tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48498169067018158902024-03-05T04:18:08.482-08:00Whatnot and Wingnutsmaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-6924683969330045652011-07-09T15:44:00.000-07:002011-07-09T15:44:28.023-07:00Dostoevsky and his Atheists"No more than five days ago...he solemnly announced in the discussion that there is decidedly nothing in the world that would make men love their fellow men; that there exists no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that if there is and has been any love on earth up to now, it has come not from natural law but solely from people's belief in their immortality...for every separate person...who believes neither in God nor in his own immortality, the moral law of nature ought to change immediately into the exact opposite of the former religious law..."<br />
Dostoevsky, <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>, p. 69<br />
<br />
Russian authors have this annoying tendency to be revered as brilliant storytellers and writers. The most obnoxious part is that they probably deserve it.<br />
<br />
Now perhaps this is just the bitterness of being unfortunate enough to be born in a country that has almost no great literature to call its own. But in any case, <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i> is a brilliant work, and other than a short section relating a rather bizarre story by, ironically, the same brother that is spoken of above, has not ceased to keep me interested. I'm 287 pages into the work and I'm not even halfway. Stupid Russian winters. Kept Dostoevsky at his manuscript for too long.<br />
<br />
But returning to the extended quotation above. Why is that so significant? Well, because it brings up an important point, the connection between immortality and virtue. The point being that there is no virtue if there is no belief in the human soul.<br />
<br />
One may argue that virtue exists in atheists in spite of the fact they do not believe in the immortality of the soul. Thus, even were the belief in God and immortality to become the minority opinion, virtue would still exist. The reason for this (were such a hypothetical situation possible) would be that virtue would exist as a neurosis. The bottom would have fallen out, so to speak, and we would be left with the surface action, virtue, but lose the reason for acting virtuous. The other answer would require the belief in the Bible, and an understanding of Romans 1 as Dr. Horner of The Master's College would explain it. That virtue would exist because in spite of the fact that man would deny it, his act of denying it would bring to mind the truth that he knows, that there is a God and man is immortal. This would cause him to act as though there were a just judge out there even if he were to deny the existence of such a being.<br />
<br />
In short, evolution and the materialistic philosophy have nothing to say to explain why we shouldn't kill anyone who ticks us off, why rape is bad, and why a genocide isn't such a brilliant idea.<br />
<br />
Good Lord, we need You.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-92001456327028075152011-07-02T09:45:00.000-07:002011-07-02T09:45:50.782-07:00Time and it's confusionThe world waits with baited breath. For what we're not quite sure. Perhaps, perhaps it's for a new movie to come out. Or the next CD by a stellar band. Or perhaps even for truth. Which unfortunately nobody seems to be able to offer--certainty is as offensive as intolerance. Never mind the fact that nobody is angry at mathematicians for dogmatically saying that two and two makes four. Truth is too often mistaken for opinion.<br />
<br />
This mistake stems from the inability of humans to recognize that truth exists outside of themselves.<br />
<br />
There are many people in current culture who understand truth does exist. But alas, our postmodern world believes that man has no way of reaching that truth. In a book I recently read by Cormac McCarthy he continually presses the idea into readers that there may be a God and there may be a purpose behind everything, but mankind is so lost and separate from Him that they can never reach that truth, and wander aimlessly through the world with the knowledge that there is more, but without hope of discovering it.<br />
<br />
And honestly, they're right. It's about time we removed ourselves from the neoclassical view of man as being able to with the aid of reason discover all that is to be known about the universe. The blunt truth is that if we are to know anything, we need to have somebody above the human condition be able to show us what truth is. And we can't verify that truth. We have no choice but accept or reject it.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-44852282480365590832011-04-24T09:43:00.000-07:002011-04-24T09:43:48.192-07:00I never post. Therefore, no one ever reads. I think. Therefore...Hello again blogging world. The world that cares little whether I sleep or play video games for four hours, or even do something productive...wait, isn't that sleeping? What a fine uncaring world you are blogosphere.<br />
<br />
Can I be honest for a minute? Well, since you can't actually answer me until after I post, I'm going to assume the answer is yes.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I'm a tangle of emotions. Yes, I have learned the British way and am keeping the stiff upper lip, but honestly the past hour and looking towards the future have been difficult. I've had such an amazing time this last semester, the thought of it slipping away into nothing but a vague mass of memories is saddening. To live with the knowledge that never again will I be living at 8 Crick road with 24 great American students breathing the same damp air of England is difficult. It's not leaving Oxford, nor is it really the actual act of saying goodbye. Most of these people I'll probably see again. But never again will all of us be worrying about deadlines and tutorials, running to Tesco to buy food, or reserving books at the Bodlein Library. It's over. And it's sad.<br />
<br />
On the happy side, I've been able to sweeten the pain by travelling Europe with a few of my good friends. We started as a group of seven in Paris, where we ate baguettes and crepes, walked until our feet were screaming with pain. Except they weren't, because feet don't scream. Yet it is a word-picture we often employ. Why?<br />
Nevermind.<br />
But Paris was beautiful. So many buildings whose architecture just astounded me. The Louvre and the Musee D'Orsay were fantastic. Seeing actual Degas and Monet, as well as ancient greek statues, like the famous armless Venus, and the Mona Lisa (what is so great about that painting? She isn't even pretty...).<br />
It's odd, because my appreciation of art is very different from most. I could care less who painted it, or the history behind it, or what movement it was a part of. I care mostly about the painting as it is. Is it beautiful? Does it capture my eye. Do I find myself interested by it? How is the composition, the lighting, how the artist (hopefully) did something to make me see the object differently? That's what I enjoy in art. But in museums, if it's old, it's included.<br />
Sculptures I also find more interesting than paintings, which is something I didn't really expect, but there you have it. Probably because older composition is so different that my more cinematic tastes. Thus for sculpture, whose composition is completely different from painting or photography, I find fascinating.<br />
Climbing the Eiffel tower was pretty cool. It's a pretty big piece of metal.. But the Luxembourg Gardens were gorgeous. If I was an old retired Frenchman, I'd spend so much time reading there...people would begin to think I was one of the sculptures they had in the garden.<br />
I also purchased sunglasses outside the Louvre for 10 euro. The seller originally offered them for 20, but when I began walking away, he asked how much I'd pay, and I said 10 euro, and he handed them to me. It was definitely necessary. Paris is a very white city, and sunlight intensifies that. I needed the shades. Plus they're aviators, and cool.<br />
<br />
After Paris I went to Venice, which after experiencing Paris it was nice being able to walk wherever you wanted to go. There really isn't much to see in Venice, so one day was plenty, and then we ended up in Florence.<br />
So in Florence, which is where I am at the moment, I've seen the naked David statue by Michelangelo, and then a bunch of ridiculously awesome sketches by Renaissance dudes. I've discovered (among other things) that I could spend hours looking at sketches by artists, but finished paintings bore me. Odd, I know, but there you have it. I blame my best friend for his awesome sketchbooks. They've made me this way. But I love it...I love sketches....so cool.<br />
And now I am on the brink of beginning my long, long journey home. I'll be in Oxford for another day and a half, and then I'll be heading to London, then home. And I am so happy about that. This post-term trip has really made home seem such a wonderful place. It is where I go to see my mother and father, to share with them my experiences, to find a place called home.<br />
<br />
Homeward bound am I, and I am ready for home.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-30376446857826721232011-01-29T03:44:00.000-08:002011-01-29T03:44:21.761-08:00One idiot said to the other idiot, "Doesn't he know it's rude to eavesdrop?"Since my last post, there has been two movie nights and two tutorials, an "inkings" meeting, and a delicious breakfast of hashbrowns and scrambled eggs. Yes indeed, life at Crick Road is good. The question is, though, what has happened that would be remotely interesting to you my avid readers. What would induce you to heights of ecstatic appreciation of my evocation?<br />
<br />
Honestly, I don't know. That's probably why I haven't written a blog post recently.<br />
<br />
What has happened is mainly that I am falling in love with my food group, which is pretty much the awesomest Of course, we are The Food Group Formerly Known as Awesome, and for those to lazy, we go by "Awesome."<br />
<br />
The other day, one of the S(cholarly) C(hristians) I(n) O(xford) staff Simon joined our food group and pretty much made it the funniest night of our lives. His humor is brilliant. Unfortunately, as all good jokes exist within a context, to repeat them would be to do them a disservice. Yet I will anyways. One example was when he told a story about his son. His son, as he told us, is very sensitive, and will collapse if he senses that his father is displeased with him. Once, this son threw food on the table, and Simon told his son, "Rory, we don't do that." And then Rory looks at him and says, "Daddy, I won't do that anymore." Seeing that the girls got really emotional, I made the comment that if Simon were to tell more stories like that, the girls would probably start crying. Simon then said, "But we won't. Nothing touches these bowls of steel!"<br />
<br />
See what I mean by you need to be there?<br />
<br />
And that's the problem with writing these blog posts.<br />
<br />
I had my first creative writing tutorial this past Wednesday, and I am amazed at the man who does them. Somehow, he is able to tell you that you're the worst writer in the world and make you feel good about it. I'm not entirely sure how he does that.<br />
<br />
Anyways, hope everything is pleasant stateside. Be back on here hopefully sooner rather than later.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-23572548950980279652011-01-16T12:35:00.000-08:002011-01-16T12:35:27.327-08:00All my life I've been dying to knowAh yes, another day, another year, and another something or other that would make your head spin were you to know it. Thankfully, I value the unqueasiness of your stomach, so I won't mention that one. But, you are not reading this to hear my random and wild thoughts, but to hear about Oxford and England and why you should be so utterly envious of me that you run around your house screaming until you're lungs stop working. Please call an ambulance before proceeding. Your heath is my priority.<br />
<br />
In any case, shall we?<br />
<br />
Monday began my orientation, which basically meant I went to Wycliffe Hall and heard people talk for half the day, then spent the rest of my day hanging out with people. On one of the days (not sure which) I was led on a tour by an extraordinary Classics professor named Jonathan Kirkpatrick who happened to live in the Kilns. Now, for those ignorant of these matters, the Kilns once belonged to the great C. S. Lewis. And, if you don't know who that is, then, I pity the fool.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Kirkpatrick led us around on a sightseeing tour, giving us various details that were entertaining, and interesting, and all the better because we got to hear a British accent. One thing, however, to bear in mind is that British people walk really, really fast. He left us in the dust. Like Usain Bolt at the Olympics. Of the amusing things he shared, one was that there are several colleges who claim to be the oldest colleges of Oxford, these being University, Balliol and Merton. Another is that the All Souls' College has a traditional duck hunt where the dons walk around the walls of the castle in chase of a duck. This is due to the fact they discovered a dead one while digging for the foundations. Hilarious factoids do not stop there, as we were also informed that Christ's Church (another college) runs five minutes behind time, because back when it was founded, Oxford's time was five minutes behind London's. This was a result of the latitude. So when trains began running, and they switched to a universal time zone for convenience, Christ's Church decided tradition was stronger, and thus still remain on the old Oxford time.<br />
<br />
My roommate and I scored big time on our food group. Not only do we switch dinners off with people who are fun and will clean up, but they also cook amazing meals, and bake absolutely brilliant desserts. Tonight being the soon-to-be world famous lemony bars, the quote resulting being "That's transubstantiation going on over there!" Those bars are perhaps the best tasting square inch I've ever had. An explosion of flavor in your mouth in every...single...bite......<br />
<br />
Needless to say...well, if it's needless, then I won't say it,<br />
<br />
Moving on....<br />
<br />
Yesterday, I went to London, where we jogged after a diminutive Australian, visited a variety of famous historical places, heard the darkest, yet funniest, stories ever, and saw the national gallery of art. Though, perhaps, the best part was the several hours worth of chatting, and the delicious Chipotle burrito at the end. Yes, I did say Chipotle. There is only one in the nation, and I ate at it. You ask, why? So many things you can't have in the states, and you choose Chipotle? Well, it's good, isn't it? And for further, unnecessary justification, I can eat anything in London in Oxford, but there is no Chipotle in Oxford. It's the truth. And it is sad. Life is painful folks. It really is.<br />
<br />
Move night, ah yes, movie night. Our brilliant head of house Sam chose the film <i>Amazing Grace</i>. This being the second time I've seen it, I once again form the conclusion that the movie is one good film. And, I must admit, the second time was better, if only for the fact that British candies, biscuits and cookies were served.<br />
<br />
The time is not drawing to a close, I could devote many more hours to this, but I'm getting bored writing it, so that means you must be equally, if not more, bored than I reading it. Cheerio chaps!maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-85622167858568301752011-01-09T14:59:00.000-08:002011-01-09T14:59:00.383-08:00An Unextraordinary non-Gentleman's arrival in EnglandI felt like my gradual immersion into England started in Atlanta at the plane flight to London, where I began to hear lots and lots of foreign accents. There were several French and British people on the plane, one being a family from England that sat fairly close to me, and I began to hear the coveted British accent then.<br />
<br />
Upon arrival in England, I was walking with my carry-ons when a British man stopped me and handed me my boarding pass telling me. "You dropped this, it might be important." I said thank you, and was just super excited to hear the British accent. Getting through customs was easy, as was getting my luggage. Now, getting my bus ticket to Oxford was a bit more of a challenge. I tried to use the self-checkout because the sign told me to, but it never accepted my card, so I got in line and had to purchase it from the lady, but she was really nice so it worked out in the end.<br />
<br />
I think the bus driver got mad at me because I had no idea what I was doing, but I eventually got on the bus and we left the airport. At this time, all I had seen of London was the airport and the sky, so I didn't quite know anything about it. London-Heathrow airport is a fair distance from the city, so when we left the airport, we pretty much went straight into the countryside.<br />
<br />
The best word I can think of to describe the land is gnarly. Everything seems old, and twisted, and the ground seems to be covered in shrubs. On the softly rolling hills grows this grass that seems so soft and somewhat uncared for.<br />
<br />
I wasn't that weirded out by driving on the wrong side of the road, but more so--much more so--by the driver seeming to be on the wrong side of the car. It is somewhat odd to look down and where you're used to seeing a driver is and empty seat. You'd be surprised at how disorienting it can be, especially in comparison with the relative ease it is to accept that these Brits drive on the other side of the road.<br />
<br />
My first viewing of Oxford was the outskirts, which wasn't that impressive, but once I got more towards the center of the town, I was struck by the buildings. You can't really describe the experience of seeing these 15th or 16th or whatever-century-they-are buildings everywhere, especially when they're oddly juxtaposed next to buildings obviously built much later, as in the last half-century. (It's weird thinking that half-century can mean 1960...)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, after getting off the bus, my card didn't work in the ATM, so I had to walk to Crick (the house I live in is on Crick Road), and unfortunately had no idea how to get there, so I wandered around Oxford for about an hour until I found it. Thankfully, being lost in Oxford just means you get to see more of the fantastic buildings, even if it is raining. I don't mind rain, so it was all good, but I have to admit I was very glad to find Crick at the end, and get moved in.<br />
<br />
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to walk around Oxford with one of my roommates, and that was very enjoyable. Pretty much everywhere in a certain area is so utterly beyond anything I've ever seen in the States. My roommate and I walked around talking about Philosophy, Theology, and Literature, soaking in the sights, and sometimes indulging in conversation that wasn't quite so deep, which is also (I believe) important. It was a great experience. During that walk, I had an English Americano, if you can catch the irony there. I also heard the story of how the Americano was invented, and I hope the story is true, because it's pretty hilarious. And no, I'm not going to tell you.<br />
<br />
Ok, just kidding. Basically, the story is that some Americans in France wanted some normal drip coffee, and couldn't find it anywhere, so they went to a Barista and asked for drip coffee. She made espresso then added water, and handed it to them and said, "Here's your Cafe Americano."<br />
<br />
I hope that's true.<br />
<br />
Really.<br />
<br />
I was also able to go to a pub yesterday (and had a coke, in case you're wondering). That was pretty fun, to be in that environment. It was called an "old man's pub" because it wasn't that rowdy, and the atmosphere was one more relaxed and conducive to conversation (rather than rowdiness).<br />
<br />
Today, then, I went to St. Ebbes church, which is like an Evangelical Anglican church, and I was very impressed at the expositional style of preaching. I felt like it was fairly close to a church that I would choose to go to back home. Obviously, having real wine for communion was a bit different, and the fact everything was said with a British accent.<br />
<br />
As far as people are concerned, Sam and Graham (Which is not pronounced "gram" like we do, but "Greyam." He's rather particular.) are great leaders. Both are PhD students at Oxford. Sam studying History, and I'm not sure what Graham is studying. Then the students for the most part are really neat people. My roommates are really neat people, and I am really glad I am with them. One of the students is from Zimbabwe, and he seems really cool. It threw me at first, because his accent sounds very similar to British ones (they are not all the same). Another student was born in Sudan and moved to the States when she was nine, so there's a pretty broad range of students, though all of course go to Christian schools and are on the more intellectual side of things. It's an experience I probably would not have anywhere else. I also have a pretty firm belief that I'm the youngest person in the programme....though that hasn't been confirmed yet....<br />
<br />
The British accent is one of the coolest aspects, and I am hoping I learn how to speak it (which I have a feeling I probably will, seeing as I already am figuring it out). Some of the things they tend to do is rather odd. They'll add syllables where we don't, and drop them where we don't. One of the weirdest things, however, is the "r", which is dropped out of words where it shows up in the middle, like "bird" or "here", but is added to the end of words like "pizza" so Sam will say "The pizzer is heah,"<br />
<br />
I am looking forward to see what else will happen. I will try to get some photographs up onto this blog here in the near future. We shall see, we shall see. (Because, well, we'll have to).maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-41769006413985472172010-08-02T15:20:00.000-07:002010-08-04T07:22:06.167-07:00Different standards of Beauty?This next blog post has come far too late I’m afraid. I’ve been distracted, and just generally lazy, ignoring my poor blog. I suppose that since I have no way of knowing if people are actually reading, so it’s hard to motivate your own self to do something that seems only to really impact yourself, and since I already know everything I’m going to say, it’s hard to push myself into putting it into words.<br />
This next idea on beauty is related to the all too familiar problem of differing standards of beauty. I still think that this difference is not as broad as people might think, but still, it is there. Just look at people’s opinions on actors and actresses. One actor somebody might uphold to be the idealization of masculine appearance might not be given a second thought by another.<br />
<br />
What explains this?<br />
<br />
A very terrible book once made a good point. I won’t mention the book title because that would be sacrilegious, and the idea wasn’t original to the book. A friend and I had discussed it at least two years before I picked up the book, so it (based on a previous post) must be a universal truth I stumbled upon before. The point was that just as parents can love uniquely and equally their children, so God relates uniquely to each of us as individuals. And because God is infinite, he has infinite means of relating. This is reflect how we each relate uniquely to the ultimate beauty. Just as are relationship with God is manifested in different ways (just compare the feminine style of worship to the masculine to see this illustrated), our perception of beauty is unique to each one of us.<br />
<br />
This does not negate the standard of beauty, for even though we relate to God differently, there are many, many, <i>many</i> similarities. That’s why so many people will universally recognize certain individuals as more beautiful than others. Johnny Depp is a much more devilishly handsome fellow than I am. That’s uncontested. But not everybody thinks Johnny Depp is the handsomest man alive. The principles of harmony are at work. Depp’s facial features work together much better than mine do, but perhaps as equally well as Brad Pitt’s. Then for someone to say that he or she thinks Johnny Depp’s face is more handsome is the result of personal preference, not an absolute standard.<br />
<br />
I don’t think this idea is too ridiculous. In fact, I think that it answers the problem most people bring up regarding taste, and furthers the idea of an absolute standard being there. That standard being God, not Johnny Depp.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-15691584707119327962010-06-15T12:31:00.000-07:002010-06-15T16:50:31.788-07:00Symmetry's failureI was looking at my latest blog post and realized I failed to mention something that was very important to the concept of harmony that needed to be addressed. That idea is symmetry, which is generally advanced as one of the characteristics of beauty, usually in association with human beauty. There are several problems I have with this idea, and the first one is that most beautiful things are not symmetrical. Think of the natural world of trees and flowers, and you can immediately see that you are grateful for asymmetry. And most beautiful photographs do not have a perfectly symmetrical subject placed in the center.<br />
<br />
In human beauty, symmetry is held up as a standard for measuring beauty, but that works only somewhat. Symmetry is only one of the aspects of the human face that make it attractive, and there are plenty of attractive people with asymmetrical faces. In fact, just look at pictures of actors and actresses. Many of them don't have perfectly symmetrical faces, yet are very pleasing to look at (hence they have a job where people look at them).<br />
<br />
That is why harmony is superior, because instead of looking for a perfectly symmetrical object, you look at how everything, even the asymmetrical parts, work together to make something beautiful.<br />
<br />
In music we see this quite, because most melodies are not perfectly symmetrical. Sometimes dissonance is needed to add to the beauty of a piece as a whole, and our harmonies are not built on finding a perfectly symmetrical relationship between all the notes.<br />
<br />
And since we are relating characteristics of beauty to God, how is He symmetrical?<br />
<br />
This is why I had to come to the idea of harmony instead. Note, this does not discount symmetry as a characteristic of a beautiful object. A symmetrical face is more likely to be harmonious, but it is not a universal characteristic of all things beautiful.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-67546605646709952252010-06-12T11:30:00.000-07:002010-06-12T11:30:40.367-07:00Beauty: HarmonyWe move on to the actual discussion of the universal characteristics of beauty, and taking those characteristics and seeing if they are a reflection of God. Unfortunately, it’s very easy to speak of the ideas of beauty without seeing what that beauty ultimately points to. It’s easy to look at a beautiful girl without moving on to contemplating the God whose image she reflects, not only as an image-bearer, but also in her beauty.<br />
<br />
I picked up a few books on aesthetics and beauty to engage my own mind, to see what other people have said about beauty. I thought I would read them to determine if they have any insights that could aid me into discovering characteristics. One of the books I purchased was Beauty by Roger Scruton, (such a creative title) and in the chapter on Everyday Beauty, I found my first concept. It is interesting how the idea came to me, because the author didn’t really actually mention the word, but the concept that stuck was Harmony. I define harmony as how things work together as a whole. In the chapter of the book I am referencing, he was speaking of how we set the table, and how we do interior decoration in a manner where everything complements each other. This also tied back into something he had pointed out earlier in architectural beauty, where a beautiful work of architecture relies on other buildings that do not vie for our attention to be fully beautiful. They perfectly compliment the great work of architecture, are in harmony with it. Our eyes are drawn to the true beauty because the other structures are not in competition with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYus_sgiTZNEoxBbYB7cevN36hEn6uWjdKxLckVjynhOpIhqgaKLCZFI78hdD0FVmYA4ZYBuqFsTYWfw_n6XJfj_ss-OlhyKc67HmlABCLunMzcNAgzBgS16xCiRATWp1xmpiJQsRM0g/s1600/63705_1109693699.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYus_sgiTZNEoxBbYB7cevN36hEn6uWjdKxLckVjynhOpIhqgaKLCZFI78hdD0FVmYA4ZYBuqFsTYWfw_n6XJfj_ss-OlhyKc67HmlABCLunMzcNAgzBgS16xCiRATWp1xmpiJQsRM0g/s200/63705_1109693699.jpg" width="170" /></a>This is why some very complex, intricate designs become garish, because everything is trying to get us to look at it, leading them to be competing for our attention, and competing things cannot be in harmony with one another. The artist used all his skill without any thought into composition and making something pleasant to look at. That is why composition, and not technical skill, is the most important aspect to a work of art. Of course, one cannot discount artistic skill, because in order for work of art to be fully beautiful it must include a harmonious blend of composition and artistic skill. Every aspect must work together towards the beauty of the whole.<br />
<br />
In music we see the principle of harmony quite clearly. A musical composition not only must have notes in harmony with one another, but the entire work must have the right melody and structure to make the beauty of the piece fuller. A beautiful passage would not be as beautiful without the context surrounding it. I think of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbUFXzGS8c">Nimrod variation by Elgar</a>, and I know that the section where you are most struck by the beauty would be nothing without the rest of the piece. The entire work works together perfectly, everything relies on what is previous to it to make the beauty full and complete.<br />
<br />
What remains is how it relates to God. I think Harmony is a characteristic of God in how every aspect of his character perfectly compliments each other. And like a musical piece, where the violins will pull back out of the spotlight so that the flute can stir our hearts with a beautiful solo, sometimes God’s attributes leave center stage so another can be seen. Like at Sodom and Gomorrah, where God’s wrath was displayed to a greater extent than his other attributes, or at salvation where is love and mercy and forgiving nature is displayed to those who choose Him. Both events display aspects of the same God, and in order to see the full beauty of who He is, his attributes need to perfectly complement each other.<br />
<br />
Another way in which harmony is inherent within God is in the Godhead, where the three members of the Trinity are in perfect communion and cooperation, working together perfectly to create the story of our world. They perfectly compliment each other. The only time where this harmony was perhaps broken was at the cross. And maybe this idea has implications on theology. But that is a topic beyond the scope of my knowledge or of this blog series.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-84926038486171875592010-06-01T21:43:00.000-07:002010-06-01T21:43:11.486-07:00Beauty: IntroductionThis is a topic that will take me a few blog posts to address due to the amount of thought I’ve put into it and the fact that if I put it into one post it would probably scare away any readers by it’s length. I feel that an introduction is necessary because the topic of Beauty, especially as addressed in this way, is not common, in fact is very rare. The scary part of the lack of material on this specific angle of the subject is that I am largely working on my own and have no real authority to check myself by. I don’t have any maps to show me how far off the trail I have strayed.<br />
<br />
How this topic first interested me was actually the result of a Facebook note by a fellow classmate where he spoke of beauty and how there is no absolute standard (in his opinion). I made the suggestion that perhaps God is the absolute standard of beauty. I continued to think about this, and then early on in the Spring semester asked my professor if he had any books he could recommend on God in relation to Beauty, and he told me he didn’t, but that I could write my term paper on it. I purchased some books on beauty to see what qualities other people have seen in Beauty and to see if they relate to God in any way, if perhaps beauty could be a reflection of God.<br />
<br />
Why I think this topic of beauty is important is first of all because beauty, and our ability to appreciate it, is a result of the creative act of God. The fact that I have an aesthetic response to a sunrise, or a pretty face is because God made me to. And reading the Old Testament, one can see that God values beauty. You see this in the Old Testament in the making of the Tabernacle where God speaks of skilled artists to make the tabernacle beautiful. Quite frequently the inspired author of the Old Testament will mention the beauty or handsome appearance of a character, even though that seems to have no real relation with the person’s actions, whether good or bad. <br />
<br />
Beauty and worship are inextricably linked to each other. To worship is to ascribe worth to something, and to call something beautiful is ascribing a specific type of worth to it. Calling something beautiful means that it is worth our interest, our attention. Beautiful music is able to tell us something about God and to tell others something about our attitude towards God. If we strive for beauty in our music, art, and other aspects of the worship service, it would glorify God by showing we believe He is worth the effort it takes to make something beautiful. Making a beautiful work of art or performing a beautiful piece of music is not easy, we all know that, but to aim for that is to say to God, “You are worth this hard work. You are worthy of being worshipped with beauty.” Think about it, men never give their girlfriends or wives ugly jewelry, but beautiful jewelry. Why? Because we’re saying they’re worth that much, and in order to perfectly compliment their beauty a beautiful object must be given. In the same way, if God is worth everything, to worship him with ugly music or mediocre music doesn’t make any sense. And, if God is beautiful, then it only makes sense that we’d use something that reflects Him to worship Him, namely, beauty.<br />
<br />
Thus, we need to determine what beauty is.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-20409407147495304192010-05-24T16:34:00.000-07:002010-05-24T16:34:09.022-07:00LoveIn a lecture, one of the professors of the Master’s College, Abner Chou said “love” is a relational term. Now, reading that the temptation might be to say, “Well, obviously love is a relational term.” But I think that that is the very problem. Because it is obvious that love, if it is truly love and not a modern misuse of the word, is a relational term, it is often overlooked, forgotten, and the implications of the truth are ignored.<br />
<br />
First, I would like to remove the term “love” from the twenty-first century uses of it and bring back to it it’s true meaning. Love is first of all not a feeling. The emotion in our heart when somebody we love is near is not love, it is a product of love. Love, then, does not negate the idea of feelings being involved, but those feelings, that rush of the heart, is not love. Do not mistake the effect for the cause! And a case against the pursuit feelings is found in the Romantics, who prove that feelings are unsatisfactory and the pursuit of them leads to self-destruction. This word has been cheapened in another way in the many times we use “love” to describe or feelings towards things, such as, “I love ice cream!” Or, “I love Disneyland!” Or “I love that outfit!” Can you really have a relationship with ice cream? It’s pretty one-sided if you do, and if you were to treat your friends like you treated ice cream you wouldn’t have any. Love, then, is only left in the relational aspect, as we have already mentioned.<br />
<br />
To obey the Lord When the Scriptures exhort us to love one another we have to be in relationships with other believers. The church is the place for those relationships. So if you are attending a church, but don’t know the people you are attending with, you’re not obeying the command to love one another. You can’t love the person you’re sitting next to unless you have a relationship with them. This probably means stepping outside of your comfort zone—at least for me it does. I find it hard to get past the first word, but every time I have done so I have been able to maintain a good conversation. That initial fear can be paralyzing, but once you act the fear is then seen as irrational.<br />
<br />
The first aspect that entered my mind, however, was not in relation to believers, but in relation to those who have not owned up for their guilt at the cross. People say that the most loving thing we can do to those who don’t believe is to share the gospel with them, but is it a truly loving act if it is outside of a genuine relationship? Perhaps we need to think more of having relationships with non-believers, and through showing our love to them in that relationship they might see that serving our God is a good thing, and then when we share the gospel they are ready to accept it. But the relationship is key to the act being loving! Look, then, for ways to build relationships with those who do not believe with the intention of bringing the gospel to them. That is love.<br />
<br />
I realize that this last paragraph I just wrote could be taken further than I intended, and I believe though to make my point I had to come across as strongly as I did. I am not recommending we give up street evangelism, but I am suggesting that that method becomes less our focus as much as on building and starting relationships with the intention of bringing the Gospel to them, to show them Biblical love.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-3243414325455802912010-05-17T15:37:00.000-07:002010-05-17T15:37:43.153-07:00Original TruthAs I was thinking about my previous post and that nothing said in it was actually original to me (only how it was said could be called original), I began to recall that no truth I've proclaimed is original to me. All my thoughts find their source in the words others have spoken. As this train of thought continued, I realized that no truth is invented or is original to whoever said it; it lies outside of the one proclaiming it.<br />
<br />
This is why those who see truth and proclaim some aspect of it no one has ever seen before are called "insightful," not "creative." Insight is the gift of being able to look at what is already there (God, the Bible, the world, mankind) and see an element about it that no one has really seen or expressed, and then sharing it with others. I learn new truth when the truth already present is apprehended and then communicated to me in a way I can understand. The truth-teller points away from himself, not at himself.<br />
<br />
Therefore, when shown a wonderful truth we have never seen before, the Author of that truth should receive the glory, not the messenger bringing that truth. However wonderful he might be, he did not invent or create the truth, and if the truth is so marvelous that we praise the one to discover it, how much more should we praise the one who made it? The one bringing it, though recognized, should fade away as the One from whom the truth found its origin receives the greater attention.<br />
<br />
It is like a marvelous piece of music written by Bach but found and reintroduced by Mendelssohn. Who gets the praise when Bach's music is played? Bach does, not Mendelssohn. Though Mendelssohn is mentioned and praised for discovering Bach's music, Bach is the one who gets the most glory of the two.<br />
<br />
In the same way, when a great man like C. S. Lewis shares a truth that is marvelous and eye-opening, God, the author of the truth, should get the praise. Though C. S. Lewis is recognized for his discovery of that truth and praised for it, God should receive the greater focus. He created the truth found within the essay, "The Weight of Glory"; should He not receive the greater praise? I believe C. S. Lewis would prefer that, especially now as his sin nature has now been fully eradicated.<br />
<br />
This is how truth-proclaimers remain humble, by recognizing the true source of the truth that they proclaim. Even if I, or you, or anyone else do stumble upon a droplet of truth, we have to remember where the droplet came from, and look up, and recognize the hand of the Creator behind it.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-85991864247507848042010-05-10T09:19:00.001-07:002010-05-11T11:54:26.978-07:00The Image of GodThe first time man is mentioned in Genesis, he is related to God in specifics way, first as creature, and then as an image. The implications of this, other than raising man’s status above the animals, are first clearly seen in God’s words to Noah, when He tells this survivor that those who kill another man are to be killed by men for they destroyed the image of God.<br />
<br />
Which is interesting, because Noah lived after the fall, as did all but Adam and Eve, so the image was not completely lost in that disastrous act. But it was shattered, changed, no longer a true image. We were meant to display to the creation the invisible attributes of God—His love, His patience, His goodness, His grace, His wisdom, His mercy, His kindness, His faithfulness, His beauty—but because of our perversion as a result of the fall we no longer reflect these attributes. But that is only the least of it. What we actually do is something far worse. R. C. Sproul writes something chilling:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;">“When we sin as the image bearers of God, we are saying to the whole creation, to all of nature under our dominion, to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field: “This is how God is. This is how your Creator behaves. Look in his mirror; look at us, and you will see the character of the Almighty.” We say to the world, “God is covetous; God is ruthless; God is bitter; God is a murderer, a thief, a slanderer, an adulterer. God is all of these things that we are doing.”</div><br />
This imaging of Yahweh that we were intended to do now has been completely perverted. Instead of showing the world God’s glorious attributes, we are in a sense accusing Him of evil, accusing Him of basically being Satan. How can we even contemplate sin if this is what it says about our Sustainer?<br />
<br />
I desperately want to show in my life, not only to the creation, but especially those who are disenchanted with the “image” of God they see in man, the invisible attributes of God. This aim is impossible in myself. In no way are we in our own strength capable of reflecting God’s qualities. He, the one who created us to image Him, has to reach down and rescue us from our complete and utter enslavement to sin so we can do what we were originally created to do, to display His invisible attributes to the creation.<br />
<br />
The question of what we do with our lives grows small, even for someone nearing the brink of the rest of his life like me. The question that truly matters is “How will I do what I do?” Before doing anything with my time, or saying anything, my thought should be “What does this action say about my Creator? Am I showing the world what He is like? Am I mirroring my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?<br />
<br />
One aspect of a mirror is that nobody ever sees a mirror, nor are they supposed to. A mirror is supposed to show what it is reflecting. A shattered mirror makes the world see itself, it does not reflect; a mirror that God is through a miracle fixing makes the world see Christ.<br />
<br />
(Adapted from the message by Brandon Hix for the 2010 Homeschool Graduation ceremony in Eau Claire, Wisconsin)maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-39567774406293777692009-10-30T08:41:00.000-07:002009-10-30T14:04:53.227-07:00David HumeThose of you who do know this important figure in the area of philosophy probably know him as the man who attacked the claim to miracles.<br /><br />The problem I found with his attack on miracles is that it doesn't fit with his own philosophy.<br /><br />David Hume was the most extreme of the British empiricists. Empiricists view that all we can know is what is derived from sense impression. Basically this means we can't even know that physical objects exist, because all we know is the different qualities we see. Anything not based on a sense impression is meaningless.<br /><br />Hume argued that even science was meaningless because it was based off of feelings. The argument is fairly complex and somewhat hard to summarize. Basically, we relate our sense impressions to one another in three different ways. There is no reason to do this (says Hume) apart from a very strong feeling. We relate impressions with regard to similarity, spatial nearness, and cause and effect. Hume then goes on to argue that, based on his theory of empiricism, that there is no way we can relate something as a cause and another thing as an effect. It isn't possible in his extreme empiricism. We have no way of knowing whether a burn will form on our finger from a lit match being touched to it. It may have happened every time before, but there is no guarantee it will happen again. (Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it?)<br /><br />Now, we move on to his argument against miracles, which he says are not possible because in all of human experience over centuries, we have never seen a dead man come back to life.<br /><br />Now go and read that last sentence again, and try to figure out the inconsistency.<br /><br />Hume argues against miracles using a cause and effect relationship, something he claims is impossible to use. He is arguing against miracles using something he claims he doesn't even believe in. His argument doesn't work. If Hume were to remain consistent with his attack, he'd have to say there are no miracles because there are no natural laws, thus there was nothing to be broken.<br /><br />Hume is an author the Christian really has to wrestle with, considering his philosophy is used by many to reject God.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-44475895987915394192009-05-18T14:36:00.000-07:002009-05-18T14:37:13.119-07:00Graduation SpeechThese next few years will likely define how I live the rest of my life. I am standing on the brink of my future with my fellow graduates, and I realize that we need a clear view of God's purpose for these formative years in our lives. In order to live my life to the greatest benefit to myself and the others that surround me, I must strive to fulfill the purpose God has set before all who follow him.<br /><br /> This purpose is not some vague notion of following a will of God, and feeling out where he is leading us. God has not set a specific plan for my life that, if I deviate from , I am living a second rate life outside his specific will. Rather God has laid out a clearly defined goal in His Word. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer to that question is "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." If we strive to glorify God in what we eat, what we drink, what we do, how we make a living; if we strive to pursue complete and satisfying happiness only in God, we have fulfilled our purpose in life. Anything else is wasted, mediocre and unfulfilled.<br /><br /> My goal in these few moments is not to challenge only my fellow graduates, but to challenge all of us gathered here today not to waste our lives on good things. Things like keeping America conservative, battling abortion, helping the poor. If we are serious and committed to finding joy in God, all these other good results will follow. The most effective way to push Christian values in America is not through political action, but by showing the world the awesome love of God that demands us to fall down on our faces in worship. God created us to bring glory to Him. He created us to worship Him. We're forsaking our God-given purpose in life when we allow ourselves to be satisfied fighting for anything less than him.<br /><br /> People may question us, "How can God be loving if he acts as if he's trying to build his self-esteem?" We must answer with John Piper's methaphor, "would you take a man to the alps, then lock him in a room of mirrors?" If God is truly the most wonderful, the most awesome, the most magnificent being, it does not make sense that he would allow us to be satisfied by worldly pleasures. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, it is not that we are unsatisfied with God, it is that we are satisfied in too little. We are satisfied with our cars, our computers, our families when we are offered a life that is infinitely greater. Christ gave his all so we could rejoice and be satisfied in the only person who can truly bring joy.<br /><br /> We must educate the world in the truth that God wants us to be happy. Not happy in a worldly sense. People use this truth to justify sin, when proper application means avoiding sin at all costs. True, lasting, satisfying happiness can only be found in God. The Psalmists recognized this truth. In Psalm 16:11 "In your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore" and in Psalm 43:4 "I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy." Unfortunately, people will also use this truth to leave Christianity, saying that if God wanted them to be happy he wouldn't have allowed this disaster to strike. How utterly foolish! We must tell them that God allowed the disaster into their life to show them how they were satisfied in too little. They were satisfied in their financial security, then they lost their job. "Its all God's fault!" They cry, and they are right. He was showing them that money cannot be trusted. Their spouse dies, and they blame God. He was showing them they were satisfied in their mate and not in Him. Their children are lost in a tragic car accident and God pleads with them to see that they were too attached to their children, forsaking the God that gave them the gift of their children. I don't want God or myself to be seen as callous. Nobody will find a better comforter than the Holy Spirit, but sometimes in our humanity we forget our frailty and our utter dependence on His mercy for every breath we take.<br /><br /> This is my passion. This is my goal. This is the will of God. That I use my talents to tell the world the message that God offers them glory, and they prefer mud. God offers them joy and they prefer dirt. God offers them complete satisfaction in him, and after they ask him to save them from their sins, they become enamored with the world. What a tragedy. I pray God keeps me from such a fate. I pray God keeps you from such a fate. I pray God uses us to keep the world from such a fate.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-28805976121586812102009-04-06T08:05:00.000-07:002009-04-06T08:06:36.388-07:00But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.<br /><br />(Romans 3:5-8)maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-23662227302619636532009-03-20T08:07:00.000-07:002009-03-20T08:15:00.642-07:00One of the most precious sayings of America is that we believe "all men are created equal." I know the reverence we hold this saying in, but I think (As C. S. Lewis has kindly informed me) that it is a legal fiction, useful only for the courts.<br /><br />When we think about it, do we really believe all men are created equal? Is everybody capable of being a star quarterback? Can everbody swim like Michael Phelps? Can we all dance? Sing? Are all of us just as good looking as the actors we watch on the big screen? No.<br /><br />But then again, wouldn't life be very, very boring if we all were superbly good looking, amazingly athletic and had the brain of Einstein? Yes! I think God was wise enough to create a world in which everybody was different. Our personalities and skills make for an interesting world where we can meet people similar <em>and</em> different from us. Just imagine, if everybook had the same characters, same plot line, same setting, and same resolution, we'd be bored out of our minds! Same with people, since we are different, we don't get bored.<br /><br />Aren't we all grateful to the wisdom of the One who created us different?maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-55925141883047919422009-02-25T13:34:00.000-08:002009-02-25T13:52:47.030-08:00I was reading a great C. S. Lewis book the other day. The title of which is <em>God in the Dock</em>. This book is a collection of essays by "Jack" Lewis and is divided into three parts. I recently made it to the third part and am struck at the brilliancy of the essays.<br /><br />The essay that really grabbed my attention was on "First and Second Things" and discussed the paradox that if you pursue something secondary for its own sake, you end up losing the secondary "thing" you were pursuing. He used the example of the literature and the arts. He said it wasn't until the Romantics that art and literature were pursued for their own sake. Before then, the great music of Mozart, the works of Shakespeare, and the art of Da Vinci were pursued for a patron, for God, or to entertain the common man.<br /><br />But "it was only in the nineteenth century that we became aware of the full dignity of art. We began to 'take it seriously'....But the result seems to have beena dislocation of the aesthetic life in which little is left for us but high-minded works which fewer and fewer people want to read or hear or see, and 'popular' works of which bothe those who make them and those who enjoy them are half ashamed....by valuing too highly a real, but subordinate good, we have come near to losing that good itself." (God In The Dock, p.280)<br /><br />This isn't just for the arts though, a man who makes his girlfriend his entire universe, what happens when he has nothing to do but contemplate her? He (not only) loses his human dignity but also loses the joy he has in her. A "significant other" is a good thing to have, but when it becomes the sole center of our lives, we come too near to losing that good thing.<br /><br />You can't get secondary things by placing them first, you can only get them by putting first things first. But this raises the question, what are all these goods secondary to?maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-37665619086607422382009-02-21T19:14:00.000-08:002010-05-10T09:09:30.699-07:00InfinityToday, I was mock debating myself on the origin of the universe, and I came upon the question "how can time not have a beginning?"<br />
<br />
The main point of this argument was to show time cannot progress if there is no beginning, but then I thought about the closest infinite parallel, numbers. We can progress from 1 to 2 to 3 and so on, so why can't we progress in time?<br />
<br />
At this time my brain began to smart.<br />
<br />
Then my question changed to, in our reality do we have anything actually infinite? For the sake of the argument, we'll say no. We don't have an infinite number of atoms, we just have a <i>very</i> large number of atoms. So if numbers (of things) in our physical reality aren't infinite, than can time (which is part of our reality) be infinite? You may say "but numbers are infinite, you can keep counting forever!" And I say that it is all hypothetical. Numbers to infinity are a concept, not a reality, in the same way a straight line or a perfect circle are concepts. In our reality they don't actually exist. So, in physical time-space reality, infinity doesn't exist, so there had to be a beginning, and then what started it all? Who was the first cause? At this time, we must look beyond this silly little argument and to religion...(hint: Christianity)maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-90385705109502002572008-11-21T13:02:00.000-08:002008-11-21T13:07:21.163-08:00KnowledgeI was thinking the other day about how many different types of knowledge there were.<br /><br />1. Common Sense. This is knowledge gained from experience, observation, or instinct. "Don't touch hot things" and "don't insult someone bigger than you" are prime examples. This isn't things you necessarily need to be taught, and they don't teach it in school.<br /><br />2. Book learning. This is knowledge learned in school. 2+2=4, Ethiopia is an African country. Knowledge that may or may not do you good. Basically, knowledge that helps you score high on standardized tests and get into college.<br /><br />3. Wisdom, or application of knowledge. This is separate from common sense because people with common sense may not always have wisdom. This is "smarts" that aid you in discernment and in difficult choices.<br /><br />4. Observation. This aspect of smartness can be hard to teach. This is body language, tonal reasponse etc. that helps you determine or know more about people or things without being told.<br /><br />I don't know if these are all the forms, but 4 was all I could come up with.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-58346142092707880182008-11-10T08:57:00.000-08:002010-05-10T09:06:53.812-07:00Let it GoSometimes I wonder how much we Christians hold onto the world and how little we hold on to Christ. We seem to sit on the fence and try to have one foot on either side. Elijah told the Israelites "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? I the LORD is God, follow Him but if Baal, then follow him."<br />
<br />
How can we follow God if we are continually holding on to the world? We can't, and Elijah said it's <i>better</i> if you are fully in the world than if you are continually putting one foot on the worlds side, then one foot on Christianity's side.<br />
<br />
Think on that for a moment, and how scary that thought is. Do you really want to sit on the fence?maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-20732082781844232652008-10-31T10:26:00.001-07:002008-10-31T10:32:45.480-07:00I was reading a book recently called <em>Walking on Water</em>. It is written by a Christian author who was trying to help Christian artists, musicians etc. to find creativity. Unfortunately, the book was filled with hermeneutical misconceptions. Too many, that it made me seriously question her point.<br /><br />She compares the Christian with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Her comparison makes several major errors. 1) It spiritualizes the text. Mary's virgin pregnancy was a one time event in history. Not written as an allegory, but as a narrative. Nothing in the passage indicates we are to respond to creative ideas in the same way that Mary responded to carrying Christ. There is no comparison between Christ and our puny little creative works. 2) It draws application where no application is hinted or desired. As I said before, this is a narration of an event in history. Only once was there a virgin birth, only once was the child the Lord of all Creation.<br /><br />Several other errors also were found, though many would disagree. God doesn't speak creative works into our hearts, we draw them out of ourselves. God communicates no longer through speaking to one's heart, he communicates through his eternal word, the Bible.<br /><br />The times in the Bible God audibly speaks are rare, to say the least, also, if we get creative juices from God, then how come many (or most) secular creators better acknowledged as great than Christian creators?<br /><br />Anyways, I'll probably end up posting more thoughts like these as I read through this book. Tata for now!maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-86134494934150917152008-10-25T07:08:00.000-07:002008-10-25T07:32:44.656-07:00OppositesThis is an interesting blog post partly because it confuses me.<br /><br />I'm preparing to see if I can have laser eye surgery, and in order to do that I need to go off of the contacts I had been wearing. For a couple days everything was blurry, then when I put on contacts yesterday, everything was super clear.<br /><br />Then I got to thinking, would we know what blurry is if we didn't know what clear was?<br /><br />To make this bigger, can we say that there would be no good if there were no evil? How can we believe that there is good, if we believe that there is no evil?<br /><br />I don't even know, so I'll have to do research.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-32572273407597937742008-10-17T10:27:00.000-07:002010-05-10T09:02:28.599-07:00Yesterday, I told my brother what I was going to post, but I think I'm going to lie to him, and change my decision<br />
<br />
My topic today is: The memories we cherish indicates what we value in life.<br />
<br />
The word cherish conveys the idea of treasuring some object, person or idea. Whether money, a wife, or a memory, it shows what we value. I think that this idea I'm trying to bring across is based on the passage in the Bible "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."<br />
<br />
So, I take this idea and look at my "treasure box" of memories and see what I find. Memories I cherish are:<br />
1. Long talks with Nate about philosophy and life.<br />
2. Long talk with my dad about looking for a mate <br />
3. Walking on a hill behind Borders, looking over Eau Claire late at night with friends B and C <br />
4. Etc.<br />
<br />
What does this say about me? I like friends and philosophy. The problem is not that I like those things, they are morally neutral and can even be positive. The problem I see is none of my memories are related to Christ. I think I need to approach my devotions and Sunday worship services with a mindset that what I'm reading, what I'm hearing, is worthy of cherishing to the same degree that I cherish memories of my friends. I don't think automatically I'm going to start to have a life-changing attitude and automatically become a super-Christian. I'm not expecting that, but I think after 10 years of approaching church, God's word and prayer in a "treasure hunting" mindset, I will see dramatic improvement in my relationship with God. I hope so anyways.<br />
<br />
And no, I didn't get this idea from my hero, C. S. Lewis.maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4849816906701815890.post-62652932482653665452008-10-16T14:02:00.000-07:002008-10-16T14:16:45.620-07:00Christians in CultureI believe there is in our world an untapped potential for Christians. In our world, people spend more time on YouTube, in the theatres, listening to music, reading fiction or graphic novels and chatting on the internet. I think that Christians have missed the chance to use culture to influence people for the good and spread the news of the Perfect One who died on a tree.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Music:</span> Of all the parts of culture, this is where Christian's have prevailed. I'm not exactly sure why but I believe it probable has to do with the use of music during church services. Some bands (Switchfoot and Anberlin) have really been able to use music to touch the world, and I think that this will increase as the years go on.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Art:</span> Long long time ago, art seemed to be much more infused with Christianity. Recently its been differentiated, and I think its the world's loss. I do believe (personally) the modern art era has really diminished the effectiveness of Christians in art, and I think that modern art has caused Christians to put art at a distance. I think we need Christians to be able to bring morality back into art. We also need Christians to write Graphic Novels. The comic industry has boomed in recent past, and I think we have Manga to thank for that. ;) We need Christians to "invade" the graphic novel scene with, not overtly Christian themes, but character who show the Christian ethical system and a belief in God.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Movies:</span> Ah yes, the prime area for liberal thought to permeate our culture. The makers of Fireproof and Facing the Giants did well, but according to standards of excellence by secular reviewers, it was poor. We need Christians to permeate the movie industry with Christian ideas and morality.<br /><br />The list can go on and on, but I point to one greater than myself, C. S. Lewis, who talks of Christians in Culture in his book <span style="font-style: italic;">Christian Reflections. </span>I think what we need is people who are able to gain secular acclaim while having a Christian foundation, like C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and the like.<br /><br />Peace out.<br />...max...maxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12878936679020053610noreply@blogger.com2