emo picture of conversion process

This second picture is mirroring Gods romance of us fallen humans. We're running complacently off towards a cliff. God runs and tackles us to save us. What is the sequence of emotions? They happen very fast in the case of a cliff, but in real life with big issues like salvation, they come a lot slower.

First: shock, pain, blown bubble

Second: confusion, annoyance,

Third: hate, disgust,

Fourth: realization, conversion,

Fifth: huge thanks

In the real world, what lasts the longest? The first four stages pass by like a flash, but the fifth lasts a long time as you give the person a big hug, etc. So what lasts the longest in real life? JOY!!!!

emo picture of personal pain

So, I had this little emotional movie in my mind. First you see an individual with sorrow and pain running like water through all the pores in their body, just worn down by life. Then you zoom out to a busy train station or something, with tons of people walking slow-mo about their daily lives.

Guys and gals, whatever you're struggling with, chances are a bunch of other people are too. Talk about it, even if it takes guts. Just commit suicide (figuratively) by telling somebody, and see what happens. I just did this with my father about some I like. It helps a lot, especially if you have an awesome father like I do.

BIG THEORY trinity and TSM

Okay, this theory connects many things:

1 dimensions (TSM and string theory stuff)

2 the trinity (a great mystery)

3 JC is man and God (like particle-wave duality!)

4 "All things are spiritual" by Rob Bell (I'll mention it later)

5 spiritual realms as they relate the dimensions

There are human dimensions: time, space, material etc. In the same way, there could be spiritual dimensions that exist roughly parallel to ours. This is where angels dwell. I don't know how easy it is for them to reach us, who knows? Anyway, that's the idea: two sets of dimensions, one physical, the other spiritual.

The best part of this is, God's outside of even the spiritual dimensions. He's amazing, ok! Don't restrict him to any dimension!

Ok, but here's the real part of the theory. God, the big father outside of dimensions, manifests himself in various dimensions. In the spiritual realm, he is called the Holy Spirit (HS). In the physical realm, he's called Jesus Christ, JC.

I liken this to an example which Rob Bell used. I'm going to modify it. We're in a physical two dimension world, and there's another two dimensional spiritual world which is at right angles to ours. Can you imagine this? Two planes at a right angle, like the two sides of an open book sitting on a table.

God is this more-dimensional (3 dimensional) thing. Say he's a cylinder. He's floating in the air in front of the book. If he enters our physical plane from the side of the cylinder, we call him a rectangle. If he enters the spiritual realm from the end, we call him a circle. Ok? This is JC and HS respectively. A three-dimensional God seen from two different two-dimensional realms. God the cylinder does not rotate because those square and circle aspects of him are him from physical and spiritual angles. His spiritual viewpoint will always be the same. His length and width and other things don't change, they don't rotate.

Feel free to comment if this is confusing and I'll write more.

So HS and JC are really God, we just can't see God all at once because we only have two-dimensional vision. ha!

JC, by the way, had the holy spirit in him (the dove), so he's kind of special. God from two sides at once. Hm...

Depending on how you view God the father, there could be a third plane, (say the table on which the book is sitting) which is some other set of dimensions, (don't ask me what - maybe the logical justice dimensions) and God from that view we call God the father.

Also note that God probably has many more dimensions, many more faces, many more 'names'. HAHAHAHAHA! (I thought of this as I'm writing it). You know God has many, many names, and he boasts about have like 7 thousand names or something? Each name could be another dimension!!!!! JC, HS and God the father are only three of them!

It is impossible to express how much joy this gives me right now! Whoever said that logic was cold and unemotional!!!!

OK, I'll shut up for now. But definitely expect more about this later.

ontological argument for God

this is an idea I had about 5 months ago during a philosophy class.

The ontological argument for the existence of God was presented this way:

The idea of God is bigger than anything that could ever exist. Because reality is bigger than a mere idea, and the idea of God has to be as big as possible, the idea of God is not merely an idea, it necessitates existing in reality.

Most people rejected this. It doesn't make much sense to me either this way.

But here's a different form:

We have this concept of God which includes infinity. We had to get this concept from somewhere. We can't make up things on our own (that's the part people deny). So, it had to come from somewhere, right? That means something in our universe is infinite: God. It's kind of like that 'God shaped hole on our hearts' idea.

Now, a defense of two things: 1 we can't make stuff up, and 2 infinity is not found in the universe.

1 Making stuff up: someone from that class said to me "I can make something up, it's called a hortwibbler." Hmm... 'hort' is a prefix relating to gardening 'horticulture'. 'wibble' is a lot like wobble or wiggle, which are related words anyway, we get the idea from 'wibble', we make up words like 'guesstimate' all the time. The final part 'er' is a common English suffix denoting an agent-actor-catalyst-doer (see, I just made up another word).

If I really wanted to be nit picky, I could point out that his word can be pronounced by English speakers, is written in the English language, can be communicated visually, etc. Not very original.

Anyway, the conclusion is, we can't make anything up.

2 infinity in the universe: the same guy said "I can imagine a soup bowl that never gets empty, or a never ending row of soup bowls." but just recently, a Calculus book spelled it out pretty well (this is a direct quote) "Infinity [bolding not added] is not a number. It is the word used to designate a quantity that increases without bound." A never ending row of soup bowls onlynever ends, it isn't infinite, as in: all of the bowls are there at once and you can see them all at once, they're all collected into one group, one person, God (except God is a lot more than soup bowls).

Saxon Calculus: with trigonometry and analytic geometry" written by John H. Saxon Jr. and Frank Y. H. Wang

noun associative word bubbles

You may have seen me use this in the most previous post: a small array of related nous. The idea is that the hearer averages the meaning of all the nouns and gets a clearer idea of what I'm trying to say. We us this in everyday talk: "go get the metal-club-wrench-thingie". I bet we can also use this in academia to more accurately pinpoint a certain concept, especially if it is a concept that is relatively novel.

Note the title of this entry.

TSM::GLD::will/mind/body

Okay, refresher on TSM. Three dimensions: time, space, and material. Many physical things in the world can be described by the of time/space/material. In terms of information I call these three sections: goal-wisdom, logic, and data. If I don't want to be specific to either physical things or information things, I label these change, orientation, and stuff (yeah, real technical).

change orientation stuff/input

time space material physical/real

goal/wisdom logic data mental/information

soul/will brain body human

So (I must give credit to Katie for triggering this), another set of three fits into this : the three parts of a human. Will-soul-decision-heart-self/mind-brain-cognition-reason-science-theory/body-physical.

However, I must tell you this is not very close to what katie proposed. She put the brain and the emotions together as two informational inputs to the will-soul, which made the decisions.

Perhaps this is correct. I may be wrong because I am somewhat weird. I really don't obey my emotions...ever. So that part kind of drops out for me.

Even so, if I added emotion, it would be as input, grouping it with body (which is kind of interesting), but that would force emotion to pass through the brain before it gets to the decision-maker. Ha! Take that! The brain is still the victor! (this is regarding emo/dat)

act like you feel (most of the time)

Okay, this theory is based primarily off of a problem that I have (but is being fixed).

Oftentimes when I'm around women, (let's take an example of walking through the store) I have this dilemma between leading (based on theology), and letting her lead, because this is her strength area.

The thing I missed might be the difference between me and Jesus Christ (JC). He's so amazing, he can lead all the time. But leading means doing the best thing for the project in question. And, of course, the women should lead the way through the store. Duh! JC could lead, he knows where the shoe department is better than even women. But I'm just human.

This principle applies to many other situations, in which you can refer to practicality instead of theory.

Imagine that! Theory isn't always the best! (except that you'll be using a theory in order to ignore theory)

people same/different from you

I have this hankering that people react roughly the same to low-priority issues. If we remember this, we can predict peoples reactions to things by thinking about how we would react. Now, high priority issues are a different matter. Not only do people think longer about physical attacks, references to religion, marriage proposals, etc, but when they think, they bring in their beliefs, which differ across people.

This is a very low-intensity idea (hence, a hankering). You'd be surprised how easily high-level values drip down into every little motion we humans make. This may the be explanation for sixth sense phenomenon. It's a good thing too, because through this, people can also see Jesus Christ (by the way, I often refer to him as JC, and to the Holy Spirit as HS) in us.

nice memory conversations about theological stuff

I bet all of us have chatted with friends about movies we've seen recently or remember from a long time ago, "remember when that one guy jump over...", "and he said that really funny thing...".

Why can't we have conversations like that about theology? One person would be like "you know the way we totally don't deserve salvation" and another "I love the part about Gods sovereign election, it makes me feel so secure"

I mean, come on! Wouldn't that be amazing!