Ben Stein

Had to work for an apologetics event tonight at Biola... it was about the upcoming documentary made by Ben Stein "Expelled".

Anyway, some interesting testimony tonight, and Ben Stein gave a good speech about his motives for the documentary. What strikes me as incredible is looking up the movie on wikipedia how /already/ (movie wil be released on April 18) the majority of the entry is full of slams and responses to the movie. It is just very fascinating....

You know, it just blows me away how loud, powerful, and prevelant the voice of liberalism is in our country.... sometimes its almost overwhelming.... Like just a split second thought of... "wow I am a fool for not buying into the whole package deal"

It just amazes me how at the drop of a hat groups can come up with so much convincing data.... its sort of like debating a Calvinist.. they will throw so many scripture passages, that the cumulative effect is very convincing.... if it weren’t for the nagging feeling that the picture painted is too perfect, and the data doesn’t match your own interpretations (or leaving the metaphore, experiences).

Not that Ben Stein is flawless... the few clips from the film did seem a bit extreme, I seriously doubt he is no Michael Moore, but he is also an entertainer. But I’ve heard to many testimonies from Christian scholars I trust of the extreme bias they have faced in the scientific community... I have seen too many times that "intelligent design" is referred to with the pejorative term "creationism" (when I know first hand that there is a very clear difference)... I have also seen all too often how the media catches on to trends (like any evidence of global warming automatically = man caused)..... The testimonies of scholars who have been black listed and kicked out of universities for writing articles or supporting intelligent design is very believable.

It truly is ironic that we live in a society that exalts freedom of speech so high, but at every turn we make sure that you "freely" speak about the right things in the right way.
Read more...

Dream Theater Concert Review

This is my review of the Dream Theater concert Friday night at the Universal Studios Gibson Amphitheatre.

Into Eternity:

Overall, this was a very disappointing set. The audio was so poor that it was often hard to hear the guitars and vocals, enough that at parts it was very difficult to hear the melody/chord progression. Further, the bass wasn't even in the mix. This didn't help their performance, which was the typical thrash/metal deal, which isn't really my taste and a bit boring "hey look, another cram as many notes as possible solo".

Redemption:

This is a band I want to hear more of… some interesting stuff, but some also some more typical metal stuff. They use a lot of odd tempo changes, and are very rhythmically interesting. What I don't get is why bands will have a riff that has very little to do w/ the vocals its behind. It just doesn't work. The audio and lighting was also mediocre for this group… at this point in the show, I was wanting my money back.

Dream Theater:

Wow… just wow. Best dream theater show ever. When the curtain dropped, the band rocked my world. They played over 2 hours, which was surprising because both opening bands played for just under an hour. They played a lot of new stuff, but also covered a lot of older songs. There were a couple I'd never heard live before, like misunderstood, surrounded, and caught in a web. All of the extended solos were very interesting, the stage presence was good, and the band was very tight (though got a bit loose at a few parts). Highlights included Rudess breaking out a keytar and playing a duet w/ Petrucci the way we always wanted him to. Another highlight was the new Dream Theater medley. They have 9 albums now… so its hard to cover a lot of that material in one show. The new medley incorporated parts from the previous 8 albums, including Finally Free and In the Name of God. The Spirit Carries on was a special moment for sure.

While the lighting for the first 2 sets was mediocre (12 intelligent lights), when the curtain dropped fro DT, I was blown away to see over 40 intelligent lights on the ceiling. Consequently, the lighting was very amazing.

Petrucci's tone was also outstanding. He preferred his new wooden design guitar.

Rudess' setup seems to grow each tour. He has a new keyboard stand which is a molded hand point upwards at its base, with the main keyboard resting on its fingers. He also has a second controller and a tone generator attached to the main keyboard, making it quite a monster.

Labrie was also on for most of the night. Sometimes he's hit or miss, but he nailed it.

Walking away from the show, I realize even more so how amazing this band is. Some of the new songs that I'm not as fond of were awesome live. The opening bands really contrasted starkly w/ Dream Theater. Dream Theater has a metal element to them, but it is entirely inaccurate to call them metal. Hearing them side by side w/ metal bands makes this painfully clear. The production of their songs is outstanding, and despite their virtuoso chops, they remain melodic and creative. It is amazing that after 9 albums, they've still got it. That, and each album has such a distinctive tone to it, each so unique and creative. This band truly is the best band ever.

Read more...

Gospel Worship

Just wanted to note that I'm starting to fall in love with Gospel music...

There's just something about classic hymns being sung with that kind of groove and musicianship. I am all about simplicity, (as in, Dream Theater should not lead worship), but I think simplicity is often used (especially in western non-charismatic churches) to mean simplistic.

What bugs me about Gospel music is often it has a lot of shallowness to it (theologically), but when you mix classic hymns... somehow.. it just feels complete. Its like, here God, we're going to worship you in truth and we're not going to worship you in mediocrity, but with our full persons to our very best.


Anyway.... so the question is,
if music is such a powerful medium to worship God in, why should we not strive for excellence?
What qualifies as distractions (both in being too musical and not enough)?
What does it mean (spiritually) if we are not striving for excellence?
Why is it that the very best (musically) worship teams usually are so weak theologically, and the strongest worship teams (theologically) usually are so poor musically?
How does better music benefit worship? Does it help people worship more, does it glorify God more?

That's all, any thoughts would be appreciated!

Read more...

Battlestar Galactica

I love Battlestar Galactica... but normally not because it has a redeeming moral message, but rather the drama and action are amazing, the characters and plots / commentary on humanity facinating, and the show is so incredibly dark.

I just wanted to comment how awsome last Sunday's episode was though in its message about marriage.

Its been awhile since I saw anything TV/Movie related that had such a high view of marriage. The ep. was very counter cultural:
(spoilers for those who care)

Two main characters have had this love thing building from the beginning of the show, but one problem: they both are married. The last few ep.s they've been toying with an affair... you know, the popular idea of "go with your feelings", "follow your heart" etc. Basically, its okay that your married, you made a mistake but it would be worse not to follow your heart and be miserable the rest of your life.

Except this is not what they did.... the girl was all for the affair, the guy was one step away. It came down to a choice, and he ended up choosing to stay with his wife. This was in part to the advice of another main character: who pointed out that since he was married, he never looked back.

This was just incredible.... and the episode portrayed it as both were happier for staying with their spouse. Breaking their marraiges would have been destructive and ultimately made both unhappy. Further: the plot was believable. In a culture infatuated with our own selfish desires, this was a pretty amazing message.

Anyway... great drama, good values... that's all..
(besides... who knows, next week maybe it will all fall apart, but thats why I love the show!)

Read more...

Family

Had some thoughts while walking to work today, and decided I would share some of my feelings about family.

So... Family (said in a McKay sort of way, i.e. unstructured rant is forthcoming).

Basically, my folks are moving to Chicago in a week. This isn't a bad thing at all, but its starting to really hit me. Not that I won't have my parents around, but because I won't really have any family around.

Let me explain -- I have lots of aunts and uncles, more cousins than I can count (actually I could if I wanted)... etc. Problem is that I've only seen them a handful of times in my life. On top of that, most of them have such radically different lifes than me that it is very hard to relate. This distance can be seen in who attended my wedding. Out of most of the family, I think I'm one of the first to get married out of the cousins w/o children already being an issue. Yet, only my immediate family and my grandparents came. Invitations went out to others, but nonetheless, that was it. (and even moreso -- family that will read this blog are most likely either or both of my siblings, and my dad).

This is in stark contrast to Marcy's family. She is #12 of 13 siblings, and both her parents have big families. She has tons and tons of cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. There are so many ppl in her family that its overwhelming... so many its hard to get to know them! (Ironically, the left half of the church was packed with siblings, cousins, and other relatives of Marcy.) So like, I go over to her house, and am lucky to say hi to most of the ppl there, wheras if she comes over to mine, 2 parents, 2 siblings.

Because of how small my family is, we are all very close. So what is frustrating is that my family already feels real small, because I'm so distant from so much of it. And now, w/ my folks and sister moving east, I fear the distance that will naturally occur there. Now my "family" is Marcy and Stephen. I almost want to extend the definition of family for myself to include close friends from school and church.

Anyway, all this to say -- despite differences, frustrations, etc., I'm beginning to realize the importance of cherishing family and building close bonds. Hopefully this loss will motivate me to grow closer to my new family, (i.e. Marcy's family).

Read more...

Thoughts on a megabyte

My friends and I are nerds.

Anyway, yesterday at lunch we were discussing the etymology of megabyte. So here is a brief rundown of the prefixes based on wikipedia and the oxford american dictionary:

kilobyte (thousand) -- via french, from greek khilioi "thousand"
megabyte (million) -- greek, great or large
gigabyte (billion) -- greek, giant
terabyte (trillion) -- greek, monster
petabyte (quadrillion) -- from grk penta, five, analogy of tera and tetra
exabyte (quintillion) -- from grk hexa, six
zettabyte (sextillion) -- from italian setta (seven) from zepto, adapted form of septi, from latin septim (seven)
yottabyte (septillion) -- from italian otto (eight), from octo greek or latin, eight

for how much each is worth, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion#See_also

First, isn't it interesting how these aren't lined up? (sept = 7, septillian however is a yottabyte, not zettabyte)

Second... the following articles have some interesting comparisons with the bigger numbers:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Terabyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte

Third... (and finally)

Some interesting quotes (From Wikipdia)

"The books in the the U.S. Library of Congress contain approximately 20 terabytes of text"

"the total amount of printed material in the world is estimated to be around five exabytes." (exabyte=~million terabytes)

"It was estimated that by the end of 1999, the sum of human knowledge (including audio, video and text) was 12 exabytes. "

"With a hundred trillion cells, each one storing 6Gb of data in its DNA, the body of typical living
animal stores a grand total of 600YB, making it the world's most redundant storage device."

Now, an exabyte isn't even practical yet because its so large, yet an animal here contians 600 million exabytes of data.
More so, an animal functions very effectively, both creating, destroying, and discarding cells every day. It therefor is managing a near incomprehendable quantity of data very efficiently, accurately, and without fiber optics.

This all just amazes me... thats all.
Read more...

Security

I've had a bit of a paradigm shift... or at least had that "kick you in the head" experience realizing a new perspective that I was very naive about.

It is the issue of security. In the past, I've always been real frustrated whenever you here a politician talking about security, because yeah, its important, but historically it has been used as justification to do something that probably ought not be done, (or at least in its manner).

One big example of this is the present conflict between security on one side, and jsutice on the other. Usually those in category #1 are willing to set aside some morality, and some justice, for the sake of their security. Those in #2 cry out at the injustice they have suffered, but often a few from #2 are willing to inflict evil on #1 for retribution. In the past, I have had such a hard time understanding how #1 could opperate without realizing how great a cost they pay for their goal!

Anyway, so recently a friend of mine at my apartment complex was robbed, and for the few weeks after that I had a bit of loss of a sense of security. I feared for myself, but even more for my wife. I didn't freak out, but was nevertheless uneasy.

It hit me that what I expereinced was so minor compared to the fear many people have to live in day by day. Of course that kind of fear and provoke a person to do thigns he wouldn't normally do! And its a very deep fear... the fear of not being in control, the fear of benig at the mercy of somebody with il intentions, and the fear of simply being violated.

9/11 didn't spark this fear in me, probably because I am livinvg in the exact opposite corner of the country from NY. Probably because our culture is so desensitized to evil in the world, but I rarely get disturbed by all the evil that is happening in our world, pooring through the TV every night.

So I have had a change of thinking in several ways:

1) The need for security is real, it may provoke one to hasty and bad decisions, but it is a powerful motivational force.

2) Security is something all people feel is a need. We need to have a "safe place"

3) The sense of security is ultimately an illusion (viz. 9/11)

4) When you have a conflict between one side needing security and the other side needing justice, neither side is "the good guys" or right. At least in my limited knowledge, it seems both ideologies are willing to sacrifice what is right to achieve what they want.

so these still remain:

1) The world is full of evil people wanting to do evil deeds to otehrs

2) Our only real security is being in the will of Christ. Only here can we find peace and true safety. Of course followers of Christ experience evil, but there is a biblical sense of peace of mind, knowing that it will happen, but that ultimately whatever happens your on God's side.

Read more...

More Absolutist Garbage

I really don't have much to say... just was reading in some forums about some folks reactions to Serenity, and some discussion on religion specifically Book, and his approach to religion .

As always, somebody has to drop the all to common line "there are multiple interpretations of scripture", and "you don't have the only true interpretation", in other words -- religion changes over time. These are fighting words to most Christians... and yet they seem to be such a common, cliche, statement for our culture to make, usually about religion, specifically, Christianity.

I have three observations to make.

First, Every time somebody says something like this, its easy to assume that this is relitivistic crap, religious pluralism. I'm beginning to think that really, this is not necessarily the case. This can simply mean, it is important to recognize that other people approach this differently, and we need to interact with these different views. I think a few use this language in this sense, and it is very easy to assume they mean the next meaning: that all of those interpretations should not only be treated equally, but that they are equal (i.e. all are fair representatives of truth).

I think it is important to always make sure to actually listen to what somebody is saying, something I know I so often struggle with. Just because what they say sounds like it disagrees, greater humility is needed to make sure "what it sounds like" is what they really mean. While I believe communication happens in a reliable way, there still is the 10% or more that breaks down due to our human inperfections, and often limited viewpoints.

Second, what is interesting is that, I fear this latter of the 2 meanings is a bit deceptive. While for the consistent post-modernist this is an epistemological claim that extends beyond religion, I think for most people that spout this what they really mean is that, the supernatural isn't true in the sense that it represents reality. Instead, it is a meaning for finding significance, explaining the unexplainable, enlightenment, etc. In this sense, any "interpretation" of course is valid -- its not representing something about reality, but something "spiritual" (i.e., abstract, philosophical, mental, emotional).

Why? Because honestly "all interpreations are equally true" never works, and even those who argue it, naturally, are arguing that that proposition is always true. Of course this all depends on what "true" means, but really, I think that everybody /for the most part/ opperates with "true" meaning that which corresponds to reality, i.e. Objectively true. To argue anything else would be a contradiction. "True for me" = I think this is truth.

Finally, what I'm getting at is I have been trying to reconcile why so much of our media is so thoroughly anti-supernatural still (i.e. naturalistic), yet it seems our post-modern culture is very open to religion / spirituality. This seems so contrary, the media is always spouting how God can't exist (viz. Katrina, and the "recent blow to Intelligent design by the ruling of a Judge).. and I am just wondering that, either these two are in opposition, or maybe our culture isn't as open to God, so much as open to "spirituality", whatever that means.

Read more...

Silly Anti-Evolutionism

Okay… so my wife was talking about her weight today. Not in a negative way, but just mentioning how over the last several years she’s maintained a constant weight. Go her! Anyway, after she left for the evening (some meeting for work), curiosity got the better of me. I stepped on the scale and…

Humble Pie

Okay so I normally have maintained a pretty constant weight, I’ll grant slowely increasing, but dang! Now its been a year or so since I weighed myself, but I’m 20 pounds more than I expected. I guess being back in school has had more of a drastic effect than I thought!

So here’s my idea about evolution – why is it that natural selection decided that foods that are bad for us are more tasty and desirable than foods that are good? Wouldn’t it logically be more consistent with natural selection for foods that make us stronger, healthier, and generally more fit to carry on the human race be more desirable?

For that matter, wouldn’t exercise and things that make our body be in better shape and better capable to live (and for that matter find the most ideal mate) also be very appealing and desirable? I know a couple of athletes, and while they seem far more motivated to work out, even they admit that the notion of sitting around being a bum is desirable, while exercise is not so much.

Really when you think about it – humans are just so naturally lazy and unproductive. Some people surely are, but it seems as a whole, we tend to want to degenerate.

Now I suppose a counter argument could go something like, well pleasure is the result of leading us to things that are good (food, shelter, mate, etc.), and that in our fattened rich society, this has been perverted because we already have all that we /need/. However, This definitely is not a new development in humanity if its true – because I think as far as history records its been the case of all societies and cultures and class.

But then I’m making a lot of generalizations based on not much information, it just seems intuitive J

Read more...

A New Philosophy of music

I still haven't quite figured out where I stand on music in worship, but I have had some recent thoughts on the issue. I used to be very frustrated about the idea of using music to facilitate worship because I felt that music can be manipulative. How can it be true genuine worship of God if the music creates an artificial emotional feeling (which it does)? Music is very powerful, it can evoke a wide range of emotions, feelings, sensations, memories, etc. It is very addictive for this very reason.

However, I think I’ve changed a lot on this issue. Basically, I now question why even use music? I think that this emotional response from music is its purpose: good music is supposed to send shivers down your spine at a climax or modulation. It’s supposed to make you want to sing along, and its supposed to be pleasurable.

This is not something I’ve ever questioned, but then it hit me: if we think music in worship is ok, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with this being part of the worship experience. I don’t think biblically there is a good argument to rule out music entirely, and maybe this is alright.

Maybe the benefit in music facilitating worship is just because of this. It draws us in, opens up our emotional poors and allows us to express feelings, experience feelings, and ultimately offer up praise to God in a way we might not naturally be able to.

This is manipulative, for sure. But not necessarily wrongfully so. A good preacher has the ability to give a convicting message. This is not manipulation, but a tool for the Spirit to work.

Now, it may be countered, that the Spirit is the one that /should/ open up our receptivity to worship, the Spirit should be the one who convicts us, etc. This is very true. However, if we’ve all heard a badly presented sermon, or heard a bad worship set, it is obvious that the Spirit’s moving in our hearts is contingent to some degree (sometimes more, sometimes less) on the human element. This simply is the way that God has chosen to work.

One last thought: I think there still is a point where music in worship can be too manipulative. When the worship leader is trying to bring glory to himself (which believe me is EXTREMELY easy to fall into), there is a certain degree of hollowness that is conveyed. In fact, when the whole presentation of a service is just that: a presentation, this really can bring a deep sense of shallowness, emptiness, and fakeness. Unfortunately, for most in our culture I think this often feels more desirable and ideal than the more ideal situation.

In this ideal situation, the worship leader is simply humble before God. While often times this accompanies a simpler set (acoustic for example), I do not think this is necessary. What is necessary is for humility above all, and submission to God. When this takes place, I think that the element of manipulative music can be there (given the quality of musicianship), and the Spirit is least hindered to move. The result can be quite powerful, and very enjoyable.

Of course, this is a simplistic perspective: if a worship set goes bad, it could be any number of things. It does not necessarily mean that the worship leader wasn’t humble, or the band sucked. The spirit of a worship set often is determined by far more than we can comprehend, (both spiritually and physically).

But anyway, I'm not sure if this is where I stand, but its a new way for me too look at things.

Read more...

Balance

I have been finding myself lately always harking on balance when in theological discussions. I think I want to write a book intitled “A balanced biblical theology” or something less cheesy. My dad has been big on “symphonic theology”, which from what he says seems to play on the same principle. At first I thought the notion that all theologies bring something good to the table, some element of truth, seemed too relativistic and pluralistic. In any case, I wanted to try and flesh out some of this, so a lot of this is more theological.

Recently I’ve been challenged on Protestantism vs. Catholicism. While I by all means see more right with Protestantism, I think it is often very easy to loose the good and truth in Catholicism.

Some recent examples: reading an article by Alister McGrath on a place for tradition in Protestantism. He argues that we should stand humble before the teachings of the church for the last 2000 years, that unlike Catholicism tradition isn’t over scripture, but should stand in some role of authority over us.

Interestingly enough, I saw a good example of that today. One of my professor's unique interpretation of why the law is in the Pentateuch pretty much goes against the church’s understanding since the early church, and he even openly admitted that it was a pretty scary thing trying to go up against that much tradition.

A second example is in biblical study. D. Hart argues that in Protestantism most people are “biblical egalitarianists”, meaning that we believe all believers have equal footing when interpreting scripture. He argued that while all believers should study scripture, those who are trained to interpret (ministers and some scholars) should be recognized as having that authority. While he didn’t try to refute the clarity of scripture, he tried to limit it, so that the clarity of scripture is not that all scripture is entirely clear for anyone to understand, but I think he would say for understanding salvation (which I’m pretty sure goes back to the reformers). He gave the good example of a small bible study: what insights everyone brings to the text are often treated as being equal.

Holding to any theology seems to often cause people to force some area to fit that grid. While I don’t want to be agnostic, I think this is very important to keep in mind. Calvinists bring good things to the table, so do Armenians and Wesleyans. While I personally still think the Calvinist brings more scriptural support, I cannot call myself a 5-point Calvinist because I think some areas are not quite right. Same with dispensationalism vs. covenant theology: a progressive brings much to the table that is good, but I’m not ready to sign on due to the fine print.

So back to balance: I cannot say that all theologians and systems of thought are right, nor can I say that they stand on equal ground. What is important here is to realize though,that like people, (because they are from people,) there is some truth, some falsehood. I want to be at a place where I am willing to modify my system when confronted with truths of another system that my system lacks.

One good example of this is in postmodern thought. I think post modernism, like modernism, has several large weaknesses that prevent me from signing on. However, it brings several important observations on communication, culture, and truth that I’ve been challenged with and have had to adjust my thinking. I’ve noticed this even at Talbot, that the more honest people will admit the same thing.

The biggest problem here is humility: if I call myself a dispensational Calvinist complementarian, I think I will naturally be a bit predisposed to trying to defend the tenants of each of those systems. Unfortunately, it seems that when you want to modify certain areas, it’s hard to define yourself. Maybe this is a good thing.

One final thought: I don’t want to give the impression that I think “picking and choosing” is a good alternative. I’ve heard that this is one of the bigger faults to the emergent church. Whatever you believe, it still has to “work”. Not simply in corresponding to reality, but that it has to be internally consistent. To have it otherwise denies that each area of theology and life that you develop a belief in doesn’t have interconnections. Life is symbiotic, and I think theology is the same way. Whatever your understanding of pneumatology affects ecclesiology, and of soteriology affects eschatology, and so on.

What is unique here about theology is that whatever you decide in one area must then be worked through with other systems you accept, however at the end of the day all of these, including their symbiotic relationships, should still be grounded firmly in the text.

Finally, I think this is the chief problem with systematic theology. The text is not primarily a book of theology, so it really doesn’t outline things clearly. A lot of issues are clear, but a lot are also vague. Because biblical theology doesn’t leave us in a satisfactory place, I still think systematics is important, but I also think that when treading those vauge areas, humility is key.

Read more...

Musings from the Shower

First: I want to forwarn that all of the below was written this morning right after jumping out of the shower -- meaning more important than the fact that this was early in the morning, that my thoughts here reflect what I think about while showering in the morning. I'm weird -- I already know this.

Second: A lot of this is out of my league, I am no trained philosopher, so I probably have made some embarassing blunders.

I think most would agree it is hard to dissolve the notion of the existence of evil. All of us are painfully aware that this abstract notion of evil exists, that evil is done in the world, that we experience the effects of evil, and hopefully the honest fellow would admit that we participate in evil.

My concern is the latter case. Are we really evil? Well, what first must be established is can people be evil? An important qualification here is the notion that most traditionally evil folk are far from 100vil. This means, that while there may be a lot of evil in their actions, thought, and life, probability dictates that there is likely some good, albeit a small percentage.

My thought is this: it seems that while we are naturally receptive to this small part of good in a person, there is a threshold in man that decides at some point, the level of evil is so great that one must respond to the person as if they were wholly evil.

My example is a reaver: lets remove for the sake of argument that they actually kill people. Reavers rape, eat, and defile the flesh of a dead person. In addition, they defile themselves by tearing on their own flesh, sewing the flesh of a dead person to their flesh, and adorning their body with various metallic contortions (not of the piercing type, but random metal fragments). I seriously doubt that anyone would be naturally inclined to find the good in such a creature. While from myth, it is possible there is some good here. Perhaps he feels such treatment of others is their salvation, or perhaps I don't know. Most are more creative than I. The point is, goodness may be found.

However, were one to come across such a creature, I feel that the only appropriate response would be one of disgust, and to treat such a creature as evil. I think this is a simple fact: we have a choice of how to treat a person, as good or bad. If we choose the latter, it is not that they are in of themselves entirely bad, but that they are bad enough to warrant such treatment.

Hitler is a second example. Hitler clearly did many evil things. While he had some good (unifying and rebuilding Germany, being an excellent speaker), clearly, if any allied individual were to come across him, the morally right thing to do would be to stop him, to treat him as evil.

This threshold clearly is not a well-defined thing, but definitely involves the prevention of harm to others, the corruption of innocence, and the willful subjugation of others (slavery, hunger, etc.). Clearly, in the presence of such things, one must act for the sake of the other. Issues such as "it is right for him though" based on his culture, upbringing, and social circumstance. All of this becomes rubbish though in that moment of choice.

The abuse here though is that some lower this threshold so that the presence of particular kinds of evil warrant complete rejection. Capitalism, conservatism, and liberalism all fall here.

I think there are two types of response to evil: there is the above-mentioned threshold, and then there is separation. Wrongness and some evil can be tolerated. I mean not accepted, for this would be contradictory, but does not warrant the full force of complete rejection. If we see a man steal something of little consequence, we are not faced with whether or not to take his life, but rather with whether or not to call the appropriate authorities (or possibly venture to tackle the fellow).

These differing layers of response are due to our own imperfection. At some point, the evil of others is not seriously afflicting bystanders, yet the evil present in our own lives prevents us from responding. To do so would make us a hypocrite.

My point, while having been a bit scatter brained, is simply this. If it can be agreed that such a threshold exists, let us turn to the idea of God. Lets assume that God does exist, and that God by definition then is perfect. The goodness of God is inconsequential, because the very concept of good and bad finds source in His nature. For it to be anything else, then God would be a contradiction and consequently cease to exist.

What must be grappled with is if God is perfect, (all powerful, all God, all knowing, etc.), what of evil in the world? I do not want to get off track here: so I will simply answer that in order for there to be true freedom (i.e. to choose to accept or reject God), He had to allow the possibility of evil in his creation. This is a common conservative answer, and I think is sufficient.

However, could God have such a threshold? Could there be a point were God is morally demanded to respond either positively or negatively? Evangelicals do not like to discuss the wrath of God often, because it makes us sound like the fundamentalists of last century. Fire and brimstone and such.

However, putting this aside, could this be the case? I think the perfection of God demands such a threshold. Because he is all good, /any/ evil of any sort demands negative response. Our limitation here is because we have evil ourselves. While it would be nice to say let God focus on the good in people, as we should, however, I do not think this statement does justice to the idea of a morally perfect being. It is trying to constrain the nature of God into human terms, something that is natural for us to do yet I think would still impose an impossibility on God.

So then, if I am right, God is morally free to condemn the entire world. This is where the grace of Christianity shines brightest. The notion that God would solve this dilemma, and find a way to purify a person so that such a person could actually come into contact with God is mind-boggling.

While knowing this can be of little comfort to the person suffering, I think that such an experience of God can.

Read more...

Nostalgia

I've been experiencing a lot of nostalgia lately. Maybe it is because I am back in school again (though I only took a year off!), maybe its just because it is fall.

It is not a feeling of desire for any particular time period of my life, just that distinct feeling that you associate with particular times of your life. Last week, I picked up a game I hadn't touched in years (StarCraft), and literally couldn't put it down for a few days straight. I had forgotten how much fun I had with that game, and how much of my first 2 years of collge centered around it (and surprisingly enough how many good friendships I developed in the dorm with fellow gamers).

I have been looking at a lot of pictures from my life back in Georgia lately. I wish I had more. What is funny about it is that most of my teen years I always was distracted with some minor difficulty, now I wish I had really enjoyed some of the experiences I had.

I wonder if in 10 years from now, I'll look back on my experience at Talbot with the same feeling. Perhaps I'll miss studying Hebrew paradigms, or debating over subtle nuances of Greek genitives. I guess I wonder if I think I missed out on enjoying life back then, am I really enjoying the abundance of blessings I have today (like being in school again, being involved in a church, having several solid friendships, and above all : having a godly wife!)?

Oh I forgot to mention -- part of this is because I have gotten into the "Christmas spirit" a bit early this year, probably because the weather finally has started to cool down a bit. Only relitively though.. gosh I miss the snow, the large amounts of rain, the really cold days, building fires in the fireplace, etc. Back in Georgia I could never have imagined why somebody would want to enjoy cold weather, or stand out in the rain with utter glee, or being put into a good mood by gloomy weather. It took coming to California to discover how wonderful these things are.

Read more...