Mom told me to go plant some trees, I was annoyed...

3/12/10

Mom told me to go plant some trees. I was annoyed, I'll admit. I was perfectly comfortable, sitting in front of the computer doing biology. About to move on to Logic.

"Why go outside? There's been no planning for this "tree planting day". It stormed last night almost as hard as it did the time Zeus caught Poseidon with his wives. And I didn't sleep. I have no idea where to plant them, we don't have any nice soil on hand to fill the holes in. Why tell me this in the middle of the day, when its going to take up the rest of my day?!" i thought to myself.

I went. Kinda grumbling to myself. Changed, put in Coldplay. Grabbed a shovel, and went. I dug all the holes, and wasn't really annoyed anymore. It was kinda nice, kinda fun. Stuff spun around in my head. But it worked better, (my head that is) maybe cause of the fresh air.

By the time i was done, i was annoyed again. Stuff was that spun around was now stuck in my head, now confusing me. I stumped to the swampy marsh at the bottom of our property. To wash my shovel. Its gray, heavy, and overcast. I toss the shovel out, pull it back, wipe it on the reeds. Then Mr. Coldplay says it,

"Swimming on a sea of faces
Tired of the human races,
Oh, an answer now is what I need...
I see it in the new sun rise and
See it break on your horizon
Oh come on love stay with me..."

And plunk. A hail lands on my ear.
"Ow!" i glance up,
"papapapap...." And it starts. All around me.
It was profound. I sat. And stopped. Everything. stopped thinking, stopped washing the dumb shovel, stopped shouting at Sadie for running off chasing something in the swamp, and sat.

There wasn't really enough hail to cover the ground, just made it look sprinkled over the grass. But they were big hails. I sat there, listening to Coldplay, and popped a hail in my mouth. Sat there for quite a while, watching hail plop into the babbling creek, watching the now clear, cold pools in the swamp ripple from the impact cause by the balls of ice from above.

I sat, and I Wondered in Awe.

An Essay I Wrote

3/2/10


What would it be like, if Socrates, “History’s greatest questioner” was confronted with, and examined, the claims of Christ? Christ’s claims hold tremendous power and controversy. If Jesus is who he said he was, (the son of God, and therefore equal with God) then we are faced with only two honest options; one, we accept him and everything he said and claimed as the absolute Truth, or two, we reject him. However, if Jesus is not who he said he was then a whole new set of puzzles arises. This is the subject with which Peter Kreeft’s book deals.

When I first began to read Kreeft's examination, I didn’t like how the book was written directly as a dialogue. But as I pushed on you quickly adapt, and come to appreciate the quick, flowing dialogue. It allows the debate to continue uninterrupted. Throughout the course of the book Socrates meets several different people, all who are attending “Have It University” The first student he meets is Bertha Broadmind, then Thomas Keptic, Professor Flatland who teaches 'Science and Religion', Professor Shift who teaches 'Comparative Religions', next Socrates encounters the claims of Christ in Professor Fesser's 'Christology' seminars. Each person represents an individual view on Christ, and Christianity. Each view is logically examined.

Most of the people are positive in their feelings and beliefs towards Jesus, but few take the time to examine what they believe, and why they believe it. Few realize that he was more than a good teacher. Socrates brings people's apathy to the front. If they care enough he says, they’ll search the subject out themselves to find the truth, and then follow it. No matter where it leads. Since they won’t do that he concludes, he has been called to the present to examine it to see if it’s true, and then bring its importance to their attention.

In one discussion he shows that maybe Jesus was a liar, and therefore untrustworthy and undeserving of our service. But no lie has ever had such a major effect on the world. If that’s true, then the whole world has been revolutionized by deception. Secondly what did Jesus have to gain if he was lying? He was tortured and killed, as have been millions of his followers. No-body would die for a lie that they gained nothing from. Or maybe Jesus was just genuinely mistaken! But how could someone fulfill the thousands of prophecies that surround Jesus? It would be impossible. Or maybe Jesus was just crazy? The writings we have of Josephus don’t seem to indicate that he was. And what crazy person has ever had such an effect on man-kind? No one would follow, and die for a lunatic. If Jesus was telling the truth however, then the power of his message would have an unlimited affect on humanity, millions of people would willingly die for something they knew to be truth. And the prophecies that are in the Old Testament are fulfilled. It can only follow that he was who he said he was.

Throughout the book several people subtly attack the resurrection. “If the bones of Jesus were found in a cave in Palestine tomorrow all the essentials of Christianity would remain.” In other words the resurrection was more of a figurative moral story than an actual literal event. There are only two possibilities, either Jesus rose from the tomb or he did not. If he did not then all of Christianity is in vain. It means the disciples lied about the resurrection. They couldn’t have been “honestly mistaken” they claimed to see him ascend into heaven. Socrates meets it like this.

Socrates: So you say that the meaning of the resurrection is the union of goodness and power?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: And you say that the resurrection didn’t really happen?
Fesser: No I did not say that, I said it is not necessary to the essentials of Christianity to interpret it literally.

Socrates: To interpret it literally is to say that it really happened, in history, on earth, physically, biologically, in Jesus’ body and not just in people’s minds, correct?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: And you say that the meaning still remains even if the historical happening is not believed?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: If it didn’t happen in history then it is just a myth, an archetype
Fesser: Yes

Socrates: Jesus the historical person did not have the power to rise from the dead, but Jesus the myth does?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: And rising from the dead means power?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: And Jesus represents goodness?

Fesser: Yes

Socrates: Then if Jesus didn’t really conquer death, it follows that goodness does not really have power. In that case, the meaning is not intact is it? For if the resurrection really happened, the meaning is that goodness has power, and if it didn’t really happen, then goodness does not have power. Does that not logically follow?

Fesser: No, Socrates. It needn’t be historically true, only mythically true. You don’t expect a myth to be historically accurate.

Socrates: But, this fairly tale, even as a tale, is different from all other fairy tales, according to your interpretation; for it is not only about goodness but about the union of goodness with power. The meaning of other fairy tales is unchanged whether the tales have the power of history or not. But the meaning of this fairy tale is the union of archetype with history, myth with fact, goodness with power. So how can its meaning survive the loss of half its meaning, namely its history, its power?

Fesser: Hmmm, there does seem to be a self-referential inconsistency in my hermeneutic.

Socrates: I suppose this is as close as a professor gets to “repent and believe”?
Fesser: What do you think Socrates? Why does the resurrection have to be literal?

Socrates: I will tell you, but my answer is not mine, but scripture's. Yours on the other hand, seems to not be scripture, but yours. I think it is literal first; because it proves Jesus’ claim to divinity, only a God can conquer death. Second, because it is the completion of his task, his purpose, and the reason he became a man.

Logically and slowly, this imaginary Socrates lays out the argument that Christianity without a literal Christ is useless. Specifically focusing on the story of Christ, he shows its uniqueness among the mythologies of the world. Yet, people's hearts throughout the book often remain hardened.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man." Romans 1:20-23

The Church's Role in Evangelism

2/28/10

Man is funny. You and I both know the difference from right and wrong, but we really don’t care. We both know that there is a universal right and wrong but we still disobey it. There are a few people that say they really believe that there is no universal right or wrong, people that seem to think that Truth is relative. But C.S. Lewis explains in Mere Christianity that they all use arguments and statements that say they really do. Such as;

“That’s not fair!”
“That’s my seat, I was there first!” or
“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine” and
“Come on you promised!”

Each of these commonly used statements and all the ones that are like them, used by everybody, profess a belief in a universal right and wrong. Almost all argumentative statements appeal to a higher moral power. And the people using these arguments expect the other person to believe in or know about the same higher moral power. Without a universal right and wrong, or with out a moral compass, or higher moral power we would have nothing to appeal to in an argument.

People that are being accused often make some sort of excuse that they believe somehow excludes their particular case from this moral law. As Lewis points out, they never say “To hell with your moral standard! I’ll do what I want!” It seems as if all people argue and fight using some sort of rulebook, or moral compass. Whether you want to believe it or not everyone really does believe in a universal right and wrong or a higher moral authority. We appeal to it ever day in our use of logic or whenever we argue! But man is funny. We all know this Law of Nature, or this universal right and wrong. But we disobey it. We really don’t care. [1]
Because we disobey it, and really don’t care, the world is in shambles. And we somehow wonder why! Let’s use America as an example. We the elect leaders who give us what we want; but no one is happy. They say we have problems overseas, many countries certainly don’t love us, and they don’t even respect us anymore. Out of the recognized 203 countries of the world, we have military presence of over 1,000 troops or more in over 150 of them. [2]We’re spread out over the world like too little butter on too much bread. Much like the Roman Empire shortly before its fall. We’re verbally abused by other nations for acting like the worlds police. From within we have equally large problems. Welfare is making our nation weak, yet people are starving. Our government funds from our taxes are trying to support too many causes, yet people go without basic health care. Immigrants are allowed to come and go freely, taking our economy with them, yet it seems we put them in such a position. And this is America! Still considered great, the land of opportunity!  The world is really messed up. And I believe all of our problems are because we know the Law of Nature and we break it, and we really don’t care. And if we do care, it’s not enough to change anything.

Our world’s laws and constitutions are based on the premise that the majority will desire order and morality. But we know that people certainly won’t be basically moral because of what we’ve already learned about the Law of Nature; human depravity. We know it, we break it. So if people are immoral then it leaves it up to our leaders and the governments to try to keep order, enforce laws and keep anarchy at bay. But they do just as bad a job of it because they too are immoral. They alone cannot keep order, enforce laws and keep anarchy at bay. It takes the peoples co-operation. Both the people and the leaders must be basically moral for any government to work. But neither are. In essence, a government serves one purpose, the delaying of the inevitable.

I don't believe capitalism is good or bad, neither is socialism. They're neutral, incapable of holding any moral status. And while one or the other may work better at one time or another, they both only delay the inevitable.

Evangelism and revival are our only hope. That’s my main point. If people can be converted to a religion that teaches them to be moral then all this will change. We can’t be moral on our own. We have to have God's help. I’m not saying that everybody has to be perfect. That’s impossible. We can't change ourselves, we need to learn to rely on God's grace, and His spirit. We don’t need the government, or our schools, or our horoscopes to change us. We need God to reform us.
So the Church must evangelize. But wait! I forget! Much of today’s church doesn't believe in that anymore, we're too comfortable. They are content to sit in their designated pew, have their name enlisted on their church’s membership list, listen to contemporary Christian music, and attend youth groups where they play basketball and have car washes. Something needs to change.
The few Christians that do believe in evangelism seem to think that it means building schools and digging wells in third world countries, handing out food and medicine and just generally helping poor, overseas people. This is a form of evangelism, and these things are great and they need to be done! But that’s not the extent of our calling. God said that our full calling was to “Go into all the world and preach.” (Mark 16:15) as well as "Love your neighbor as yourself." But nobody knows what that evangelism is anymore. Christians really have no idea what that evil word means. They don’t know how to show the people their need for a savior who will save them from themselves.
We must preach. Now where does that leave us? It leaves us with the very few Christians who actually know what that evil word means, to change everything. When we look at the majority of the 6.77 billion people on this world, we see immorality. When we look at the estimated 2.1 billion people who profess to be Christians we see people who are still immoral, or at least too comfortable. We don’t know how to simply share our faith. There are an estimated 7.5 million people in the world who say they believe in going and preaching to the world, sharing their faith, and trying to convert unbelievers to Christianity. [3] We can talk about changing America, getting new leaders elected and bringing reform, but without the people being basically moral, nothing will ever change. We must rise up and evangelize the world. Tell people. We are left with a very few, a minority, who must try to change everything.

Ecclesiastes

2/22/10

I love the book of Ecclesiastes. I first was introduced to it in a sermon that i heard. Its my favorite sermon, and there for the only one on my ipod. Its by Artie Aragon, called Speaker of the House.



Most of the books of the bible are hard to follow, in the sense of how we follow a book. We read a book from start to finish. Each sentence is connected, and creates a detailed story. Sometimes when i read the Bible i feel like it doesnt flow right.

But Ecclesiastes makes sense. It flows. You can read it exactly how the author wrote it. As a semi-depressed outlook on the vanity life, and the jobs God has given man.


With this book more than any other i can vividly see Solomon, the preacher, son of David, king over Jerusalem, sitting down at his desk, and writing out his frustrations, confusions and dilemmas. Its almost like an essay, or a journal, or a blog. The little one liners throughout the book seem somewhat like the proverbs. But he expounds. He notes things we all know, but never speak. "All streams flow into the sea, and yet the sea is never full. And the streams turn about and run again to the place from which they came."

Then my favorite.

"For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven;
A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to break down and a time to build up.
A time to weep and a time to laugh.
A time to mourn and a time to dance.
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together.
A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.
A time to seek and a time to lose
A time to keep and a time to cast away.
A time to tear and a time to sew.
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate.
A time for war and a time for peace."

and,

"Moreover i saw under the sun in the place of Justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of Righteousness, even there was wickedness. So i said in my heart, "God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and every work"".

Its quotes, its themes, is wisdom, its style of writeing, all these things make Ecclesiastes A Book That Has Kept Me.

Dickens

1/7/10


I've been reading Oliver Twist. Its my second or third try so far and I'm about halfway through. The last time i tried was a few years ago, i didn't get past the first chapter. (: As I'm reading it inevitably the same question arises in my mind... What does Charles Dickens think of religion, specifically Christianity? What sparked the thought was just a few sentences early on in the book, (isn't it amazing how that happens, imagine the writer, he's just writing interesting bits for his book, but to different people, it will spark completely different thoughts in their heads) Mr. Dickens is quoting the evil, supposedly Christian people that are "taking care" of Oliver in the work house. They say,
"And i hope that you pray for those who protect, feed and shelter you every night, like a good Christian?"
and then Mr. Dickens says this interesting statement,
"And Oliver would have been a very, very good Christian indeed if he prayed for such miserable losers as these" (paraphrased of course...)
So i thought, i could say,
"he's obviously against Christianity, those who he portrays as some of the worst people in the book profess to be Christians."
Or i could say, "He is obviously positive towards Christianity, he implies that good Christians should pray for their enemies."
Which stand shall i take? Neither.
I am going to google "was Charles Dickens a Christian" I'll let you know what i find.
Well apparently chacha says this, "Yes. Dickens was a Christian. He often showed his Christian spirit in his writings."
Do i believe chacha? Not entirely.
Here's what Christian Today Library says, "Dickens was a critic of aristocratic, high church elitism."
Do i believe that that means he was not a Christian? hah... No.
This is what i believe. Its a lot to write... I'll post the link. http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charlesdickens.html

This is what i think is true. It seems to fit with his writings best. Do i have much evidence. No, unless you think that article is 100% true. I'm a little wary of online posts being completely fact. But it probably is correct. (:

CS Lewis on the Eficacy of Prayer

12/17/09

Today I finished reading an awsome little essay by my favorite author, C.S. Lewis. It was a great examiniation of prayer. He sums things up very nicely stating some things such as: "Prayer is by definition, a request. Unvariable success with prayer would not prove the existence of God, it would prove something more like magic." How does one prove that a God exists? Richard Dawkins has said that the fact that God many times doesnt answer deserving, devout peoples prayers is good enough evidence that he doesnt exist. There certainly seems to be scriptures in the bible that talk about ever working prayer. But that cannot be what they mean because, "We see the greatest, most holy of petitioners in the garden of gathsemeny, praying 'Lord may this cup pass from me' yet his prayer is not answered. If prayer is a request, we must leave it up to a infinitely wise, and powerfull God to grant, or deny our prayer".