Outline:
1) Summary of the story, problem, and solution contained within Buddhism.
2) How trusting in God solves the same problem.
3) Advantages to Gods way.
Buddhism was created in response to a problem. I don't think even the Buddhists (particularly the Mahayana Buddhists) would disagree with this. The problem was pain and suffering. Buddha, raised and cloistered in a palace, saw four terrible things when he ventured out. Povery, sickness, age, and death I think.
He then spend a lot of time thinking, and came up with this (paraphrased) solution: Suffering is caused by desire. Eliminate suffering by eliminating desire.
Suffering, they (rightly, I think) say is different from pain. If you break your leg, that's pain. If you feel miserable now because you can't behave like a normal person, that's suffering. You suffer because you want something: to be like a normal person.
The Buddhist general solution is to desire nothing. You meditate and clear your mind of all thinking, and all desire. Their biggest symbol is the great empty circle. The world, in truth, is nothing. Rid yourself of all the delusions of chasing after the world. If you don't care about the world, you won't suffer.
I agree.
2) Reminder: the problem to be solved is of povery, sickness, age, death, pain, etc and how to not suffer from the inevitable. Gods solution for us, unlike Buddhism, is not to say that those things don't matter, but to say things like:
"I am stronger, trust in me." (Psalms 62:11-12)
"In the end I will make it all pass away, and I will give you unending joy." ("I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." Romans 8:18)
"I am all you need. These afflictions, these things taken away from you are only my gifts. Cling to me, not my gifts."
See, having God at the center of our lives (a good, loving God) lets us be, in a way, independent of our worldly afflictions. Your legs may get broken, but nothing limits God (Luke 1:37), so he can use you to accomplish greater works than even normal people if he wants. (1 Cor 1:27). If you have chronic pain, persevere, for this lifetime is but a breath, and the rewards for perseverance are infinite. (Revelation: many of the letters to the Churches end in "To him who overcomes, I will give... things like authority over nations, or freedom to eat from the tree of life, or...)
Buddhism escapes suffering by not caring, God saves us from suffering by being stronger than all of it.
3) Let us consider the advantages two possible truths of Christ/God and Buddhism. (I do this often but don't explicity say so.) Simple functional advantages lie with God, or rather, do NOT lie in Buddhism. See, if I don't care whether or not I am in pain (Buddhism), I will do nothing to stop it. To normal people, this is silly.
I need to say: Other religions and Buddhism especially do plently of work to alleviate pain and suffering. Buddhists are well known for this. This behavior, however, does not seem to follow from their beliefs. (I discussed this with a Mahayana Buddhist monk/teacher person). However, I generally deal with what people believe, not what they do, because that is the area where I am gifted.
With God in the picture as Lord, I am able to recognize and deal with pain and suffering without letting it plunge me into desperation. I know that God WILL eventually wipe away all pain and I am having fun joining him in the endeavor.
30 June 2011
28 June 2011
the concept of art
This is a developing concept, only in its beginning stages. But it is on the level of 'epic' and 'gift'.
First of all, art has many meanings. I admit I set out to give the definitions of art that I would not be condiering, but ended up with a progression from simple to a more full definition, the end of which I am concerned with.
a) A representation of reality. Most early paintings simply described what they saw.
b) This may be expanded to include the realities that are less seen, such as broad human concepts like war. This is more the realm of modern art.
c) a or b may be a declaration or statement of the way thing are in order to get people to change their behavior to align with reality.
d) A representation of the way things ought to be, which is suppose is still a representation of reality. For something innate in reality determines the way things ought to be. In fact, c is a call to align the world with its intended pattern.
e) A pursuit and perfection of the ways things ought to be. Such as an athletic art (this is an uncommon definition), which seeks perfection in the intended/perfect condition of the human body.
d) A manifestation or expansion of reality, a dive into some strain of the many facets of reality. This is creativity. Note that the first phrose makes it creative, but the second restricts it somewhat. You can create a new/creative looking table, for instance, but if it falls apart in a week then it is not really in line with reality, for it has mistakes in it. Does this make sense?
Anyway, this last thing is Gods primary activity, I think. In the beginning, God CREATED. This is also one of the primary ways we are made in his image.
I say 'one of the ways', because although the concept of art is strong, I'll bet it is usurped in importance by love, which is closely related.
Here, a ton of overlap: Creativity creates art, which reflects reality/is congruent and cohesive with reality/is beautiful. Love is the active form of giving, repairing/healing (although we won't need this in heaven), creating, and relfecting, adding to (put a flower in her hair), appreciating (my you look wonderful today), and partaking in (mutual love which includes sex obviously but has plenty of platonic manifestations as well) the beauty in another person, who is a work of art. Love comes from both God and man/woman to God (for we love God but God also loves himself), specific other men/women (in marriage, say), and to men/women in general (love your neighbor as yourself).
Note 1:God created us, created the universe, designed us in his image to create, continues to 'create' us by loving us and working out our kinks. We will continue to create full-speed in heaven with much more God-given creative power.
Note 2: I might give art/beauty to woman entirely, the strength and resources that make it possible to man, and creativity to them together. (manifestation: children and the general productivity/usefulness of married units)
First of all, art has many meanings. I admit I set out to give the definitions of art that I would not be condiering, but ended up with a progression from simple to a more full definition, the end of which I am concerned with.
a) A representation of reality. Most early paintings simply described what they saw.
b) This may be expanded to include the realities that are less seen, such as broad human concepts like war. This is more the realm of modern art.
c) a or b may be a declaration or statement of the way thing are in order to get people to change their behavior to align with reality.
d) A representation of the way things ought to be, which is suppose is still a representation of reality. For something innate in reality determines the way things ought to be. In fact, c is a call to align the world with its intended pattern.
e) A pursuit and perfection of the ways things ought to be. Such as an athletic art (this is an uncommon definition), which seeks perfection in the intended/perfect condition of the human body.
d) A manifestation or expansion of reality, a dive into some strain of the many facets of reality. This is creativity. Note that the first phrose makes it creative, but the second restricts it somewhat. You can create a new/creative looking table, for instance, but if it falls apart in a week then it is not really in line with reality, for it has mistakes in it. Does this make sense?
Anyway, this last thing is Gods primary activity, I think. In the beginning, God CREATED. This is also one of the primary ways we are made in his image.
I say 'one of the ways', because although the concept of art is strong, I'll bet it is usurped in importance by love, which is closely related.
Here, a ton of overlap: Creativity creates art, which reflects reality/is congruent and cohesive with reality/is beautiful. Love is the active form of giving, repairing/healing (although we won't need this in heaven), creating, and relfecting, adding to (put a flower in her hair), appreciating (my you look wonderful today), and partaking in (mutual love which includes sex obviously but has plenty of platonic manifestations as well) the beauty in another person, who is a work of art. Love comes from both God and man/woman to God (for we love God but God also loves himself), specific other men/women (in marriage, say), and to men/women in general (love your neighbor as yourself).
Note 1:God created us, created the universe, designed us in his image to create, continues to 'create' us by loving us and working out our kinks. We will continue to create full-speed in heaven with much more God-given creative power.
Note 2: I might give art/beauty to woman entirely, the strength and resources that make it possible to man, and creativity to them together. (manifestation: children and the general productivity/usefulness of married units)
26 June 2011
abortion
Here continues my political rants:
Abortion is morally wrong, no doubt about it. The question is whether or not is should be outlawed under common law.
First of all, it IS murder. If you take the undisputed legal definition of death: irreversible cessation of brain waves or vital functions, and reverse it: possible start of brain waves AND vital functions, then obviously a fetus is alive, because sometime in the future, after it's been born for a while, it alive, right? Dead is when they won't be alive again, so alive is when they CAN become alive.
Now, I suppose that gets a little funky if you consider than an egg can become alive if you give it a sperm, (and visa-versa) so is an egg alive? No, most people say. Ia agree. To reflect this, we shall restrict the ability to become alive later to normal stuff, like being fed and such. Any human, including a fetus, obviously won't be alive later if he/she doesn't get food and ought to be alive later if they DO get food. In the converse to special events happening to the egg, I guess a dead guy could be brought back to life is we pay a 'special' billion dollars to transplant his brain into a bunch of donated organs or something. So, even in the instance of an egg and freshly dead guy, the correlation between fetus and human holds true.
Second, the real issue (the one I am not certain about) is whether or not the fetus is the property of the mother (or father or both). See, the parents might 'own' the child like a piece of property - this might be an argument in favor of abortion. If I 'own' a million bucks, I can burn it and no one will send me to jail. At what point does a child get promoted from property to rights given to normal people under common law?
a) At some age number: NO. We can't arbitraily pick some number or position like birth or 18 to get rights. It needs to be based on something.
b) When the parent(s) release the child. This is, whenever they want to. This leaves the unfortunate option that they can NEVER release the child and hold a death threat over his/her head whenever they want. This doesn't make any sense.
c) At conception. God is the one who gives moral rights anyway. Parents wouldn't have ANY rights over their child or over themselves if God didn't give the right to them. Heck, they would even HAVE a kid if God didn't give it. I hold to conception. If you have a child, you must recognize that you are making a decision to create another human with rights that will depend on you.
Rape and threat of death to mother:
a) In the case of rape, I view it just like all other accidents. A drunk rams into you (car accident). They can't pay and you were dumb enough not to get car insunrance. You still have to pay, right? So the unfortunate mother still has to have the child. If worried girls want to 'buy insurace', they can carry pepper spray, learn karate, run fast, be street smart, go on the pill all the time...you have imaginations.
b) The birth risks the mothers life. Honestly, with todays medical practices, I doubt this would come up. If some crazy person can have 7 (or was it 8?), they can save a mother and child. However, I don't know much of the science behind giving birth and I think I already know more than I want to at this point. If it really is trouble, I'd treat it the same as insurance. Say the woman is married. You don't want to risk your life in birth? Then find some way not to have kids.
But right there in the moment, when two lives are at stake, I really don't have much to say. I would try to save both and hope for a miracle probably, or go for the child because parents would probably give their lives for their children anyway.
Abortion is morally wrong, no doubt about it. The question is whether or not is should be outlawed under common law.
First of all, it IS murder. If you take the undisputed legal definition of death: irreversible cessation of brain waves or vital functions, and reverse it: possible start of brain waves AND vital functions, then obviously a fetus is alive, because sometime in the future, after it's been born for a while, it alive, right? Dead is when they won't be alive again, so alive is when they CAN become alive.
Now, I suppose that gets a little funky if you consider than an egg can become alive if you give it a sperm, (and visa-versa) so is an egg alive? No, most people say. Ia agree. To reflect this, we shall restrict the ability to become alive later to normal stuff, like being fed and such. Any human, including a fetus, obviously won't be alive later if he/she doesn't get food and ought to be alive later if they DO get food. In the converse to special events happening to the egg, I guess a dead guy could be brought back to life is we pay a 'special' billion dollars to transplant his brain into a bunch of donated organs or something. So, even in the instance of an egg and freshly dead guy, the correlation between fetus and human holds true.
Second, the real issue (the one I am not certain about) is whether or not the fetus is the property of the mother (or father or both). See, the parents might 'own' the child like a piece of property - this might be an argument in favor of abortion. If I 'own' a million bucks, I can burn it and no one will send me to jail. At what point does a child get promoted from property to rights given to normal people under common law?
a) At some age number: NO. We can't arbitraily pick some number or position like birth or 18 to get rights. It needs to be based on something.
b) When the parent(s) release the child. This is, whenever they want to. This leaves the unfortunate option that they can NEVER release the child and hold a death threat over his/her head whenever they want. This doesn't make any sense.
c) At conception. God is the one who gives moral rights anyway. Parents wouldn't have ANY rights over their child or over themselves if God didn't give the right to them. Heck, they would even HAVE a kid if God didn't give it. I hold to conception. If you have a child, you must recognize that you are making a decision to create another human with rights that will depend on you.
Rape and threat of death to mother:
a) In the case of rape, I view it just like all other accidents. A drunk rams into you (car accident). They can't pay and you were dumb enough not to get car insunrance. You still have to pay, right? So the unfortunate mother still has to have the child. If worried girls want to 'buy insurace', they can carry pepper spray, learn karate, run fast, be street smart, go on the pill all the time...you have imaginations.
b) The birth risks the mothers life. Honestly, with todays medical practices, I doubt this would come up. If some crazy person can have 7 (or was it 8?), they can save a mother and child. However, I don't know much of the science behind giving birth and I think I already know more than I want to at this point. If it really is trouble, I'd treat it the same as insurance. Say the woman is married. You don't want to risk your life in birth? Then find some way not to have kids.
But right there in the moment, when two lives are at stake, I really don't have much to say. I would try to save both and hope for a miracle probably, or go for the child because parents would probably give their lives for their children anyway.
british common law
British common law is the law system that I suggest as a starting point for any country or region. Additional laws may be laid upon it, but these at least should be in place.
It can be summed up in two easy commands:
a) Don't hurt/steal
b) Don't lie/duck out on a contract
1) Further specification of laws: Don't hurt/steal means that you should not damage a person physically or do anything with their property of an kind. Eg: in the old times if you touched a woman in any way and she didn't approve, you could be fined three years wages. (wow!). Eg: in Switzerland if you walk onto someones land after dark they can shoot you dead, no questions. The line starts to blur with things like noise. For instance, can I call your phone 100 times a day? Can I build a reactor that emits harmful radiation across the fence from where your children are playing? I'll get to these problems later.
Oh yes, and fufill all your contracts. The line blurs again when you say to your friend "oh yeah, I can drive you to work tomorrow" and shaking hands on a deal to sell a couple thousand widgets.
2) Implications: homosexuality is ok, illegal immigration is not (unless we legalize it), driving while drunk is ok so long as you don't crash (this is true in some parts of Europe I think), abortion depends on whether or not your child is your property or has individual rights, drugs are fine, public slander and lies are ok although this might border on the issue with noise and such, etc etc.
3) Noise and slander: See, here's the problem. What's the difference between sound waves from your jackhammer passing into your neighbors airspace, and a bullet just passing across the yard into someone's skull? My mind thinks of two ways to combat this, both of which can be used at once:
a) Create a system of laws that determine the tolerance for objects and decibels passing between person, as well as laws that determine what kind of interactions/agreements are binding.
b) The media and public reputation are great motivations for people to keep to themselves. For instance, of shooting is still legal for some reason, if you shoot your neighbor, someone can publicize it, and maybe a humanitarian organization will build concrete walls around your house, or pay somebody to walk around behind you warning people that you're a murderer. Same with companies: don't follow through on a handshake deal and future deals will be much harder to make.
Ah, I love the internet!
It can be summed up in two easy commands:
a) Don't hurt/steal
b) Don't lie/duck out on a contract
1) Further specification of laws: Don't hurt/steal means that you should not damage a person physically or do anything with their property of an kind. Eg: in the old times if you touched a woman in any way and she didn't approve, you could be fined three years wages. (wow!). Eg: in Switzerland if you walk onto someones land after dark they can shoot you dead, no questions. The line starts to blur with things like noise. For instance, can I call your phone 100 times a day? Can I build a reactor that emits harmful radiation across the fence from where your children are playing? I'll get to these problems later.
Oh yes, and fufill all your contracts. The line blurs again when you say to your friend "oh yeah, I can drive you to work tomorrow" and shaking hands on a deal to sell a couple thousand widgets.
2) Implications: homosexuality is ok, illegal immigration is not (unless we legalize it), driving while drunk is ok so long as you don't crash (this is true in some parts of Europe I think), abortion depends on whether or not your child is your property or has individual rights, drugs are fine, public slander and lies are ok although this might border on the issue with noise and such, etc etc.
3) Noise and slander: See, here's the problem. What's the difference between sound waves from your jackhammer passing into your neighbors airspace, and a bullet just passing across the yard into someone's skull? My mind thinks of two ways to combat this, both of which can be used at once:
a) Create a system of laws that determine the tolerance for objects and decibels passing between person, as well as laws that determine what kind of interactions/agreements are binding.
b) The media and public reputation are great motivations for people to keep to themselves. For instance, of shooting is still legal for some reason, if you shoot your neighbor, someone can publicize it, and maybe a humanitarian organization will build concrete walls around your house, or pay somebody to walk around behind you warning people that you're a murderer. Same with companies: don't follow through on a handshake deal and future deals will be much harder to make.
Ah, I love the internet!
gay marriage
Someone just asked me what I thought of gay marriage. This is what I replied:
Politically, gay marriage would not be the first thing for me to deal with.
One the one hand, I think people should be allowed to do what they please as long as it's not hurting someone else or lying (British Common Law), even though I beleive that gay marriage, adultery, and other stuff is morally wrong, psychologically damaging, and practically stupid.
On the other hand, religion has given us even the most fundamental laws. We shouldn't kill eachother becase all people are made in Gods image, and we shouldn't destroy Gods image or his artwork. So I don't know if restricting laws to the simple 'don't hurt and don't lie' is legitimate.
This is what I would do. If deciding the laws of America, I would take away any laws that made mention of religious issues. (pro/anit gay marriage, national prayer day, changing the national anthem, giving tax benefits to churches, maybe even marriage)
However, I would strongly encourage areas that have high concentrations (say 80%)of people who beleive a certain moral thing beyond normal law to make it into law for that area. Different areas (like states and counties) will then become different. The differentiation of areas under different laws will, over time, give information as to whether or not those are laws that make an area more prosperous or not. So, in my belief, an area that allows gay marriage will get messed up faster than an area that outlaws it. Then people will see what is best and what isn't.
I call it 'free market laws' or something like that. States and counties, like companies, offer a certain product (the laws, the environment, the services) for a certain price (taxes and other inconveniences). The states compete for the best product, and through market forces find the best product, which I hope is ethical.
P.S. the same principle applies to countries.
Knowing sinful people, this might not happen, I guess. But at least this way one or two states, or even counties, can stand out as being super-religious, and these will be a haven for righteous people to flee to. Back in the days of expansion (1700s), you could just take your religious movement to the wide 'new world', now, most of it's occupied (unless you want to move the the desert/mountains/tundra), so we have to rely on other forms of migration.
Politically, gay marriage would not be the first thing for me to deal with.
One the one hand, I think people should be allowed to do what they please as long as it's not hurting someone else or lying (British Common Law), even though I beleive that gay marriage, adultery, and other stuff is morally wrong, psychologically damaging, and practically stupid.
On the other hand, religion has given us even the most fundamental laws. We shouldn't kill eachother becase all people are made in Gods image, and we shouldn't destroy Gods image or his artwork. So I don't know if restricting laws to the simple 'don't hurt and don't lie' is legitimate.
This is what I would do. If deciding the laws of America, I would take away any laws that made mention of religious issues. (pro/anit gay marriage, national prayer day, changing the national anthem, giving tax benefits to churches, maybe even marriage)
However, I would strongly encourage areas that have high concentrations (say 80%)of people who beleive a certain moral thing beyond normal law to make it into law for that area. Different areas (like states and counties) will then become different. The differentiation of areas under different laws will, over time, give information as to whether or not those are laws that make an area more prosperous or not. So, in my belief, an area that allows gay marriage will get messed up faster than an area that outlaws it. Then people will see what is best and what isn't.
I call it 'free market laws' or something like that. States and counties, like companies, offer a certain product (the laws, the environment, the services) for a certain price (taxes and other inconveniences). The states compete for the best product, and through market forces find the best product, which I hope is ethical.
P.S. the same principle applies to countries.
Knowing sinful people, this might not happen, I guess. But at least this way one or two states, or even counties, can stand out as being super-religious, and these will be a haven for righteous people to flee to. Back in the days of expansion (1700s), you could just take your religious movement to the wide 'new world', now, most of it's occupied (unless you want to move the the desert/mountains/tundra), so we have to rely on other forms of migration.
24 June 2011
the spiritual meaning of physical units
If you know of anyone else who could every concievably come up with such a whacko idea as the one following, please let me know so that I can hunt them down, meet them, and have a cosmic collision.
Sitting around bored in Physics class, I began to think about the relationship between units and how to bring them together into one interdependent conceptual model, and as an afterthought, what this meant about the fundamental makeup of the universe and our souls.
No joke.
Just listen if you want to, or go do something more normal.
So, here's some reasoning:
The resting state of things is mass in motion - mv - momentum(Newtons 1st Law). This should be our base. Force is the rate of change of the direction of motion.
Energy is normally thought of as force times distance, which I guess then is the progress of force, or the total change in direction. This is doubly seen by things like kinetic energy 1/2mv^2, which is the integral of momentum mv with respect to v. Potential energy is simply the amount that the velocity will change in the future.
Power, the most complex unit in our system (excepting the dimensions of charge and temperature - which I think ought to be energy anyway), is slightly more difficult.
I guess it's just the time-rate-of-change of the energy, which is the progress of change in velocity. In this way, power seems very close to force (interesting how the non-scientific words have meanings as well). However, it's not the same in units. Perhaps it ought to be more like the derivative of force, or the second derivative of momentum. It's not too clear.
However, let's stary applying it anyway. The fundamental state of human beings is mass in motion. We have goals and move towards them with a given velocity. Forces arund us tend to change our goals, forces = desires or other ideas of things to attain or methods by which to behave. Our path through life as our velocity is changed and refined to a more wise direction is then energy, or work. So it takes work to become mature. Power is then the rate at which we mature.
This may clarify the problem of power versus force. Force, the rate of change of speed, is only a force or tendency, not an actual movement. When multiplied by the actual variable we are attemptin to change, velocity, then it is the rate of change of actual progress.
In more concrete and laughable terms, let us provide a spiritual example. A person (mass), has a certain set of goals (velocity) set by a variety of desires, temptations, or healthy wants (forces). So Joe Christian (mass) reads the bible regularly (velocity) because God is cool (force). Over time (distance, actually) he learns more about God (work). BUT, as he learns more, God gets cooler (change in force) and so he reads more often (change in velocity) and learns faster (power).
The problem with this is that force in the physical universe continually affects velocity. So I would modify Joes life to say that only over short intervals of time does he see that God is awesome, and so each time he increases velocity. Energy is simply the summation of all these changes in direction, and power is the rate at which this progress grows. So power could be seen as the frequency at which he sees God.
Are you wierded out yet? Have you even made it this far? Well, good news, you're almost done.
Application (can that even exist in this post?)
All people are going somewhere. You can't be undecided, even with no forces around, if a person is already in motion, they will stay in motion down a good or bad path.
Second is a suggestion to increase your seeking after God so that you will see him more often and have more POWER! HAHAHA!
Sitting around bored in Physics class, I began to think about the relationship between units and how to bring them together into one interdependent conceptual model, and as an afterthought, what this meant about the fundamental makeup of the universe and our souls.
No joke.
Just listen if you want to, or go do something more normal.
So, here's some reasoning:
The resting state of things is mass in motion - mv - momentum(Newtons 1st Law). This should be our base. Force is the rate of change of the direction of motion.
Energy is normally thought of as force times distance, which I guess then is the progress of force, or the total change in direction. This is doubly seen by things like kinetic energy 1/2mv^2, which is the integral of momentum mv with respect to v. Potential energy is simply the amount that the velocity will change in the future.
Power, the most complex unit in our system (excepting the dimensions of charge and temperature - which I think ought to be energy anyway), is slightly more difficult.
I guess it's just the time-rate-of-change of the energy, which is the progress of change in velocity. In this way, power seems very close to force (interesting how the non-scientific words have meanings as well). However, it's not the same in units. Perhaps it ought to be more like the derivative of force, or the second derivative of momentum. It's not too clear.
However, let's stary applying it anyway. The fundamental state of human beings is mass in motion. We have goals and move towards them with a given velocity. Forces arund us tend to change our goals, forces = desires or other ideas of things to attain or methods by which to behave. Our path through life as our velocity is changed and refined to a more wise direction is then energy, or work. So it takes work to become mature. Power is then the rate at which we mature.
This may clarify the problem of power versus force. Force, the rate of change of speed, is only a force or tendency, not an actual movement. When multiplied by the actual variable we are attemptin to change, velocity, then it is the rate of change of actual progress.
In more concrete and laughable terms, let us provide a spiritual example. A person (mass), has a certain set of goals (velocity) set by a variety of desires, temptations, or healthy wants (forces). So Joe Christian (mass) reads the bible regularly (velocity) because God is cool (force). Over time (distance, actually) he learns more about God (work). BUT, as he learns more, God gets cooler (change in force) and so he reads more often (change in velocity) and learns faster (power).
The problem with this is that force in the physical universe continually affects velocity. So I would modify Joes life to say that only over short intervals of time does he see that God is awesome, and so each time he increases velocity. Energy is simply the summation of all these changes in direction, and power is the rate at which this progress grows. So power could be seen as the frequency at which he sees God.
Are you wierded out yet? Have you even made it this far? Well, good news, you're almost done.
Application (can that even exist in this post?)
All people are going somewhere. You can't be undecided, even with no forces around, if a person is already in motion, they will stay in motion down a good or bad path.
Second is a suggestion to increase your seeking after God so that you will see him more often and have more POWER! HAHAHA!
22 June 2011
Matthew genealogy and summary of Old Testament stories
In the beginning of Matthew there is a geneology tracing firsborn sons from Abraham through various OT figures down to Joseph, thus making Jesus the rightful king in the Davidic line (even though Joseph was not biologically Jesus's father).
The cool thing about this line is that it connects many different people, so I had to mention some of them.
1) Abraham born 2000 BC, married to Rebekah, was called from the land of Ur to go to Cannan with his nephew Lot. Abraham is the father of Jacob and Esau. Esau is the firstborn but sells that right Jacob for a pot of stew.
2) Jacob gets the blessing of firstborn but flees home and goes to work for Laban for 14 years to marry Rachel (and Leah). He gets a family of 12, the 12 sons the become the heads of the tribes of Israel.
3) Judah, one of the 12, helps his brothers sell Joseph, another brother, into slavery in Egypt where he has some adventures, and saves Egypt from starvation. Jacobs family (the 12) come to Egypt looking for food and Jospeh invites them to stay.
4-8) Five generations pass as the Jacobs family grows to the size of a nation and are enslaved in Egpyt for 400 years (1900-1450BC)
9) Salmon is the sixth generation after Judah and is married to Rahab, the prostitute who helped Israel take down Jerhico. Therefore, even though the genealogy does not mention the escape from Egypt, the Exodus, we can put about 5 generations for the growth of Israel to a nation (not six, because Moses>Joshua is one generation) and the liberation.
10) Get this! Right after Salmon and Rahab of Jehrico is their son Boaz! He becomes the husband of Ruth from the story. Ruth comes with her relative Naomi from the heathen land of Moab, and she ends up marrying Boaz. See how close in time those three stories occurred, Exodus, Jerhico, and Ruth? About three generations!
11)Obed is the son of Ruth and Boaz. Imagine the firshand accounts of Gods work that he would have heard at the dinner table or other places, passed down through the family! Obed is the father of Jesse
12) Jesse gets visited by Samuel who is looking for a king to annoint to replace Saul, who screwed up. Samuel picks David.
13) David, 1000 BC, is the son of Jesse, five generations away from the exodus, four from Jehrico, and three from Ruth! Ruth would be his great-grandmother. How revelant all these OT stories would be to him.
14) Solomon is the son of Daivd, which most people know if you ask them, but it doesn't always come to mind for me at least. David, the main writer of the Psalms and warrior king being chased around by king Saul, then his affair with Uriah's wife Bathesheba gives him Solomon, the writer (or compiler) of Proverbs and the ruler at the apex of Israels glory.
Now, something not mentioned in the geneaology. Have you ever wondered when and why Israel split? It's because of Solomons foreign wives. 1 Kings 11:9-13.
15) Rehoboam is Solomons son, who retains Judah, while Jeroboam is someone else, who takes Israel.
16-19) Abijah>Asa>Jehosphaphat>Jehoram>Uzziah>Jotham>Ahaz. The rest of the line is kings until the Babylonian exile. Jehoshaphat and Uzziah stand out more as better kings.
20) Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, was the king over Judah when the Assyria under Sennacherib conquered all of Israel and then kept going sound and surrounded Judah and Jerusalem. They sent some trash talk back and forth, with Hezekiah holding fast to Gods help, and then the angel of the lord kills off 185,000 Assyrians in one night. Ha! 185,000 is a big number by the way. It's about twice to three times the size of an average army from Napoleons era.
21-23) Manasseh>Amon>Josiah. Three farily good kings follow, at which point the next king is not a firstborn (thus we go on a tangent off the genealogy), and the bad king, Jehoahaz is replaced when Egypt conquers them and puts in the puppet Jehoiakim, who's son was Jehoiachin.
Next Babylon comes in and Jehoiachin surrenders in 586 BC. Babylon sets up Zedekiah, who rebells and gets re-conquered, at which point Judah and Israel are considered dissipated to Babylon and Egypt.
24-25) Jeconiah is the son of Josiah and father of Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel. During this time Cyrus the Great, the Persian, conquers Babylon in 539 BC and grants the people leave to go back and rebuild Jerusalem. They go back in three waves under three people: Sheshbazzar, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
26) Zerubbabel is mentioned in Zachariah (second to last book of the bible, we're almost done!)
27-34) 8 generations pass. Here's the history: The Persian kings move through Cyrus the Great>Cambyses II>Darius I>Exerxes>Ataerxes>Darius III. All of these kings were living at the time of the rebuilding, some opposing and some helping. After that Alexander the Great comes in and sweeps up all the pieces around 300 BC, only to be succeeded by the Romans in 100-0 BC.
35) Joseph
36) Jesus! 0 BC/AD
Whew! That turned into a MUCH longer post than I planned.
The cool thing about this line is that it connects many different people, so I had to mention some of them.
1) Abraham born 2000 BC, married to Rebekah, was called from the land of Ur to go to Cannan with his nephew Lot. Abraham is the father of Jacob and Esau. Esau is the firstborn but sells that right Jacob for a pot of stew.
2) Jacob gets the blessing of firstborn but flees home and goes to work for Laban for 14 years to marry Rachel (and Leah). He gets a family of 12, the 12 sons the become the heads of the tribes of Israel.
3) Judah, one of the 12, helps his brothers sell Joseph, another brother, into slavery in Egypt where he has some adventures, and saves Egypt from starvation. Jacobs family (the 12) come to Egypt looking for food and Jospeh invites them to stay.
4-8) Five generations pass as the Jacobs family grows to the size of a nation and are enslaved in Egpyt for 400 years (1900-1450BC)
9) Salmon is the sixth generation after Judah and is married to Rahab, the prostitute who helped Israel take down Jerhico. Therefore, even though the genealogy does not mention the escape from Egypt, the Exodus, we can put about 5 generations for the growth of Israel to a nation (not six, because Moses>Joshua is one generation) and the liberation.
10) Get this! Right after Salmon and Rahab of Jehrico is their son Boaz! He becomes the husband of Ruth from the story. Ruth comes with her relative Naomi from the heathen land of Moab, and she ends up marrying Boaz. See how close in time those three stories occurred, Exodus, Jerhico, and Ruth? About three generations!
11)Obed is the son of Ruth and Boaz. Imagine the firshand accounts of Gods work that he would have heard at the dinner table or other places, passed down through the family! Obed is the father of Jesse
12) Jesse gets visited by Samuel who is looking for a king to annoint to replace Saul, who screwed up. Samuel picks David.
13) David, 1000 BC, is the son of Jesse, five generations away from the exodus, four from Jehrico, and three from Ruth! Ruth would be his great-grandmother. How revelant all these OT stories would be to him.
14) Solomon is the son of Daivd, which most people know if you ask them, but it doesn't always come to mind for me at least. David, the main writer of the Psalms and warrior king being chased around by king Saul, then his affair with Uriah's wife Bathesheba gives him Solomon, the writer (or compiler) of Proverbs and the ruler at the apex of Israels glory.
Now, something not mentioned in the geneaology. Have you ever wondered when and why Israel split? It's because of Solomons foreign wives. 1 Kings 11:9-13.
15) Rehoboam is Solomons son, who retains Judah, while Jeroboam is someone else, who takes Israel.
16-19) Abijah>Asa>Jehosphaphat>Jehoram>Uzziah>Jotham>Ahaz. The rest of the line is kings until the Babylonian exile. Jehoshaphat and Uzziah stand out more as better kings.
20) Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, was the king over Judah when the Assyria under Sennacherib conquered all of Israel and then kept going sound and surrounded Judah and Jerusalem. They sent some trash talk back and forth, with Hezekiah holding fast to Gods help, and then the angel of the lord kills off 185,000 Assyrians in one night. Ha! 185,000 is a big number by the way. It's about twice to three times the size of an average army from Napoleons era.
21-23) Manasseh>Amon>Josiah. Three farily good kings follow, at which point the next king is not a firstborn (thus we go on a tangent off the genealogy), and the bad king, Jehoahaz is replaced when Egypt conquers them and puts in the puppet Jehoiakim, who's son was Jehoiachin.
Next Babylon comes in and Jehoiachin surrenders in 586 BC. Babylon sets up Zedekiah, who rebells and gets re-conquered, at which point Judah and Israel are considered dissipated to Babylon and Egypt.
24-25) Jeconiah is the son of Josiah and father of Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel. During this time Cyrus the Great, the Persian, conquers Babylon in 539 BC and grants the people leave to go back and rebuild Jerusalem. They go back in three waves under three people: Sheshbazzar, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
26) Zerubbabel is mentioned in Zachariah (second to last book of the bible, we're almost done!)
27-34) 8 generations pass. Here's the history: The Persian kings move through Cyrus the Great>Cambyses II>Darius I>Exerxes>Ataerxes>Darius III. All of these kings were living at the time of the rebuilding, some opposing and some helping. After that Alexander the Great comes in and sweeps up all the pieces around 300 BC, only to be succeeded by the Romans in 100-0 BC.
35) Joseph
36) Jesus! 0 BC/AD
Whew! That turned into a MUCH longer post than I planned.
20 June 2011
occam's razor
Occam's razor is a philisophical principle named after some dude named Orcam, which is a principle of simplicity. Basically, philosophers like explanations to be short and sweet.
This is another argument employed regarding the existence of God. We'd rather have no God (simpler) than a God (more complex).
Something just occured to me, and I beg to differ.
Se, without God, a system must still be put into place. Perhaps we need infinite time, space, and material dimensions (see my post 'TSM'), or maybe the big bang and evolution. More human-level things come into play as well. Ethics and morals that are based off of some idea of human sacredness without God. Goals like wealth, peace, and roughly equal situations for all people on earth. Etc. Etc.
Most of these things need to be suggested without having an origin. Why on earth should we help starving people in India? Shouldn't we allow survival of the fittest to do it's work? Or why is the universe infinite? I mean, it is, but why, what is the fundamental result of that so we can live our lives in accordance with it?
Starting with God, on the other hand, is a one-point origin for all things. If you don't want to try explaining all of his purposes, or if he leaves some of them impossible to understand, you can simply say "God made it that way" or "God just said he wants us to do that, idk why!"
Fortunately, though, you can see his purpose behind most things. God is awesome and full, but he wants to make more of himself and excercise his creativity, so he makes man and earth. All of our moral behavior simply recognizes the existence and work of God. Don't kill people because they're made in Gods image and God doesn't like people smashing his artwork. Feed the hungry because we are Gods hands and feet and God wants to show people that he cares for them. Etc. Etc.
Atheism requires many assumptions and individual constructions. With theism, once you have God you have the hanging point and origin for everything else. It just spills out onto the page.
P.S. If there are atheists or agnostics or whoever out there who can trace a full behavioral and factual system off of one atheistic assumption (or even a fact derived from science or something), I'd love to hear it. Not just for a challenge, but I love to hear hanging systems like that.
This is another argument employed regarding the existence of God. We'd rather have no God (simpler) than a God (more complex).
Something just occured to me, and I beg to differ.
Se, without God, a system must still be put into place. Perhaps we need infinite time, space, and material dimensions (see my post 'TSM'), or maybe the big bang and evolution. More human-level things come into play as well. Ethics and morals that are based off of some idea of human sacredness without God. Goals like wealth, peace, and roughly equal situations for all people on earth. Etc. Etc.
Most of these things need to be suggested without having an origin. Why on earth should we help starving people in India? Shouldn't we allow survival of the fittest to do it's work? Or why is the universe infinite? I mean, it is, but why, what is the fundamental result of that so we can live our lives in accordance with it?
Starting with God, on the other hand, is a one-point origin for all things. If you don't want to try explaining all of his purposes, or if he leaves some of them impossible to understand, you can simply say "God made it that way" or "God just said he wants us to do that, idk why!"
Fortunately, though, you can see his purpose behind most things. God is awesome and full, but he wants to make more of himself and excercise his creativity, so he makes man and earth. All of our moral behavior simply recognizes the existence and work of God. Don't kill people because they're made in Gods image and God doesn't like people smashing his artwork. Feed the hungry because we are Gods hands and feet and God wants to show people that he cares for them. Etc. Etc.
Atheism requires many assumptions and individual constructions. With theism, once you have God you have the hanging point and origin for everything else. It just spills out onto the page.
P.S. If there are atheists or agnostics or whoever out there who can trace a full behavioral and factual system off of one atheistic assumption (or even a fact derived from science or something), I'd love to hear it. Not just for a challenge, but I love to hear hanging systems like that.
burden of proof
This will be short.
"Burden of proof" refers to an argument where one side has to prove their point, and if they don't, then the other side wins. For instance, in court a considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is laid on the prosecution.
This concept is often introduced into proof-of-god debates, laying it on theists. The assumption is that unless the theist can prove God exists, a normal person observing the conversation, who has heard all the facts and logic, would chose to not believe in God.
In some way this might make sense. In general, it is more probable that something does not exist because there are more things that aren't than things that are. Plus, in our model of the universe we probably start with a blank slate and then introduce objects.
However, this is simply an argument debating a certain unknown. If neither side can prove it one way or the other, do we not simply leave it as unknown? If I can't prove to you that light is a wave, and you can't prove it's a particle, then we leave it up in the air!
In the case of God though, there are rather dire consquences if you chose not to believe in him and find out you're wrong. So 'unknown' does not mean we leave the subject to rest.
"Burden of proof" refers to an argument where one side has to prove their point, and if they don't, then the other side wins. For instance, in court a considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is laid on the prosecution.
This concept is often introduced into proof-of-god debates, laying it on theists. The assumption is that unless the theist can prove God exists, a normal person observing the conversation, who has heard all the facts and logic, would chose to not believe in God.
In some way this might make sense. In general, it is more probable that something does not exist because there are more things that aren't than things that are. Plus, in our model of the universe we probably start with a blank slate and then introduce objects.
However, this is simply an argument debating a certain unknown. If neither side can prove it one way or the other, do we not simply leave it as unknown? If I can't prove to you that light is a wave, and you can't prove it's a particle, then we leave it up in the air!
In the case of God though, there are rather dire consquences if you chose not to believe in him and find out you're wrong. So 'unknown' does not mean we leave the subject to rest.
19 June 2011
synthesis of topical and exegetical preaching
Synthesis: combination
Topical preaching: "today the purpose of my sermon is to assure you of your salvation"
Exegetical preaching: "today we're covering 1 John 5:1-13"
0) Context
There is a reasonable debate between topical and exegetical preaching. One of my past churches recommends that you only attend a "bible-beleiving, exegetical church". A pastor of a church that I attended at the same time commented once that the debate between the two was silly, and proceeded to do topical preaching.
1) Purposes
a) The purpose of preaching topically is to help people in a certain area of their lives, to take care of a certain issue
b) The purpose of preaching exegetically is to hear directly what God has to say, not what we humans want him to say. It is also to make sure that we cover all of what God has to say (by going linearly through a book) rather than just the parts we want to use.
c) These purposes are NOT opposities
2) Synthesis:
a) Topical>exetegical: Start a sermon by pursuing a given truth from God. For instance, "What does God have to say about assurance of salvation?". Then, go looking for passages that discuss that TOPIC, NOT what you want to say about it. Do not go looking for a passage that says 'you know you are saved because god loves everyone' because you think that's part of the answer. Look for anything regarding assurance of salvation, dig the answer out of that text, and accept what you find.
b) Exegetical>topical: Pick a passage of the bible and look to see the various topics that it covers. Pick one, and make that the point of your message, filtering the passage for that specific lesson, emphasizing certain parts and not others. Each part of the bible has MANY lessons to learn, this ought to be easy.
c) Provided that you are taking whatever God tells you over your own ideas by searching the bible with that motive, and you are also seeking to apply whatever God tells you to real, heart, human issues, you should be fine.
3) Suggestions from a simpleton:
a) The first synthesized method has the advantage of addressing issues that you chose, so you can chose the ones you think are currently plauging that church or audience. This is very real, very useful and has great motivational/change making potential.
b) The second sythesized method has a wider range of good academic advantages. You can cover all of what God wants to say, probably in an order that he wants (because the bible is not arranged in some haphazard order), and you get bonus points for being more official. To help with the application-deficient side, by the way, you can choose a book or chapter using holy spirit methods (or just pick) and trust God to make sure that its' the right message at the right time, even if you can't see it.
c) I'm not sure which method is best (or if one is better than the other). I would suggest using the first in specific situations, like camps, holidays, sending off missionaries, etc, and using the second for mass congregation preaching. I DO know that all preaching I've heard to far could benefit from a greater trust and respect for the living word of God, and more real, challending ways to apply it.
Topical preaching: "today the purpose of my sermon is to assure you of your salvation"
Exegetical preaching: "today we're covering 1 John 5:1-13"
0) Context
There is a reasonable debate between topical and exegetical preaching. One of my past churches recommends that you only attend a "bible-beleiving, exegetical church". A pastor of a church that I attended at the same time commented once that the debate between the two was silly, and proceeded to do topical preaching.
1) Purposes
a) The purpose of preaching topically is to help people in a certain area of their lives, to take care of a certain issue
b) The purpose of preaching exegetically is to hear directly what God has to say, not what we humans want him to say. It is also to make sure that we cover all of what God has to say (by going linearly through a book) rather than just the parts we want to use.
c) These purposes are NOT opposities
2) Synthesis:
a) Topical>exetegical: Start a sermon by pursuing a given truth from God. For instance, "What does God have to say about assurance of salvation?". Then, go looking for passages that discuss that TOPIC, NOT what you want to say about it. Do not go looking for a passage that says 'you know you are saved because god loves everyone' because you think that's part of the answer. Look for anything regarding assurance of salvation, dig the answer out of that text, and accept what you find.
b) Exegetical>topical: Pick a passage of the bible and look to see the various topics that it covers. Pick one, and make that the point of your message, filtering the passage for that specific lesson, emphasizing certain parts and not others. Each part of the bible has MANY lessons to learn, this ought to be easy.
c) Provided that you are taking whatever God tells you over your own ideas by searching the bible with that motive, and you are also seeking to apply whatever God tells you to real, heart, human issues, you should be fine.
3) Suggestions from a simpleton:
a) The first synthesized method has the advantage of addressing issues that you chose, so you can chose the ones you think are currently plauging that church or audience. This is very real, very useful and has great motivational/change making potential.
b) The second sythesized method has a wider range of good academic advantages. You can cover all of what God wants to say, probably in an order that he wants (because the bible is not arranged in some haphazard order), and you get bonus points for being more official. To help with the application-deficient side, by the way, you can choose a book or chapter using holy spirit methods (or just pick) and trust God to make sure that its' the right message at the right time, even if you can't see it.
c) I'm not sure which method is best (or if one is better than the other). I would suggest using the first in specific situations, like camps, holidays, sending off missionaries, etc, and using the second for mass congregation preaching. I DO know that all preaching I've heard to far could benefit from a greater trust and respect for the living word of God, and more real, challending ways to apply it.
15 June 2011
some principles for combating sin
1) Whatever advantage or good things you get from sinning are nothing in comparison to what you miss by sinning.
a) The first thing we lose is being closer to eternal life. Heaven IS a relatiohship with God. "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." James 5:10-11. When we sin, we grow farther away from God.
b) More practically we lose the benefits of good decisions. Gods way is the most intelligent, productive, joyful over the long run way to do life. You chose not to follow that and you chose not to follow the most excellent way.
c) A pastor used this illustration once: You are a glass. You are filled with liquid gunk, sin. You could be poured out I suppose but that might kill you, having no pattern your are following. I am reminded of Matthew 12:45 or Luke 11:26 which say that if you cast out a demon but don't fill with the Holy Spirit, the demon will just come back with friends. Anyway... The only way to get that gunk out is to pour heavier (better) liquid into the glass. So, the only way to rid yourself of the addiction of sin is to find an even stronger addition - God.
Think of this when you are tempted or as motivation to discipline yourself. The wages of sin is death, which is good negative motivation, but there is also positive, which tends to encourage a little better (although both ways should be used).
2) By sinning you are saying that Gods most excellent way is false/stupid. You are calling him a liar. You are also refusing a marvelous gift that he has extended to: eternal life and well-being. Not only are you spewing falsehood, you are hurting God. No joke. God feeling things. Genesis 6:6 Gods heart was full of pain at mans wickedness. Ephesians 4:30 you can grieve the Holy Spirit.
3) Mostly just know that God is pouring out his heart to you, pleading with you to stop abusing yourself, stop trying to solve things your own way, and fall trusting into his arms. He alone can satisfy you, defend your honor, provide for you, etc.
a) The first thing we lose is being closer to eternal life. Heaven IS a relatiohship with God. "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." James 5:10-11. When we sin, we grow farther away from God.
b) More practically we lose the benefits of good decisions. Gods way is the most intelligent, productive, joyful over the long run way to do life. You chose not to follow that and you chose not to follow the most excellent way.
c) A pastor used this illustration once: You are a glass. You are filled with liquid gunk, sin. You could be poured out I suppose but that might kill you, having no pattern your are following. I am reminded of Matthew 12:45 or Luke 11:26 which say that if you cast out a demon but don't fill with the Holy Spirit, the demon will just come back with friends. Anyway... The only way to get that gunk out is to pour heavier (better) liquid into the glass. So, the only way to rid yourself of the addiction of sin is to find an even stronger addition - God.
Think of this when you are tempted or as motivation to discipline yourself. The wages of sin is death, which is good negative motivation, but there is also positive, which tends to encourage a little better (although both ways should be used).
2) By sinning you are saying that Gods most excellent way is false/stupid. You are calling him a liar. You are also refusing a marvelous gift that he has extended to: eternal life and well-being. Not only are you spewing falsehood, you are hurting God. No joke. God feeling things. Genesis 6:6 Gods heart was full of pain at mans wickedness. Ephesians 4:30 you can grieve the Holy Spirit.
3) Mostly just know that God is pouring out his heart to you, pleading with you to stop abusing yourself, stop trying to solve things your own way, and fall trusting into his arms. He alone can satisfy you, defend your honor, provide for you, etc.
09 June 2011
learning gods will long-term
This idea has been dinking around inside my head for a while, and I guess I haven't put it down until now.
God will rarely give us writing in the sky to tell us what to do for many reasons. The reason that started this post is this: he wants us to learn what he wants us to do. Not that we're supposed to guess, or try and fail, or learn Gods whims, but God has a general plan for the universe (love us like crazy and hold up the standard of perfection...something like that) and typical ways he carries them out. God wants us to learn those principles and patterns.
Example: when you love your spouse, do you ask (her) "would you feel loved today if I made you breakfast or gave you a back massage?" NO! (well, maybe). You learn over time that her back is fine because she's a world class athlete, but she gets so hungry and it's really nice to wake up later to a really huge, calorie-rich breakfast. Same idea with God. He wants us to learn his ways.
Sometimes it's different. Like when you're buying a house with your spouse, you don't just assume that she wants the one with green walls because she generally likes green over other colors, no, you talk it over with her (hopefully considering more imporant facets of the house).
2) Ok, more reasons he doesn't show up big: That would teach us to be servants. God wants sons, not servants. (Galatians 4). Sons eventually take on the fathers business - we have been given dominion over the earth and have been told to take care of it. Plus hold fast to Gods teachings, worship him because he's awesome, hang out with him all the time because he knows everything, etc.
3) There are also times that you simply shouldn't know Gods will. When am I going to die? Not good to know. Who should I marry? Not good to know before the proper time. Imagine meeting your future wife in middle school and you know you're going to marry her...how do you start a friendship, much less a courtship, on those terms?
4) God also doens't want to order us around. (That's kind of like reason 2, but not exactly the same maybe). He gave us free will. He wants us to do his bidding because we WANT to, not because he told us. Imagine god telling you to read your bible everyday. Ugh... I mean, him talking to me would be awesome, but saying "You MUST read your bible." is stifiling.
I guess I can imagine him asking from his heart "I would love to spend time with you!" (Which is true by the way, don't ever doubt it.)
So...don't get all antsy when God doesn't speak to you from a thundercloud. Keep pursuing him like the persistent widow, yes, but don't worry. Keep researching a decision, pay attention to 'open' or 'closed' doors and all that, all the little signs of what God wants you to do, keep seeking in your bible for 'what would jesus do' and all that. But maybe you're just supposed to wait? Trust God to tell you when you need it. If you are seeking him with an open heart and nothing irking you in the background or things you need to confess (NOT meaning you are without sin, just need to confess it) and whatnot, you are doing just fine. God will take care of you, don't worry.
God will rarely give us writing in the sky to tell us what to do for many reasons. The reason that started this post is this: he wants us to learn what he wants us to do. Not that we're supposed to guess, or try and fail, or learn Gods whims, but God has a general plan for the universe (love us like crazy and hold up the standard of perfection...something like that) and typical ways he carries them out. God wants us to learn those principles and patterns.
Example: when you love your spouse, do you ask (her) "would you feel loved today if I made you breakfast or gave you a back massage?" NO! (well, maybe). You learn over time that her back is fine because she's a world class athlete, but she gets so hungry and it's really nice to wake up later to a really huge, calorie-rich breakfast. Same idea with God. He wants us to learn his ways.
Sometimes it's different. Like when you're buying a house with your spouse, you don't just assume that she wants the one with green walls because she generally likes green over other colors, no, you talk it over with her (hopefully considering more imporant facets of the house).
2) Ok, more reasons he doesn't show up big: That would teach us to be servants. God wants sons, not servants. (Galatians 4). Sons eventually take on the fathers business - we have been given dominion over the earth and have been told to take care of it. Plus hold fast to Gods teachings, worship him because he's awesome, hang out with him all the time because he knows everything, etc.
3) There are also times that you simply shouldn't know Gods will. When am I going to die? Not good to know. Who should I marry? Not good to know before the proper time. Imagine meeting your future wife in middle school and you know you're going to marry her...how do you start a friendship, much less a courtship, on those terms?
4) God also doens't want to order us around. (That's kind of like reason 2, but not exactly the same maybe). He gave us free will. He wants us to do his bidding because we WANT to, not because he told us. Imagine god telling you to read your bible everyday. Ugh... I mean, him talking to me would be awesome, but saying "You MUST read your bible." is stifiling.
I guess I can imagine him asking from his heart "I would love to spend time with you!" (Which is true by the way, don't ever doubt it.)
So...don't get all antsy when God doesn't speak to you from a thundercloud. Keep pursuing him like the persistent widow, yes, but don't worry. Keep researching a decision, pay attention to 'open' or 'closed' doors and all that, all the little signs of what God wants you to do, keep seeking in your bible for 'what would jesus do' and all that. But maybe you're just supposed to wait? Trust God to tell you when you need it. If you are seeking him with an open heart and nothing irking you in the background or things you need to confess (NOT meaning you are without sin, just need to confess it) and whatnot, you are doing just fine. God will take care of you, don't worry.
08 June 2011
another facet of the problem of evil
Why does God let bad things happen to good people? Is the normal question. But you could also look at it from the offenders side (in the cases of human evil, not natural disasters and such).
Why doesn't God stop evil people? Because he's trying to win them over too. In fact, we're all evil. God doesn't come in a big thunderstorm when you sin, right? And he doesn't prevent you from sinning (physically) most of the time. God doesn't prevent you from sinning for several reasons. First of all, it wouldn't help at all, you are desiring the sin, and when God limits your options, well, that's just circumstances so you will look towards other things. Second, God will let you experience the negative results of your sin (for instance the damaged marriage of an affair) so that you can see your two options more clearly. God is amazing, and sin is also stupid and destructive.
Side note: Sometimes God does prevent evil, remember. If he didn't, evil wouild be running rampant. He intervenes in life all the time. Thank him or upholding the universe. Also know that all good things ever done are due to God. We don't kill eachother because our concience (created by God) reminds us instincively not to because all people are made in the image of God and we should not intervene in his good work.
Summary: god allows people to do bad things in order to keep wooing them to himself. Plus he prevents evil and upholds the universe all the time.
He died for you!
Why doesn't God stop evil people? Because he's trying to win them over too. In fact, we're all evil. God doesn't come in a big thunderstorm when you sin, right? And he doesn't prevent you from sinning (physically) most of the time. God doesn't prevent you from sinning for several reasons. First of all, it wouldn't help at all, you are desiring the sin, and when God limits your options, well, that's just circumstances so you will look towards other things. Second, God will let you experience the negative results of your sin (for instance the damaged marriage of an affair) so that you can see your two options more clearly. God is amazing, and sin is also stupid and destructive.
Side note: Sometimes God does prevent evil, remember. If he didn't, evil wouild be running rampant. He intervenes in life all the time. Thank him or upholding the universe. Also know that all good things ever done are due to God. We don't kill eachother because our concience (created by God) reminds us instincively not to because all people are made in the image of God and we should not intervene in his good work.
Summary: god allows people to do bad things in order to keep wooing them to himself. Plus he prevents evil and upholds the universe all the time.
He died for you!
What does god do for us?
I woke up this morning tired (5:50 am) with my mind still groggy. I have this illusion that if I know God, that will make me energetic and happy all the time. Only the second part is half true in the sense of joyful.
But anyway, I wasn't feeling the effects of God very much, so I asked myself "what does god do for us?" Essentially, why hasn't he given me something solid to feed on so that I can be energetic all the time? Which is a misled question, but it came to decent results.
Start by thinking from Gods perspective (I didn't, but evetually go there). You made man and he tends to worship everything that you give him instead of yourself. What can you do for him? What is the best thing you can give him? Well, the best thing in the world is God himself. God gave himself to us by creating us and sutaining our existence, he primarily gave himself to us on the cross, taking out damage/imperfection on himself so that we could still be with him (and being with him is the best thing for us), he has given his word to us, which is the best knoweldge, the knowledge that he is the center of the universe, because that is the most important and central fact of the universe, and he gives himself daily to us in many small ways. Oh yeah! And he gave us the world, which is in his image, as a giant love letter.
God won't often give rest, energy, or anything else when we want it, because then we would take it for granted, worship it instead of God, and miss the truly best thing for us. Besides, we don't really NEED rest and all that, what we really need is God. Gad can change our circumstances in a moment, but he has given our free will to us, and must instead woo us to himself instead of plowing us over with gifts and peace like he wants to.
Hear that? God wants to give us everything, he gave himself, but he can't give us all the lesser stuff until we recognize that he is God above all Gods, God alone, creater of heaven and earth, the source from which all good things come (James 1:17, coming right after a section on temptation), and the foundation of all things. For from him and through him and to him are all things, to him be the glory forever, amen! (Romans 11:36).
So, recognize the giver of all good things, seek after him, and you will find the best thing, himself.
This is DEFINETLY not saying that once you find god he will give you a mansion and early retirement. There are several reasons: first we will never in this life be perfectly devoted to God, second we have been called to serve his kingdom and preach to angry, dissatisfied, persecuting people ("They will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name." Luke 21:12), and third God will give us innumerable delightful things, art, nature, grand projects and whathot in heaven. That's when he unleashes his creative and fun side.
Got it? Good. Glory be to the God of heavenly lights forever!
But anyway, I wasn't feeling the effects of God very much, so I asked myself "what does god do for us?" Essentially, why hasn't he given me something solid to feed on so that I can be energetic all the time? Which is a misled question, but it came to decent results.
Start by thinking from Gods perspective (I didn't, but evetually go there). You made man and he tends to worship everything that you give him instead of yourself. What can you do for him? What is the best thing you can give him? Well, the best thing in the world is God himself. God gave himself to us by creating us and sutaining our existence, he primarily gave himself to us on the cross, taking out damage/imperfection on himself so that we could still be with him (and being with him is the best thing for us), he has given his word to us, which is the best knoweldge, the knowledge that he is the center of the universe, because that is the most important and central fact of the universe, and he gives himself daily to us in many small ways. Oh yeah! And he gave us the world, which is in his image, as a giant love letter.
God won't often give rest, energy, or anything else when we want it, because then we would take it for granted, worship it instead of God, and miss the truly best thing for us. Besides, we don't really NEED rest and all that, what we really need is God. Gad can change our circumstances in a moment, but he has given our free will to us, and must instead woo us to himself instead of plowing us over with gifts and peace like he wants to.
Hear that? God wants to give us everything, he gave himself, but he can't give us all the lesser stuff until we recognize that he is God above all Gods, God alone, creater of heaven and earth, the source from which all good things come (James 1:17, coming right after a section on temptation), and the foundation of all things. For from him and through him and to him are all things, to him be the glory forever, amen! (Romans 11:36).
So, recognize the giver of all good things, seek after him, and you will find the best thing, himself.
This is DEFINETLY not saying that once you find god he will give you a mansion and early retirement. There are several reasons: first we will never in this life be perfectly devoted to God, second we have been called to serve his kingdom and preach to angry, dissatisfied, persecuting people ("They will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name." Luke 21:12), and third God will give us innumerable delightful things, art, nature, grand projects and whathot in heaven. That's when he unleashes his creative and fun side.
Got it? Good. Glory be to the God of heavenly lights forever!
04 June 2011
human mystery, purpose vs. random, and other stuff
List of paragraphs: 1) human and world mystery, 2) two ways of looking at the world, 3)human dichotomy 4) Phil 2:6-11 dichotomy of JC, 5) married to JC 2+3, 6) burden of mystery6) Take some time with God
1) Every human is a mystery, and the key to unlocking this mystery is God, their creator. See the mystery around you. It beckons and calls. The world as well, every tree and every office building, call out questions. Where do they come from and where do they go? Who created them and to what purpose do they strive?
2) [I suppose then, that there are at least two ways of looking at the world. One where everything has a purpose, got there for some reason, some cause, and another belief where it came about for no particular reason, except by chance and anomaly. For this post at least, I do not claim to provide any sort of argument either way, or to assume that you will accept the first view, but just to explain and enjoy the implications of the first.]
3) Who are these strange creatures that walk upon the ground, unpredictable, sometimes disgustin and messed up, somehow beautiful beyond comphrehension at the same time (fractals :) )? They are the work of the unseen God, with "honor enough to raise the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth...be content." - Aslan.
We are created in the image of the the unseen God, yet messed up. Sinners deserving of death, yet given life, marriage to the one God, he who created all that is. Christ himself, our model, the first to go before us, humbled himself, even to death on a cross, and then was exalted to the right hand of the father.
4) "Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even 6) death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:6-11.
5) So if we are married to Christ (Eph 5:23), we too go through the same process. We are co-heirs with him (Rom 8:17). We are also different from him, in that we have sinned.
6) Anyway, again back to mystery. I thought of this because I was complaining that God was not very evident in the world, and that is true if you count that all things exist independently of God. The world exists, that tree and building, and you take that as a given without God, and then how does that require God to exist in any way? Why on earth should I beleive in God if I can't see him?
Look for meaning, look for purpose. In most movies today, everything you see means something and connects to the plot, many insignificant objects or events become important later on in the plot.
Again there are tow ways of looking at the world, either it was made for a purpose or it wasn't. Look at everything around you right now. Consider anything you see and ask if it has a reason for being there. Look back at your life, and ask the same of anything that happened to you (In many cases I expect that this second thing will bring up pain and questioning why some things had to happen. True. I don't deny these. I don't have a solid answer, but I personally trust Gods plan for me and wait for an explanation later.)
7) Things are made for purposes, things happen for purposes. Know this and look out upon a wide savanna or the seashore and think of God showing his splendor through these things...
Take some time with God and enjoy his presence.
1) Every human is a mystery, and the key to unlocking this mystery is God, their creator. See the mystery around you. It beckons and calls. The world as well, every tree and every office building, call out questions. Where do they come from and where do they go? Who created them and to what purpose do they strive?
2) [I suppose then, that there are at least two ways of looking at the world. One where everything has a purpose, got there for some reason, some cause, and another belief where it came about for no particular reason, except by chance and anomaly. For this post at least, I do not claim to provide any sort of argument either way, or to assume that you will accept the first view, but just to explain and enjoy the implications of the first.]
3) Who are these strange creatures that walk upon the ground, unpredictable, sometimes disgustin and messed up, somehow beautiful beyond comphrehension at the same time (fractals :) )? They are the work of the unseen God, with "honor enough to raise the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth...be content." - Aslan.
We are created in the image of the the unseen God, yet messed up. Sinners deserving of death, yet given life, marriage to the one God, he who created all that is. Christ himself, our model, the first to go before us, humbled himself, even to death on a cross, and then was exalted to the right hand of the father.
4) "Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even 6) death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:6-11.
5) So if we are married to Christ (Eph 5:23), we too go through the same process. We are co-heirs with him (Rom 8:17). We are also different from him, in that we have sinned.
6) Anyway, again back to mystery. I thought of this because I was complaining that God was not very evident in the world, and that is true if you count that all things exist independently of God. The world exists, that tree and building, and you take that as a given without God, and then how does that require God to exist in any way? Why on earth should I beleive in God if I can't see him?
Look for meaning, look for purpose. In most movies today, everything you see means something and connects to the plot, many insignificant objects or events become important later on in the plot.
Again there are tow ways of looking at the world, either it was made for a purpose or it wasn't. Look at everything around you right now. Consider anything you see and ask if it has a reason for being there. Look back at your life, and ask the same of anything that happened to you (In many cases I expect that this second thing will bring up pain and questioning why some things had to happen. True. I don't deny these. I don't have a solid answer, but I personally trust Gods plan for me and wait for an explanation later.)
7) Things are made for purposes, things happen for purposes. Know this and look out upon a wide savanna or the seashore and think of God showing his splendor through these things...
Take some time with God and enjoy his presence.
03 June 2011
god is fundamental origin of universe
I was on the top (12th) floor of my dormitory overlooking the city and was asking myself some hard questions.
I have come across these before, questions like "why should we pursue our own happiness?" and "How is meaning derived?", and they resulted in theories like GLD. [Goal, Logic, Data, there should be a post about it somewhere].
Today was about the same.
First I questioned whether God existed. Mostly I blame these times on a tired mind. And I realized that my doubt sprung from exhaustion, from physiological effects and/or emotions. I looked to my mind and remembered that everything I have thought about, all my searching and questioning God, has pointed towards God (well, not every time. But most of these times are resolved later on, or I simply am not done with those issues yet). So I remembered that God existed and via top-down processing, all the promises like his love for me.
Second, however, I questioned how God could fufill me. See, God is great and awesome, and he has designed us so that everything about him gives us pleasure. But why should we seek our own pleasure? Plus, our desires can actually be changed. A Christian undergoes a lifelong process of being transformed into the image of Christ. So really, can that be our reason to live? That is only a feeling.
So I thought about God, and the fact that no matter how I feel, he DOES exist, and I can trust in that. But still, how does the creator of the universe help me be fufilled? He is only a great, massive reality. Then again, he is more. He is a personal being, like a spouse, friend, brother, sister, father, or mother. Humans were created to crave relationships. And we are, but what good is that? Could we have instead been created for business contracts?
No, that would not work. So I began to question: what is the greatest, fundamental part of the universe. And then I realized that God is not jsut a great reality, and he is not just the meaning of the universe, he IS the universe, or rather, he is bigger than the universe.
Do NOT misinterpret this. I am not a cosmic humanist beleiving that we are all part of the great universe which is god, or a humanist believing that we and everything around us are all Gods. For the creator is greater than his works, God is greater than the universe.
What is that fundamental, dense, tangible thing of fufillment that I seek? God, and none other. The universe does not contain God, God is the origin and foundation of everything, the central strength from which everything was created. "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever, Amen." Romans 11:36.
For other posts like this one, see GLD, Good is God, and perhaps some others.
I have come across these before, questions like "why should we pursue our own happiness?" and "How is meaning derived?", and they resulted in theories like GLD. [Goal, Logic, Data, there should be a post about it somewhere].
Today was about the same.
First I questioned whether God existed. Mostly I blame these times on a tired mind. And I realized that my doubt sprung from exhaustion, from physiological effects and/or emotions. I looked to my mind and remembered that everything I have thought about, all my searching and questioning God, has pointed towards God (well, not every time. But most of these times are resolved later on, or I simply am not done with those issues yet). So I remembered that God existed and via top-down processing, all the promises like his love for me.
Second, however, I questioned how God could fufill me. See, God is great and awesome, and he has designed us so that everything about him gives us pleasure. But why should we seek our own pleasure? Plus, our desires can actually be changed. A Christian undergoes a lifelong process of being transformed into the image of Christ. So really, can that be our reason to live? That is only a feeling.
So I thought about God, and the fact that no matter how I feel, he DOES exist, and I can trust in that. But still, how does the creator of the universe help me be fufilled? He is only a great, massive reality. Then again, he is more. He is a personal being, like a spouse, friend, brother, sister, father, or mother. Humans were created to crave relationships. And we are, but what good is that? Could we have instead been created for business contracts?
No, that would not work. So I began to question: what is the greatest, fundamental part of the universe. And then I realized that God is not jsut a great reality, and he is not just the meaning of the universe, he IS the universe, or rather, he is bigger than the universe.
Do NOT misinterpret this. I am not a cosmic humanist beleiving that we are all part of the great universe which is god, or a humanist believing that we and everything around us are all Gods. For the creator is greater than his works, God is greater than the universe.
What is that fundamental, dense, tangible thing of fufillment that I seek? God, and none other. The universe does not contain God, God is the origin and foundation of everything, the central strength from which everything was created. "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever, Amen." Romans 11:36.
For other posts like this one, see GLD, Good is God, and perhaps some others.
02 June 2011
anomalies in antimatter > big bang
Summary: "There had to be non-symmetry in the matter/antimatter of the big bang in order for our world to exist."
Yesterday I saw a poster in my college which explained about matter vs. antimatter and how it relates to the big bang.
For those of you who don't know, antimatter is composed of atoms which have protons orbiting a neutron/electron nucleus, as opposed to normal atoms/matter which have electrons orbiting a neutron/proton nucleus.
Evidentally, the big bang should have produced an equal quantity of matter and antimatter. But the problem is, if it did that, the matter and antimatter would immediately combust into pure energy. See, electrons are attracted to protons, and if the electrons from the outside of matter hit the protons on the outside of antimatter, they will be attracted, zoom towards eachother until they hit and then...blow up? Consume eachother more likely. But anyway, it is a pure conversion (as far as we can tell) into energy.
Anyways...a normal big bang would have just consumed itself into all energy and no matter/antimatter. How then do we have matter? The poster said that there was a flaw/anomalie/antisymmetry in one out of every 10 billion atoms, causing an imbalance that made stuff fly off at random angles and not combust.
Now that sounds pretty hokey to me. I guess there isn't an immediate follow-through to some fact about how God created the universe, but it's just some food for though. [This whole post has been information with only a slant of my own ideas...kindof]
Let me know what you think.
Yesterday I saw a poster in my college which explained about matter vs. antimatter and how it relates to the big bang.
For those of you who don't know, antimatter is composed of atoms which have protons orbiting a neutron/electron nucleus, as opposed to normal atoms/matter which have electrons orbiting a neutron/proton nucleus.
Evidentally, the big bang should have produced an equal quantity of matter and antimatter. But the problem is, if it did that, the matter and antimatter would immediately combust into pure energy. See, electrons are attracted to protons, and if the electrons from the outside of matter hit the protons on the outside of antimatter, they will be attracted, zoom towards eachother until they hit and then...blow up? Consume eachother more likely. But anyway, it is a pure conversion (as far as we can tell) into energy.
Anyways...a normal big bang would have just consumed itself into all energy and no matter/antimatter. How then do we have matter? The poster said that there was a flaw/anomalie/antisymmetry in one out of every 10 billion atoms, causing an imbalance that made stuff fly off at random angles and not combust.
Now that sounds pretty hokey to me. I guess there isn't an immediate follow-through to some fact about how God created the universe, but it's just some food for though. [This whole post has been information with only a slant of my own ideas...kindof]
Let me know what you think.
God is bigger than people
Summary: "God is bigger than people, so don't expect to really be satisfied with people, value people based on how much they reflect God and by the fact that they are made in the image of God (Christian or not)"
I was feeling wierd over the last year or so, people weren't satisfying me. It was like a little constant pain all the time when I interacted with them. I couldn't pin it down for a while. I had lots of theories related to specific people and whatnot, but I think I eventually got it.
I wanted to plunge headfirst into a huge pool of goodness - in people. But it wasn't there! I wanted rest, satisfaction, peace, etc, but nobody's perfect like that. No one person can give real rest to your soul.
And that's obvious once you think of it (not before though!). God is bigger than people, duh! So if you ever feel dissatisfied with people, remember that you actually should be, and cling to God instead.
You CAN enjoy people, though. That would be a bummer if you couldn't. Rejoice in what parts of God they reflect (these qualities are actually the ONLY things you should like about people...but expand the qualities of God to include being funny/wierd based on an inner confidence, quietness and waiting on God, etc etc a bunch of stuff that you are supposed to like about people)
Alright, got it?
See you later!
I was feeling wierd over the last year or so, people weren't satisfying me. It was like a little constant pain all the time when I interacted with them. I couldn't pin it down for a while. I had lots of theories related to specific people and whatnot, but I think I eventually got it.
I wanted to plunge headfirst into a huge pool of goodness - in people. But it wasn't there! I wanted rest, satisfaction, peace, etc, but nobody's perfect like that. No one person can give real rest to your soul.
And that's obvious once you think of it (not before though!). God is bigger than people, duh! So if you ever feel dissatisfied with people, remember that you actually should be, and cling to God instead.
You CAN enjoy people, though. That would be a bummer if you couldn't. Rejoice in what parts of God they reflect (these qualities are actually the ONLY things you should like about people...but expand the qualities of God to include being funny/wierd based on an inner confidence, quietness and waiting on God, etc etc a bunch of stuff that you are supposed to like about people)
Alright, got it?
See you later!
trust in God
I am sorry that I have not been very active lately. Due to some more free time and a renewed pursuit of God, there should be a little more coming now.
This is a short one. "Put your trust in God" appears several times in the bible. (A good psalm for trust is 91).
Previously, I had taken this as "Your trust should be in God." - which is true, but look at what is actually says: PUT your trust in God. We are in control of where we put our trust. You voluntarily, by an act of will, choose where to put your trust. It's not something you have to build up to feel like trusting in God, you can control it. Yes, granted you will need to trust God for a while for it to become automatic for situations and for you to normally feel like trusting God, but that's normal for almost anything.
It feels good to trust something, right? When that thing is trustworthy?
Extrapolation: this ought to work for more things than trust. Love, faith, peace from, obedience, etc can also all be controlled, I think. Faith includes a lot of head knowledge though...it depends on your definitions.
Anyway, put your trust in God!
This is a short one. "Put your trust in God" appears several times in the bible. (A good psalm for trust is 91).
Previously, I had taken this as "Your trust should be in God." - which is true, but look at what is actually says: PUT your trust in God. We are in control of where we put our trust. You voluntarily, by an act of will, choose where to put your trust. It's not something you have to build up to feel like trusting in God, you can control it. Yes, granted you will need to trust God for a while for it to become automatic for situations and for you to normally feel like trusting God, but that's normal for almost anything.
It feels good to trust something, right? When that thing is trustworthy?
Extrapolation: this ought to work for more things than trust. Love, faith, peace from, obedience, etc can also all be controlled, I think. Faith includes a lot of head knowledge though...it depends on your definitions.
Anyway, put your trust in God!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)