Profoundly Vulnerable

Sunday night my daughter Lily died, I was sure of it. And then she came back to life, acting as if nothing had happened. But something big had just happened, even if it only affects Marnie and me. Here's what happened. Marnie, Lily and myself spending an afternoon at Sholam pool with Beth, Daniel and the three girls. We were having a great time. Natalie and Analise were sharks, chasing me with open mouths ("Uncle Dan, I eat you!"). We practiced walking and swimming with Lily, and she was doing great. And then Marnie holds Lily in her arms, while I chat with Beth. I look over and Marnie is on her back with Lily's head under the water. I jump towards them, pulling them up, while Marnie talks about having slipped. Lily gives one good cough, outing a good quantity of water, and then stops breathing. She starts turning purple in the face. I grab up Lily and start running towards a life-guard. I can't even think of any words to say, I'm just yelling, "Hey, hey, hey!" The lifeguard seems to take a lifetime to realize I'm trying to get his attention, though in reality it surely is only a couple seconds. He blows his whistle, grabs up Lily, who by this time has become limp, and continues to purple. I have a vague sense of other people, employees of Sholam, running to the scene, as the lifeguard gives Lily a look-over. Marnie is starting to sob- not cry, sob, as in "my life is utterly destroyed" kind of sobbing. The only other time I've heard that kind of sobbing was the night after Kristina died, where the Sewell family has their hands on Mike as he realizes his wife is gone forever, not coming back ever, never will see her again gone. At this moment, fully discolored, Lily's eyes roll back in her head, and I remember thinking the words "Oh my God, it's happening." I couldn't even come up with many words in my head. I'm hearing Marnie wracked with sorrow, I'm watching my little girl look as dead as I never could have pictured in my head, and I think to myself that this is real, that shit can actually happen to me, that I'll never hold this little girl and feel her squirm and listen to her chatter again. Further thoughts are stopped as my whole respiratory system seems to go in shock. It's like the feeling of having butterflies in your stomach, except to a whole new level. The lifeguard has been giving CPR to Lily for a little bit now, and then Lily starts to make some small noises. She's turned somewhat away from me, so I can't see her, but I hear others say that she's starting to cry again. Someone tells me to hold Lily, who is starting to look more her normal coloring. I barely understand that somehow, miraculously, she's going to survive, that despite what my eyes told me, Lily is not in fact dead. Someone tells me that I should come to the manager's office, that EMS is on its way to check Lily out. Part of my brain still hears Marnie sobbing uncontrollably, so I grab Beth's attention to make sure she understands that Marnie is now her responsibility. Of course, while I've been with Lily, Beth has already been taking care of Marnie, fully in shock, but I know that she will be taken care of. My mind is numb with what has happened, but I can breathe and move around. I go to the manager's office, where they again tell me the EMS is on its way. A friend of Daniel's named Kurt, whom I met earlier,comes by and offers me a chair to have a seat. He offers it twice, and while part of me knows I should sit, another part is now worried about Marnie. I don't know where she is or how she's doing. Lily is looking like nothing has happened, and so that's who I'm now thinking about. As I'm standing holding Lily, my extremities start to tingle and go very numb. I really should have sat down, but I still didn't see Marnie. Eventually she makes it over, and the EMS guys arrive, take Lily's pulse, and basically declare the state of emergency to have ended. Marnie has mostly calmed down now that she can see Lily, who is poking my wedding ring. Marnie starts sobbing again in the car as we are readying to leave. My mind is still numb. The tingling wouldn't go away until Tuesday. Since then, it's been as if the screen saver of my brain is that scene by the side of the pool, with the lifeguard holding a dead Lily. Anytime my mind isn't actively thinking of something else, it goes directly back to those moments. Everything that Lily does brings so much more joy, even hearing Lily fuss and cry just brings a small smile to my face. I've realized just how much a human can love. I don't think it's possible to truly understand how powerfully you love someone until you've seen them dead and your whole body rebels against reality, screaming, pleading for some end other than the inevitable. Dave Barry (of all people) wrote an essay on a similar experience with his son, and he stated how extremely vulnerable he felt. That's it exactly. As I stood watching Lily in the lifeguard's hands, I realized this. I realized that accidents can and do happen, that once it happens there is nothing you can do, and that it can totally destroy who you are. As I bathed Lily that night (it will be awhile before Marnie feels comfortable enough to do this) I was so scared of Lily choking on some bath water, or some other unforeseeable catastrophe. I was and am profoundly vulnerable, and am now made fully aware of the fact. Final thoughts. I need to try to not blame Marnie. The pool was slippery, there were strong waves that could take your feet out from under you. More importantly, Marnie needs, truly needs, to not feel any guilt about this occurrence; she needs to just be overjoyed at having her baby girl with her. Do I thank God for saving our girl? Was it truly a miracle that she came back to life, or just the good training and action of the lifeguard on duty? Marnie asked me this that night, and my answer is that I could not possibly ever know. What I believe to be true is that I would not have my daughter Lily if it weren't for God- she and I wouldn't exist, and hence I am very grateful to God that I get to hold Lily, play with her, hear her shriek with joy over a silly face, watch her poke a leaf to figure out how this world works. I find myself caring much less about anything in this world that does not include holding Lily close.

Vending Machine Christianity

"He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good
so be good for goodness sake!"
I find the above lyrics more than a little ironic, since of course kids aren't being good for goodness sake, they're being good so they can accumulate lots of loot!

When we relate this to religion, we may tend to think of televangelists- "Fund my 'I want a yacht fund' and God will bestow bountiful blessings upon ye!" Sometimes we try to negotiate with God, saying I'll do such and such, or I'll never do this or that again, in exchange for God doing something for us. Sometimes we find ourselves expecting something from God in return for following religious rules or practices. Oh, I think most of us could say why this is the wrong way to approach God, and could easily recognize such actions as vending machine Christianity, but I have the feeling that, extending this idea more fully, we may find ourselves a little more guilty than we recognized.

Why did we become Christians? Is it because we needed help becoming good people and knew it? Is it because we were overcome by the love that Jesus demonstrated to everyone he met? Is it because we heard about the golden streets and mansions and crowns of heaven? Was is because we were scared as hell of Hell? Suppose that one of the last two is true. Then, are we being "good for goodness sake"? Or are we being good to get something from God, namely heaven? Did we become Christians, did we follow religious practices, did we treat others kindly, give to the poor, all in the expectation of getting Heaven in the end? If at the end of life God said, "Sorry, heaven's not for you" would you respond saying, "But I was a Christian! I belonged to a church! I gave to and volunteered at charities!" Would we feel cheated? Would we instead say, "But Jesus I trusted you!" Now I'm not The Judge on such matters, but I'm guessing that anyone who would've said the latter would not have to say it.


The difference in those two responses is significant; it implies serious differences in why and how we became Christians and dictates who we become afterwards. When we become "Christians" we are transformed. If we became Christians to save ourselves from Hell, or to get some eternal reward then we are transformed not by the love of Jesus but by the love of self. We change the way we live because we ultimately want something for ourselves. The transforming agent is not Jesus' love but the spirit of profit seeking. When we see this, much of the behavior of the church becomes clearer. The existence of the judgmental attitudes and all the doctrinal disagreements makes sense. When our lives are shaped by love, then we pay attention to loving our fellow man under all circumstances. If our lives are being shaped by a desire to get to heaven, then we pay attention to whether our fellow man is doing the "right things" to get access to heaven. Do we care more about what a person does instead of who they are? Do we care about who's doing it right instead of how can we do it together?

We cannot downplay the promises Jesus has made us. They are great, amazing, beautiful. They give us hope, especially when life hands us excruciating pain. We need to know that Jesus has more plans in store for us. The idea of heaven can bring us hope and peace, but it cannot transform who we are into ones who belong to such a place. It may make us behave more like Jesus, but no amount of motivation can make us become more like Jesus. In the end, the only thing that can make us more like Jesus is Jesus.

Elegance in Science

I was asked to describe the elegance in science that points to God. But first, I believe it to be important to understand the term, or at least come to an agreement on a common understanding of the term, or at least know what I, the author of this post, take "science" to mean, because there are as many different definitions as there are scientists. There are quotes of all kinds, many very eloquent, that try to define this word, but for me it reduces to "the practice of trying to figure out how things work." There is much more to be said on this, but I will leave it alone for the moment. My idea of what is a scientist is directly predicated on my definition of science. In essence, it is one who is curious. I believe that all of us come out as scientists. We continually and without interruption attempt to figure out everything we can about this world we just entered. As we get older, we build more sophisticated ideas as our personal knowledge base grows and as our own capabilities for understanding expands.

You may have thought that I have forgotten the original question, but I have not. I have blathered on about semantics because I think that our curiosity is fundamental to understanding the wonder of God through science. Because God did not make a simple world. Everything is not just immensely complex, but infinitely complex. What man creates has a stopping point of complexity. We are fully able to figure out what the creator has done, and complete the project of "figuring it out." Only God could create a universe such as it is, with infinite complexity, ever smaller details, ever more intricate interactions. We will never have a complete answer for everything (or anything!), and so we, humanity, will always be compelled to look further and examine more closely, and think harder, and consider new ideas. We will never run out of things to be curious about! Any issue can be subjected to the child's tactic of asking why? why? why? There are always new questions, deeper questions to be asked, and always a point where we cease to have sufficient answers. That is the beauty of science, that we never fear knowing everything- praise God, for that would be a dull existence indeed.

I would also point out that there is an incredible amount of elegance within the answers that we find. In my experience with statistics, there have been so many instances where I would start with a complex model, go through pages of equations, algebraic manipulations, complicated derivations, integrations, summations and calculations, only to obtain at the end a solution beautifully understandable, so easily interpreted, something that our intuition easily grasps- this is elegance. There is also beauty in seeing how everything works together. There is an intrinsic power to awe within every field of science that I have studied. I enjoy learning about as many different things in the realm of natural science as I can, because it is truly enjoyable to see how things work together. Just as a mechanic can appreciate the ingenuity and capability that was required to build a car, so much more are we able to appreciate and enjoy how the things that God has made works.

Scholarships for Minorities

Illinois is the first state to provide a private scholarship for the children of illegal aliens. I'm actually disappointed, but not overly so. I think it's heading in a right direction, but essentially along the wrong path. I think it's terrible to label those who have been raised by illegal immigrants to be themselves illegal. It seems to me very cold indeed to go into the classrooms and pick out a few students and say that they must leave their friends and home behind, move to a new country where they speak a different language, where they won't be provided the same opportunities as their current peers, and will most likely be a much more dangerous place to live. Those students did not choose their parentage, and to say that they are criminals because of it seems absurd. So then why am I disappointed that Illinois has a private scholarship for the sons and daughters of illegal aliens? Because I hate scholarships based on anything other than merit.

I think that the fact the person A gets a scholarship over person B because of their race, ethnicity, parentage, or any other demographic is wrong. We denounce such things as racist or discriminatory if it is done in one direction and call it beneficial if it is in the other direction. Why should a son of a legal resident have to take out student loans and a son of an illegal resident have a free ride? The only correct answer to this question is that the son of the illegal resident happens to have worked harder in high school, made better grades, or scored higher on a standardized exam. Any other reason is in my book total bunk- unjust discrimination masquerading as charity. Honestly, I think if I were in the shoes of a minority who just received aid over a more qualified applicant due to my minority status that I would be insulted that some people think that just because I'm of such-and-such a race, or because my parents are here illegally that I somehow need more help than anyone else, implying that I am less capable because of the minority status.

I believe that I have a good idea why such scholarships exist- that a particular minority is underrepresented in higher education, and that a certain minority group is trapped in a particular low economic class. I think that it is perfectly noble to try to rectify such a thing, but that these minority scholarships are treating the symptoms, not the disease. Shouldn't we instead be working to make such minority groups produce more capable students, instead of giving mediocrity a chance to continue being mediocre? Please don't think that I'm calling all minority scholars mediocre! I've met some very very intelligent ones and were very good friends with them. What I'm intending to say is that instead of putting moneys away for scholarships, we invest it instead in producing the kind of students who will win equal-opportunity scholarships by merit. Instead of realizing that a certain minority doesn't typically produce as good of students as a majority and saying,
"well this is the best you can produce, let's see if they can succeed at a much higher level of academia" we say "let's try to help some of these minorities to develop into the kind of people who will succeed at a much higher level of academia."

Wingnuts- why I Left the Right

I have been more and more appalled at the extreme conservative right. I know that there are plenty of crazies on both extreme left and extreme right, but the election of Obama really set people off. Since his election we've had an abundance of crazy email chains, absurd issues brought up by politicians, the unbelievable comparisons made, and the circus that the conservative right media has become. The huge proportion of republicans who are unsure whether Obama was born in America, all those who think he's a socialist, communist, fascist, terrorist, etc.- it is simply unbelievable to me that this has become so widespread. Why is this? Why does it seem that people have lost their minds? Consider the comment someone made to me the other day that "the only difference between Osama and Obama is the BS." Really? The head of state of the world's superpower, the head of the most successful republic, the one whose administration continues the war against terror and has finally caught Osama bin Laden, is a terrorist full of BS? I've heard that Obama is the "enemy of humanity." Really? The same Obama who encourages Fathers to be good honest hardworking family men? The same Obama who wants to protect those children born by illegal immigrants? The same Obama who wants to make sure everyone has health insurance? You may disagree that it's the responsibility of the government to do these things, and that's fine. But enemy of humanity? I think it's obvious he cares about people much more than his crazy wingnut accusers (wingnut being defined by John Avlon in his book Wingnuts).

Despite all the patriotic rhetoric and flag waving, it seems incredibly clear that for the extreme conservative, allegiance to country is dwarfed by allegiance to party. As illustration to this, I take Rush Limbaugh's quote upon the election of Obama when asked to write 400 words on his hope for Obama's presidency: "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." Our president's failings lead to a poor economy, poor national defense, and a failure to unite the country (unification being, of course, an abominable idea to extremists, right or left, who want party purity). So in other words, Limbaugh would prefer this to having a Democrat who succeeds. So for Limbaugh, either an ultra-conservative (even more centrist Republicans are attacked by the wing) Republican is leading the country, or the country should fail for four years until there's another chance for an ultra-conservative to win. In Minnesota, this exactly happened, where extreme rights supported the Democratic congressional candidate to succeed over his Republican opponent, because the Republican candidate wasn't extreme enough.

What most concerns me is the connection between the crazies and Christianity. So many times I've seen comments that mix pure and unadulterated hate for liberals or centrists with God and Christianity. This makes me sick. It's the most unChrist-like comments that invoke his name in them. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, understand that Barrack Obama will always be an historical figure in American history as the first African American president. I think back to my visits to the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield, and I consider the section of the museum where Lincoln's critics are on display, making very harsh comments, calling him a dictator and such. But this will be nothing, absolute flattery, compared to the section in Obama's future museum displaying his critics. I fear future generations' opinions of us when they see this, because there are some dandies out there, thanks to wingnuts such as Limbough, Beck, Palin (there are so many others, but these get the most attention at least). I fear how often Christianity will be associated with these hate filled diatribes and criticisms, these absurd claims. I wish I could change Christ's name sometimes, just to remove him from these comments, because the Jesus I know has nothing to do with this. The party of Lincoln used to be centered in the north, and the Democrats held the south. This geography switched when Democrats started passing legislation on civil rights. And now the Bible belt became Republican because they opposed these civil rights. I'm so ashamed. This is much of what makes me feel such a personal distance from Church (with capital C) and the disconnect in my mind between Jesus and being a Christian with religion.

I used to be a Republican. Most of my life, in fact. But because of the hate that I see so prevalently, I will never call myself that again. That doesn't mean I won't ever vote for a Republican candidate if I think that they are the best option available, but due to my conscience I cannot associate myself with this paranoid hate and bigotry.




*If you somehow have missed the craziness that I've mentioned, missed the hate-chain-emails, missed the crazy comments by extreme conservative republican politicians or media heads, read "Wingnuts" by John Avlon (it's not an attack on the extreme right, it covers crazies from both sides of the spectrum, and it is not an attack so much as it is good documentation of what's been said). There's plenty of websites too that record such things as well. Some that I have read are:

http://blog.au.org/2009/09/02/pastor-of-hate-when-religious-right-rhetoric-goes-too-far/

http://www.good.is/post/fox-news-shocked-all-black-people-aren-t-burnt-sienna/?utm_source=supr

[skip to 1:35 or so] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201010110001

http://mindschmootz.net/2009/06/the-base-of-hate-extreme-right-wing-rhetoric-has-consequences/

Osama

Well, we did it. Osama finally ran out of running room and got a bullet in the head. The people of America, and all over the world perhaps, is celebrating*, and rightly so in some sense, and horribly wrong in another. I just can't get myself happy about it. I'm absolutely excited in that we may have saved many many lives in the future- OK I get that. But happy that a man is dead to achieve that aim? Not so much. I'm sorry that a man had to die for that to happen. Yes, it was his own past and would-have-been-future choices that led to this necessity (and I agree that if capture wasn't possible then this was indeed necessary). But what unimaginable history, upbringing, environment, family could lead a person to such reckless hate and disregard for life? I don't know, and neither do you. I can't imagine living life with the goal to end others' lives. What a pathetic existence, and by pathetic I mean sympathy enducing, to think about missing out on friendships, love, morality (true morality, not religious), without the aims of bettering your and others' lives. As Harry Potter says to Voldemort in the 5th, ". . . you'll never know love, or friendship, and I feel sorry for you." Yes he's a vile person who needs to be stopped, but it doesn't mean that we don't feel sorry that his entire existence is so meaningless and cruel. He's dead now, so he'll never have a chance to change his heart, or understand why life is so precious. I know I'm in the minority for these thoughts, and that most people won't and can't get past that he needed to die. I still just can't imagine Christ celebrating over this though.


*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-new-york_n_856137.html

Why Karma Stinks

This is the third post I've had on why bad things happen, (with this post focusing on why it happens to good people), but I had a thought the other day I thought worth putting down.

Why does crap happen? Because we aren't mature enough to handle it. If God always rewarded those who did good, and punished or at least did not do good to those did evil, then the whole purpose of free choice is ruined. Sure we could still choose to do good or to do bad, but our motivation would be skewed. In the end, the purpose of free choice seems to me to get us to be Christ-like; that is, we start from an ugly mess and work our way choice by choice to where we love other people more than ourselves. However, if we knew that if karma was the rule, and that if I did good to others, then God would do good to me here, then I am becoming no more Christ-like then an investor who gives his savings to a company with the expectations of dividends and capital gains. Every good deed would become a profit, and so by making selfish choices, we become more selfish people, and by making good choices, we also are becoming more selfish people. Here's a silly example. I see a wallet lying on the floor in a store. In our world, I could keep it with the consequences of enriching myself and worsening my character, or I could return it with the consequences of getting no monetary gain but becoming more Christ-like and focused on other people. By returning it I would be more inclined to do the right thing the next time I am in a similar scenario. However, in a world ruled by karma, if I return it, I am doing it because I know that by doing so, God will heal my sick relative, or give me that job I wanted. My focus is all on myself and my desires either way.

So I conclude that a world ruled by karma would lead to the failure of God's plan for us, and would turn us all into selfish wretches. So obviously this is not our world, as good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to very good people. While my whole life I've thought of this as unfair, I now realize how impossible life would be if it were any other way. Maybe God is wiser than me, after all.

Why I dislike religion.

Let me preface this by saying to what in this context I mean religion: dogma, legalism, rituals, ceremonies and liturgy, the view of insiders vs. outsiders, snobbery, deification of a man authored holy book, denominations, liturgy, demand for conformity of beliefs, the notion (which many hold and most deny) that you must think just like me to receive salvation, the passing down of belief systems without any thought or assessment from the receiver, the search for corroborating evidence instead of the search for truth. A final note before my original post is that I don't believe Christianity was ever supposed to be a religion, but a decision that transforms the way you treat others.

Religion is like train tracks for those trying to know God. It keeps everyone on the same track, going the same way, seeing the same scenery, leading to the same conclusions about God. It is following all the cars in front of you. But it is not people we want to follow; rather it is a God for which we search. It is inevitable for a few to get derailed, some of which crash, and never reach their destination, while others go out exploring, maybe taking a little longer to find God, but seeing and experiencing so much more. These latter have seen different things than the clones who have stuck to the tracks. So what leads some to derailing? Questions and fortitude. What keeps one from crashing? Even more fortitude. Stick to the tracks if you want, but do not say I cannot follow by foot; for I forsake the tracks when I see flaws, and wander when the lines are skewed.

A Jesus Question

So I've always held the notion that it is only fair for God to experience humanity. That is, if he expects us to be "good," he ought to come down here and give it a whirl himself, just to know what he's truly asking. However, if Jesus was that divine manifestation, then it wasn't exactly fair since he could do all the miracles he wanted. One could counter that he did them not for himself, but for others out of compassion and sympathy. OK, so if that's the case, then why isn't it happening now? Surely our God still feels compassion and sympathy, right? So why did he perform miracles then and not now, or before he came?

Quick Thought on Forgiveness

I just got to thinking about a question that was posed to me, which essentially boiled down to this: How will trusting in God's judgment affect how you treat people? And my response was: Well, trusting in God's judgment means nothing to my actions if I also trust in God's forgiveness of all the crap that I do to people. So where this led me was this thought:

The only way for us to be capable of showing love is for there to be no consequences for us.

If God did not erase everything we did, then all of our good actions would be tainted by the self-interest involved in avoiding judgment. Only with the full knowledge that even if I sin I am forgiven do I yield the power to return God's love and give untainted love out to those around me.

Crap happens. But why?

Anytime something like this happens, always one of the first things to cross my mind is this: there are so few really good people out there, and so many jerks and straight up otherless (see earlier post) people; so why are we robbed of the good ones?

So, why does bad crap happen to good folks, as far as God's intervention is concerned?
Either God does not intervene in this world, or he does, but chose not to in this case, or God chose it to happen.

The first option seems the easiest road, but there just seems to be so much of my life that I just must attribute to and give thanks to God. So even though my natural inclination would be to this conclusion, some part of me tells me it's not quite right. In addition, if this was true, then suddenly the world is a much scarier place. It's like walking the tightroap and all of a sudden you notice there is no safety net below you. I can't think that God would allow no room for maneuvering on his part. Why would he limit himself that way?

So if God does intervene, where the heck was he? Why act sometimes and not other times? I don't think we could ever answer that unless we actually knew what, if anything, was due to his intervention in our physical universe.

Surely God wouldn't choose this to happen. Not a good God, and the whole universe screams to me saying, our God is good.

One final thought, and thank Bella for this one. I had to put up an electric wireless fence for my idiot dog. It gives her a nasty zap when she tries to leave our backyard. She doesn't understand why she would get zapped. She's just trying to find me. But I, being more evolved, know that she'll get lost and starve to death, or she'll get hit by a car on Johnson rd. So I zap her instead of letting those things happen. Is this what is happening to the Ray's? Is God giving them a well meaning zap? It'd be nice to think so, but I still don't. It'd be nice to think this incident had a divine purpose, but I don't think God would be responsible for this.

What I do think is that while God does intervene sometimes, his intervention is the anomaly, not the norm, and most of the time crap happens. Now God and the Ray's could use this to a good end, but I don't think it was a designed plan. This makes me walk a little more timorously. And much more worried about those I love.

I suppose that we should have strong enough hope in an afterlife to feel OK with losing people, but my beliefs on that aren't nearly solid enough to make me sigh with relief.

Scott said something to the effect of when he was a kid, his church was conditioning people to be more like the pharisees and not like Christ. Another friend of mine shared that he was scared for his own salvation because he hadn't been to church in awhile. What a load of rot. Scott, here's your corroborating evidence to go along with your thoughts. At what point did we fall back into legalism? Apparently pretty early, from Paul's letter to the Galatians. That sucks. We finally got the chance to live in the great outdoors and instead we go back to our safe little cardboard boxes that we feel so comfortable in. There's so much to experience, enjoy, and yes, there is danger out there too, but if we stay in our smothering boxes, we received nothing new when we let Christ take our hand.

I think of little children in school, having to walk single file, no talking, no turning around, etc. This is what legalism is. It is controlled, it is safe, it is comfortable and predictable, but so limiting. God has given us more freedom and responsibility. We are free to roam the halls at will. On the one hand, there is less human control, and there may be some serious disruptions. But some of us will wander off to do good things. Maybe this is a bad example.

Life is unpredictable, with ups and downs. Some of us only see the ups, some only the downs, and most of us are on the roller coaster, riding the hills and valleys. Now, if we have followed all the rules, but we observe someone in need of comforting, loving, support, financial help, etc., we have no need nor are we responsible to aid this person. We've done all that is required of us. We've given our 10%. We've gone to church the right number of times. We've followed the rules. However, outside of legalism, we might not give 10% to charities, but then again we may give 20%. We may have never stepped inside a soup kitchen, or maybe we know some of the homeless by name. But we are always compelled to love. That person in need should get our help, and it doesn't matter one bit what we've already done or not done. In fact, all that we do is a reflection of the love in us from God, so the more we receive from God the more we shine.

Instead of a checklist, we have a journey to make. Instead of rules, we have a chisel. We can follow the rules or break them in the legalism method. In God's method, we are either becoming more Christlike, or going back to looking like ourselves.

"FREEEEEEEDOOMMMMMMM!!!!" says William Wallace, and so says Christ.

Otherish or Otherless

So here's a hypothesis:
Every choice we make is based on what will bring us the decision makers more joy (or less pain).

What I mean is this: Selfishness and selflessness don't revolve around yourself at all, but rather what you do for other people. People who are selfish and people who are selfless both are acting and making decisions based on what they think will bring themselves the most joy. The difference lies in whether that joy includes other people or not. Maybe we should talk about people being otherish and otherless.

Here's where all this came from.

Clearly, selfish (otherless) acts can be seen as bringing the selfish person joy, but what about unselfish acts?

First, let's look at coercion/doing good things with a crap attitude. (i.e. We do something because someone else wants us to do it.) For example, I go see a chick flick because my wife wants me to go with her. But really I decide to go because I'd rather endure the film than have an argument, or maybe because next time I get to choose. Or I tithe, but only because I'm supposed to. So I'm doing a good thing, but I chose to do it because I'd rather lose the money than lose the eternal rewards. Or I serve someone, but I do it because I'd rather have people think highly of me than have my time back.

Second, we give/serve, and we do it with a great attitude. But the real reason why we chose to do it is because we enjoy giving/serving others than keeping our money/time/sweat to ourselves.

Challenge: try to come up with a scenario in which a person can possibly make a choice that will not bring more joy/less pain to the decision maker, without disregarding the emotional effects of the choice.

Thanks

I am so grateful that God has given me more than I need. It is such a great and enjoyable thing to be able to share with others, as opposed to being God's charity.

Image of God

INTRODUCTION:
So on Sunday Scott talked about the image of God, which started the gears turning. I haven't given it a really good think before this week, but I always assumed that it referred to something completely unique to humans (namely morality). This is actually Take 2 for this blog. In the first one, I tried to state all or most plausible possibilities for what the image of God means, and eliminate all that I could. The one left standing would be the winner. This is typically a great way to go after something if the answer isn't an obvious one. Well, I was discrediting these various ideas based on the notion that we [humans] and only we [not animals] are created in God' image (i.e. my previous assumption as stated above). The problem came when I eliminated all my possibilities. Yikes. The really scary thing came when I eliminated morality (for a highly recommended reading, check out http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals.html?full=true and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523515.000-virtuous-nature.html?page=1 ). This really changed my worldview quite a bit, and although I'm no closer to being a vegetarian, I do look at animals in a new light. So I was left with the problem that there is no significant inherent qualities about humans that separate us from animals- only extent to which we possess certain traits. So, despite everything I had thought and assumed before, I was forced to conclude that the answer to this riddle was not a particular trait we possessed but simply the extent we possessed it.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
Here's what I came up with after a good long think. First I want you to imagine a particular situation.
Think of a particularly noble, loving, honorable, hard working, respected man. This man becomes father to a son. At first, this baby looks very little like the man, physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, etc. The boy becomes a toddler, and starts to look more like a man, but obviously far from the what he will become. He also becomes vaguely familiar with right and wrong, although it's more of a "I want to avoid punishment" than a mature understanding of morality. The boy grows into his teens and has a much better idea of morality, but still has a long way to mature. Finally the boy becomes a man himself. He has reached a Point of Accountability in his life, where he can choose for himself whether to live as his father did, or to be a man who cannot hold a job, maintains addictions, remains immature, etc. Suppose this boy/man chooses to live as his father does. He now looks like his father, acts like his father, and while he is not his father, he is very much the image of his father. If he chooses the lesser path, his behavior doesn't resemble his father's, and alcohol, drugs, self-abuse, and failure to take care of himself all contribute to make his physical appearance look less like his father. No one would come up to this person and say, "you're the spitting image of your father."

Less developed life that we came from is like the boy during his childhood. As life become more advanced (from our perspective), these traits from God becomes more and more apparent. When man finally came on the scene, we have reached that Point of Accountability. While we were all created in the image of God, each man now has the responsibility to maintain that image or choose our own lesser path. It's easy to find extreme examples to illustrate this. Look at Hitler, and you do not see the image of God like you would if you looked at Mother Teresa. Each chose to maintain the image of God or to go their own route. Looking at Christ shows us what would happen if we did nothing to taint the image of God in which we were created. Unfortunately, all of us have chosen to live differently than that which we were intended, some more than others. However, when we chose to give ourselves to and follow Christ, we ". . .are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18)." We are looking more and more like God, as Christ changes us and works on us and chisels us into what we were created to be- the image of God.

CONCLUSION:
While morality is not uniquely human, we have such an extended knowledge of morality (that has developed along with the rest of our biological functions) that we are capable, and hence held accountable, to choose to live like our God, and be "the spittin' image of" our Father, or to forsake that path and head our own way.

Medieval Thinking

Surely we in the twenty first century do not think like those in medieval time period, right? We don't set up Inquisitions, severely abuse lower classes, or wage Holy Wars. But before you get too haughty, look at the next two frameworks for thinking, based on medieval cosmology, and see if you actually are more like those folks from way back when than you might have guessed. First, look at what this cosmology was. The prevailing (and ruling) thoughts was the egocentric notion that the earth was the center of everything, and the universe truly does revolve around us (reminds us of our teenage years).
"The waters lie above it, the air above that, and fire soars upward to the heavens. . . " beyond the moon lies the fixed "crystal spheres [stars]" and beyond that is where God and the angels reside (Primack and Abrams in The View from the Center of the Universe).

Note that the physical location of everything is very ordered. This helped shape the strongest framework of thought of the day, which is to say that everything was put into its place by God. Kings were made kings by God, peons were made peons by God, and one simply lived out the role God placed them in. To deny the divine right of the king was the same as completely tearing down their universe as they saw it. Now for us, especially in America with the American dream, we no longer think of things quite like this, and certainly not for politics or occupation, but I think that we still see this paradigm exhibited to some extent. Questions such as "What is our 'calling'?" or " What did God intend for us to do with our life?" or any sort of questions of destiny or fate all demonstrate this same idea that the positions and places we fill or will fill is all orderly and preordained by God.

The second framework for thinking comes from when the medieval cosmology came crashing down due to the work of Galileo and his contemporaries. What happened was what is considered the Cartesian Bargain. This was applicable to the culture and political structure of the time, but it continues to permeate many folks' thoughts today. What this agreement boils down to is a divorce between the spiritual and the physical. At the time, this meant that scientists would be allowed to work on explaining the physical, but leave any spiritual implications out of it. Similarly, religion would not attempt to overstep its bounds and use their religious views to explain physical phenomena. I see this divorce everywhere today, and certainly has had chain reactions within the past two hundred years that affect us today. For instance, take the common reaction of the church to the Big Bang cosmology. Here, instead of seeing this as evidence for a creation event, secular scientists make no effort to interpret the powerful meaning of their discovery, and Christians simultaneously condemn the scientific data, facts, and theories because it doesn't fit with one particular prominent religious view. Today, much work is being done to see how chemical changes within the brain affect spiritual experience. I will make two predictions: First, scientists will use this to explain away the validity of spiritual encounters, and second, Christians will condemn the science, come up with poor excuses for found data, and not even consider the possibility that perhaps God reaches us through physical means and not by magic. As a final example, go to any church, talk loudly about evolution, note the angry or offended expressions, and then see how many of those folks have read anything about the theory (this does not include reading a dismantling of the theory without reading an unbiased explanation or defense). This is the divorce between science and religion that occured in the 1600's still seen today.

Are we more civilized and sophisticated then the people who lived through and shaped medieval times? Certainly. But I think it important to recognize how these people still shape many contemporary thoughts.

Fire Fall Down By Hillsong United

Some of the lyrics to a song we sang this morning were "Your fire fall down fall down on us as we pray as we seek." It begs the question, what is meant by fire? When we sing this, what are we intending? I reckon many would say it refers to the Holy Spirit. In the Bible, the H.S. apparently comes down on the disciples in the form of flames. Personally, I have never experienced nor heard testimony to anything like that happening, so to me I cannot consider that to mean the Holy Spirit. Indeed, I imagine if I were to really penetrate the thoughts of those who answered Holy Spirit, I would not find that they believe and expect the Holy Spirit to come down on them manifested as fire, as they would claim to believe happened to the disciples so many centuries ago. For me, when I sang it (in my head- I can't play bass as well as I would like and still sing at the same time!) I fully intended it to be understanding. So much of God is unknown and convoluted by men and their belief systems, I would love nothing more than to catch a glimmer of truth about our deity. I'd be curious to know what each person's "fire" is that they want from God, that thing that they truly seek.

Intersection of Justice and Forgiveness

What a difficult question. My answer is this: Do what is beneficial. If someone needs punishment to learn a lesson, give them punishment. If the person is truly repentant, offer forgiveness to teach them grace. If others need to know that punishment will follow particular actions, proffer punishment. In each scenario, try to find what will do the most good. In a sense, we leave feelings out of it and try to look objectively at the situation and make a good decision. Of course, this is extremely easy to implement, assuming your God.

Talent vs. Character

Alright, so my fellow graduate students have prompted this thought with the following quote (which is not quite a real quote, but gets the general idea across): "I'm not dropping the class because I'm stupid but because I don't want to do the work." This represents an attitude which I have seen in other students as well.

The general idea is that a person would rather be thought to have high traits that one cannot have any control over rather than thought to have high traits in areas where we can control. I can see the logic in it as well. If you think yourself smart, you think that you can overcome anything that you need to overcome, whereas if you are just a hard worker, you may or may not be able to overcome a particular obstacle.

However, I've never seen an inspirational film on a very talented person who decided to go the easy route in life. I have seen a film about a person who was born with no arms or legs and yet is able to function autonomously. Which commands the greater respect, the above mentioned man or a Stephen Hawking flipping burgers? Of course the bright and talented man could overcome more obstacles than the dull-witted or clumsy man, so perhaps in this line of thought the talented might have a good self-esteem.

In the end however, I believe that self-esteem, self-worth, and the amount of us respect one commands is achieved from what has accomplished, what actions one has taken, what obstacles have been overcome, as opposed to gifts one was born with that were not earned or worked for.

Yet at the same time, I believe most of us would rather to be thought of as smart or naturally athletic than a hard worker. This is the paradox upon which our self-esteem rests.

B-I-B-L-E

So John chapter 8 begins with a footnote that says that the earliest manuscripts and witnesses do not have the following account. So, should we treat this with as much respect as the rest of the Bible, or do we believe some monks somewhere in the 5th century (when this first appeared) made the story up and put it in there? How are we to know what should be in the New Testament and what should not? How do we know that any of this is truly the directed word of God? After all, none of them even claim to be such books. They just claimed to be accounts of people's experiences with God, or letters of instruction from one man to others. Whatever may be said about the rest of the NT, one must reach a conclusion about this passage in John 8. Is it authentically from God or is it just a good story added in there? It's easy just to accept it because that's how Zondervan packages the Bible, but is that a sound reason? We must either believe
1. God, although deciding to use the written word to communicate to his people, decided to rely on the oral tradition for just one story, until the 5th century where he decided it was the right time and divinely inspired someone to stick it into his holy text.
2. Man inserted this story by his own volition. While this story is good and may be very instructional in figuring God out, it is nonetheless a fictional piece put in there by man's own volition.
3. Oral tradition handed this story down, and while it's not something from the mouth of God, it is still a true account.
I started to write a fourth option which was that God inspired others to include this later, but what would be the reasoning for that? Did God forget to put it in there the first time? I don't think so. So I hold to the original three options. But I think that each person needs to think about it and not brush it off.