My Picture Walk

               Well, there’s been a lot on my mind lately, but first…let me be honest: I don’t – can’t, really – go on walks to think. I think too much. I tend to over-think and over-dwell, so walks for me have always been a release from thinking, where my mind can be quiet and alone…just me and God’s creation. So when I took my walk the morning after Christmas, it wasn’t much different. I did a lot of thinking over the past few days’ events when I got up early, worked out and showered, but my walk was - as the prompt says - for me. I used it to let go. Well anyway, I’ll give a brief overview of what I thought of before hand. But first, a little history on the situation.

               When I was in middle school and the early years of high school, I had a number of self-worth problems. To remain as brief as possible and yet remain candid, I’ll say this much – I tried to kill myself a few times. One day on the way home from church a few years ago we learned my great-uncle’s ex-wife killed herself just a day previous on my brother’s birthday. As my family discussed it, one thing my father said stood out to me: he said it was a horribly selfish thing to do, with no consideration of the people who cared for you. Initially I chuckled bitterly to myself, tying that woman’s choice to myself – yeah, what care? Surface-level care doesn’t merit a thing. That’s how I felt at the time – my family “cared” for me, but told me outright they didn’t understand me. To this day I believe those wounds hold more than simple “teenage angst”…quite literally, my family didn’t get me. Well, after my father said what he did, I got thinking about selfishness. See, even though I hurt, I was not inconsiderate towards who my family was to me – I was very conscious of the work they did to keep me afloat with a good home and education. One thought struck me hard (and this was how my mind worded it at the time, my feelings of worth were so low) – my parents wasted so much of their lives on me…I’m not worth enough to take that life-energy and time they spent to let it mean nothing. It was that day I swore I’d be the kid they didn’t have to worry about – I would not ever do drugs, I would not get drunk, I would not let the world pull me away from my God, no matter what. I swore I’d do the Sitterley name proud.

               That last bit there, “doing the Sitterley name proud”, is where much of the last few days’ events (and my pre-walk reflection) begin. See, that has always been a very big deal to my father – knowing that we, as his children, were representing the family well. Since then I have assumed that responsibility and felt its weight immensely. That was why when my brother decided to make a scene in Starbucks the other day, my face and my heart just burned. It seems stupid…we were on our way to help with the Firefighter outreach and my brother wouldn’t stop shoving me while we were in line, but when my dad made him stop he flipped. My dad was wearing his Commissioners’ sweatshirt and it had his name emblazoned on his chest. I could feel the eyes on us; I could almost taste his shame. When the situation was brought up again during an argument between my father and brother at home on Christmas eve, I was bitter. Ever since my ..ex-great-aunt? killed herself, I had put so much effort into representing our family well, and now I was looped into this very public mess. Well the argument went on – my brother being a ridiculous hot-head and my dad with a raised voice – and eventually (because the origins of the argument were not found in this Starbucks event…the principle just carried over) it turned into that classic “lesson for everyone” situation. Roque, work on how you react. Madi, work on not harassing your brother. Victoria, you need to watch your tone. I don’t know what it is about you and your mother, but sometimes your tone comes across as harsh even when you don’t mean it. Okay, don’t judge – but my reaction went something like this: first I was super hurt…I know my voice has that problem, but I literally do not know how to fix it. I was also bitter – because the joy and warmth and kindness that works into my tone comes from REAL sources of joy, like when I said “hi Kaitlyn!!!” in the hallway. The moments where people like my dad aren’t making me self-conscious about how I talk ..that’s when my voice auto-corrects. Then I got angry – I feel, felt, like I was actually doing a decent job representing our family, and my father seriously needed to give me some credit and back off on talking about my voice that I can’t bloody well fix. That was a strange reaction…often when I felt insulted by the people closest to me, I just felt hurt..i wouldn’t get angry, I didn’t put enough value in myself to get angry. So I guess there’s two things to get out of this story that tie into the next – 1: my feelings of value have increased. 2: I REALLY care about representing my family well.

               That brings us to the carry-over of the events on Christmas. My grandma and I got into a discussion about my future and college and all that jazz…and let’s just say….we don’t see eye-to-eye. My father and my grandma didn’t, and she and I don’t either. My father grew up being told to go be a doctor, and now I’m getting that treatment too. She’s very education focused. She claims to keep her eyes towards God, and do not get me wrong, she is a very VERY respectable mother and woman, but I have my doubts. Her eyes always seem to be on what “you” can do and what “you” can accomplish and all these things of workings in the world that I really don’t have any taste for. She even (again, please don’t judge) said I would be a pioneer for my mother’s side of the family because of their college-education situations. Now that ticked me off. NOTHING about how “amazing my brain works” makes me ANY better than the amazing men and women on my mother’s side of the family. My mother didn’t go to college, and quite frankly I feel we as children benefited from her stay-at-home situation. My grandmother was appalled when I said, with my brain, that I would be okay with a stay at home situation too. Now, I know she was in no way trying to disrespect the rest of my family..her values are just different than mine. Hers are rather worldy, and mine are entirely spiritual. I was kinda depressed afterwards, thinking about how I was going to deal with basically becoming a disappointment to my grandmother. I am not going into the medical field, that isn’t my place. Then I got thinking: my father tried, having gone to UW initially to become a doctor, but he eventually had to drop it and now has an entirely different job. I searched through my memory banks to recall any moment where he spoke of how he dealt with also being a sort-of “disappointment”, but I couldn’t find a thing. The most I could come up with was him just acknowledging the let-down, and letting it go in his contentment and amazement in his relationship with Christ. While I was content with that answer, I couldn’t really figure out how he would deal with it when he faced it directly in his heart. Did he just put it away? What would I do? Then I took a step back.

               I thought to myself, “you know what? All things considered, which of her children do you think your grandmother is most proud of?” My father’s side of the family is…troubled. My aunt and uncle have made some horrible life choices, and it’s screwed them up. My father alone stands above the crowd. That was enough for me. Even if I wasn’t a doctor, I could still stand above the crowd for my grandma. My father is an amazing man of God with a heart of gold, and that flows over into blessing the other aspects of his life as well. His focus on the spiritual has naturally been mine, and therefore I was content. I would still be worth something.

               That evening, my grandmother did say a few things right. I shouldn’t limit myself to just one thing – there are, and can be, multiple sides of me and my education. And I’ll be honest, my mind can absorb and understand things from many different sides of life, be it scientific or artistic, and that isn’t hugely common. I don’t put much stock in that. I seriously do not think my brain is so great. My grandma seems to think so, and much of what you’re about to read is really just an argument against my grandmother’s point of view using her premise that “if I have a brain, then I better use it”. Based on that, I then REALLY got to thinking – okay, I’ve never really WANTED to just study and do one thing for the rest of my life. I’ve never had a serious forte, whether of skill or level of enjoyment. The only thing I find real worth and LIFE in is spiritual. Perhaps…just perhaps, I have a bigger responsibility in store for me. You know that Biblical idea where people need to use their talents to the best of their abilities to glorify the Lord? How we are actually RESPONSIBLE for those talents? And how teachers have an even greater responsibility. Well, I turned to the projection of my gramma in my head, and I told her “You know what? I would argue that even more difficult than handling medicine is handling the human heart. It’s all trial and error, whether you’re diagnosing and treating a body, or trying to heal and SAVE a human soul. That’s a lot of compassion. But if I’m to tell the man about to commit suicide that God is the answer, I BETTER be able to back myself up. And what better evidence against atheism and for God than the world itself? Understanding the world we live in, and understanding it well…knowing chemistry AND geology AND biology AND all that other fun stuff well enough to defend your faith….now THAT is a challenge. I could go to school for 12 years and be really good at being a doctor and understanding one aspect of it – or I could dedicate my life to continually learning of how God can be seen in the world, while yet retaining my intense compassion for the human soul.

PLEASE do not think I’m trumpeting my own horn – I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally do not think I am this good. A lot of this was more response to my grandmother than a response to reality, but I feel like it says a lot about where I stand now as "me". I’ve grown a lot since I was baptized, and I think that this realization might be a challenge for me. Maybe I have the capacity to study and learn hard facts while yet embracing the abstractions of compassion and love for the soul. I don’t know. But if I do, I want to use it. Sorry grandma, I really really really really don’t care what job I have as an adult. Whatever it is, I’ll do it to the best of my ability. I just pray that I can keep loving and uplifting the people around me, wholly and completely, with enough of me left over to stand up for God and do it well. And you know what? God has blessed the Sitterley name through my father, who has a similar disposition. I’m completely confident God will watch over me as well, no matter where I am. And He will watch over you too, always and forever.
Anyway, yeah. That's basically all that ran through my mind before my walk, and I really used my walk to just flush all that out of my system, quiet my spirit, and let God's creation do the talking for awhile. Well, here are the pix! Enjoy!

               

Chaos and Order

Three...that's a good, solid number. More than a little, less than alot...makes the work seem doable, kinda like when things are priced at X-dollars and "99 cents" so that it "feels" like less than the full, rounded-up amount. Makes the consumer feel better about buying it, and more likely to do so, even if the difference is as minimal as seeing "49.99" instead of "50". 


Speaking of buying [into] things without considering the reality of it, and the sweet balance of "threes", let's talk Naturalism.


Q:     Explain three problems about the naturalistic explanation for life.


A:     Well, the major problem with the naturalistic explanation of life is that it does not actually conform to the observations and implications of science, but that is quite the blanket statement. Pure observation has thrown many a doubt in the naturalists's path to a truly naturalist origin of life. Three such areas where science itself has chipped away at the theory of naturalism lie in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. 
        In the Physics department, we are faced with the problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that everything is in a state of Degeneration, or, more simply, things tend to move from Order to Chaos. We can see this principle play out in day-to-day life: any created thing, be it a book or a human being, left to nature's devices eventually ages and breaks down in a process that begins the moment the thing begins completion. To say, then, that somehow, in this big primordial soup, chemicals moved in the opposite direction - from chaos to order - over and over and over again, ordering themselves and combining just perfectly so as to create life works completely against this Law. Physics as a study demands constants, but naturalism is basically trying to pull a stunt where this Law somehow didn't exist until human beings were formed. That is a pretty ridiculous thing to claim, rationally or otherwise, considering there has never been any evidence that life ever can, ever has, or ever will work that way. 
         Nextly, in the department of Chemistry, naturalism claims that truth lies in abio genesis. However, considering the complexity of the cell, it's interworking parts, and the nature of DNA, they're going to have a tough time playing with the percentages. By percentages, I mean the likelihood of even a single strand of protein creating itself from a vat of acids. DNA, the methods by which it is undone, and transcripted, and translated into proteins, which are then properly shaped to perform a specific job perfectly with other proteins...the chance ANY ONE part of that amazing machine came about without some form of intelligence to design it is so tiny that it is almost as intellectually hard to comprehend as the depth of Outer Space. To rule out Intelligence just to conform to abio genesis and avoid any potential religious connotations is cowardice and bad science.
          Thirdly - Biology, and the issue of mutations. Even if you somehow managed, by some miracle (<---oh look, a "religious" word in a scientific argument, we're all gonna DIE.) to actually create a single cell, any mutations then that the cell would be subject to would more than likely kill it. See, even today we really have next to zero examples of mutations of the genome being beneficial, and even then, even fewer where the mutation is passed on. Four winged fruit flies die out, resistant bacteria die in the presence of the parent bug, nature abhors the freak. And even if a mutation created something next to beneficial, potential means nothing. Nature, without a mind, cannot look at "potentially beneficial". Either it works or it doesnt, and if it doesnt have all it's parts it dies. Yeah, maybe that second pare of wings would be great if there were muscles attached, but Nature cannot say "oh hey, we should put muscles here". The wings just dont work, the flies die, and the two winged fruit flies live on. There is no evidence mutation enough occurs to create new species today. The only evidence science has for anything remotely evolutionary from any cell ever is for micro-evolution, a form found in the accenting of certain traits in a single species to survive in their surroundings. Never have any of these animals left their species though to become something they're not. There is no evidence in the fossil record, there is no observable evidence, and there is simply no chance that "simple mutation" could bring us to ...ultimately, "us". There just isn't. 
          ...I suppose just as Christians had to learn to stand down to the pursuit of new Scientific theories for the sake of good science, Evolutionists will have to do the same. Look guys, I'm sorry if REAL science leaves you sore because maybe, just maybe, Humans arent all you think they are. But to be a scientist, you need to be able to put your biases and heartaches aside and look at the facts. These are the facts. This is the work of Intelligent Design. This is the power of God.  

Enough About Morals..

Q:      How would I respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral values that apply to everyone ?


A:      First, probably by suggesting that they couldn't suggest that, lest they stand in self-contradiction. Then I'd probably ask them "But in any case, if you could somehow be taken logically, then I ask why not?" Then they'd prolly give me all this BS about how different cultures view morals...then i'd prolly jack his glasses or something. He'd get on my case and I'd point out that there are absolutes that carry over - nobody likes things taken from them..etc etc. If this were a scenario where I was talking to a person, I'd probably have to settle with opening this door for them into actually thinking about that little statement they'd made. However, were I to come across this suggestion in written form, where my response would have to be in writing, I'd probably allow myself to go further into the logical journey where moral absolutes do end up popping up, tracing to a source outside ourselves, and eventually to God. 

It's Just Karma...........Right ..??

...Yeaaahhhhhh not so much.

                Why not? Initially, Karma doesn't sound that unreasonable. If you make bad choices, you're likely to fall into bad situations. If you seek to be mentally aware and attentive in your present moment, considerate of your actions and their consequences, you're more likely to make wise choices with better outcomes. However, the flaws reveal themselves you get into the nitty-gritty of how Karma really works. Firstly, Karma acts on the principle that life in and of itself is fair. That is to say, every bad action will eventually lead to something bad happening to you (in essence, your bad choices fate you to bad life situations), and every good action will lead to some little bonus of goodness down the line somewhere in the same manner. However, how does that account for crooked people living successful, happy lives ? Or good people living crappy lives? Or, worst to consider, evils falling upon innocent children too young to have yet done any good or any wrong ? It simply cannot, unless it were to be defined as a repercussion of some evil done by one of the parents, making it instead a consequence for the parent. Even then, however, that could not possibly be Karma, as the death or harm of something innocent negates the idea that there was also some previous action of the child's that brought it -of it's own power - presently into the hands of those particular people in that moment in time to catch that disease or partake of that genetic flaw or even be killed. The child had not yet stored up any positive or negative Karma, therefore this occurrence would be considered unjust on the part of that younger-but-no-less-human child. Secondly, in order to make choices that are Karmicly positive, apparently one is supposed to pull some sort of Cosmic Humanist BS and -i exaggerate- feel for some bodily reaction consisting of either vomiting or getting retardedly giddy to know what's right. Two problems with this: it is assuming that all human moral compasses point true, and that there are sorts of absolute-ish moral rights and wrongs which, apparently, need not have an origin except in one's individually upset stomach. People justify doing bad things all the time, and sometimes they don't meet the consequences until they meet God. The funny thing is, if they do "bad" things, but they receive no repercussions, how can that thing be then deemed "bad" or "wrong" ? If the only place these standards come from is some result, some point in time, that was unfavorable, or bile in the back of your throat, there can be no "good" or "wrong" decisions. There can only be decisions, and the twisted playing of Fate by a thing called Chance. Wrong things can have good decisions, or something done that wasn't morally wrong can just result in something bad...etc, etc. Nothing's fair, people are dumb, and morals cannot be weighted by a bad case of IBS.

Haemon in Antigone

The Quote (er..chunk i guess): 

Creon: Of course, if you're on the woman's  side-

 Haemon: no, no- Unless you're the woman. It's you I'm fighting for.

 ... 

Creon: Yet you plead her cause. 

Haemon: No, yours, and that of the gods of the dead

        Despite Creon's reasonable defense that a good leader needs to stick to his guns, it is Haemon's argument here that reveals Creon's flaws of execution. These quotes have a bigger impact in context, though. Haemon here is concluding that all the things he said previous about the burial of Polyneices and the release of Antigone were for Creon's benefit. Both the people of Thebes whom Creon was ruling and the "gods of the dead" should desire Polyneices buried and have deemed Antigone in the right. When Creon tries to avoid this responsibility towards the people and the gods, he blames Haemon for saying these things merely for the sake of his love. However, when Haemon turns this argument on it's head, claiming that it is Creon that he is fighting for, Creon's  immovable decision makes him out for sort of a tyrant. That is, even as his own son is pledging loyalty to Creon's kingship and makes the point that he is only trying to help him be a good king, Creon refuses to humble himself enough to even consider his reasoning, let alone even care for the opinions of the people of Thebes. Instead, he waves off what Haemon has to say, claiming that he is just fighting to save Antigone, and in doing so  he is aiding the hand of Fate that is bringing him to his demise. A king who will not consider council is in fact a Tyrant, and Haemon's statement of a pure motive in these quotes serve only, due to Creon's close-mindedness on the matter, to emphasize the point. 

        What gets me about these quotes, though, has nothing to do with my analysis. I know that when I personally am fighting for what I know is true and/or for one of the few people I know I can defend without the character of that person turning my help on its head, I get really heated. It frustrates me to the dickens when people are making arguments or acting upon things that are not logical, close-minded, points under-educated, or against someone I care for. Were I in Haemon's position, I would have been throwing logic in Creon's face SO hard, like "Can you not SEE that you are over-reacting? Really, what is the REAL harm in burying a man? What do you serve to gain but the animosity of all the subjects of Thebes??" However, even when Haemon has the life of his one true love on the line, and all the logic and religion on his side, he still gave time to mention that the one he was fighting for was Creon himself. My respect for Haemon absolutely skyrocketed in these few lines. THAT is the love and levelheadedness I've been striving for ever since I dedicated my life to the Lord - the kind of love that, even in the face of sheer stupidity and ignorance, works to love and fight FOR that stupid ignorant person (or the slightly misguided person, or some other person with problems that can be worded much much less harshly...). Yeah, I think Haemon is my favorite character from anything ever now. Yay!

Never any Happy Mediums...

So, we've established that Naturalism is a load of ...well, yeah. This blog deals with Naturalism's alter-ego: NON-NATURALISM!!! BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Q:   Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?

A:   It tries to. It fails hard, but it tries to. As the blatantly contradictory and extremist cousin of Naturalism, Non-Naturalism states basically that the world is an illusion, that our individual self is an indestructible life force outside the physical world, and that this self is but a part of a universal understanding of everything. So basically, physical reality is a lie called the Maya, the individual, called the Atman, is a god, and is therefore already part of some massive truth-Consciousness called the Brahman. Truth, then, is found inside you. And we aaaaall know how well that works out, when each man is left to his own definition of truth and his own devices. Reality is just a big a load of crap as Non-Naturalism is. Knowledge is ...well, apparently it is irrelevant. What matters is the enlightenment of being part of the Brahman. Any knowledge found outside of our Atman is probably an illusion anyway. wheeeeeeeeee.  

Nature vs. Marx

Q:        What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism ?


A:         ....That is a good question. Well, while both naturalism and dialectical materialism believe in a cause and effect world, oddly enough there is more hope for humanity on the Marxist side of the argument. Naturalism says that stuff happens and boo for you if it sucks. Karma is just coming to get you, it says, and why should it matter to you? There's no purpose for your life anyway. In the Naturalist's cause-and-effect, effect need not necessarily be progressive. Dialectical Materialism does believe, however, that the new synthesis, the "effect", is better, more progressive, than the clash of the thesis and antithesis, or "cause". There is still this idea floatin about that there's nothing that isn't the effect of something and the cause of something, but they think that the new thing is a combination of the best of the original two. They also think this type of cause and effect can be used by human beings in the proletariat for reform. So basically there's actually some idea of human life meaning something here. Besides this though, the two are basically the same.  

Problems with the "Box"

Q:  What are the philosophic problems naturalism has when trying to explain reality, truth, and knowledge ?


A:   Well, Let's take this step by step. First, naturalism claims that nothing exists outside the realm of the physical. So therefore, logic, numbers, ideas, even the thoughts inside your brain, are unreal and cannot be trusted. 
      Second, they believe that that which is proven by science and taught by science constitutes as knowledge. Problem is, science is changing so constantly that theory and even law morphs more quickly than theorists can keep up with. Things once considered fact like true Darwinian Evolution are fading out and dying. That means there is no real root to that which is knowledge, and the word knowledge itself loses meaning. Everything everybody thinks they know about anything could be destroyed in a moment. So basically we live in a knowledge-less, truthless void. 
      Thirdly, Naturalists believe that all of life is a game of cause and effect. That is, there is no one thing that happens without having being caused by something else and without, in turn, causing something else to happen. Nothing happens in and of itself and even Humans are part of that little game. Therefore, the reasons humans are as they are is due to the various influences of life upon their person, and there is no such thing as free will. Well, were that true there would be no point to living. Humans are not unique, are not special, they're not even "gods". They're just chemicals coming together and falling apart. Naturalism.org states that "Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body." So in a Naturalist's reality and truth of self, there really isn't a self, which completely negates any importance of life as a human, and limits life to monotonous, robotic functions, which experience of life itself negates and confuses. Besides, you cannot explain thoughts with chemicals, nobody has understood how synapses = thoughts. 
        Fourthly, and probably second-most-stupidly, Naturalism claims that there is nothing humans must answer to when it comes to morals, as they are not responsible for their actions. Their actions are the reactions of internal and external "Causes" defined earlier. However, at the same time naturalism says we need to try to temper people to adhering to actions deemed acceptable. Naturalism.org says "Naturalism doesn’t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. "   However, if their first statement was also true, that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions, and life was but cause and effect, there is nothing moral to begin with; the word "Morals" looses it's meaning. And besides, how could anybody have any sense of anything being "acceptable" were there not some sort of underlying moral conscience anyway ? They have no right to deem anything wrong, if A: it could not have been avoided, taking the responsibility from the human, and B: is simply a cause of something else in the big game of life. Nothing is wrong or right in reality, in truth, it just is. Yet they try to uphold responsibility and morality....
         Fifthly, just read anything they post ever, and you will find contradictions that don't make any sense. For instance: (again from Naturalism.org) "We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways we’d rather not be treated. Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others and our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community."  ....considering previous points, yeah have fun with that. 

Fallacies of the Human Mind

Well, first I would stop and take a check on my facial features to prevent exploding into the "what the HECK you talking about you IDIOT" expression....then I would give myself a moment or two to look thoughtful (while actually thinking).


First thing out of my mouth, to Mark: "What do you mean ?"


Nearly the entire discussion is based upon where Mark takes it, because look: I know my world view, and I know truth. However, Mark does not, and therefore his warped view on whatever he means by "evolve passed our 'need' for God" could be any number of things. Perhaps he thinks science and technology eliminates our need to believe in something that can protect us or grow us. I mean, with life support and all them fancy medicines, humans can take care of themselves right ? Or perhaps he takes the postmodern view, that claims we cannot know any ultimate truth, and that God and religion are things reserved to the personal, private life, and therefore this idea of God should be purged from society's eyes. Either way really, it is an issue of (apparent) progression of human understanding, whether it be of their mental, moral, or physical/worldly estate. 


Once I understand what his deal is, I can start poking little, subtle, near-painless holes in his ideologies. I can probably assume, having not actually had this conversation, that Mark's statement means he doesn't really believe in God in the first place, and is alittle more annoyed with the idea of his presence than he is threatened by it. So step one at this point: rout him back towards an idea that there must be a God. "Look at what science has discovered: see how intricate it is ? See how beautifully but simply complex? See how it supports this other facet of complex life? Do you understand what science is showing you? We had nothing to do with any of this; just because we get it doesn't mean we are special, or any more advanced, really, than our predecessors. Some of the smartest, greatest men lived well before the time of technology. How could any of these things be an accident? How could the complex relationships of electrons be an accident?" and so on, and so forth. Of course, I would probably not bombard him so, but rather turn some example he used of science or technology, go into detail of it's intricacies, and then ask him, basically, would it not be more probable to say there was some sort of Designer? ...Or perhaps he took the other view, that we cannot know truth. Well, then i'd get all C.S. Lewis on his behind and pull examples of the moral law we all have an understanding of, despite any written law. I'd ask him how he could claim x y or z was wrong if that idea was relative. 


Either way, I'd make the idea of God look abit more logical to him. Then perhaps future discussions will truly get to the heart of his beef with God. It is always a process, hopefully this is a semi-decent first step, be Mark a reasonable man, and Sarah willing to listen as much as i am and would be. 

Uhm....What????!!??

....that was my initial response upon watching that Forever All video.
                                                                             .........yeaaaaahhh.

My brain hurts just trying to understand how .....no, no, i am getting ahead of myself. One point at a time, right?

Okay, so the video is listing off all these concrete things that make up this "All", right? Like gravity and water and atoms and the heat source of the sun...but if these are the things that make up the All, and are infact the things that make US the All by sustaining us, how the heck can truth be relative and each of us be unique ????? Those things seem preeeeetty singular/concrete in nature, and are basically truths within themselves. I feel as though the only solid conclusion you can make if you are the All is that you are simply made to continue the cycle. You can have no hope or relativity! You're just atoms made to live off other atoms, no matter how many bloody universes your "mind" travels through. And if you cannot completely know this "All", how are you to draw any conclusions in the first place ?? What is the point of truth if you cannot know it ? And, if you think about it, saying that you cannot ever completely know truth is a truth, so you have A truth you can completely comprehend. But that truth still leaves you in a pretty helpless situation. So let's all just be cool with bein atoms and eatin atoms, mkay? ...Yeah bloody right. >_> hey mom, in the next life can i be a pizza atom? mmm...

Wow, okay...I guess I rolled too many things into one....some general question-arguments sprung to mind though:
How can we BE the All and not understand the All ?
Why would a Pantheist encourage us to look away from the "light of truth" at times, if that is somehow within us, and (should be, therefor) attainable ?
Why is truth not attainable, and how are we unique if we are all part of the same thing ?
And, SERIOUSLY, how can you see a world based upon such intricate complexities and delicate balances, understand them, base your worldview on them, and think them UNCREATED??!?!?! baaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!

Honestly, Pantheism sounds like it can be summed up as "conceited ignorance", the end. ...And how could that video say you will truely know that kingdom and the kingdom is you if you really cannot comprehend it and are even advised to not look at it directly...gehh...nooooo, okay, I AM DONE NOW.

Faith and Balance

Q:    As you share your faith with your friends, what are some things you need to keep in     mind to be an effective witness ?

A:    Personally, this is something I struggle with, knowing what to keep in mind. My passion for truth often threatens to overtake my rational mind when speaking to nonbelievers, and I begin to lose that precarious balance between checking my heart and working towards theirs. So for me, one thing i need to keep constantly in mind when I start to slip is Balance: between heart and mind, between the ideal and the real, between my worldview and the view of the world. However, the one thing all Christians should keep in mind when witnessing is Love. Not necessarily deep, passionate love, but that low, ever present, burning love that the Christian can find themselves blessed with when they are in a right relationship with God.
         Okay, so how does that help me ? Well, it becomes easier to understand when we look at Paul's words to the Corintians in I Corintians 13. verses 4-7 characterize love thusly:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I know we all know these verses. However, what we sometimes forget is that Love is not an emotion, it is a choice, just as being patient, or kind, or calm, or protecting is a choice. When it comes to witnessing, what we choose to love is an even more important choice. When we choose to love the Word, we are taught to hate sin. However, too often we confusing hating sin with hating those who sin. When we love the word, we are also choosing to love humanity as God did. This means being patient with your friends' misunderstandings of truth; this means being kind and considerate towards their points of view. This means eliminating any feeling of pride in your "special Christian knowledge" that these "pagans are too lowly to understand". There is no special knowledge, only maturity. That being said, our love must also be mature. Mature love humbles itself to the point of being able to admit when it may be wrong. It always will look to understand the heart and, therefore, views of those it is speaking with to the best of it's ability. This means asking questions and dialoging, not just attacking and defending, and doing so with the utmost patience, because your Love is representing Christ and His Love. It also means letting some attacks brush by you, and not letting them ruffle your feathers. All in time.
           And yeah, it can be frustrating, especially when we fall from Loving. There is a song by Saosin called "Why Cant You See?" i feel that unprepared (or misguided, or mistaken) Christian witnesses can relate to. The chorus reads "Why cant you see with my hands holding your eyes open ? it's hard for me to think straight when your mouth is moving". We may feel sometimes that no matter how much straight-up truth we throw at unbelievers, they still wont see it, and we will only get more rialed up the more they say back that opposes what we told them. I been there, and i am sure i am not the only one. But that usually means we were approaching the issue incorrectly. And yeah, we wont win every argument. And well we shouldnt, because we should never be arguing. We should be dialoging with respect and with a mind to understand. Now i am getting redundant, but my point is we basically have to remember that, when our Love slips (as it will, we are only human), there are views outside our own created from very real life experiences held by other very real, God-made human beings, and only teachers can get away with expecting others to learn and accept by cramming information down their throats ;)

"Earthvision"??? No, Silly! "Worldview"!

The big question: What is a worldview and how do we develop a Christian Worldview ? ........follow-up question: why did i capitalize those words ??? It's still a mystery...


Anyway...
      A worldview is essentially self-explanitory. That is, it is the lense through which one views the world. Carol Hill defines worldview as "the basic way of interpreting things and events that pervades a culture so thoroughly that it becomes a culture's concept of reality — what is good, what is important, what is sacred, what is real. Worldview is more than culture, even though the distinction between the two can sometimes be subtle. It extends to perceptions of time and space, of happiness and well-being. The beliefs, values, and behaviors of a culture stem directly from its worldview." The idea of a worldview can be further simplified as it applies to not only the culture, but the individual. However, culture can often have a very power influence on an individual's worldview. For example, when one speaks of developing a Christian worldview, we find that Hill's definition of a worldview is what so drasticly muddies the waters of our comprehension of what that entails. Why ? Because Christianity always was and forever will be not only counter-culture, but counter-nature. Human nature, that is.
       To steer clear of culture's trench of conflicting, pick-and-choose answers, or, as is often the case, to correct it within the self, one must be able to carefully ballence the weight of what others say against the personal research you do and conclusions you make on your own. This means that you will be studying your Bible, you will be refering back to the backgrounds of the authors - their experiences and whatnot -, you will be studying the culture of Bible times, and you may even give understanding abit of Greek a shot. However, and I would argue most importantly, you will need to discuss. Even the commentaries from the smartest Bible scholars say some crazy stuff, and, especially in the case of a new Christian, one cannot tackle this information alone. This may lead to even greater confusion. A strong, reliable mentor or two is so key in assisting the new Christian with sifting through that which is true and that which is bias, and discussion becomes a strong reinforcer of the Faith as your mind considers everything it must before makin a solid conclusion, as opposed to blindly accepting the conclusions of others.
          This discussion extends beyond that of peer-to-peer or peer-to-mentor discussion, however. Even if one is not fully convinced of the legitimacy of Prayer, opening oneself to God's guidance is most key of all. If one is seeking to understand God yet rejects the relationship, he will essentially "lose track" of God. There need not be this massive conviction at first, just a general opening of self to try and understand God's words, will, ways, and works. Forget being afraid of "not doing it (Christianity) right" or "being in the right place (of mind)" before opening yourself to this, or before becoming baptized. It isn't about fear, or happiness, or readiness, or any other emotion one might associate with what the general consensus lables as a "heart-based" religion. One must approach trying to understand God - through the afore mentioned approaches to Biblestudy - with the idea in their head that Christianity will make their lives easier, or happier, or better. Rather, we are "victims of a broken world", as Weisman put it. We will probably even be subject with more trial than Mr. Average Joe. Essentially, what I am saying is that one must forget themself, because Ultimate Truth must invariably exist and extend beyond the circumstances of the individual.
            This means we must always be cautious. If anyone makes a claim about the Bible or what a Christian should think or feel, let your yellow flags go up. Do not let your reservations keep you from associating with that person or engaging in discussion if what they said feels off. Rather, discuss it; research it in all respects of the word (what the Bible says, the context in which it was said, by whom and why; and keep your heart and mind open to the workings of Truth.
            We musnt forget about the outside world though. We need to remember that most everyone else will have very different worldviews and very different ideas from those which we persue. To counter these, or at very least to understand their follies, we must study them quite nearly as much. We must be as Paul: as great an expert on the beliefs of the culture and other religions as those who would follow them on pain of death. Ignorance is not bliss, it is death. Never stop searching, and, trust, God will never stop providing.

Unpacking Lewis's Mind...and My Own

            The quote: "You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness" (Lewis 44). 

                               ...haha, I accidentally wrote "Lewish"......(haha, made you check, I know how to hit backspace!!!)

AAAANYWAY... Analysis..
            This quote was one in a long sting of thoughts that can be wrapped up in a few basic ideas. The first idea is that Goodness is the predecessor of Badness, and Badness is but a product of what Lewis calls "spoiled goodness". Essentially, badness, or wickedness, is the product of seeking something that in itself is good, but in the wrong way or excessively. He explains that this idea does not invalidate the concept of "being wicked" or "wicked people", as those who fall to wicked deeds surely can be wicked. The point is, what these people often seek after is something good, such as power, money, even sex. Yep, I said it, sex. These things in and of themself are not bad. Money feeds your kids, power keeps them in line, sex creates them. It is the perversion of these things rather (and in these cases, often the overwhelming desire for more) that turns the act of gaining power or accumulating cash or seeking sex into something that is wicked. Here's the kicker: the reason the persuit of these things is so easily corrupted is because they feel good to have, but their presence is incapable of sustaining that good feeling. Then the persuer becomes ensnared in obsession to capture them again. If the obession grows enough, even the object of the persuit becomes wicked to some degree. Power becomes bad power, tyranical power, abused power. This is also where we get sexual perversions and acoholics and whatnot. But the point of the quote is this: one can be good or do something good and not feel good, but one does not do something bad just for the sake of doing something bad. Rather, doing bad is the product of wanting to feel good. That bad thing was, at the time, "pleasant or useful" (lewis 44) to the doer. Good stands alone, appart from the selfish human desires, but badness cannot exist alone. This can be seen in even the world's worst people. Hitler's initial message was not "kill the Jews". He could not have won over the hearts of so many Germans with such a brutal front, duh. Hitler's rallying cry began with a plan to restore Germany to pride and power after the embarassing closing of the first World War, as WWI's Treaty of Versailles left Germany with the blame and the debt of a war they did not even start. Desiring a good face for his country was not evil of Hitler. It was how he then went about it... how he went mad with it. As Lewis's quote suggests, Hitler was not being bad for the sake of being bad. He just went WAAAAAAAAY overboard trying to promote the Germans and the Aryan race. Like, by alot. Undestatement of my life. The funny thing then is this: this is what makes being good so hard sometimes. We dont want to, or dont feel like it, or come up with a myriad of other excuses as to why we didn't do something good when the opportunity presented itself. Goodness is Goodness without our intervention. Lewis is claiming that, heck, it can be completely neglected and still exist. I am inclined to agree.

            Yep, I am agreeing that Hitler was not the spawn of Satan. Weird, I know... saying "Hitler" and "NOT spawn of Satan" in the same sentence. However, as I have said countless times in class and in writing (at least, I feel that way..sorry for the repetition), I am a 110% believer in the initial Goodness in every man and the power of tapping into it. Too bad Hitler didn't have someone to keep him on the right track, because eventually he did become abit of a devil's child. Okay, maybe alot. Anyway...yeah. People can be wicked. People can even be completely wicked, caught up in the Pride and Greed that they allow to consume their hearts, "grab them by the wrist and direct them where to go" (to quote a favorite Green Day song of mine). I can almost hear Bob in my head, though, saying somebody could rob a bank or something just to see if they could get away with it, or just to test themselves and see if they could even do it to begin with. That could almost be seen as being bad solely for the sake of badness. However, I would argue that they do it for the thrill. If they were to rob a bank and feel nothing or get nothing out of it, I seriously doubt they would do it at all. It is rather that need to feel superior, or the adrenaline, or the pride in your own cunning that would drive you to do such a thing. The desire then to go rob a bank is the "persuit gone wrong" of the sought-after "thrill" or feeling of accomplishment. Pride is seperate; it is a sin in and of itself. On the flip-side, I have seen amazing things come out of appealing to the initial desire for that something good every man seeks to fulfill but, without God, knows not how to satisfy. The guy who drinks too much alcohol just doesn't want to hurt anymore and doesn't know how to stop..either the hurting or the drinking. And it doesn't even have to be pain he is trying to escape. Whatever is keeping him there is not something pleasant, even if that guy thinks being drunk is enjoyable. There's always that moment where you wake up the next day, feel like crap, and ask yourself why you do this, even if it lasts a nanosecond in your subconscious brain. Appeal to what drives that nanosecond's thought, and God can work wonders. <3

Slomozovo - a humor you either get or dont

                              one bad word. IM SORRY! ...its funny. i swear!!!