More Replay in Baseball? (A Twenty-Four Year Old's Perspective)

After the Angels and Yankees game (20 Oct 2009) many have now called for more instant replay in baseball to get the call correct. However what these people fail to realize, is this will end the time honor tradition of the coach going out on the field to yell at the umpire, which in turn increases fan participation. The crowd was much more involve after the blown calls and helped temporarily rally the Angels. Instant replay will erase these coaching tantrums (for the most part). Think about some the best moments in baseball's history and tell me Billy Martin kicking dirt on the ump is not a favorite, or that crazy minor league coach who used the chalk bag as a grenade while he crawled along the field. While these scenes may cause embarrassment they also make baseball, well, baseball. While I agree replays would not add much if any more length to the game, they will take away the spirit of the crowd. Instead of giving the crowd something to jaw about, the replays will slow down the feeling of the game though not actually adding any time. Maybe I am crazy, but I hope for a coach umpire confrontation in the game because it adds in the extra drama and excitement. So please do not add more replay, the human error adds to the excitement and drama that is baseball.

Green by Ted Dekker, my review

The story of Thomas (of) Hunter continues on in Green by Ted Dekker. If you have read the original Circle Trilogy (Black, Red, and White) then this story is the next chapter of the saga. Thomas in the parallel world is living a peaceful life but a challenger to his reign and ideals rises up and challenges not only him but all those washed in the lake. Meanwhile back in a distance future world from our own, Billy is on a mission to find Thomas’ blood using is special ability to get it. Little does Billy or Thomas realize but both of their worlds are going to collide to complete the circle or destroy it.

The only two possible negatives of this book are one the author (Ted Dekker) believes anyone can pick this book first before reading the trilogy or any of the previous related stories and second the story is similar to the trilogy. I personally think this book would be extremely confusing for any one unfamiliar with any of the previous books. Beside these two aspects this book is just as enthralling and engaging as the original trilogy and easily rates as one of Dekker’s best fantasy novels.

Read the first chapters here: http://buzzplant.com/teddekker/green/downloads/Green-Chapter%201-2.pdf

Church Music by DC*B, my review

After releasing a more simple yet power album (Remedy), The David Crowder*Band has gone back to reinventing their sound and the sound of church music. The album has 17 tracks and you would be hard-pressed to find one that should be cut. The album is meant to be played straight through in one listen and my recommended listening, no seriously if you can sit down and listen to the whole album at once and in order, especially for your first listen. The songs flow one into another for 72,3 minutes of pure rock, dance, and worship. The album opens with Phos Hilaron an ancient Christian hymn dating to the fourth century. The music progresses from there picking up more and more of a dance beat until the two covers, All Around Me (by Flyleaf) and How He Loves (by Mark McMilan) slow the pace (a needed break), however the album picks right back up until the dance beat comes front in center on Church Music - Dance [!]. The album then moves back towards the rock/eletronic style you may be use to from the DC*B. Songs to pay particular attention to: Eastern Hymn; The Veil; Shadows; Oh, Happiness; Phos Hilaron; How He Loves. 5 out of 5, currently fighting A Collision for my favorite DC*B album. Please add your thoughts in the comments section.

Self Righteousness Part Four: Tolerance

Tolerance, or more, lack of tolerance. Again this idea deals with attitude but I feel it needs to be singled out. We tend to be offended when people are not tolerate of our beliefs but when was the last time we were happy about others’ beliefs being tolerated, Muslims for example. Tolerance is a two way street if you want your views tolerated then you must tolerate everyone else’s. This is a tricky idea though because we have to be tolerant without necessarily equating it with support. This has been completely muddied in recent times. Today people seem to make tolerance equal to support. If you do not support this cause then you are not tolerant. This should not be the case. Would it be wrong for me (completely for example and discussion sake) for me to tolerate the homosexual movement? This has been a struggle for me to understand what my role should be. I am against their cause but does this mean I should protest their rallies? I think that I am called to voice my disapproval but not to protest their rallies because I need to love them as Christ loves me.

Self Righteousness Part Three: Hatred

Hatred, when attitude gets out of control this is the next step. I believe this actually does not effect us all, at least not consistently. However I am afraid many of us sit on the border of the line. Ask yourself what is your honest feeling about people who are homosexual or believe abortion is a viable option. Does your attitude bleed into hatred for them? It is okay hate the action or behavior but you still need to love the person. I see an unfortunate trend more and more towards hating the person and not the sin. Just look at the political situation in America now. Anything the opposite party of yours does is completely wrong and should be voice out in the most outrageous way possible. Why, why is this our attitude, an attitude of hate? Does this do us any good, does this bring about change? No, this brings disharmony and friction. We as Christians need to avoid this at all cost, for we a reconciled to God and through this we are to reconcile the world to God as He is reconciling Himself to the world. If we are hating our neighbor how are they, we, to be reconciled to each other? God?

Self Righteousness Part Two: Attitude

Attitude is not much different from pride. However you can have an attitude without being prideful (I think). You can believe you are better than someone and still have a low self esteem about yourself. Also attitude more than pride effects your treatment of others. You can be proud you are better than someone but still care to see them improve, however I do not find this to be the case most times. How many of us get just as angry or are just as impatient as everyone else. This is an attitude problem not a pride problem though both can be linked at times. Fairness may come in here a little bit. I am being treated unfairly by such and such so I am going to yell at such and such, or complain loudly in line, etc. This is an attitude problem, and as far as I know most of us suffer from this disease. It is our responsibility to be Christ to the world including attitude. If we have a bad attitude or we change our attitude back and forth what is this saying about Christ to the world. We are not our own but God’s and our attitude is not helping us live as a witness for God. We need to be more empathetic than the world, just as Christ was, which means an attitude change for us.

Sorry for this being so late.

Self Righteousness Part One: Pride

Self righteousness is a problem most if not all Christian struggle with, I would be lying if I said I did not. I believe self righteousness takes many forms, a few we are familiar with and others fail to see or we do not see the whole side of it. This week I will attempt to examine pride.

Pride, many of us have our pride. Proud that I am a Christian, proud that I will go to Heaven, proud that I am better than my neighbor who does not go to church. The list can go on and on. You may say I do not think this way, I ask you to take one minute to reevaluate, search your sub-conscience and then honestly ask if these ideas are not present. Still do not think you apply then you are on the right track in your relationship with God or really good at lying to yourself (I would examine the latter idea more fully before you believe the former.) Does pride lie within in our thinking of ourselves only or how we also think of others. For example, saying I am proud of..., does that differ from self pride? I lean toward is does not. How do we fix this? I think the answer lies in what Paul tells us, boast in Christ only. But what does this mean for us? Should we do away with our awards and honors? I honestly do not know. Is recognition of a person for some accomplishment a form of pride? I think these are many questions we need to explore. I do not pretend to have an answer. I am leaning toward thinking any type of recognition is a form of pride for the rewarded and rewarder. I do not know what this means for me and for all Christians. Please comment with thoughts on this. What is pride to you? How do you fight against it? Any other insights or questions you have.

America and Christians Part Five: Schools

Disclaimer: This are only my opinions, presented to generate discussion on the issue. It is completely fine if you disagree. I respect the fact you may have another opinion and ask you respect mine. Comment on any part of this, whether you agree or disagree. Again this is presented to generate discussion.

[Note: I am not currently a parent, this is based strictly on observation.] There seems to me to be a growing trend for Christian parents to move their children into private Christian schools. I do not think this to be a good move especially if the reasoning is: There are just no Christians in that school. We as Christians should be having our children exposed to and experience what the modern culture of today is. I think parents are shedding off their responsibilities to teach their children their Christian belief systems to schools (and the church, only). It is the parents responsibility to teach their children their value system, school and churches are only helplines not the main source. I realize we live in a more busy world and time seems to be tighter than ever before. Isn’t this all the more reason to be spending time with our children? I realize schools are tough today and many negative influences are present (as I was there not too many years ago and still remember the goings on). This is all the more reason for Christian children to be in the schools. Where else are these lost children going to hear and see other children acting in a Godly way? Also once grown these are the same people your children are going to be working and interacting with, how are they are going to do so effectively if they are not accustomed to the culture. While school sponsored prayer is illegal (as it should be) private gatherings for prayer are still technically allowed. I think the best thing is to find what other children attend the same school as your child that also attend your church or a similar church and have them form a club/prayer group. This will do two things, as your children are witnesses in school (as they should be taught to be) they can invite others to the group and they will have a support system in place when times are tough which they will be. Remember Jesus went to the people not to the side of them. (Two further notes, I have the same opinion of private schools in general [exclusion from general society = lack of ability to interact with society in general] and when I do have children [assuming I do] this prayerfully will be my attitude.)

America and Christians Part Four: The Bible

Disclaimer: This are only my opinions, presented to generate discussion on the issue. It is completely fine if you disagree. I respect the fact you may have another opinion and ask you respect mine. Comment on any part of this, whether you agree or disagree. Again this is presented to generate discussion.

This is probably my most controversial part of this series. This issue (among a few others) has split the SBC and is at times a hotly debated subject. I will attempt to leave most of that argument behind if at all possible and deal with the Bible in the state we currently have it. The unfortunate thing I see with the Bible in some circles is its treatment. Some people currently treat the Bible as if it is a god, whether they mean to or not. I believe this to be a very unhealthy view. Lets be honest with ourselves and everyone else. The version of the Bible we currently have is not perfect. Despite what you believe the original copies of each book to have been we do not have them or any copy that comes close to being a full copy. This is my biggest argument against calling the Bible inerrant, maybe it would have been if we had the originals, but we do not and we do not know exactly what they said. However, we several thousand copies from later dates that generally agree with one another. This is the information we should be promoting, we have more copies of the Bible from antiquity than we do of any other historical work. This fact alone should be proof enough for us. Debating over what the nature of the originals were only confuses our congregations. What comes out in the pew is that the English version in front of the congregant is an inerrant copy of the Bible. This is not the case and by throwing these terms around we are doing more damage than good. If the congregant believes his Bible in hand is inerrant then when presented with factual information to the contrary, what do you think happens to that person. I know of two scenarios that are likely, he boldly defends the Bible making him look the fool to others or he accepts the information and loses faith. Does it matter in the long run if the originals were inerrant, I do not think so. I do I believe the Bible to represent a divine communication, yes. Now you ask how do those two work together. Simple I believe the Bible to be a book about God’s relationship to man and vice versa. Godly men wrote their experiences of God and his relationship. These men are not perfect and their words not perfect either, however the message that radiates throughout the entire Bible is one of seeking a relationship with God (through Christ Jesus). Are there mistakes in the Bible, currently, yes, originally, who knows. Does it matter much, only if you are elevating the Bible to god status, in my opinion. Does my opinion matter much, probably not, does my view of the Bible as a purely relationship book between God and man and vice versa, I believe so. While many will quote 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching...” however this only states it is inspired by God, man still wrote it. To me it is large leap to claim definitively that this proves the original copies to be perfect, does necessarily make it impossible, no, but neither does it prove it. We should quit worrying about the originals and deal with the version we do have, a truthful book that teaches how to have a relationship with the One True God. Does this view perfect everything, no. Does this view fight against scholarly criticism, yes. To me in our day and age scholarly criticism is a major danger facing Christians. It takes only one person to start pointing out problems in the Bible, it takes a large group to defend against these.

Next week is the current last part, Schools

America and Christians Part Three: Politics

Disclaimer: This are only my opinions, presented to generate discussion on the issue. It is completely fine if you disagree. I respect the fact you may have another opinion and ask you respect mine. Comment on any part of this, whether you agree or disagree. Again this is presented to generate discussion.

Originally this post was going to mainly deal with if Christians should become politicians however after having a brief talk with Chris Boggus and him being interested in Christians involvement in voting and the political processes. So I will address both issues, being a politician and participating in the political process.

First should a Christian be a politician? No, because the responsibilities of being a politician lie outside your roles as a Christian. This argument is in very similar to the one in part one of this series. As a politician you are responsible to your constituents, which in a sense makes them your master. Say you get elected and your constituents decide they are pro-abortion but you are not. You can go against their wishes and anger them or you can compromise on your own position and vote according to their wishes. While the first view is completely viable it will kill your chance for reelection. So many politicians compromise on their position to appease their constituents in hopes of reelection and future gains of power. While the corporate world may not be much different I believe a political office only increases a person’s drive for more power and in any way possible. When you begin to look at this in a Christian perspective it goes completely against it. While I realize that a Christian can be in a political position, I greatly fear that compromise will over take them.

This issue is something I have thought long and hard about, especially since I considered becoming a politician while I was in High School and the early bits of college. However as I grew in my walk with God, I realized these two ideas where greatly contrasted. As I grew to love God more I realized that I would not make a great politician and would be troubled by going against my constituents wishes. If you are a Christian and you are considering politics please take a great bit of time to assure yourself you will not compromise your Christian beliefs to appease your constituents, which will most likely hurt your chances for reelection.

Now moving on to what should a Christian’s participation be in the political process. Should I vote, should I openly support candidates, should I lobby, etc. I think there is a fine line here that we have to walk. I do think we should vote, I not sure if we should endorse a particular candidate though, and limited lobbying could be okay. Voting, I believe we should vote because the people running for office do ultimately affect us and our daily lives. We do want to make sure we continue to have our rights that we need. Take for instance, doctors currently are a private practitioners, we do not want them to be force to perform abortions if they do not believe this is a correct practice. Voting can help us keep the rights we do already have. (I do want to mention though, we as “american” Christians take our rights for granted and abuse them. We allow them to make us docile, I feel Christians in countries that preaching and witnessing are illegal are more authentic due to their situation. This has led me to question my above stance on voting but has yet to change it.) Openly supporting candidates I think is a wrong move. People change (and politicians have been known to lie) and we do not want to be publicly endorsing someone that turns out to be against us. Instead we can openly support ideas that candidates endorse. Also I believe endorsing a candidate can lead to a bit of two master syndrome as well. Finally, lobbying, I think limited lobbying is okay. This goes back to endorsing ideas and not candidates. We can lobby to let it be known what stances on certain issues we hold and are likely to vote on. However this is fine line here because we should not fixate on one or two issue but all the issues. Currently gay rights and abortion or the two issues we continue to focus on while ignoring military, health care, treatment of the poor. Our problem seems to be we have decided that even if a candidate is all for helping the poor, providing health care, working to broker peace, but believes in gay rights versus a candidate who is against gay rights but believes first action is to strike back, ignores health care, and is only interested in giving tax breaks to the wealthy, then we tend to vote for the latter candidate. Is this right for us? I think not, we should be informed and make informed decisions based on the candidates entire resume versus two issues. Personally, with the trends in both parties, I currently support half the Republicans agenda and half of the Democrats agenda.

I think now I should discuss whether or not a certain party should be supported over the other. I believe not. We should support the candidates that promote the most correct stances on the issues, whether Republican or Democrat. I do not think it is our place to choose a side, for I choose to be a Christian not Republican or a Democrat.

Please comment with your opinion. See next week's part the Bible.

America and Christians Part Two: Military

Disclaimer: This are only my opinions, presented to generate discussion on the issue. It is completely fine if you disagree. I respect the fact you may have another opinion and ask you respect mine. Comment on any part of this, whether you agree or disagree. Again this is presented to generate discussion.

Should a Christian be apart of the military? Some would say yes and use Old Testament examples of how military force was and is necessary and therefore a Christian can be in the military. But is this view congruent with the whole of the Bible?

The Old Testament is full of war and God commanding war, so is it alright for us as Americans to participate in the military. I think we have a better standard to look at than the Old Testament and that would be (the stock answer of) Jesus. Jesus seems to turn around the view of war. If your enemy strikes you on your right cheek then turn and give him your left (Matt 5:39). Also the earliest Christians were antiwar and pacifists. It is not until Constantine really that this began to change. Now that the emperor is a Christian and part of his job is to protect the empire he and theologians had to needed to did make war okay. If you notice, there is a connection between patriotism and military force being justified. Unfortunately 11 September 2009 seems to have affected our beliefs and engrained in our beliefs that military response is right and responsible. Again going back to Jesus, they struck our right cheek so should we not offer them our right? (I am not sure how that would work, I do not believe we should provoke them into attacking again.) America as a nation obviously had to respond but to see evangelicals to have also responded in such a way is disheartening to me. We should have been seeking a peaceful way to have this taken care of (this does not mean for Afghanistan to just kill the Taliban). We should be pushing for world peace (though it is not likely to occur). The just war theory, while endorsed by the Catholic church, U.S., and more, it is not a correct theory according to Jesus. The crusades were wrong¹ and together we (Christians) should apologize as a whole for them. Most of the crusades were failures and only strengthened the hate between Christians and Muslims. We should be working to repair the relations, this would then increase our chances in the evangelization process. If they hate us why would they listen (especially if we continue to blame them, which we are finally lessening) but if we can build a dialogue relationship with them, it would create opportunities for us to witness to them.

So getting back to the main topic, should we as Christians be in the military, no. We should be attempting to make peace and be willing to be martyrs for the cause of Christ. It is our job to love and respect (love your enemies [Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27,35]). If that endangers our lives then we must trust that God has an ultimate plan. Take for instance Jim Elliot and Nate Saint. They were both killed attempting to witness to the Huaorani tribe. However in the long run many of the tribe have become Christians including two members that were in the party that killed Jim Elliot and Nate Saint. I am not promoting a martyr complex for we are to try to attempt to broker peace without violence. The military does not fall into line with this idea. Sorry Augustine but the only Just War is no war according to Jesus. Does this mean we should not support the troops, no. We should not support the military or the wars. People, yes; actions, no. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword (Matt 26:52). Does the sound like a promising statement?

1. See Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller for an interesting take on this.

Come back next Wednesday for the next part Politics.

Self Righteousness Part Zero: Teaser 1

Right now I have a four part series on Self Righteousness planned covering these four topics: pride, attitude, hatred, and tolerance. This series will begin after part five of America and Christians (or a conclusion post, depending on if I feel I have finished that series). These are based on an article I am working on. Which after writing these I will probably re-combine into the article. Originally this was on Hypocrisy but after reading a few articles and hearing a sermon (by Michael Criner) I changed the subject to Self Righteousness, funny how God can place things in your way to help clarify your thoughts. It may turn out that this series is only part one in a much longer Hypocrisy series.

America and Christians Part One: Christian Nation?

Disclaimer: This are only my opinions, presented to generate discussion on the issue. It is completely fine if you disagree. I respect the fact you may have another opinion and ask you respect mine. Comment on any part of this, whether you agree or disagree. Again this is presented to generate discussion.

In southern circles, at the least, you hear how America is a Christian nation. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values they say and this fact alone makes us a Christian nation. I would like to explore this idea, first was it ever and second should Christians want to claim this?

First was this country ever a Christian nation? I believe the answer to be no. If you read about the founding fathers (of America) you find many of them were not Christians, they may have known Christian values but did not practice them. Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian even though he loved to go hear George Whitfield speak. Thomas Jefferson practically invented the Unitarian church (basically a hodgepodge of whatever religion you like). So at best you can call the founding fathers Deists (belief that there is a god). But what about after that? Well, if the constitution is not strictly a Christian constitution that makes it hard for the nation to be consider a Christian nation without changing the constitution. Also America is setup as a majority rule nation with allowances and understandings for minority groups. What happens if an influx of other religions occurs and one of them takes the majority? (Please note this is a very brief and probably unsatisfying look at this part, however many books and articles have been written on the subject and I do not pretend to know enough.¹)

^{Now more importantly, should Christians want to claim America as a Christian nation. I believe not. Why you might say should we not want to claim America as a Christian nation. There are several reasons and I will attempt to touch on them (some in this blog and then “larger” subjects in the rest of this series). One, as a Christian we can only serve one master (Matt 6:24), if we choose to claim America are we not really making America our master. Also if we take a look at our Old Testament, we find that being a nation with a leader did not work out well for Israel. While Judges was a bad time for the Israelites, God provided for them, once they asked for a King, they were quickly separated (after three kings the nation splits) and then five-sixths of the nation’s tribes were lost by conquer. While America does not have a king, we do have a central government that in a sense has the same power as a king. If we look to them are we not like Israel demanding to be like everyone else. I realize the nation of America could not function without our government, this is no reason for us as Christians to embrace it as our own, though. This leads into the next point of America being a capitalist nation. If you can find me a passage that clearly shows Jesus teaching this idea then you are better than me or deluding yourself. While communism does not work as a government form, it is the type of idea Jesus teaches in the New Testament. I honestly like communism on paper, but then I remember we live in a world with non-perfect people who corrupt the system. So then should Christians move away and start their own communities where they do live communally. I do not have answer, because we are to be a city shining on a hill (Matt 5:14) but also to be in the world (but not of it) (loosely John 17:16). America is hyped up on buy this, get this house, drive this car, dress in these clothes, etc. This is not what Jesus teaches us, while he does teach to make sure we are taken care of, we do not need all the cool new gadgets.}

Capitalism is only one major problem, as noted above what would happen if Muslims became the majority group in America? Would this become a Muslim nation? They like wise could point to many traits in the constitution that are similar to their belief system and could make the same claims we do, except that the founding fathers were muslim (though as I previously pointed a group of them (if not most) were not Christians). How many laws have been passed that are counter to Christian beliefs? America is founded on the idea that majority rules but also cannot discriminate against the minority. So for instance prayer in school, we cannot (and should not) have public prayer in school (private prayer, most definitely). How would you determine who gives the public prayer in school, majority faith (in school, city, county, state, country). Not looking good is it. Or I could point to Roe vs. Wade, this is currently a legally sound judgment according to our constitution, the only way it will change is a law being passed defining when life begins. (On a side note in the Christian ethics issue mentioned earlier, end-noted, there is an interesting article on ensoulment vs life.) Still liking “your” nation and want to claim it as Christian. Theocracy does not work, our kingdom is in Heaven not on Earth. While we should want a nation full of Christians, we should not desire a Christian nation. There are other implications to this that I will discuss more fully in later parts of this blog.

{Part Two is: Military, Part Three is: Politics, Part Four is: Bible, and Part Five is: Schools. (Notice I have come up with a fifth part and watch for more to come, and comment on topics you would like to be written.)}

1. see Christian Ethics Today. Vol 15 no 3 iss 75. Fall 2009. For further research in this area. Also you may consider Gregory Boyd’s book Myth of a Christian Nation, I have yet to read it so I cannot fully comment on its take.

America and Christians Part Zero: Introduction

I am going to start a series that deals with Christians and the United States of America. I would have liked to have called it: Christians and America, but the way I currently see Christians setting their priorities as America first, Christian second, thus the Title being set in the particular order. If you do not see the correlation then wait and see the the post in the series. I plan to release a blog in this series once a week starting this week. I currently have four parts planned and maybe more to come. So for the next four weeks prepare to see one blog on this subject starting with: America and Christians Part One: Christian Nation? If you have issues you want me to blog on then please post a comment and I will see if it already fits in or try to incorporate it.

traffic etiquette

I hate when people do not know traffic etiquette and rules. The yellow lights (the option just before headlights) is not for driving around with, they are parking lights, are you driving and parked at the same time I do not think so. Turn signal, suppose to be engaged prior to braking not immediately before turning. If you know your your exit is coming up within the next mile or two then go ahead and move over or if the lane you are end becomes a turn only lane in the next mile or so and you are not turning then do not stay in that lane. By simply driving like you know how will increase your happiness and the others around as well. (watch for updates as I remember additional mistakes)

Marriage: State vs Church

I honestly think the church needs to take back marriage from the state. This harmonizing of two is what has now got the country up in a stir about gay "marriage". If the church were to take back marriage that would leave the state with civil union. So under this proposal a Christian couple would have to go through two stages, one with the state (civil union: legal in state, probably just some paper work) and the second in the church (the actual marriage). This would solve the gay "marriage" issue because then the church's ceremony would not be legally binding in the state only in the eyes of God which I believe is the way it was meant to be leaving the gay couple to be legally civilly united(?) in the state. Just to be clear to be legally "married" now would be called civilly united, you would have to go to the court house and fill out paperwork and have the justice declare you civilly united and then to be married in the eyes of God you would still have the church ceremony. The major problem I see with this is having to change terminology. Non Christian couples would no longer be called married but civilly united (or something to that effect) no matter their genders whereas Christians married in the church would maintain the married label. (please comment, but keep them civil this is for discussion purposes, if you disagree be civil about it, I will reply if need be)

The Purpose of This Blog

The purpose of this blog is to discuss Christian issues in today's society from my perspective. Many of the ideas will not be original to me or do I believe they must come about, however do believe these need to be discussed more openly and civilly. I am fine if you disagree with me, as again these are my opinions and I realize not all of us are the same nor any of us perfect. Please do comment with your opinion, keeping it civil. I hope that I along with many others can bring out some of our churches' short comings to improve upon it through the work of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and God our Father. The church is much too fractured and I think this generation can help turn around that trend, we just need to be open and honest, recognizing our similarities, and discussing and accepting our differences.

texting and the future of phones

I am worried about the future of phones. Texting has taken over the conventional use for a phone, talking to someone. I refuse to text on my phone and even went as far as to have the ability to text disengaged on my phone, I can neither send a text or receive one. If I am going to text someone I send an email. I am now unsure of the future of phones, iphones and the like are not phones, they are portable computers. The thing that is probably the saddest, is that we no longer talk to one another, we only communicate via written communication. I was never a fan of talking on the phone because I like to see the person I am talking to, but even that is a major improvement over a text message. If you have a phone and need to tell someone something call to let them know. If you can not talk to them at the moment because of your location: class, meeting, movie theater, etc, then you can wait to let them know, texting is not the solution. I am out right now on the use of iphones and such because I can see some value in them however are we becoming too dependent on technology? We claim the world is becoming a smaller place but paradoxically it is becoming lonelier due to the fact we never communicate in person, or even via speech. I may be alone in this now but I think by the end of my life (assuming I live a full life) there will be a trend to shed technology for conventional means of communication.

Exploring meaning

Last night I attended a group's session, that meets occasionally, on the exploration of meaning. It was a thought provoking meeting considering what is meaning and how is it conveyed. Some thoughts I had (mostly questions to ponder) where:

1. Meaning produces creation (language for example)

2. Does anything create meaning without inherited meaning?

3. Can anything be meaningless?

4. Does meaning create purpose?

Does purpose create meaning?

Does creation mean purpose?

Can those three (creation, meaning, and purpose) be separated?

5. Does meaning come from the conveyer or from the one it is conveyed to?

6. When does meaning matter?

7. Who does meaning matter to?

8. Does meaning even matter?

As you can see there are many questions, I am thinking of writing further blogs addressing some of these questions. Those blogs will probably be in a different heading than random thoughts for they will be very systematic (mostly likely).

sleep, vampires, undead, and sleep again

The other night before going to bed my wife and I were talking and the following pattern of thought resembles that conversation:

Me: I can not sleep, my body naturally wants to sleep during the day and be awake at night maybe I am a vampire.

Wife: Vampires don't sleep.

Me: They did before Stephenie Meyer changed vampire lore.

Wife: Huh?

Me: Before her, vampires would sleep during the day or at least go in their coffins and come out at night since they are undead. Actually since they are undead they probably would not need to sleep.

I hate to admit that Stephenie Meyer may have been on to something by making the vampires not sleep, but it makes logical since.

H1N1 (Swine) Flu

I am unsure of why people are so worried about the Swine Flu, especially here in the US. So far this Flu has not been any different than any other flu besides maybe it being late in the flu season. Many people unfortunately die in the US from the flu every year and so far no one has really died in the US from this flu. I realize it is bad in Mexico, but I think the media has blown this out of portion. Which could lead me into a whole other line of thought. This H1N1 flu, as it as manifested in the US, is nothing more to worry about than any other flu. People need to quit this crazy talk and treat this flu just like any other flu for now because we do not have any other evidence to think or act otherwise.

Push or Pull

I hate doors that have the sign that says push or pull, if the door requires a sign then the door should either a) open both ways b) have a handle that only allows for it to be opened the certain way (i.e. the bar for push and a handle for pull). Half of the time I do not notice the sign and perform the incorrect action or the sign is facing the other way and I read it backwards and again perform the incorrect action to open the door. That is my random thought for now.