent from the heroes of the Old Testament, while at the same time declaring that they would not have made the same mistakes. Christ declared that they made the exact same mistakes and so demonstrated the lineage they boasted in.

We look at this example and wonder how the Pharisees could claim that they would not kill prophets while planning to kill Christ? Couldn't they see?

But here we make the exact same mistake as has been made all through history--we think we are too smart to fall into the same holes as our fathers, and we fall. We say to ourselves "How could the Israelites in the desert continue to doubt? How could Moses disobey God in striking the rock? How could the disciples not have faith when the storm clouds came? How could Martha not see that Mary had chosen the better part? How could Peter deny Christ? How could Israel praise Jesus only to crucify Him a few days later?

We say, "If I had lived in the time of Christ, I would have followed Him." But when we look honestly at ourselves, can we still say this? We have the full revelation of the Bible and the Holy Spirit to help us live rightly, yet still we sin. How then can we condemn characters in the Bible when they erred, in absence of these benefits? Would we, without seeing the whole story, accept the claims of a country preacher to be God incarnate?

When looking at Bible stories that present characters in a less than favorable light, remember this--these were the founding fathers of our faith. We should not give them the status of demigods as the Catholics have done, but we must not condemn every sin committed without keeping in mind our own flawed nature.

A couple examples--

(1) Martha. So often we see Martha as the carnal busybody with no concern for the spiritual. Foolish Martha, why can't you be like your sister Mary?

But we forget to look at Martha's other appearance. John 11 gives us considerably more insight about Martha's character. We see how Mary and Martha respond to the death of Lazarus because Christ delayed.

Often we read this story with our anti-Martha filter on. We see her say "if You had been here, my brother would not have died," and see her rebuking Christ for not getting there sooner. Then we see Mary say the same thing and think, Poor, wounded Mary.. She just wanted her brother to live. Why are we so biased? They say the same thing--yet Martha adds more. Mary's faith stops there until she actually sees Lazarus raised up. But Martha says more--

"Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give you."

She understood that Jesus has the power to do anything--faith we don't see in Mary. See what she says next.

"Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'"

Martha saw that an immediate resurrection was not necessary--she would see Lazarus again and it would be enough. Later she acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, demonstrating theological knowledge beyond her time--namely, the resurrection and the fact that the Christ was also the Son of God. She had more faith than many, since she did not need to see a miracle to believe. So instead of criticizing her, we should learn from her example.

(2) Peter. Peter is another example of a hero of the faith whom we bring down to make ourselves feel better about our own faith. We tell ourselves that we would never deny Christ, or that we could have walked on the water without doubt.

Peter is one of my favorite characters in the Bible because he's an excellent example of how God uses the traits we already have. Peter's personality? He was a rock--in more ways than one. He was a scandalon-- a rock of offense who said what was on his mind no matter what people thought. This was both an advantage and a disadvantage. He was often the first to speak--and sometimes he was right, sometimes not. But at least he spoke up. A good example is in Matthew 16. Peter is the first to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ--not being afraid that the others wouldn't follow. Not long later he rebuked Christ for talking of his death--once again speaking up first, but this time he was wrong.

Take the example of walking on water. Peter didn't have the faith to walk when the waves grew large--but everyone else stayed in the boat! Would we have gotten out?

One of Peter's biggest blunders is his denial of Christ. We criticize the fact that he was only in the courtyard a short time before he broke and denied Christ. But except for John, all the other disciples had already forsaken him! (Matt. 26:56) Peter's denial was not an example of how he was weaker then the other disciples, but how even he could not boast in his strength.


The main thing to remember is that the people in the Bible we often criticize were great men of the faith (why is it that Peter is called "the one who denied Him" instead of "the one who walked on water" or "a pivotal character in the founding of the church"?). They kept the faith without the Holy Spirit or the complete Scriptures. So go a little easier on them when they "shed the blood of prophets".

Yet another video...

Eventually I'll start doing some real posts on here...

Very Early Preparation for Talk Like a Pirate Day (Sept 19)

The Reason for the Season--Knowing God

As I often do when the holiday season begins to affect my mood, I was singing Christmas songs recently. Usually we sing these songs so often the words become meaningless to us. But as I was singing "Mary Did You Know" (one of my favorite songs) I came across the line, "When you kiss the little baby, you've kissed the face of God." I've sung this song countless times before, yet for some reason this time, as I washed dishes in the college kitchen, I had goosebumps from this line. It was something I had never really thought about before. Kissed the face of God. The face of God!
In the end of Exodus 33, God tells Moses, "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." God's glory was so great that Moses could only look on God's back, His Face was too great for Moses to see.
We cannot even imagine what God is. Ted Dekker's series, the Circle Trilogy, asks the question, Is God a lion or is He a lamb? The answer is--He is both, and neither. Both are images we use to imagine the unimaginable, to think of God in finite terms we can understand. Because of this, I thought--there is a reason for Christ's birth we seldom think of. We know Jesus had to be born on earth so He could die for our sins and so He could sympathize with our humanity. But Jesus also was born to give us an image of God we can understand. When we pray to God, we can picture Jesus because His human form is something we can comprehend.
But has the idea of God in flesh really dawned on you? There in the dishroom at ABC, it partly dawned on me. I could not sing anymore--luckily no one else was near to see. My voice cracked as I came upon the words, "kissed the face of God". I am not usually an emotional person, but this revelation stopped me in my tracks. This same God who had to turn His back to Moses lest Moses be overwhelmed, this same God Mary could hold in her hands, and kiss his face. Can you imagine it? And we have the same privilege! Jesus is no longer physically present on the earth, but we can have Him in our hearts. We can share intimate moments with the Creator of the Universe, and see Him Face to Face!
A student here wrote a beautiful song entitled, "You Can Know God." The verse asked, "who can know God?", seeming to say that no one can fathom God's greatness. But the chorus answered--"You can know God." God is infinitely great, greater than man can comprehend. But because Jesus came to earth, we can see God Face to Face.

As I Say, it's No Skin off My Nose

I was reading the Book of Job today and I came across Job 19:20. "My bone clings to my skin and my flesh, And I have escaped only by the skin of my teeth." (NASB) I started wondering, what does this expression mean? It obviously originated in Job, since it is such an old book. So I decided to look it up. The Phrase Finder says

"The source of the phrase "by the skin of one's teeth" is indeed the Book of Job, although the precise phrase Job used was "My bone cleaveth to my skin, and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth" (not "by"). Just what the "skin" of one's teeth might be is a bit unclear, but it probably refers to the thin porcelain exterior of the tooth, not the gums. Job evidently kept his teeth, but just barely. It is also possible that he was saying that the margin of his escape was as narrow as the "skin" of a tooth is shallow -- the equivalent of a "hair's breadth." In any case, Job clearly meant that he'd had a very hard time of it, and the phrase has been used ever since to mean a very narrow or arduous escape."

A pretty obvious interpretation. But it reminded me of another idiom--skin of my nose. The oldest an most well-known occurrence of this phrase to me was It's a Wonderful Life. I wondered if it originated from this movie--it certainly was preserved by this movie, along with other 30s-40s phrases like "See you in the Funny Papers" and "Hee Haw". But I decided to do a little research here as well. A seemingly well-researched site says this--
The other day I chanced to overhear a snippet of conversation while standing in line to have my linens starched. Two elderly women were discussing some aspect of their work, and one said to the other, "Well, if he wants to pay that much for a typewriter with no vowels, let him! After all, it's no skin off your nose."

I thought to myself, "What a quaintly curious expression!" Naturally I had heard the phrase "no skin off my nose" before, but, like most people I suppose, had never really given much thought to the origin of such an odd idiom. As the next day happened to be a religious holiday for me (The Feast of the Sacred Topological Enigma) and therefore not a work day, I decided to spend a few quiet hours in the library exploring the etymology of "no skin off my nose".

To my surprise, this simple expression has a long and interesting history, and is closely tied to the terms "nosy", "sticking his nose where it doesn't belong", and even "keeping his nose clean".

In sixteenth century England a clandestine group of cabbage worshipers inhabited London's seamier neighborhoods, practicing a variety of bizarre rituals involving cabbage—including coleslaw, sauerkraut, and the newly invented Reuben sandwich, which had been banned by the government as being subversive ever since the visiting Count Halitosis had disgraced himself by splattering corned beef on the tablecloth at a state banquet.

With informers everywhere, it became common among the cabbage cult to cut a very small hole in the doors of the places of worship, so that the high priest could peer through and verify the identity of those wishing to enter. However, electric lights being unknown, it was difficult to make out the faces of people standing outside in the dark, so another method was devised.

Followers who desired entrance to the service were to make a small mark, like a birthmark, on the left side of their nose, and then thrust their proboscis through the hole in the door. If the mark was missing, the priest would know that the nose did not belong to a true believer, and he would take a sharp paring knife and slice a long strip of skin from the nose. Understandably, the King's guardsmen came to be very wary of taking an assignment which could result in "skin off my nose", and eventually the phrase came to mean anything costly or painful. Those who had suffered the indignity of having their noses pared like an apple were, of course, subsequently easy to spot walking down the street, and peasants would tease them about the wisdom of "sticking their noses where they didn't belong".

Eventually the secret of the mark on the nose was discovered by spies who managed to infiltrate the cult, but the King, in his Divine Wisdom, refused to permit his guardsmen to stoop to such silliness, and proclaimed that any of his men wishing to keep their heads attached to their shoulders would do well to "keep their noses clean".

The English language is indeed a rich and colorful one, with a fascinating history."

Very interesting! It makes me want to look up a few more (I am open to suggestions).

A Battle of Destinies...

In light of the previous post, I must needs present my opinions on a common debate. A war is going on with no neutral sides. No one may stand by the sidelines or try to ignore the fight. And the issue is this--Pirates or Ninjas?
Now though I cannot claim full neutrality, I shall try to present points for both sides in this post. I myself hold the Pirate side, but the Ninja side certainly has merit that cannot be ignored. Some points would seem to give automatic victory, but these exist on both sides, making the fight an endless stalemate.

Points for the Ninja side--

• Ninjas are stealthy--the Pirates wouldn't see them.
• Ninjas are quick--the Pirates couldn't hit them.
• Ninjas are masters of life and death--it takes great effort to kill them, and they still seem to show up afterwards.
• Ninjas can fight with anything around them--everything is a weapon.
• Ninjas often have supernatural abilities.

Points for the Pirate side--

• Pirates are shifty--you can't trust them.
• Pirates are seaworthy--no one can best them on the open sea.
• Pirates have guns. Enough said.
• Pirates hold to no code of honor--they will do anything to get what they want.
• Pirates have pirate songs. And rum.

But like a certain popular toy, there is more to this debate than meets the eye. Where did it come from? Why would Pirates and Ninjas fight, and why is the question so important? Probably the main source of the conflict is the similarity of the two groups. They fight because they are just like each other, in their respective cultures. Both are often motivated by greed and treacherous. Both can be used effectively as mercenaries. Both are popular at birthday parties.

Before one can go any further, one must recognize the vagueness of the terms "pirate" and "ninja". Pirates can be seafaring scalawags, or those who sell movies and songs illegally. Ninjas are even more diverse. The first ninjas were peasants who trained to fight the better armed armies of the samurai, at least according to Mythbusters. But we're talking about fictional ninjas here. Some are members of elite orders that train high up on mountains in an attempt to achiever perfection. Some are mercenaries, or rebels. Some are modern-day thieves (usually art thieves) or assassins who do not mind using modern weapons. In any case, there are certain traits that fictional pirates and ninjas must have.

Pirates--

• must be scalawags.
• must speak in pirate talk.
• must plunder, pillage, and raid.
• must be treacherous.
• must use swords (may also use guns and cannons)

Ninjas--

• must use unorthodox fighting techniques.
• must not be afraid to kill, even the defenseless and the unarmed.
• must use a variety of weapons.
• must be silent and unseen.
• must be Asian.

With these facts in mind, one can finally decide who wins in the conflict of Pirate vs. Ninja. And then he must wrestle with the next epic question--Vikings or Indians? Spartans or Mongols? Batman or Dr. Doom? . . .

Ask a Stealthy Ninja

Okay, I tried to put the video right into the post, but it cannot be done. Don't ask questions, just see the video here. This is making me reconsider my allegiance to pirates--this guy is hardcore.

Check out some of the other videos at the main site...and I thought Will It Blend would be a good time-waster!

Will it Offend? That is the Question...

If you haven't checked out Will it Blend (see link on right) yet, you really should. This site answers some questions that have been plaguing mankind for centuries, such as--what does a blender look like from the inside? And can an iPhone really do anything? And what do you do with that horrible singing plush you got last Valentine's Day?

Anyway, as interesting as that site is, it has absolutely nothing to do with this post, except the name. An issue for many Christians, especially those my age, is "What modern-day activities are prohibited by the Bible?" The Bible obviously doesn't say a word about what movies we should watch or what music we should listen to. So how do we know whether something is wrong or not?

Some things are clearly not appropriate. The Bible warns against lust, so movies that cause lust are not to be watched. But some things are not as clear. Is there a certain rating we can go by for what movies to watch? Are there certain types of music that are better than others?

Surprisingly, the Bible does speak of this. The Corinthians had a similar difficulty--the issue of meat offered to idols. A cultural anthropologist could explain this better, but to my understanding, many Greek and Romans temples sacrificed the blood of livestock, but not the meat, or at least not all of it. This left portions of meat in the possession of the pagan temples. They would then sell this leftover meat in the markets. Purchasing this meat was seen as a sign of supporting or condoning paganism.

Paul speaks of this issue in 1 Corinthians 8. He starts by saying that there is no such thing as an idol. False gods are just that--false. They have no power. Thus the meat is not defiled by being placed in front of a statue. However, not everyone is completely aware of this, Paul states. Some could not bring themselves to eat meat offered to idols. Paul explains that even if the reader is aware that eat offered to idols is no more unclean than any other meat, he should not offend his brothers who do not know that.

Romans 14-15 go into more depth. It explains that, on insignificant matters such as this, one can go by his own conscience. Each must examine himself, and see if he can eat this meat without feeling guilty. Romans 14:6 says, "he who eats, does so for the Lord...and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat." Each man, the one who eats meat, and the one who does not, does so because of personal convictions. Verse 3 explains that the two men are not to judge each other for what their consciences tell them.

So we see that the important issue as always, is our motives. If we can listen to Contemporary Christian Music and it means something spiritually to us, we can listen to it. If another Christian does not feel comfortable listening to it, he should not.

Is this the only guideline, then (at least in areas not outlined in the Bible)? No. Now we ask the immortal question--Will it Offend?

Paul continues in Romans 14-15 to say that we should never offend our Christian brothers and sisters. He says in 14:21 "It is not good to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles." Back in 1 Corinthians 8, in verse 13, he says "if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again..." If a brother was offended by the fact that Paul ate meat, Paul was willing to abstain from meat for his sake

In the same way, we must seek never to offend others. If someone in my church says that it is wrong to have long hair, it is wrong to have long hair in that person's presence. They do not determine what is right and wrong, but because long hair offends them, it is wrong.

Why should I change my lifestyle to accommodate for those who like to make up rules? Most of the things people find offensive are cultural, not biblical! But Paul said he was willing not to eat meat for the sake of his brothers. Surely we can refrain from modern music and certain movies if our brothers and sisters are offended by them.

When deciding if something is wrong, and there are no direct biblical guidelines, do not only ask if the action itself it wrong. Ask yourself, Will It Offend?

Santa Trucks are Coming...

Despite the title, this post is not about Santa, or trucks. Movie reviews do not belong in this blog, but I would like to say a few thoughts I've had about the movie The Polar Express.
Yes, this movie is old, and Christmas is far away. But I've been thinking about it lately (mostly in impatience for Christmas) and I've noticed some interesting observations about this movie.
Santa is not real. I was told this since I was a child. However, my family also read The Night Before Christmas every year and enjoyed watching movies like Santa Claus is Coming to Town. As long as kids understand that Santa is a fun story and that Jesus is the true reason for Christmas, I think it is alright to include Santa in Christmas traditions. As a kid, part of the fun of pretending Santa was dropping off our presents was that we knew it wasn't real.
That said, I think Polar Express is a good movie for kids and even adults. First off, it is voiced by Tom Hanks, who does an amazing job of providing individual personalities to all the characters. The graphics are spectacular, and the unique method of basing the actions of computer-generated characters on actual acting gives the characters a personal touch. Tom Hanks especially is able to convey expressions onto his characters, even the ones like the young boy who look nothing like him.
The plot of Polar Express? A young boy who no longer believes in Santa takes a mysterious train to the North Pole. Simple enough, but what is the moral of the story? It is developed into a full-length movie from a children's book, meaning a lot had to be added. Much of this came from long action scenes of the train ride. But a great deal of depth was added, and the story teaches some interesting lessons.
An important fact about this movie is that to all but the casual observer, the heart of the story is not about Santa Claus. This is a movie about faith, which is the main aspect I am going to examine in this post. Much of what the movie says about belief in Santa Claus can be applied to belief in other things that we cannot see.
The mysterious hobo tells the boy, "Seeing is believing". He tries to convince the boy that Santa is not real unless the boy can see him, or so it seems. One gets the idea that the hobo wishes to convince the boy of Santa's existence through his own cynicism. But the irony is--the hobo himself is not substantial--he's a ghost or even a figment of the boy's imagination. The boy sees the hobo, yet the hobo is not real, or in any case, he is "less"real than he seems.
The conductor later says, "The most real things in the world are the things we can't see." The hobo blew away in the snow whenever he was done talking to the boy, but Santa, as the boy discovers, is real even before the boy sees him.
This illustration makes me think of C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. In this story, the souls of the carnal are ghosts--insubstantial and gray. But the souls of the saved are solid and tangible. When the carnal witness heaven, they realize how unreal they are. They cannot affect anything in heaven--because they are not completely real. Rocks in heaven are too heavy to move. The grass is like diamonds--it will not bend under their feet. The grass pricks into their soles like knives. And the light of the saved, who have actual form, is too bright for them to bear.
The point of this illustration? We tend to think of the spiritual as ethereal and misty. We think of heaven and we think of clouds, and floating spirits. But the spiritual is more real than the physical. Compared to spiritual things, the physical is just a vapor.
A predominant theme in this movie is a sleigh bell. The boy refuses to believe in Santa until he sees him. He says he wants to believe, but he "doesn't want to be bamboozled", as the hobo mocks. But the irony here is that, as he tries to avoid being fooled, he blinds himself to the truth. When they finally reach the North Pole, the boy sees everything he needs to convince him that Santa is real--except Santa himself. As Santa comes out for his midnight sleigh ride, the other children marvel at how beautiful the sleigh bells sound. But the boy can't hear them--and he still can't see Santa. A bell drops right next to him, but he still can't hear it. Finally, he drops his barrier and says, "I believe." He shakes the bell, and it rings. He looks up, and Santa is standing in front of him. "Seeing isn't believing," the boy says. "Believing is seeing." The boy wouldn't believe because he was afraid of being fooled into a lie. But Santa was real in this story, the boy just could not see him because he would not believe. And the bell always rung for him--though not for his parents. He did not convince himself to hear ringing that wasn't real. The bell was real, but he could only hear it if he believed.
Okay, it's a nice story, but why is this post labeled "Christian"? As I said before, the idea that "the most real things in the world are the things we can't see" applies to us as it relates to spiritual things. Spiritual things aren't less real than physical things--they're actually more real.
The idea that "believing is seeing" is even more interesting. Faith is not blind belief. Faith is, as Hebrews 11:1 says, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is substantial, and real. It is based on evidence. We do not check our brains at the door in putting our faith in God. In the movie, Santa and the bells were there whether the boy could see and hear them or not. But people often cannot see God because they do not want to. They say, "Let me see Him, and I'll believe," when in reality, if they first believe they will see him! Atheists say God will be dead when people no longer believe in Him. Even so-called Christians think that whatever they believe about God's character is true just because they believe it. But God's existence is not dependant on whether you believe in Him or not. However, unless you believe, you cannot see Him.
The answer to finding God? As the boy's ticket says, "BELIEVE."

Pet Peeve--But a little more serious this time (continued from last post)

--binson". I told you! I would have included this in the previous post, but, while still a pet peeve, this is a little more serious (though not much)

Upon coming to Appalachian Bible College I realized that many fundamental, Bible-believing churches have a major difference to my home church--they do not all use the same type of bread for communion. My church has always used broken matzo bread. Yet many churches use oyster-like crackers or even rolls. This is not an important difference, nor does this affect the doctrinal soundness of a church. Yet there are several reasons why certain types of bread are more correct than others.

Jesus, when He institued the Lord's Table, was not bringing up a completely new idea. The bread and wine had been instituted for thousands of years as Passover. And as many Christians do not realize, every element of Passover pointed to Jesus. Matzo bread is important because--

• It is broken. Jesus said, "This is my Body that was broken for you." Individual crackers do not portray this.
• It is unleavened. Leaven, or Yeast, represented sin almost every time it was used in the Bible. True, it also represents the spreading of the kingdom of heaven (Luke 13:21) but in the context of Passover, it represented sin. Part of the reason was to picture the Israelites' rapid exit from Egypt, but the holiday also included a custom of sweeping all the leaven out of the household before Passover began. This represented ridding the house of sin. Many people picture the Lord's Supper with large loaves of bread, but the fact is, they were celebrating Passover, so all the bread was unleavened.
• It is striped. A little-known fact about the significance of matzo is that it is striped when baked. This represents the fact that we are healed by His stripes.

My main frustration isn't even the fact that people use other kinds of bread. It's the reaction I get when they comment on it. They say...

• "Why does it matter how Passover was celebrated? We're no longer under the law." This misconception is all-too-common--that anything in the Old Testament is archaic, redundant, and no longer applies. But the Old Testament law is a beautiful and accurate picture of what Jesus would do when He came to earth--and every element is significant.
• "Does it matter what imagery we get? We're still obeying the command." Think of baptism--an issue many Christians are very willing to take sides on. Sprinkling does not accurately picture the death of the sinful man inside us and our rebirth at salvation. Immersion does. In the same way rolls and crackers do not represent the broken, sinless, beaten body of Christ like matzo does. Yet people see Immersion as important and matzo as insignificant.
• "We use Grape Juice instead of Wine. Is this as important?" No. Grape Juice and Wine both represent the blood of Christ, because both are red. In the same way baptism does not need to be in a river, as long as it involves immersion. The important thing is what image you get.

Is this a vital doctrinal issue? No. We don't have to use matzo to obey Christ's command. But Christians should not desire only to do what we have to do. We are no longer under the law, so we need not hold Passover seders or use matzo for communion. But we should want to. Old Testament Jews had the rare gift of understanding Jesus before He even came. Jewish law gives a fantastic picture of salvation--an experience that Gentile Christians could share, but we choose not to. Some Christians even condemn Messianic Jews because they believe the Old Testament law is completely dead. But the law is still alive and real--and a wonderful way to understand God. The more we can understand this law in our vastly different culture, the better. The law pointed us to God in the first place, and deeper study of the law will bring us ever closer to Him.

Pet Peeves--On Ice!

The obligatory on-ice version! Well, not really, but still--here's some water-related peeves.

Misconceptions about the meaning of H2O...

• False intellectuals claiming that H2O is one molecule of "H" and two of "O". Learn chemical notation! Water has two atoms (not molecules--the H2O itself is a molecule) of Hydrogen and only one of Oxygen.
• Companies with products (yes, more complaining about consumer products) such as K2O and Fruit2O. 2O does not mean "water". And K2O (Special K's "Protein Water"--does it taste like meat?) in true chemical notation, is Potassium Oxide. I did some research and discovered some interesting things about true K2O. (yeah, I know) I knew both Potassium and Oxygen were highly flamable, but I didn't know... "Potassium oxide is a very basic oxide and reacts with water violently to produce the caustic potassium hydrozide. It is deliquescent in air and will absorb water from the atmosphere, initiating this vigorous reaction. It is therefore both toxic and corrosive to human tissue." (Wikipedia) Basically, it draws water from the air and reacts with it, turning it into a violent, harmful acid. Not my idea of a health drink.
• When people don't drink enough water. I drink water every chance I get and am still often thirsty. I can't imagine drinking less than my eight glasses a day. Yet some people drink nothing but soda, Gatorade, and the like. They even admit it, saying they "don't like the taste of water." How can you not like water? It has no taste! (ideally) And 99% of what they drink is water-based. Not to mention the fact that they are themselves water-based. Water is foundational to life. Drink it.
• Not water-related, but similar to the above--When people don't drink milk. Milk is a crucial nutrient. Infants need it to live. Adults need it to stay healthy. Teenagers, drink your milk. And Richie, eat your crust.

More peeves coming before you can say "Jack Ro--

Why don't they teach Logic in these schools?

So often Christians see themselves as creatures of emotion. They talk about belief in your heart, praising God from the heart, et cetera. And while the heart often refers to other things besides emotion when used in the Bible, it is clearly the intent of these Christians to speak of the emotions. But what does the Bible say about the heart, as referring to emotions? Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?"
Too many people think that if they just follow their heart, everything will be okay. But the heart lies to us frequently. Emotions are unsteady, and while they have many applications (mostly in the areas of empathy and thoughtfulness) they should not be used to make judgments of fact.

The Difference between Science and Logic
When one thinks of Logic, what does he consider? Usually we think of a cold, unfeeling person like Tuvok from Star Trek: Voyager (most people would think of Spock, but as I will say later, Spock is a more accurate representation of logic) Tuvok rattled off facts like a computer, and would consider nothing unless it was proven by science. But science and logic are two different things. Science is observable, repeatable fact. If anything cannot be proven by experiment, it is not scientific. Yet it may be logical. Logic takes facts into account and derives a conclusion based on that fact. But not all facts are scientific. Origin theories (Creation or Evolution) cannot be proven by science. We cannot experiment on or repeat these. But Creation can be proven by logic, as seen in Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator.
Emotions themselves play into logic. Many logical people are slightly absent-minded and not very perceptive of emotions. But this does not mean that logic excludes emotion. Emotion is a fact that must be part of any equation. When deciding what to have for dinner, it is important to take into account what you would like to eat.
But there is a difference between the fact of the emotion, and the conclusion of the emotion. For example, if my companion thinks a man cannot be trusted, I must consider in any decision the fact that my companion does not trust the man. It is a fact that my companion does not trust him. However, it is not a fact that he is not to be trusted. Thus logic can work with emotions if applied properly.
Spock was a good example of this. Though Star Trek: The Original Series was in many ways very poorly made, the character of Spock was portrayed better than any other Vulcan on any other series. Other Vulcans were harsh and judgmental, and very critical of emotions. Spock trusted in steady logic over variable emotions, but he accepted that his crewmates had emotions and took these into consideration, always acting cordially and using pleasantries of speech that he would not need around other Vulcans.

The Difference between Emotion and Attitude
If the heart is deceitful above all things, why does the Bible emphasize Love so strongly? Because love is not an emotion. It is an attitude. Attitudes are choices, while emotions are involuntary. Emotions vary constantly, while with discipline, Attitudes can be controlled. Love is an attitude, affection is an emotion. We can't choose whether we like someone, but we can choose whether we love them. Happiness is an emotion, dependant on circumstances. Joy is an attitude, dependent on whether we choose to be joyful.

The Mind and the Heart in 1 Corinthians 14
People often use 1 Corinthians 13 to talk about how important true love is. And this is a proper application. But the context shows new depth to the application. The preceding chapter discusses spiritual gifts, and chapter 13 is used to point out that some gifts we often think are superior (like tongues) are nothing compared to love. Chapter 14 explains why, and the answer might surprise you.
The chapter begins by saying that prophecy (giving God's message to man) is better than speaking in tongues. Prophecy benefits all who hear you, while speaking in tongues only improves your own experience, unless there is an interpreter. Verse 14 says "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." I could go on for paragraphs about what this chapter says about speaking in tongues, but let me get back to my main point. The chapter says that if you pray with your spirit only, you are the only one who benefits. But if you pray with your mind, those who pray with you benefit, and can "say the Amen," since he understands what you are saying and agrees. If we pray in a completely emotional manner, we are the only ones who gain anything from it. After all, emotions are variable, and two people rarely share the same emotion at the same time. So when you pray filled with some various emotion, the other people praying with you, who do not share this emotion, get nothing from the prayer. But if you pray with your mind, you all will be edified, for you are speaking in logical truths that are universal to everyone praying.

The conclusion? Church and especially prayer, is a time to stimulate your mind, not only to satisfy your emotion. Christian virtues are to be attitudes, not emotions. And logic is a universal concept that even the emotional can grasp if they make an effort. Christianity is a logical religion, and Christians should strive to have logical minds.

Pet Peeves--Back with Sweet Vengeance!

Revenge, is, as they say, best served cold, and my peeves have quite a few dishes to serve up.

• When people say "Pop" when they clearly intended to say "Soda".
• When people pronouce "orange" (o as in saw) as "orange" (o as in more)
• Similarly, when people mispronounce forest in the same way.
• Whenever people say "whenever" whenever they really mean "when." (Whenever I was six, I used to...)
• When people say they were "up to" somewhere instead of "up at". (Well, I was up to the gas station...)
• Of course, saying "infer" when one means "imply".

Stay tuned for the up-and-coming sequels, coming with all the timeliness of The 10th Kimgdom's sequel and the Prince Caspian movie!

Bring Back Geography!

Bring Back Geography is a fascinating article I read recently in ArcNews, a periodical focused on Geospatial Technology. Geospatial Tech. often deals with GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and GPS. But the focus here is on geography. If you have any interest at all in geography or even education itself, I encourage you to read it. But here I will summarize what impacted me.


Geography is to space what history is to time.


So often people think of geography and they think of the names of countless insignificant countries--and remebering the difference between the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. But place-name geography is only the "tip of the iceberg" with geography. It includes many other fields most people don't even consider. Saying geography is about "where things are" is like saying history is just about "when things happened" and not the study of these events. Geography studies culture, spatial analysis, information technology--in the words of J. Illick quoted in the article, it is "why people do what they do where they do it".



Many schools do not teach geography anymore.



Another misconception about geography is that it is only an elementary school subject. They do not understand the vast amount of careers in this field. Colleges even eliminate geography from study--when it is included it is given a new name like "area studies". This is completely due to ignorance--the universities think geography is only about remembering where the Yangtze River is and ignore it place in cultural and spatial studies. But this removal is not limited to higher education. Most schools either do not teach geography or include it in "social studies" that eliminates spatial thinking. Even place-name geography is ignored--how often have you heard children (or even adults) call Hawaii and Africa countries? How many children (or adults) do you know that could point to Romania on a map? Or even India or Russia? This lack of study is responsible for the gross isolation of Americans from other cultures. There are so many Americans who don't know or care that Tigers do not live in Africa and that China has a distinct culture from Japan. They don't know that there are many types of English accents or that Brazil is not a Spanish nation. There's little wonder world opinion of America is so low--we don't know anything about other people and cultures and we don't care.



Geography is pointedly ignored.



With the recent surge in the use of the Global Positioning System, especially to make interactive, multi-layered maps (the primay application of GIS), Geospatial Technology is "in". Yet many refuse to call it what it is--an application of Geography. Harvard specifically stated they would teach GIS but not geography. They did not realize their mistake--without Geography as a field in which GIS can work, GIS will be reduced to an application used by other fields--not an industry of its own. What institution would dare remove history from its classes? And where would its applications, like anthropology, fit? Yet this is happening with geography--it is not recognized as a field, and its applications, like GIS and GPS, will have no place once their fad is over.

The conclusion? Geographers must fight for this field--increasing world awareness that it is not just a physical science and bringing it back to the schools.

The Power of God--No, Really

When we think about the Power of God, we all have to admit we tend to understate it. To be truthful, our minds are too finite to do anything but understate it. But do we really attempt to fathom just how great God is?
I've been taking a Creation Science class this year, and it has really impressed me with how Great God Is. Just the fact that He Is (in Hebrew, YHWH) is too great for us to understand, because our existence is just a shadow of true Being. Before we were born, before time even was created, He IS. Not was, IS. When we die, and after time is no more, He IS. In the far reaches of the universe, and beyond the limits of space, and in the tiniest molecule, and in our hearts, He IS.
In my Creation Science class I learned that a single pinhead sized amount of the plasma from the center of our sun, if put on earth, would destroy everything within a hundred miles. The sun is but a tiny star in a tiny system, in a galaxy among countless others, in a universe that God created with His voice alone! If our entire universe, and the perfection of our own personal creation, and the complexity of the human soul, and the mystery of Christ coming to earth and dying for our sins--the greatest thing we can ever know--was all part of a single plan that God created with His voice, what else has He done? Can we fathom it? People often wonder if God has created alien life for His own pleasure, even if we never meet them. But I ask you this--what if God has created something even greater than life as we know it, something completely different from space and time? This is all completely theoretical, obviously, but the point is this--we have no idea how much God has done. We can never know--maybe even when we get to heaven--the full extent of His greatness.
The application? We are small people in a little world, around a dwarf star in an insignificant galaxy, all created by a God who did not even strain a muscle doing it. How Great and Incomprehensible His love that He puts up with us! And how dare we defy this God? How dare we do anything but love Him, and serve Him entirely?

Pet Peeves (first installment)

Yes, some things just bother me. Many things that polite society considers acceptable. Many things that I must endure, because I cannot change them. But perhaps, by voicing these concerns, I can throw back the proverbial starfish, and maybe--just maybe--be a part of the solution to these problems.

The first of my peeves is this--products, especially beverages, that announce something to the effect of: "New Look, Same Great Taste". Obviously it has a new look. That is quite apparent. If it had a different taste, it would say so. Undoubtedly the title would change, or be added to. We can figure out for ourselves whether or not it tastes the same--especially since the name of the new taste (i.e. the words "Code Red" on Mountain Dew) is much larger than the words declaring "New Look, Same Great Taste."
Furthermore, a new design is in itself a marketing ploy. Do not market your marketing ploy. This is akin to television advertisements informing you of an online ad. (and yes, these exist)
Finally, the addition of the words, "New Look, Same Great Taste" is part of the design. Part of the design advertising the design itself creates a paradox. When you remove these words, as the design becomes no longer new, the product, now free from these unnecessary words, has a new design. Will the company then re-add the words? Or will it just choose to change designs again? As long as the design has a similar color scheme (as new designs should, if the company wants loyal customers to be able to find it) one can tell it is the same product. Please, just keep the words off.

More peeves coming soon.

Wild Cherry Pepsi

I feel the need to include in this blog a few short words about Wild Cherry Pepsi. Wild Cherry Pepsi is one of the world's most under appreciated beverages. Many do not even know of its existence, or think of it simply as another cherry variant on a cola product. Some are so audacious as to refer to it as "Cherry Cola" or even "Cherry Coke". I will not discuss Pepsi's universal superiority to Coca-Cola in this post, but even if Coke were worthy to be compared with Pepsi, Cherry Coke would still pale in comparison to Wild Cherry Pepsi. The proportion which with Wild Cherry Pepsi improves on its root, Pepsi, is far greater than that of Cherry Coke, Pepsi Blue, or any of the myriad Mountain Dew variants. Wild Cherry Pepsi is so different, so much greater, than its root, that it becomes a drink of its own, one which is rarely seen. Few vending machines boast this great flavor, though they often contain at least two different Mountain Dew types. But when I walk up to a drink machine or look into a filled cooler, I always hold on to the hope that I will see that telltale band of red around the top, ready, no matter what the time of day or the condition of my stomach, to snatch up the can before it is taken, and partake in this glorious nectar of kings.

Mario Brothers--of the Super variety

Observe now the image I have chosen for my desktop wallpaper. A simple image, representing simple game. Yet this image captures the essence of, perhaps, the most famous video game of all time. One almost pities Mario forever frozen in midair, with what may be the final steps before reaching the first castle and coming that much closer to his goal.

Jumping, of course, is a key move in the game--Mario cannot go far without it. This image shows a pose Mario takes often--he is usually in the air longer than on the ground. The Goombas marching angrily back and forth portray the friendly hazards along the way, and the warp pipe shows a classic means of skipping over levels. We can never know what hides behind that Surprise Box...a growth mushroom? A Coin? Maybe even a beanstalk!

But to the heart of my discussion. One immortal question has long plagued my mind--just what genre does Mushroom Kingdom fal under? Other games are obvious in this respect--Metroid is Science Fiction, Zelda is fantasy. The original Platform Mario brothers, or the game Donkey Kong, boasting Mario's first appearance, were too short to require a "genre", but Super Mario brothers had an elaborate, if unusual, world to play in.

The presence of princesses, castles, and even a "dragon" (if Boswer can be called one) would imply a fantasy, and evil mushrooms and turtles could fit this mold. Yet one finds it hard to justify the existense of plumbers in this place. Bullets, bombs, and elevators would almost qualify the game as modern day or science fiction.

Various sequels to this game take different approaches. Super Mario Brothers 2 and 3 take a fairy-tale-like view of Mushroom Kingdom, with random, strange creatures abundant. Various Mario RPGs take a strong stance either on fantasy or science fiction, or a strange cross between the to. Luigi's Mansion even takes an almost suspenseful or horror theme, with ghosts being the main enemies. The Super Mario Brothers film is not mentionable in polite society.

So what conclusions can we draw? As always, the end decision is this--Mario lives in a world of his own--one that has never been matched by any other game, nor will it ever be. As has been the rule since 1981, when Mario first appeared in the arcades in Donkey Kong, we do not ask questions. We just...play...the game...

My Testimony

This blog is about me, and so I am obligated to tell about the one thing on which my entire life must center--my faith. My faith is not merely an identifying characteristic about me, like my race or hair color. It isn't something I inherited from my parents, or belong to because of where I'm from. It isn't a faith that only exists on Sundays or when I go to church. My faith is every bit of who I am-because without the Object of my faith, I would be nothing.

There are many different branches of Protestant Christianity, but many of the differences are over minor issues. I am not part of any denomination, because I believe that the church should not be divided over unimportant things.

However, there are some aspects of my faith that are uncompromiseable. This is not a very popular idea in today's world, but if I back down on one issue I know is right, my faith is meaningless. I believe what I know to be true, and will not lie in order to be tolerant or politically correct.

Here are the things that I cannot waver on.

God is loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, has existed since the beginning of time, and is a single entity (not nature, or the minds of men). He created the world in six days, and continues to work in the world. He is completely holy and cannot abide in the presence of evil. Yet he loves all men and desires to make them holy so they can experience His presence.

All men hav sinned. Sin is not just acting unnaturally evil. Sin is doing anything contrary to the will of God. This includes doing something seemingly good for the wrong reason, and even includes thoughts not pleasing to God.

Our sin has separated us from God. God cannot allow sin into heaven, because then He would have to leave. The only place where God is not present is Hell, so a sinner must go to Hell rather than God's presence. The only way a man can go to heaven is to live a life free of sin, which is impossible for humans, because of our sin nature.

Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. He has always existed, yet at an actual point in history He came to earth as a human, born of a virgin woman named Mary. Mary was a human who was chosen to be blessed with His birth, not because she was worthy, but because God is gracious.

Jesus lived among men, was accused or heresy for claiming to be God, and was killed by crucifixion. Because He had led a perfect life and committed no sin worthy of death, His death paid the penalty all sinners must pay. Any man who accepts Jesus' payment for his sin will have this sin removed and his debt cancelled. When he dies, he will go to heaven. Nothing else is required, though the Christian is encouraged to serve God in order to bring others to Christ and for rewards in heaven.

Three days after being crucified, Jesus rose from the dead. His life, death, and resurrection were real events in history and have been recorded as such. After appearing to men Jesus ascended into heaven, where He is now preparing a place for all who have accepted Him.

God is three Persons in One--A Trinity of character that we can never fully understand. The third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, who comes into our hearts when we accept Jesus and enables us to live for God.

Finally, God's Word has been faihfully preserved in the Bible. Men who were eyewitnesses of its events were inspired by the Holy Spirit, meaning everything they wrote is true and applicable to all periods of time. The Bible takes authority over all else--including the church or any church leader. If anyone contradicts or adds to the Bible in what he says, the Bible must take precedence.

This testimony turned out longer than I expected, and not every detail is necessary for one to have true belief. But here is the heart of the matter--Jesus is the Son of God and has paid for our sins with death--we need only to accept this gift to inherit eternal life. There is no other way to heaven, but God will accept all who come this way.

Okay, so I got a blog...

Let's face it. I'm far too White&Nerdy(tm) to not have a blog yet. Plus, I'm in College now! I'm an Intellectual! I must share my learnedness with the world. We'll see where this goes. If ever you see a completely nonsensical post, ignore it. I probably wrote it one minute before lights out in the mad scramble to jump into bed. (Those Resident Assistants can be pretty strict about rules...)

Feel free to post comments, postive or...otherwise.

The adventure begins...