sing a song of ninepence

2005-04-01T16:12:00.000-08:00

I've finally unearthed the fascinating answer to a question long pondered by many great men before me--a question, in fact, that has probably stymied the finest minds evolution has ever produced: namely, why Frankenstein's monster walks the way he does; arms outstretched stiffly before him, huge feet treading large but unsure steps as he (apparently) sleepwalks through popular cinema reels into young children's nightmares. Are you ready? The answer, obvious enough once you think of it, is that the Monster (dolt that he is) always walks around IN THE DARK. Probably he likes the dark because it covers his hideous green complexion (also his yellow hair--green and yellow don't mix well), but the fact is, this predilection for walking around in the dark makes him look like an idiot, which he can't very well afford, seeing that he also looks like something the cat has drug in.

I discovered his problem when I tried traversing the maze that is our basement with the lights off (not personally my fault--someone turned them off on me, with malicious intent). When you're afraid of bumping into things, and even more afraid of tripping over skates and toy cars and scooters and whatnot that the kids blithely leave around, of COURSE you're going to walk with arms stiffly outstretched and take those large (but unsure) steps, relying on the well-known fact that if something IS there to be bumped into, it's better to do the bumping with your hands than with your face. Also that the larger steps you take, the more ground you cover, and thus the less chance you have of coming down on a foreign object.

Moral: never walk around in the dark, even if your face doesn't match your hair (and if I ever find out who it was that turned the lights off on me, I'm going to teach them this lesson personally.)

2005-03-09T16:22:00.000-08:00

2005-03-07T17:50:00.000-08:00

2005-03-07T09:16:00.000-08:00

2005-03-01T20:20:00.000-08:00

Elizabeth Grace Rossol 7 lbs 6 oz. 19 in.

2005-03-01T20:17:00.000-08:00

2005-03-01T20:16:00.000-08:00

2005-03-01T20:15:00.000-08:00

2005-02-25T17:05:00.000-08:00

Random song excerpt:

In the wee small hours of sixpence
and the lighted chandelier
stands a rusty old retainer
whose old eyes are filled with tears
for his master, Good Sir Galant,
who is now off to the wars
And although his eyes are crying
we know grief is not the cause
And if grief is not the reason
he must be of sterner stuff
and his sword though old and rusty
must be blunt as sharp enough.

--from "In the Wee Small Hours of Sixpence" by Procol Harum

2005-02-24T16:26:00.000-08:00

To Save a Life:

I'm copying here part of an email sent out regarding Terri Schiavo, whose husband is about to begin starving her to death with the court's sanction, unless something happens to prevent him:

Today, the courts rejected the pleas of Terri’s parents to stop her husband, Michael, from withholding food and water from her. He has promised to begin starving her tomorrow at 1 pm. [Update: there has been a temporary stay ordered until Feb. 25, which is tomorrow]

Most of you are aware that Terri is not a "vegetable" or "brain-dead" as Michael and his lawyers claim, but responds to others and is aware of her surroundings. She laughs, smiles and, according to her nurses, has a small vocabulary.

Terri is not on life support and is healthy. She needs help eating and is fed through a tube (helping someone eat and drink who is impaired has never been considered artificial life support).

While Michael asserts he is carrying out Terri's wishes, he waited until after he received a large sum of money from a lawsuit against her doctors before making this claim . During the lawsuit, he alleged negligence and motivated a financial award with the potential cost of Terri’s rehabilitation.

However, Terri has been denied rehabilitation that experts testify could allow her to eat and talk. The courts in Florida have consistently blocked appeals to give Terri proper tests and therapy that would improve her life.

Terri may not have the capabilities she once had, but she is no less valuable and no less a person.

Here is what you can do to help Terri:

1) Pray for Terri and her family.
2) Blog - communicate the truth about what is going on and rally support for Terri 3) and the Schindlers.
4) Visit BlogsforTerri ( http://www.blogsforterri.com) for information and to join the team of blogs for Terri.
5) Deluge Gov. Jeb Bush with emails and phone calls. He has the power to intervene. Here is his contact information:

Governor Jeb Bush
jeb.bush@myflorida.com
850 / 488-4441
850 / 487-0801 (fax)

2005-02-22T12:57:00.000-08:00

Last night, just as I was drifting off to sleep, I suddenly thought of men's ties. What are ties for? Most articles of clothing were, I suppose, invented for a reason. We all know, for instance, the point of the original fig-leaves. The leap from fig-leaves to suits--or even, I daresay, jeans and a t-shirt--is really not unforeseeable, inasmuch as they all clearly fulfill the same practical purpose. But why ties? What does a tie do, in fact?

I lay there last night pondering ties, and coming up blank. Suspenders, as we are aware, were invented to prevent the embarrassing event of one's pants falling down. Socks prove to be tactful intermediaries between skin and shoe-leather. I imagine underclothes were created for the same purpose, as well as providing needed warmth once we migrated away from the pleasant climate of the Fertile Crescent. Enter coats, hats and gloves. But a tie cannot conceivably protect the wearer from the intemperate elements of wind and weather.

Corsets were necessary to Elizabethan fashions, which demanded that there be wasp-waisted persons to fit into those wasp-waisted clothes. I have it on good authority that even men wore girdles for this purpose. We may disagree on the medical advisability of forcing ones' vitals out of their proper place in order to accomodate current fashions, but at least we can agree that there was a purpose, however laughable, in the invention of the corset, which has since evolved and adapted itself to more modern uses. I doubt we shall ever agree that a tie was invented to make Man's neck thinner.

Not that I shall be inconsolable if I never find out the purpose of the First Tie, since I have already passed cognitively from my original question to that of how one ties the darn things. I have a rather vague picture in my mind of tying a sort of overhand knot around the thinner end, and tightening it effortlessly with faultless execution into those things that men wear every day that they go into the office. It's a good thing I'm not a man, though, because whenever I've tried it in reality, it flops, and I'm afraid that means that ties will always remain a mystery to me. Which is all right, because I know that men will never be able to handle high-heels.

2005-02-18T19:48:00.000-08:00

You Are What You Own: The American Advertising Industry

“Why do I get the feeling that society is trying to make us discontented with everything we do and insecure about who we are?” asks a character in Bill Watterson’s comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes, as he flips through advertisement after advertisement in his daily mail. His wife gives a tongue-in-cheek answer: “I suppose if people thought about real issues and needs instead of manufactured desires, the economy would collapse and we’d have total anarchy. It’s our patriotic duty to buy distractions from a simple life.” Enter Calvin, the poster-child of his generation: “Hey Mom, I saw a bunch of products on TV that I didn’t know existed, but I desperately need!”

Watterson is very clever at poking fun at modern cultural values--while we appreciate an exchange like the above for its entertainment value, it also reveals something about our society and what we value. We instinctively recognize ourselves in Calvin, which gives the comic strip its appeal as well as (more importantly) its relevance to our world. Just as the media convinces Calvin that he desperately needs what they are advertising, so we too are influenced by advertiser’s claims that we need what they are selling in order to maintain a popular image.

The degree to which advertising has saturated our culture is evidence of the continuing effect of the civilizing process in our world, as it sends the message that consumers must pursue the bigger, the better and the newer products in order to compete effectively in our image-sensitive culture.

Unable to perceive ourselves objectively, we can only view ourselves “second-hand”, as it were, through the value-judgements of our culture, which tell us that we are the sum of what we wear, what we look like, and what we can afford to buy. Whether a pop diva like Britney Spears or the neighbor next door sets the standard, everybody else can either expect to fall in line or fall by the wayside.

The importance of image in our culture can be seen in the fact that advertising has become a multi-billion-dollar concern. Our interest in image encourages our consumerism, as we believe our culture’s lemma that everything that matters can be bought. Our resulting product-driven society is fertile ground for the advertising industry, which has been able to persuade consumers to depend fully on its mandates. Consumers rely on advertisers to help them stay abreast of the current trends in clothing, technology and even mundane products like cereal and shaving cream. Nothing is sacred where advertisers are concerned—they have a finger in every pie.

The pervasiveness of advertising in our daily lives says something about our culture—that part of our identity is wrapped up in what we own, and it is this fact that allows the advertising industry to manipulate our emotions and our credit cards. Just as earlier cultures used physical prowess or intellectual abilities as ways to gain the acceptance and respect of peers, so our culture uses material possessions to compete socially.

...to be continued...

Note of explanation: I'm lazy, folks, if you hadn't figured it out already--this was my final paper for English Lit to 1700 last semester! It should provide a couple posts, at least! *grin*

2005-02-15T11:52:00.000-08:00

Just to prove that truths can be found in the oddest places:

Mrs. O [reading her horoscope]: You have green, scaly skin, and a soft yellow underbelly with a series of fin-like ridges running down your spine and tail. Although lizardlike in shape, you can grow anything up to thirty feet in length with huge teeth that can bite off great rocks and trees. You inhabit arid sub-tropical zones and you wear spectacles.

Mrs. Trepidatious: It's very good about the spectacles.

Mrs. O: It's amazing!

--From Monty Python's Flying Circus ("What the Stars Foretell," episode 37)

2005-02-13T14:53:00.000-08:00

This is a poem I came across a long time ago, and I've always liked it. That sounds so inadequate--liked. What I mean is, it's one of those poems that does things to me...and that's inadequate too! Maybe I should just post it. It's very long, but good.

THE GATES OF DAMASCUS

Four great gates has the city of Damascus,
And four Great Wardens, on their spears reclining,
All day long stand like tall stone men
And sleep on the towers when the moon is shining.

This is the song of the East Gate Warden
When he locks the great gate and smokes in his garden.

Postern of Fate, the Desert Gate, Disaster's Cavern, Fort of Fear,
The Portal of Bagdad am I, and Doorway of Diarbekir.

The Persian Dawn with new desires may net the flushing mountain spires:
But my gaunt buttress still rejects the suppliance of those mellow fires.

Pass not beneath, O Caravan, or pass not singing. Have you heard
That silence where the birds are dead yet something pipeth like a bird?

Pass not beneath! Men say there blows in stony deserts still a rose
But with no scarlet to her leaf - and from whose heart no perfume flows.

Wilt thou bloom red where she buds pale, thy sister rose? Wilt thou not fail
When noonday flashes like a flail? Leave, nightingale, the caravan!

Pass then, pass all! "Bagdad!" ye cry, and down the billows of blue sky
Ye beat the bell that beats to hell, and who shall thrust ye back? Not I.

The Sun who flashes through the head and paints the shadows green and red,
The Sun shall eat thy fleshless dead, O Caravan, O Caravan!

And one who licks his lips for thirst with fevered eyes shall face in fear
The palms that wave, the streams that burst, his last mirage, O Caravan!

And one - the bird-voiced Singing-man - shall fall behind thee, Caravan!
And God shall meet him in the night, and he shall sing as best he can.

And one the Bedouin shall slay, and one, sand-stricken on the way
Go dark and blind; and one shall say - "How lonely is the Caravan!"

Pass out beneath, O Caravan, Doom's Caravan, Death's Caravan!
I had not told ye, fools, so much, save that I heard your Singing-man."

This was sung by the West Gate's keeper
When heaven's hollow dome grew deeper.

I am the gate toward the sea: O sailor men, pass out from me!
I hear you high on Lebanon, singing the marvels of the sea.

The dragon-green, the luminous, the dark, the serpent- haunted sea,
The snow-besprinkled wine of earth, the white-and-blue-flower foaming sea.

Beyond the sea are towns with towers, carved with lions and lily flowers,
And not a soul in all those lonely streets to while away the hours.

Beyond the towns, an isle where, bound, a naked giant bites the ground:
The shadow of a monstrous wing looms on his back: and still no sound.

Beyond the isle a rock that screams like madmen shouting in their dreams,
From whose dark issues night and day blood crashes in a thousand streams.

Beyond the rock is Restful Bay, where no wind breathes or ripple stirs,
And there on Roman ships, they say, stand rows of metal mariners.

Beyond the bay in utmost West old Solomon the Jewish King
Sits with his beard upon his breast, and grips and guards his magic ring:

And when that ring is stolen, he will rise in outraged majesty,
And take the World upon his back, and fling the World beyond the sea."

This is the song of the North Gate's master,
Who singeth fast, but drinketh faster.

I am the gay Aleppo Gate: a dawn, a dawn and thou art there:
Eat not thy heart with fear and care, O brother of the beast we hate!

Thou hast not many miles to tread, nor other foes than fleas to dread;
Homs shall behold thy morning meal and Hama see thee safe in bed.

Take to Aleppo filigrane, and take them paste of apricots,
And coffe tables botched with pearl, and little beaten brassware pots:

And thou shalt sell thy wares for thrice the Damascene retailers' price,
And buy a fat Armenian slave who smelleth odorous and nice.

Some men of noble stock were made: some glory in the murder-blade:
Some praise a Science or an Art, but I like honourable Trade!

Sell them the rotten, buy the ripe! Their heads are weak; their pockets burn.
Aleppo men are mighty fools. Salaam Aleikum! Safe return!"

This is the song of the South Gate Holder,
A silver man, but his song is older.

I am the Gate that fears no fall: the Mihrab of Damascus wall,
The bridge of booming Sinai: the Arch of Allah all in all.

O spiritual pilgrim rise: the night has grown her single horn:
The voices of the souls unborn are half adream with Paradise.

To Meccah thou hast turned in prayer with aching heart and eyes that burn:
Ah Hajji, whither wilt thou turn when thou art there, when thou art there?

God be thy guide from camp to camp: God be thy shade from well to well:
God grant beneath the desert stars thou hear the Prophet's camel bell.

And God shall make thy body pure, and give thee knowledge to endure
This ghost-life's piercing phantom-pain, and bring thee out to Life again.

And God shall make thy soul a Glass where eighteen thousand æons pass,
And thou shalt see the gleaming Worlds as men see dew upon the grass.

And son of Islam, it may be that thou shalt learn at journey's end
Who walks thy garden eve on eve, and bows his head, and calls thee Friend."

--James Elroy Flecker (1884-1915)

2005-02-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

Last night I watched Part Two of The Lord of the Rings. The movie had awesome scenery, but it was mostly what my sister calls "a groaner", meaning that I groaned through most of it.

How could anyone get so much wrong? To make matters worse, I read in World Magazine today: "Mr. Jackson took on the enormous task of translating J. R. R. Tolkien's beloved "Lord of the Rings" novels to the screen, and succeeded in large part due to an almost fanatical dedication to his source material." Fanatical dedication? To his source material? Gimme a break, guys! He doesn't appear to have even read the books! Or wait, I take that back--no one could have differed from the book in so many points without having read it. The apocryphal scene with Legolas surfing down the stone steps loosing arrows with the rapidity of a machine-gun topped even the one where he uses two swords like some plagiary of Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace.

If it wasn't such a painful travesty, I'd laugh.

The question now is whether my interest in finishing the movie will outweigh my frustration at seeing it blatantly ignore the book, because no detail, however little, is beneath Mr. Jackson's attention. He cheerfully ruins them all. Maybe the real question is, am I a glutton for punishment? *scowl*

2005-02-02T16:16:00.000-08:00

I'm reading a very interesting book right now--Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis. It's almost a retelling of the story of Eve and the Serpent, but with one significant change--it allows our perspective to become part of the story. The Green Lady (Eve) is still tempted by the Un-Man (the Serpent), but Lewis introduces a new character--a Christian named Ransom who knows what the Un-Man intends, and is allowed to try and thwart it.

Lewis uses the dialogues between Ransom, the Green Lady, and the Un-Man to bring out some valuable insights into the nature of Truth, Lies, and the relationship between God and Man. First of all, Lewis suggest that lies are never so dangerous as when they contain a large helping of truth. The Un-Man slyly suggests to the Green Lady that God intends for us to disobey His command because it is through this exertion of our own will that we become more distinct persons with unique minds who can therefore please Him better. Now we know that part of this is true--God does want us to become more mature Christians; also, it is in one sense through the exertion of our will that we can please Him. But it is through the decision to obey Him when there seems no reason, even when it appears unreasonable, that we can take this forward step into maturity--not through the easier path of exerting our will to disobey. The Un-Man skirts perilously close to the truth, but he is still lying.

Another interesting point I drew from these dialogues came from a conversation where the Un-Man suggests to the Green Lady that, because God causes Good to come from Evil, therefore the Evil is what God intended from the very beginning. To me, this has some of the flavor of Calvinism, in that Calvinists, too, sees Evil proceeding (they suppose) from God's will, and thus believe that God wills Evil. Not so. God allows us to disobey Him, but as Ransom points out, the result "is not the good He had prepared for [us] if [we] had obeyed Him [first]. That is lost forever. The first King and the first Mother of our world did the forbidden thing; and He brought good of it in the end. But what they did was not good; and what they lost we have not seen." I think Calvinism believes that there is only one Good--and that that Good entailed of necessity that we sin. That God planned from before Time all parts of history--both the perfect sinless Eden, and the sin that destroyed that perfection.

Lewis does not.

To Lewis, God's original plan for humankind was lost forever in the Fall--but God, in His mercy and grace was able to bring good, but a different good, from even Evil itself. One problem I see with this idea of Calvinism is that it has no need for the Devil--does not even account for his existence at all. And an equation that leaves out one of the factors cannot come to the correct answer, however right the rest of the calculation may be.

Lewis also demonstrates something in Perelandra that he demonstrated in the Narnia Chronicles--that Truth can seem weak, and Goodness futile; even silly. For some reason it's easier for me to cling stubbornly to the idea that Good and Right are always grand, and unmistakably so. Not at all! Ransom's arguments seem weak and pitiable in comparison with the Un-Man's--but it is Ransom (or rather, God) who will carry the day. It is truly said that God uses the weak things and the foolish things of this world to confound even the wise. In our topsy-turvy world, Wrong may seem stronger than Right, and even more grand. But that's just one more reason why we can't judge by appearances. Reading Perelandra, I'm hungry to be and do something totally foreign to my nature--to be someone who trusts God when He seems wrong, and even irrational. I have to remind myself that Reason, after all, is not God's master--it is God who is the Master of Right and Reason, and therefore, He is Right and Reason personified. I'd rather follow an unreasonable God than a reasonable devil. Sometimes we're called indeed to be fools for...and possibly with...Christ.

2005-01-26T11:20:00.000-08:00

Your turn. Does today's word, turpitude, remind you more of turnip or turpentine?

2005-01-26T10:40:00.000-08:00

I want to write something thoughtful and brilliant. I'd like to come up with a post that would be a dandy, and amaze the populace! But I'm lazy. My get-up-and-go-to-it has got-up-and-went. Any suggestions? I'm willing to do anything that won't necessitate effort on my part.

2005-01-22T13:21:00.000-08:00

2005-01-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

To a FRIEND:

Bugsy,
You and me
Out on the town.
With our camo and army boots,
Our black face-grease
And .38 specials,
We’re going to rob
The Dead-Letter Office.
(Don’t smile and give us away!)

Two fools
Looking for fool’s gold
(I say this in affection).
At least we’re wise fools—
We know that the gold isn’t important.
It’s the looking for it
That matters--
It’s the fun of the chase!

The two amigos—
Three if we bring Jorge.
Have you got the map?
We’ll go exploring
And climb the tallest pine
(really, any one would do,
they’re all so tall!)
To find—what?
I forget what we were looking for.

Two armies—
Marching to defend
(or was it seize?)
A tiny country
That I cannot pronounce.
Somehow our armies
Went blithely past
And missed each other completely.
Ah well.

Two glasses
Of lemonade.
The sun is hot,
But we lie back
And look at the future.
This grass wouldn’t be
So long, or tickle
So much, if we weren’t
Such lazy chaps,
And if we cut it.
But what’s long grass?
It’s better long
For making whistles.
Bet I can make mine
Louder than yours!
But you’re too lazy
To argue.

Two hep cats,
Blowin’ off the joint
And duckin’ the Feds.
We’re hot—-gotta wait
Until we cool off.
Avoid the cheap dives,
See Freddy the Fence
To get some lettuce,
And we’ll be in the pink.

Two admiral birds—-
Grab your hat and scarf
And let’s find some tigers!
I hear the Siberians
Are quite charming
If you catch them
On a Thursday.
And what luck—
Today is Thursday!

Two grins
And two scowls,
But only the grins are real.
(The others are masks
to deceive the uninitiated)
One dope and one idiot—
But which is which?

Bugsy,
You and me
Out on the town.
Ain’t we a pair though?

2005-01-18T10:06:00.000-08:00

When the Philosophy of Today becomes the Law of Tomorrow:

“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
-Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) founder of Planned Parenthood

Thanks to Carmon Friedrich for bringing this quote to my attention.

2005-01-17T15:10:00.000-08:00

Samuel Johnson was a fellow after my own heart. I give you his candid opinion of those longish green vegetables that are so unfortunately found in profusion at any vegetable market:

"A cucumber should be well-sliced, dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out."

Hear, hear!

2005-01-14T14:49:00.000-08:00

The sky is the most beautiful color of intense dusty blue right now--it would go perfectly with a lemon-yellow moon. D'ya know what? I think if we weren't made in God's image, we wouldn't be artists at heart. And for a totally random thought--isn't it strange to think that without light, colors don't even exist?

2005-01-13T19:39:00.000-08:00

I'd like to post some pictures on here. What should I take pictures of? (Assuming, that is, that I can get our...well--*cough cough*--Dad's...digital camera to work.)

2005-01-13T19:37:00.000-08:00

Bryan's posting again!

2005-01-11T10:54:00.000-08:00

I was thinking today about the "age of accountability" theory propounded to explain what happens to infants when they die. I've read a lot of different opinions, and I think the opponents of this "age of accountability" are correct in that as we are born in sin, we (1) can sin even as little babies, and thus (2) deserve hell. Yet on the other hand, there is a sufficient basis in scripture to assume that there is an "age of understanding", at which a child becomes old enough to, as it says in Isaiah 7, "refuse evil and choose good". There is a tension, then, between these two facts about human (and baby) nature that the Bible does not clearly resolve.

However, I think we can find the answer. I think our evidence for one view or another lies in God's nature, as revealed in scripture. God is just, but God is merciful. He does not deal with us as we deserve. James 2:13 says "[M]ercy triumphs over judgment."

The more I know God, the more I find a basis for believing that, as it says in James, His love wins out over justice--God's love is higher, deeper, broader and wider than anything we know of--and because of this I see the answer to my question to be an easy one.

I think those who try to answer the question by dealing with the technical aspects of the Law make a mistake. Do we deserve to die? Yes. Does God give us what we deserve? No! He satisfies His justice by paying the price Himself--and His love and grace is then free to work on us.

Is my God a god who sends babies to Hell?--babies who do not even know enough to "refuse the evil and choose the good"? NO. I don't have to see it spelled out in scripture to know--I simply have to know the character of Him who is my Redeemer.

2005-01-10T11:15:00.000-08:00

Jabberwocky

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son--
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!

He took his vorpal blade in hand,
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by a tumtum tree,
And stood a while in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgy wood,
And burbled as it came.

One-two, one-two! and through and through!
The vorpal blade went "snicker-snack!"
He left it dead, and with its head
He came galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Calooh! Calay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

-Lewis Carroll

2005-01-09T10:35:00.000-08:00

It's cold today--I hope we can have a fire. Nothing's nicer on a gray winter day than to sit in front of a fire in the fireplace. And if you're me, one of the best things to do in front of the fire is to put a puzzle together--I don't know why, but that's one of the few times I love working on a puzzle. I think I'll do that this afternoon--and maybe write a letter or two.

What're you up to on a cold Sunday afternoon?

2005-01-07T10:10:00.000-08:00

Hold On (by Selah)

If you feel today that you can’t make it
Keep holding on--'cause you can take it.
If you hold on
A little while longer—
Hold on a little while longer—
Hold on just a little while longer—
Hold on

If you feel it’s raining in your life
And day by day there’s nothing going right
Just hold on…a little while longer…
Hold on a little while longer—
Hold on just a little while longer—
Hold on

Never give up, never give in,
Never let go of God’s guidance
Never let people take you down
You’re gonna make it

Just hold on a little while longer
Hold on a little while longer
Hold on a little while longer
Hold on

----------

Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

2005-01-06T17:38:00.000-08:00

pieterfriedrich: I like modearn art.
jamiedude84: Modearn?
pieterfriedrich: Right.
pieterfriedrich: That's how I spell it.
jamiedude84: I just call it "mod art".
jamiedude84: It's more chic.
pieterfriedrich: Oh, yeah?
jamiedude84: Yeah.
pieterfriedrich: Well *I* call it "mo ar."
jamiedude84: *I* call it "Mo".
pieterfriedrich: *I* call it "M".
jamiedude84: *I* don't call it anything.
pieterfriedrich: Hey!
jamiedude84: What?
pieterfriedrich: You undercut me.
jamiedude84: Yep.

2005-01-06T13:55:00.000-08:00

I need to generate some traffic on my blog. Maybe I should post something controversial...like...oh...say...a post titled "God Hates Sinners". (Sheesh, it worked for Pieter!)

2005-01-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

My favorite movie quote of the moment:

Charlie McKay: "We have a saying in the McKay house: "You shake and shake the ketchup bottle, none will come, and then a lot'll.""

*grin*

2005-01-05T10:15:00.000-08:00

Did God cause the tsunami that killed 100,000 people? Or did He allow it to happen?

I'm surprised at the many responses I've seen from Christians that directly link this disaster to the judgement of God. One such person listed only three possible answers to such a disaster: (1) "[God's] rebuke to His people", (2) an event meant "to teach us or strengthen us", or (3) "judgement of the wicked".

I don't understand why anyone should hold to a view of God's nature that runs contrary to scripture, and that makes God directly responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened. Do we really believe that God directly caused the deaths of the millions of babies aborted every year? That He directly caused the Holocaust, and the killing fields in Cambodia, and this recent tsunami? All for the purpose of teaching and rebuking Christians or judging the wicked?

Yes, God is sovereign--He can do what He wills, and He is under no obligation to explain His actions. And yes, God has in the past caused calamities--for instance, the world-wide flood in Noah's lifetime, or the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. But to assume that God directly causes everything that happens, rather than allowing a sinful and cursed world to run its course, is to assume that God is the author of evil and death--for He necessarily causes people to sin. And that is certainly contrary to scripture.

This happens to be a major problem that I have with Calvinism--the logical conclusion of the Calvinist definition of sovereignty is that God causes sin--that He directly wills bad things to happen, and bad people to do them, and even bad people to be bad.

The Bible says that disasters will happen in a sinful and fallen world. Romans 8 talks about the curse of sin to which the whole world is subject. The result of this curse is that "the whole creation groans in the pains of childbirth even to this very day".

But the Bible also warns that we ought not to attribute disaster to God's "judgement of the wicked", unless God himself has said so, as we see in the case of the flood, or the ten plagues, or Sodom and Gomorrah. When a tower in the city of Siloam fell on eighteen people and crushed them to death, what was Jesus' response? Apparently His disciples' first thought was a Calvinistic one: this was God's judgement on wicked people. But Jesus said: "What about the eighteen men who died when the Tower of Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will also perish."

I would also be wary of assuming a disaster was "God's rebuke to His people" unless I saw it written out very clearly in scripture. And it's a logical fallacy to assume that, because God done something in the past in order to teach His people a lesson, that every similar event in the future has to be God's rebuke as well.

Unless and until someone can show me plain evidence in scripture that God does, indeed, cause every bad thing that happens, I'll stick with the simpler interpretation: that death and suffering is no more and no less than the result of sin. And that while God allows every calamity to happen, He doesn't directly cause them.

2005-01-05T08:58:00.000-08:00

I just discovered something about myself--I want my spiritual walk to be like a movie.

I don't mind doing the right thing--as long as I'm properly appreciated for it, I can see how it fits into the plotline, and I'm in the right mood (preferably helped along by appropriate background music.)

But heaven forbid that I should have to give up any of my time to help out, am inconvenienced in any way, have to help when I'm not feeling well, or--far worse--do somebody else's job! My dad calls this last the "union mentality"--a refusal to do anything above or beyond what is strictly required of you by the letter of the law. I protest whenever he applies that description to me, but I guess he's right after all.

Why do I want life to be so cushy? I wish I had been born with a natural propensity for doing the hard things, and always having the right attitude, and with no concern for the "me and mine". I think I need to build some spiritual muscle. *sigh*

2005-01-03T19:22:00.000-08:00

Should public prayer be allowed in schools? If so, what are the ramifications of that--should public prayer to Allah or other deities be allowed as well? Do you think this is a non-issue?

2005-01-02T20:01:00.000-08:00

Rachel comes home tomorrow from Florida! We've missed you, Rachel--it's no fun staying up late when you aren't here to yell at me to go to bed! *grin*

2005-01-01T14:41:00.000-08:00

Who is that Man who thinks He's a prophet?
I wonder if He's got something up His sleeve
Where's He from? Who is His daddy?
There's rumors He even thinks Himself a king
Of a kingdom of paupers
Simpletons and rogues!
The whores all seem to love Him
And the drunks propose a toast

And they say, "Surely God is with us!"

Well, Who is that man who says He's a preacher?
He must be, He's disturbing all our peace.
Where does He get off, and what is He hiding?
Every word He says those fools believe
And who could move a mountain?
Who would love their enemy?
Who could rejoice in pain
And turn the other cheek

And still say, "Surely God is with us,
Well, surely God is with us,"
Who'll say, "Surely God is with us today, today!"?

They say, "Surely God is with us
Well, surely God is with us"
They say, "Surely God is with us!"
--Mark Robertson from Rich Mullins' Jesus Record

That is our King--a man who provoked scandal with His very birth, provided wine for revelers in Cana, hung out with prostitutes and the socially down-and-out...and thinks more of finding one lost sinner then of all the righteous put together. Truly our God is an awesome God--truly Jesus was the Son of God--we could never have created anything so preposterous!

Happy New Year!

2004-12-31T23:38:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year, people! Enjoy a little Calvin and Hobbes while you're here.

Hobbes:

Are you making any resolutions for the new year?

Calvin:

Resolutions? ME?? Just what are you implying? That I need to change?? Well, Buddy, as far as I'm concerned, I'm perfect the way I am! For your information, I'm staying like this, and everyone else can just get used to it! If people don't like me the way I am, well, tough beans! It's a free country! I don't need anyone's permission to be the way I want! This is how I am - take it or leave it! By golly, life's too darn short to waste time trying to please every meddlesome moron who's got an idea how I ought to be! I don't need advice! Everyone can just stay out of my face!

2004-12-30T18:46:00.000-08:00

I think I need a profile picture. What do y'all think of this one?

2004-12-29T10:08:00.000-08:00

January 16, 2003

To Whom it May Concern c/o William Wallace, the preserver of Liechtenstein and Scotland:

I appreciate your (relatively) prompt response informing me of the change in Liechtenstein's administration. I am at a loss as to what I shall tell Mr. J. K. Whippplesnatch Esq.--perhaps you could suggest something. Is Liechtenstein still available to lease for the very generous (on our part) compensation agreed upon? Is the current management of Liechtenstein honoring the commitments made by the previous despot? I believe ours was an unwritten agreement, which perhaps may cause technical difficulties, but I firmly believe that Liechtenstein is honor-bound to fulfill its side of the contract. I will discuss the matter with Mr. Whippplesnatch--it is possible he may no longer feel any compunction to lease Liechtenstein after the abrupt social and bureaucratic changes that have occurred.

If you will kindly answer the questions above I will pass the information along to Mr. Whippplesnatch, and shortly thereafter will inform the people of Liechtenstein if we are still interested in pursuing the (as the vulgar put it) "deal".

Always, your obsequious, subservient, sycophantic servant,

J. Snarguss, secretary of

Mr. J. K. Whippplesnatch Esq. Founder of the Amalgamated Paper Clip and Rubber Band Company

2004-12-28T16:59:00.000-08:00

I was thinking of Liechtenstein today.

If you don't know where or what that is, I'm not telling you, so you'll have to look it up yourself. (I don't believe in encouraging laziness. *sweet smile*)

Once you know what it is, and that it has been (and may be now, for all I know) available for lease, you'll know everything necessary to appreciate The Liechtenstein Saga.

The two gentleman (actually there are six, but who's counting?) concerned are Pieter Friedrich and Jorge K. Whippplesnatch (observe the third P--it's very important). You all know Pieter--what can I say about him that hasn't already been said? As for J. K. Whippplesnatch...well...I take no responsibility for him. He does what he likes, and he is what he is. Let the facts speak for themselves.

If, after reading, you feel that the world is not yet ready for this admirable work by two geniuses (by the way, why isn't the plural of genius "genii"?)--feel free to say so. Mr. Friedrich and Mr. Whippplesnatch have themselves commented on the fickleness of public opinion and fame:

Whippplesnatch: What, you think posterity won't appreciate us? That is a new and displeasing thought. Why wouldn't posterity appreciate us for the pair of precious foo-I mean geniuses that we are? This bothers me. Does it bother you?

Friedrich: Well, maybe if we write a book...or books...posterity will at least
remember us. Whether or not they appreciate us doesn't particularly
concern me. I just want 'em to remember us. Consider though...does posterity remember King Alfred Lourishicci VVIII? Of course not. So if posterity doesn't remember him then why should posterity remember us? Eh? Eh?

And with that answer we will have to be content. Posterity will do what posterity does, and nothing further we could say will have the slightest effect on it.

I present, then:

THE LIECHTENSTEIN SAGA: or, The Correspondence of Two Unusual Gentlemen: Part I

Dec. 2, 2002

My dear Mr. Friedrich,

First of all, I wanted to let you know that I am your devoted admirerer--I read your weblog every day! You are my hero, Mr. Friedrich. *takes hat off and stands in reverent silence*

On the practical side, since we are men of business...I'm sure we can come to some sort of deal regarding Liechtenstein. I'm thinking of renting it for the coming conference of the Amalgamated Paper Clip and Rubber Band Company. What sort of price range are we looking at?

I completely understand your aversion to mentioning that coarse and common subject of m-o-n-e-y. We are men of sensitivity and social standing. Such things are too base for us to mention. So let me propose, then, an alternative. I have at my disposal a fairly large number of bonds available from the Amalgamated P. C. and R. B. Company. We would be extremely pleased for you to accept these in remuneration for Liechtenstein. We are SO sure of your satisfaction that we are currently offering a two-for-one deal...we will give you twice the amount of stock in our company if you act now!

If you could possibly put this deal through for me, I'd be so delighted that I would...well...do anything to show my appreciation. Honest! I'd even endorse you in our next commercial. Anything I can do to help you out, just let me know!

Yours, humbly, gratefully, and ever-admiringly,

Mr. J. K. Whippplesnatch

------------------------------------------

January 7, 2003

My dearest duncical sir,

We apologize for being so lax in replying to you. The man you wrote to will happily never write again. His was an unhappy end for himself, and yet a very satisfactory end for the oppressed people of Liechtenstein. The former ruler of Liechtenstein,

Pieter J. L. P. E. Q. Z. E. E. C. D. S. Friedrich Alfaninffe Lancaster Limdadedude, Jr.
the III,
the XIV,
the L,
the XXX,
the XCIX,
the CDLXXIII,
and the MCCCLXXXVIII,
Esquire, King, Fuhrer, Magnate, Baron, Czar, Mogul, Tycoon, Monarch, Sovereign, Despot, Duce, Tyrant,
Dictator of Liechtenstein,
Commander-in-Chief of the Massive Massed Hordes of Barbaric and Ferocious Furious Fighting Armies, Navies, Air-Forces, and Marines of Liechtenstein,
and Proud Possessor of the Indocilis Refractariolus Haedilia Title as Bequeathed in Honor of Services Rendered,

currently rots in Hell. May he rest in peace.

The land of Liechtenstein is now free from tyranny. Ours shall be a great existence, never again to be hindered by oppression or repression of a suppresser. Long live the free nation of Liechtenstein!

Yours, William Wallace (having freed Scotland, I figured Liechtenstein could use a hand...yeah, I know, I was dead, but modern medicine works wonders...)

2004-12-27T10:11:00.000-08:00

(from C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle)

"Please," said the Lamb, "I can't understand. What have we to do with the Calormenes? We belong to Aslan. They belong to Tash. They have a god called Tash. They say he has four arms and the head of a vulture. They kill Men on his altar. I don't believe there's any such person as Tash. But if there was, how could Aslan be friends with him?"

The Ape jumped up and spat at the Lamb.

..."What do you understand of such things? But the others, listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That's why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan; Aslan is Tash."

It's uncanny how familiar that lie sounds. The Lamb's question should also sound familiar to us, because it echoes 2 Corinthians 6:15 very closely, which says, "What has Christ to do with Belial [Satan], or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?"

Lewis had a knack of recognizing the old falsehoods that are told over and over again to each new generation. They may be called by different names, but they are still the same damnable lies told from the beginning.

Perhaps the only answer to a lie like this one is the answer the King of Narnia gave to the Ape: "Ape," he cried with a great voice, "you lie damnably!"

2004-12-25T09:16:00.000-08:00

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.

He was in the world,
and though the world was made through him,
the world did not recognize him.
He came to that which was his own,
but his own did not receive him.
Yet to all who received him,
to those who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God–
children born not of natural descent,
nor of human decision
or a husband's will,
but born of God.

And The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,
who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.

2004-12-24T13:15:00.000-08:00

If Jamie were a Christmas Carol:

You are 'Adam lay y bounden'! Ah, you appear to be
something of a Christmas snob. Whether you are
a musician who has sung one carol service too
many, or merely someone with very highbrow
views on music and culture, you shudder at the
thought of piped music in lifts, wince at
endless repetitions of Jingle Bells and have
put out a contract on Rudolph. While you agree
that some of the well-known carols are lovely,
you are more drawn by the really obscure
medieval carols, or the ones arranged by Bach.

What Christmas Carol are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

2004-12-21T13:19:00.000-08:00

I love Christmastime! Yes, I know Jesus wasn't actually born December 25, but I still think more about Jesus' birth at this time of the year than any other.

What an awesome thing it was that our Almighty God became a helpless mewling infant! And yet I think many people get so caught up in the "cuteness" of the Baby Jesus that they forget about the other half of the story--that He came for one purpose--to die for our sins, and to pay the price for our rebellion against God.

So, just as a reminder that the Baby in the Manger isn't the crux of the story:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he bore our griefs
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Hallelujah for that!

2004-12-15T19:42:00.000-08:00

I'm icing my arm tonight. I think I pinched a nerve somehow--anyhow it makes it very difficult to play, rather like intense muscle fatigue running down my arm and into my fingers, and it's aggravated when my arm is bent. AND I have my violin jury tomorrow. Isn't that peachy? At least I'll have an excuse for playing badly!

On a random note, I was practicing today, and I took a break to fool around on the piano (there's one in every practice room). I played through a part of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, making various fumbles along the way, which--in my defense--are perfectly natural considering that I haven't seriously practiced it in 4 years. As soon as I finished, someone in the next room played it twice as fast and perfectly. Huh. Show-off.

2004-12-14T08:33:00.000-08:00

The religion of Evolution is feeling threatened, and with good cause! Read my earlier post about evolution and find out what even the scientists say when the public isn't listening.

2004-12-05T11:30:00.000-08:00

It's my birthday today! I've officially lost my status as a teenager. I guess now I have to start acting mature--bummer. *grin*

2004-11-27T19:17:00.000-08:00

I love my professors. They send me on my merry way off to Thanksgiving break, and then say, "By the way, here's your homework due when you get back--would you like a wheelbarrow for that?" Ah yes. I think I'll give them each an apple. Poisoned.

Today I wrote five...no, six.1-2 page papers for my World Music Appreciation class. Yesterday I wrote two, and worked on about a third of my theory homework. Tomorrow I have to finish up my last paper, write up my final project, finish up a few hours worth of theory, and prepare for a final exam on Monday. And call a few people regarding an ensemble I have to put together and make sure everyone can be at for another of my classes.

Would somebody please shoot me? Not fatally, but just badly enough that I'll be able to rest peacefully in the hospital for the next three months. Thanks.

2004-11-21T11:01:00.000-08:00

I’ve been talking with a girl in one of my classes whom I’d like to help, but I don’t seem to be able to. And the reason I can’t help her is that she’s a victim of a society that has lost its ability to reason. Ravi Zacharias, an evangelist I respect very much, addresses this societal disease in a weekly radio broadcast entitled “Let My People Think”. He has it right, because if this people were allowed to think, they would be able to break out of the meaningless material rut that this world runs in—even able to break out of that dangerous spiritual rut called Tolerance.

That’s the rut this girl is in. She’s bought into the lie that Tolerance is the be-all and end-all of religion. She can’t conceive of a God who would be so intolerant as to send people to hell for believing in Muhammed as well as Jesus, and so she has to accept all religions as equally valid. And she can’t even see the most basic problem with that, which is that religions that contradict each other can’t all be true. The way she avoids this is simple: the Multiplicity of Truth. Truth is not Truth, truth is your truth, and my truth, and Bob’s truth, but all truth and all equally valid. So the sky may be blue for me, and gravity may be true for me, but when I try to force “my” truth on others, I miss the point of the thing.

Not so very long ago, this kind of unreason would be unthinkable in any educated person. Now we’re taught it in our universities.

I’m not really surprised that some people out there advocate illogical creeds like Tolerance, but I am (perhaps wrongly) surprised that so many people can fall for it. Like this girl, a student at a public university, and a pleasant, intelligent person—but believing wholeheartedly that religion necessitates leaving Reason at the door.

I’m left at a loss. How does one combat such a disease? If a person admits the necessity of Reason, you can help him reason his way to the truth. But if Reason itself is thrown out—what then? If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?

I think the only answer is the Holy Spirit working through His Word. The Word of God is a double-edged sword, and I shouldn’t be considering it as my weapon of last resort. What I can’t do, God can do. This girl doesn't need to hear me, she needs to hear what God says about the belief that all roads lead to Him. I read it only this morning:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
But the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

2004-11-18T11:45:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting in the library at my computer. Ben is in the next room. He's listening to John Denver; I'm listening to the Beatles. We both have our music up considerably louder than advisable in an attempt to drown out each other's music.

Thought for the day: If you're ever considering making a remix of Obladi Oblada and Thank God I'm a Country Boy...please think better of it. I promise you it won't sell.

2004-11-13T11:49:00.000-08:00

White as the snow,
Black as the coal,
She walks and she has no feet,
She speaks and has no mouth.

--Mexican

2004-11-12T15:28:00.000-08:00

This has been a tiring week. It wasn't that it was so much busier than usual...maybe just more mentally tiring. Sunday was emotionally exhausting, visiting Anna in the hospital--I was delighted to be able to do it, but I felt so bad for her! And the rest of the week...well, actually, I don't know why the rest of the week tired me out.

But--Louie Armstrong is singing "What a Wonderful World" just now (on my headphones, that is), and now I feel better. Ain't people funny? What does it say about me that my mood can change so quickly?

(In case you were wondering, yes, I'm stream-of-consciousnessing!)

I was thinking about Dustin today. Wondering how he's doing at boot camp in Georgia. I think this could be a really maturing experience for him! I've been praying for him a lot...hopefully it's been doing some good! I guess I'll find out when he finally gets around to mailing me his address so I can write.

I just sort of feel disconnected from my friends these days. I never see any of them--Sunday when I spent time with Anna, Brett, Rachel and Joel was the first time in months that I'd really spent time with friends (not counting Halloween Night with Anna, which was awesome, by the way, in case you're reading this, Anna!). Dustin's in Georgia, Pieter never answers my emails. The new friends I've made at school are fine, although none of them share my beliefs...so I can't quite get close to them! And Megan and Lizzy's blogs are down, so I don't know what's going on with them anymore! Where'd you go, people?

I'm going to work out tonight. I have to get back into my weight-training--I've lost all the strength I gained, wuss luck. It's my fault of course--let this be a lesson to all you! Don't be like me and make lame excuses like "I'm too tired because of the three midterms I have to study for", or "I can't because it's already midnight and I have to get up at 5:30 in the morning". You see? Any excuse will serve someone like me. No get-up-and-go, that's my problem. No strength of will. No character. (I'm trying to shame myself into doing better, if you were wondering.)

A guy in class on Wednesday told me he thought I was "very attractive". Hum. I said "thank-you" and have avoided him ever since! Possibly he just meant to spread sweetness and light, but he's made me darned uncomfortable! Also, I wonder what it is about me and black guys (this guy was black)...the large majority of guys interested in me have been black. No, I'm not racially profiling! Just wondering.

I watched part of West Side Story the other night--it was on, and I just had to see the end! I thought they would at least have had a happy ending--I was so sure! Instead they ruined it. *scowl* If I had wanted to see Romeo and Juliette, I would have watched Romeo and Juliette! Lousy movie producers.

2004-11-05T10:50:00.000-08:00

The music majors at Wayne State fascinate me. Not that I spend all my time people-watching instead of studying, but I can't help being interested in these people. Besides, I see them everyday--they're in my classes, I pass them in the hall, and we attend the same concerts and lectures. A little (or in my case, a lot) of curiosity is natural under the circumstances.

They say "People are people the whole world over"; but this is a case where you shouldn't believe everything They tell you. People may be people wherever you go, but that's as far as the resemblance goes. And that goes especially for music majors!

There's Westley from the Dominican Republic, who spent years in New York studying piano at a conservatory there. He can play jazz renditions of hymns and oldies and songs I've never heard like you wouldn't believe, as well as classical piano (and organ, and trumpet).

There's Cecilia (CeCe), a young black cellist from the heart of Detroit. Her cello is bigger than she is, and it's amped! I never knew you could amp a cello. Maybe you aren't supposed to, but that wouldn't stop CeCe.

There's Pavel, from Bulgaria--here only three years. He plays banyan (it's from the accordian family, in case you're like me and had never heard of the banyan), but only since he came here--something you would never guess from his playing--his fingers fly on that thing, let me tell you! His main instrument is piano, though he also plays organ. I found out that he has difficulties with our Physics class, because he has to study with a Bulgarian-English dictionary.

There are other people too that I'm curious about. One is a very tall dude who was whisting "Castle on a Cloud" from Les Miserables. I see him on the second floor of Old Main all the time. Another is a guy who looks like Angel in Stand and Deliver. He has a Bush-Cheney pin on his backpack, and that is a very brave thing to do at Wayne State! I wonder what these people are like. What are their names? What are their beliefs and worldviews? What music do they listen to?

Maybe someday I'll ask them.

Sometimes I wonder if people wonder about me.

2004-11-05T10:42:00.000-08:00

Rachel and I were driving down Gratiot the other day, and there in front of us was a big (and dirty) semi. Someone had written in the dust on the back, "JESUS IS LORD!". And below that someone else had written, "Yes, he is!"

Tongues and trucks both, I guess! (Phillipians 2:11)

2004-10-23T06:44:00.000-07:00

Ah, Saturday mornings....what a great time to

sleep in
read in bed
sip cream-laced coffee
relax in the knowledge of a day of rest well earned

Too bad I had to get up at 8:30 this morning, dress professionally (i.e. not comfortably) so I can go teach at Ardis Music. *scowl*

Where's Walgreens when you need 'em?

2004-10-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I got to my Physics class a good 20 minutes early (which is sad, because it means I could have slept another 20 minutes--no, I'm kidding, really!), and I was reading my Bible while I was waiting. Now I will frequently get my reading in before class if I get there early enough, since my day doesn't seem to start right if I don't begin with the Bible. However, no one has ever commented on it before.

But yesterday a girl walked over to me. She wanted to know what I was reading, because it looked like a Bible. Turns out that her name is Dana, she's been a Christian for 6 years, and she had noticed my reading before and wondered if I was a Christian too. So I met another sister! That really made my day. She talked a little bit with me about a book she was reading that her pastor recommended. She had wanted a book that would give her a good way to explain the inability of Man to save himself--thus the necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ. She had been talking with some Muslim women who found this the biggest stumbling block to their understanding of Christianity and Christ. Hence this book, which she is going to let me borrow when she's finished.

That really excited me--I try to keep on track while I'm at school, focusing on my walk with Christ even while I'm learning about sonographs and standing waves--and it isn't easy for me! So this was a blessing--sort of a tap on the shoulder from God--a definite encouragement!

I had one other very interesting conversation with someone else about Christianity and religion the same day, before my next class...but I actually have to run right now--I'm doing an interview with a Muslim girl named Fatima for my World Music Appreciation class, and that's at 1, so....see y'all in a bit! *grin*

By the way, I hope you all appreciate that I'm taking time out of my busy schedule to (semi) keep this blog up!

2004-10-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

I went shopping today! I hadn't shopped for clothes in probably six months. So I went to Steve & Barry's and got a couple sweatshirts, and then some awesome fall sweaters and cords at a little resale shop called Deja Vu--don't you just love finding bargains? *grin*

Of course I can't wear my cords yet, because I haven't any brown shoes. Or any good black shoes for that matter (though I couldn't wear black with these anyway). Rats.

2004-10-08T16:19:00.000-07:00

Do you know what bugs me? People who post something controversial, wait until you've left a comment challenging their position, and then--instead of answering your comment--take the comment feature off!!!

*scowl*

It's really no fair. It's not even a mutual disarmament. Why shouldn't I be allowed to disagree with them? My free will is at stake here, people!

2004-09-20T19:23:00.000-07:00

Why do my days seem so much shorter when I'm actually awake much longer? It doesn't seem fair somehow...

2004-09-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

I'm feeling lonely right now. I don't even know why.

2004-09-17T22:17:00.000-07:00

I have been duped. I have been led up the primrose path--me! who was once considered clear-sighted! I honestly thought my professor's name was Braunschweig. He certainly never corrected my mistake, and there on the syllabus it said, plain as ink (which in fact it was)--Karl Braunschweig. Yes, it did also say John Guinn next to it, but for heaven's sake, Braunschweig's name came first!! Isn't it obvious to any native English speaker that if a name comes first on a list, that we'll naturally assume it's more important than subsequent names? Well. I shall forever hate whoever wrote my syllabus.

Naturally I thought Braunschweig was his name. Naturally when a staff member came up to me and said that Professor Braunschweig was sick and his class was canceled, I thought class was canceled. Such duplicity is too deep for my innocent mind! I cannot fathom such dark dealings intended to make me miss class! Yet they were there, just under the surface. It is really too mean.

In consequence I missed a perfectly good class while I sat blindly trusting in the good faith of the Music Department and that nice lady who told me class was canceled. I turned in an assignment late! (weep, ye heavens!), I was marked absent! (cry 'shame' for the ignominy of it!) and I am undone.

Is there no balm in Gilead?

2004-09-07T13:06:00.000-07:00

This is my first day of school, and since my last class of the day was a lab, and lab sessions don't start until next week...I have an hour or two free.

I think--I really think--that all my classes will be fun this year. I have a Physics class that explores the relationship between physics and music. I have a World Music Appreciation class (unfortunately "World" doesn't mean world, only African and Asian music--I was hoping for a greater variety). I have a Music Theory class, an Ear Training Class, a Chamber Music class, Orchestra, General Lectures and Concerts, and private music lessons with a wonderful (I'm told) violin teacher named Marian, who is Romanian and male, despite his name, and plays for the DSO.

My Ear Training class should be interesting, because it includes both those who know a diminished seventh when they hear it, and those who aren't sure what note comes after C. (I'm in the middle--I don't know what a diminished seventh is exactly, but I know it's some sort of interval, like C to B-flat.) Also--and I don't know what this suggests, but it must suggest something--with two exceptions in our class of forty, all the girls are vocal or violin performance majors, and all the guys are studying jazz. Does this mean that only girls are intelligent enough to handle classical music and strong enough to handle the stresses of a performance major? Or are we having a jazz revolution among the college-bound boys? You tell me.

Whatever it is, Professor Braunschweig should be able to handle it, because he's an easy-going fella, though very definitely not a Republican, as he made sure we knew. (I still don't know why he told us this.) He also believes that The Star-Spangled Banner is musically-speaking the worst song ever written, and he doesn't consider it a fit song for our national anthem. I agree with him, of course, because it's a pain in the neck to sing, especially when one has to change octaves at least three times like I do. (If there is anyone out there who can comfortably sing The Star-Spangled Banner without straining the high notes or growling the low notes, I'd be delighted to hear from you--you're probably the only one in the country.)

Also, Julie Andrews would be proud of me. I'm learning solfeggio (as in "do, re, mi") and I've learned plenty already, such as the fact that it's really "sol", not "sew" as Julie led me to believe. Also that it isn't enough to know "do-re-mi-fa-sol-la-ti-do"--you must also know "do-ti-la-sol-fa-mi-re-do", which is solfeggio backwards. (Some people think that solfeggio backwards is "oiggeflos", but they're wrong.)

This is totally off the subject, but I was playing Spoons last night, and I have plenty of battle wounds in consequence. Does anyone reading this play Spoons in a relatively calm manner, without resort to violence? My cousins don't. Once someone gets a hand-of-4, and starts for a spoon, it's a free-for-all. Some people even think it's funny to grab a handful of spoons at once and toss them. What with people diving for them and landing on each other and wrestling spoons away from all and sundry, it's surprising that I didn't end up with broken bones. You can say what you want, but I will forever insist that it's all my cousin Brett's fault. He started the violence, and all I can say is, next time he does me bodily harm in his frenzied grab for a spoon, I'm going to kick him very hard on the shin. Hmph.

2004-09-04T20:37:00.000-07:00

Keeping this weblog up during the summer has been an easy thing—whether or not I can keep the ball rolling once school starts is a whole different ballgame. (Aren’t idioms fun?)

Tuesday starts the Fall Semester at Wayne, and since I just changed my major to Music, it also begins my first round of music classes. Strangely enough—I know this is off the subject, but I have to mention it—while I am only registered for 16 academic credits, the university has decided that for billing purposes I’m taking 26. Albeit my willingness to give the Billing Department the benefit of the doubt, somehow I can’t shake the feeling that I’m being swindled. I know, I know—it’s paranoid of me—I feel ashamed of my doubts already.

Forgetting for a moment any fiscal issues, it promises fair to be a fun semester, provided I can work up a creditable callous on my fingertips in time for class. One short summer of rest and relaxation is all it takes—while you’re flipping magazines and sipping lemonade, those darn things sneak off and leave you in the lurch. (I tried to bring ‘em back by force yesterday, but they were—ahem—unwilling to come, and I ended up with an ice-pack for my troubles. And don’t laugh until you’ve tried it, mister. Throbbing fingertips are no picnic!)

While I rush around getting ready, my family is heartlessly unperturbed by the looming semester—very likely I’ll miss them more than they miss me. They make for good comic relief, for one thing. (Where else can you expect to hear a little boy tell his brother that when he gets married, his wedding cake will be decorated a lá Star Wars?)

This weekend, then, is my last weekend of freedom. Sheesh, but that sounds depressing. Well, at least I have two days before the chains of Academia bind me irrevocably. In order to get the most out of these two days, I have decided to take a little trip to Hawaii, or perhaps Bermuda (though not Florida, in light of the fact that they’ll probably be too busy for tourists this weekend.) In the spirit of camaraderie, then, I am offering all you lucky people the chance to finance this weekend trip! Anyone? Anyone at all??

*pause*

Well, all right then, but people sure are selfish these days!

2004-08-29T12:51:00.000-07:00

A charming (and enlightening) paragraph by Richard Lewontin, a genetics professor at Harvard, as to why the scientist must accept patently unbelievable and shaky theories such as Darwinism and neo-Darwinism:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter- intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

[Italics belong to Philip E. Johnson, in whose excellent book "Objections Sustained" I found this eminently quotable paragraph.]

Johnson explains it nicely: "For scientific materialists," he explains, "the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter."

In other words, the scientific community will not follow the facts where the facts lead--rather, they must interpret the facts (and ignore those that won't fit with the interpretation) to fit with the philosophy they've chosen--and that philosophy cannot allow a "Divine Foot in the door".

Thus we discover Rule Number One of the scientific community: No matter what we find, no matter what the evidence suggests, no matter what facts we must sweep under the rug--there is no God.

Only--there is.

The scientific community serves a god called Materialism, and She is destroying them from the inside out. She demands that her followers relinquish their intellectual integrity, and that's a high a price to pay.

If the scientific community can no longer be objective, what do they have they left? I shouldn't care to be in their shoes when they must answer that question.

2004-08-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

The word for today is lugubrious.

And be not misled--it has nothing to do with peanuts.

2004-08-29T08:29:00.000-07:00

Or maybe this one:

Psalm 19

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.

4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

[...and my favorite part...7-9]
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.

10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.

11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.

12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.

13 Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins;
Let them not rule over me; Then I will be blameless,
And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.

14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

This psalm makes me feel clean, especially verses 7-9.

2004-08-29T08:01:00.000-07:00

This Psalm is next on my list to memorize. Yesterday I came across it, strangely enough, in a secular mystery I was reading.

Psalm 139

1 O LORD , you have searched me and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD .

5 You hem me in-behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,"
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake, I am still with you.

19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD ,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.

AMEN.

2004-08-26T20:01:00.000-07:00

My dad's playing the guitar in the other room right now---I'd forgotten how much I missed that. I want to be a little girl again, so he can sing me to sleep with The Pony Man...

2004-08-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

I'd love to write another long post right now, but I'm swamped.

Over the last three days, I have had nine phone conversations with Wayne State's Music Department--one with Professor Markou, one with Professor Hill, and seven with the receptionist.

I have emailed Professor Markou twice, Professor Hill once, and am now in the process of emailing at least six other professors.

I have called the University Advising Center over a dozen times, without once finding that magic time where a student advisor is available to talk to me.

I've sent my financial paperwork in twice to the Financial Aid Department, because they lost it the first time. I've called and cleared up a miscommunication that caused them to send me a bill for $450.

I have registered for a Critical Thinking Competency test and two placement tests.

I have revised my class schedule four times, and still not found a way to include UGE100, which I absolutely without-question MUST take this semester. I can't reach my student advisor to ask his/her advice.

I'm still waiting for my refund check from the Financial Aid department so I'll have money to buy my textbooks.

I love college.

2004-08-26T09:39:00.000-07:00

My 7-year-old brother's reaction to the Olympics: "He's not American, is he? I hope he falls."

2004-08-25T14:37:00.000-07:00

For half the year I’d like to live in a rambling, two-story country house, built smack-dab in the middle of a hundred acres that belongs solely to me. I would know that I could get up early in the morning, and watch the sun rise, and take a long hike, and meet nobody. I could walk far enough away from my country house that I couldn’t see it any longer, only trees and sky and waving grass. I could go out at night, and lay on my stomach on a hill, and watch the stars and the big yellow moon—the moon that always looks bigger in the country.

The other half-year, I’d like to live in a big city, possibly New York City, in a very modern apartment. I could walk down busy streets and admire the skyline, and window-shop. I could eat at smart little cafes, and stop at a bagel shop for lunch. I could be surrounded by thousands of pleasant, grumpy, smiling, sad, busy, brisk, disinterested people. I could sit on my balcony at night, near the potted geraniums on my window sill, and listen to the night-noises of the city.

Instead I live in a four-bedroom, one-story house in what is really a very nice suburb, with lots of big trees, no fences, and pleasant neighbors. If I time it right, I can sit in my half-acre backyard, and none of the neighbor children will come over and interrupt me. I can bike down well-kept streets (down Ingleside, turn right on Mulberry, pass two streets, and make another right, and then another, back to Ingleside), and there will be just enough people to be too many when I want to be alone, and not enough for when I want the companionship of a crowd of strangers.

But it is, after all, a nice house, and a nice neighborhood, and the neighbor kids don’t come around too often, and—I guess people will always want just a little more than they have. Just because.

2004-08-24T23:24:00.000-07:00

Jesus, Dem.

How would Jesus vote? It’s an intriguing question to which, apparently, everybody has an answer; and that means a lot of answers. Michael Jinkins says that Jesus’ vote would surprise us religious people, and Derek Davis says Jesus would not vote at all. James More, on the other hand, is confident that Jesus is a Democrat. "If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal," stated James Moore, confidently, "it was Jesus Christ."

But the truly revealing (though not as specific as we could all wish) answer comes from Bud Tutt, who squirms at the suggestion that "people of faith" (this apparently including Jesus) have only one viable option in the voting booth: George W. Bush. "As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith," says Mr. Tutt, "God’s side [read Democrats] is the group that’s feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat," and, (most importantly) "not killing others," by which he means the Iraq war, which the Republicans (not God’s side) support.

John Moyers, too, is concerned about the way people of faith view politics. Conservatives (probably even those Republicans, too) "would have us believe that morality is all about where you stand on abortion," he says, and this is "simply wrong." And that’s that.

Well, taking care of the poor and caring about children is wonderful, of course, but I find it hard to accept that it’s really all about giving food to little children with your right hand, while you’re helping to murder little children with your left. However, I guess God will have to overlook that part of it, being too busy praising the Democrats for their newest welfare program.

Yes, I can definitely see Jesus as a beaming Democrat, waving to the multitudes as his followers pass out bag lunches. Probably (though this isn’t actually recorded), he spent his free time touring the slums of Galilee, saying "We really must have a go at this overpopulation problem, Peter. It’s getting out of hand—-take this money and go donate it to the local abortion clinic, and shake hands with the women as you go out—every vote counts, you know."

"Many analysts have criticized Democrats for failing to more effectively reach religious voters," says this article. Now it seems the critics will have to recant; the Democrats have won their religious majority at last—Jesus, Democrat.

2004-08-23T20:11:00.000-07:00

Here's a post I forgot about. I started it quite a while back, and then promptly lost it. I finished it today, because it was a relatively good post, and came easily, and I don't write many of those:

They've Stolen Our Freedom! Or Have They?

[My original intro, which has nothing to do with this post. However, it seemed to belong by right of association, so I left it in. Skip it if you want.] You know, if I had any suspicion that anyone besides Pieter regularly read my weblog, I'd actually write more often. It's the security of having a following-of-one (and that one not following as closely as he used to) that stifles my budding genius and hampers the flow of literary verbosity. Please don't disillusion me--I like being lazy.

I read an article about income tax today by my sometime-friend (don’t smack me, Pieter!). He argues that the income tax imposed on him amounts to nothing less than slavery. True freedom, he implies, entails the ability to do whatever you want with all of your money; not to be forced to spend it on someone else's public-education, or to pay for government-funded abortions, or to fund the private vacations of congressmen.

Of course, much as we all hate to admit it, that sort of freedom cannot exist except in a vacuum. If we want the security and (even) the benefits of living in an orderly civilization, we have to expect a price. That price takes the form of taxes, laws that hinder us even while they protect us, and, yes, sometimes even an unconstitutional amendment allowing Government to take our income. Not that I’m arguing that any of this is ideal—only that it’s to be expected.

You want security, you give up freedom. That’s the rule of thumb, and it’s a livable rule. Sure, I hate income tax too. Nothing inherently gives Government the right to snatch nearly half my income to spend at its discretion. It is, however, a right that I relinquished in favor of personal and economic security.

Which is not to say I won’t be ready to take that right back again if and when someone gets up enough gumption and national support to work towards another amendment repealing the income theft.

So...what are you waiting for, Pieter?

2004-08-22T19:47:00.000-07:00

After two weeks of shivering in jeans and a sweatshirt, yesterday was heaven on earth; both my temperature and the weather’s having regulated themselves at long last.

The sunshine and the fluffy clouds and the cheerful blue sky united in the sort of heady combination that spells doom to wanna-be poets, who naively produce stuff about meadows and little birdies and other such rubbish. I’m a wanna-be too, but no longer that naïve.

Still, it was a perfect day, and I had forgotten that any such existed, what with begrudging the necessity of sweatshirts in tank-top weather, gulping disgustly hot tea, and generally feeling sorry for myself.

I’m glad to find that humanity and God’s green earth are still here where I left them.

2004-08-21T09:35:00.000-07:00

I could have understood it if it had been a football player. From a quarterback, or whatever-you-call-em, it would have been understandable. After all, they commonly make such brilliant observations on television as "I think we did real good." But I expected better from the rest of society. I expected better from tv producers, for heavens sake!, who work (I thought) from a script or whatnot. But there it was. "I think I did good."

And is radio any better? It is not. I actually heard one fine young man, in an attempt to sell I forget what, ask sweetly, "Do you get the feeling people are disrespecting you?"

I give up. I'm moving to Great Britain, and taking my frustrations with me.

2004-08-19T12:38:00.000-07:00

I can hear my little brothers playing down the street and around the corner. By a trick of distance, their voices echo...

I can remember being 7, and playing with pleasant abandon all day.

I remember when dinnertime was a grievance; every meal a race. I remember cold popsicles--my favorite was orange--that melted too fast. I remember the sting of a scraped knee mingling with the sting of peroxide.

I remember playing with the neighbor girl's new pug-faced puppy, and nearly suffocating him in his new styrofoam "house". I remember trying to sell my prized possessions in a garage sale before my mother stopped me.

I remember how I got the scar on the knuckle of my left ring finger--pushing an empty stroller down the driveway at Millenbach, and tripping, my finger crushed underneath.

I remember Mrs. B handing me a pale yellow iris--the first 'real' flower I ever had--from her garden. I remember my first piano teacher.

I remember rolling down a hill with my cousins in Ohio, and landing in poison ivy. I remember my Aunt handing out creamsicles afterwards--and I was hooked for life.

I remember the first time my dad put on 'Tomorrow is My Dancing Day' for my sister and me, and let us dance our hearts out.

I remember playing "boys against the girls", and being on the boys side.

I remember what it was like to be a kid.

Summertime is for remembering.

2004-08-18T11:03:00.000-07:00

Aha! I found another one:

Jody,

Thank you for emailing. Before I forget, would you mind forwarding this email to Andy? I believe it will answer the question he put to me on the blog. (I would CC it to him, but I don’t have his email address.) Thanks!

Ok…I am familiar with Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the issue that you raise. You argue, along with Plato, that only two alternatives exist. Either Right is Right because God commands it, in which case He is simply making a decision on an arbitrary basis, OR a separate standard of Right exists and God merely recognizes that standard, in which case He is no longer sovereign.

However, many philosophers insist that this is a faulty dilemma—that there is a third possibility. This third alternative is that God neither commands “x” because “x” is good, nor is “x” good simply because God says so—rather, God’s own nature necessarily defines Right and Wrong. God is, by definition, the ultimate standard of Right and Wrong—if there was a standard to which He had to submit, He would no longer be God.

It would, however, take a great deal of words from me, and patience from you, for me to fully explain my stance—rather, I recently came across an excellent article that outlined exactly what I believe. I am including the link to that article for you. If I could put my position as clearly as the author of this article, I would do so, but I think he does a far better job explaining than I can do at the present time! Please read the article, then, and take it from there.

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm

Perhaps in a later email (it’s after midnight here…I don’t have time to address the issue tonight) you could explain what your basis for moral values is, and I’ll explain why I believe that the Greeks’ system of ethics is useless without a belief in God.

I hope this email answers both your objections and Andy’s—let me know what you think of the article.

Jamie

2004-08-18T10:23:00.000-07:00

Quite a while ago, while I was still partnering on Deux Ego, I had a series of discussions with a guy named Jody, about the difference between objective and subjective morality. He was, if I recall correctly, an atheist, who thought subjective morality was "silly", but wouldn't accept objective morality as the only other alternative.

I don't know what effect, if any, these conversations had, since they ended in a stalemate--neither of us willing to change our beliefs on the subject--but they were useful to me in thinking the matter through more fully for myself.

I wish I could find all the emails that tracked our discussion, but all I could find was this reply that I sent to Jody in answer to why one must accept either subjective or objective morality.

Read at your leisure, and please comment! Tell me I'm right, tell me I'm wrong, tell me you hate my site, but tell me something! (That was a hint to all you lurkers who never comment.)

Jody,

You know, there is no middle ground between objective and subjective morality. Either morality is objective...or it isn't, in which case it is subjective.

At the moment I am going to bypass your other comments and concentrate on the issue of morality. I recently read a book by Paul Chamberlain entitled "Can We Be Good Without God?", which, though badly written, presented sound logic and ideas.

The author suggests first that subjective morality is a ridiculous concept, as attractive a notion as it may seem at first. You don't (apparently) believe in a standard of objective morality--hence you must believe in subjective morality to some degree, subjectivity being defined as "non-objectivity". (He defines objective morality, btw, as "an objective entity independent of any human being. This entity we could call moral value, or moral truth, or a set of moral principles, or a moral standard...what we call it is not important. What is important is that this moral standard is independent of any person. We don't determine or control it. It does not change from one person to another. Nor does it go away because we don't appreciate it...Objective morality is simply there for us to discover and measure our actions against." I am not assuming that you don't know what "objective morality" means, but I am simply defining the term so we're both sure how I'm using it.)

Now, I think you will find that it is impossible to carry a subjective view of morality to its logical end. You must have discovered something of the sort already, or you wouldn't have called subjective morality "silly". The logical end of subjective morals is always chaos--"every man being a law unto himself". Subjective morality does not work. However, you won't accept the only other option, which is objective morality. So what do you do? You can't live your life on a completely subjective level, anymore than I can live out a belief that "objects don't exist". I would lose that belief quickly enough the first time I ignored a speeding train or car.

So, this is the dilemma then. Before we can discuss whether objective morality can or cannot be found in "social benefits", or in anything other than God, we first have to agree that subjective morality is logically ridiculous, and so cross it off the list of possibilities.

So...objective morality or subjective? You can have your pick, but you do believe and live out one of them.

Jamie

2004-08-14T17:36:00.000-07:00

I guess I should hump myself and write something new--life has been so incredibly busy lately though, and then I've been fighting a nasty cold/flu virus the last week or so--not dangerous, but not conducive to posting either!

Still, I'll put something new up soon. Cross my heart and hope to spit!

2004-07-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

the FACES of VBS

2004-07-23T08:00:00.000-07:00

VBS in Detroit last week--and this coming week--and possibly the week after that.

If ever a program like Vacation Bible School was needed somewhere, it's needed in downtown Detroit. When inner-city kids aren't in school, they're on the streets, and that includes little three-year-olds.

This particular three-week-long program has been successfully run by Pastor Randy Brown and his wife Barb for fourteen years. It's a ministry I've been involved in for the past four years.

It involves a lot of volunteer work by church groups that come in to support Military Ave. Church, and it provides an opportunity for middle-class people like myself to get a small taste of inner-city life.

If you're interested in up-to-date facilities, A/C, and trendy themes, this VBS is not for you. The church proper is not air-conditioned, the sanctuary can barely fit 150 people, and we've sung the same songs every year I've been there.

Recreation consists of walking two blocks to a park the size of most church parking lots, where you can't go barefoot because of broken beer bottles, and playing the simplest of organized games--usually involving water, because the heat index is around 100 degrees this time of the year.

But the kids love it.

They come from one-parent homes, and live in an environment of poverty, drugs and illiteracy. But for three weeks they come and experience grace; supplied, like the lunches, free-of-charge. They bond with the volunteer helpers, eager for attention they've been starved of at home. They hear pure, unadulterated bible stories, and the gospel. They can sing their hearts out, play their hearts out, and know that here, at least, they will have to follow the rules set down for them. They can have the security of knowing that for three whole weeks, they don't have to be the ones in charge. Yes, it's a grass-roots type of ministry, and yes--it's exactly what these children from the inner-city need.

We supply the lunches, the games and the bible stories. God supplies the grace.

Together, we make a pretty good team.

2004-07-19T18:39:00.000-07:00

Driving to the cemetary this afternoon, I noticed the guy in the car next to me talking on his cell-phone. And it was after I noticed that he had to hold it halfway between his ear and mouth to talk that I realised what the rest of culture hasn't yet--at some point, "conveniently small" becomes "ridiculously small".

Halfway-between-ear-and-mouth may work for some people, but it certainly lends a new meaning to the term "long-distance phone-call".

*grin*

2004-07-15T08:05:00.000-07:00

My very close cousin's grandpa just died, so it'll be a few days before I post again.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the
faith. Now [I will receive] the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me...and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

His Lord said unto him, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (Matthew 25:21)

Welcome Home, Hobert Summerville.

2004-07-13T07:11:00.000-07:00

The beautiful story of Elaina.

Happy Birthday, Elaina!

2004-07-11T14:42:00.000-07:00

My pastor said something the other day that stuck in my subconscious...I suspect because I really needed to hear it.

Speaking of Christ's command to live a life of service, he said that a Christian is called to "be a servant, not act like one". There is a difference. I know, because sometimes I act like one, but rarely am I, in fact, a servant.

Yet selfless service should be the foremost hallmark of the Christian. Witness the multiple times the Bible says to lay down our lives, to die to ourselves, to consider ourselves as servants, just as Christ did; all of which leave me in no doubt of what God wants of me.

Yet, even knowing full well what I ought to do, I find that being a servant is easily the hardest thing I've ever had to work at (no pun intended!). My old sin nature fights back so stubbornly, you'd think he was alive instead of crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6).

The root of selfishness runs deep.

At best, I go through the actions, pretending I'm serving when I'm really just playing a part--and begrudging every miserable minute of it.

And I hate that part of me!--yet it seems as fast as I beat the old self down, he finds a new stranglehold on my soul. I feel like Hercules fighting the Hydra.

Thank goodness I don't have to fight alone! Part of walking in the spirit is the daily practice of riding rough-shod over the old desires, and pursuing the new--all through the grace of God (Romans 6:11-14). Without God's grace, I'm defeated before I begin.

But I know that the old self will, at the last, be overcome. Because God has "predestined [me] to become conformed to the image of His Son". And His Son is and was the greatest Servant of all.

Santification is a long and labored process...but the result is assured! With such a foreknowledge of victory, I refuse to become weary in doing good...the harvest I'm promised far outweighs the trouble of pulling the weeds!

2004-07-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

Redux from Deux Ego:
Theocracy vs. Republican Democracy

I don't like the idea of a theocracy. Though it appears to be the government-of-choice of many Christians, I actually believe that a theocracy is dangerous, and would threaten religious freedom. There are Christians who believe that a theocracy is the only biblical form of government - but what kind of theocracy are they referring to? Two definitions exist. One refers to "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority," and the second, "government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God." I believe that only the second of these is an adequate, biblical form of government - but unfortunately, it is not available to us today. God no longer governs a nation or a country directly - and thus we are left with the first definition only. I believe this option to be a foolish one, and I will explain why.

To begin with, the logistics of such a government are not as simple as they first appear. What "religious authority" will govern? Islam? Christianity? Buddhism? If this theocracy is to be a biblical theocracy, then Christianity seems to be the obvious choice. But then what particular brand of Christianity will we choose? Presbyterian? Baptist? Calvinist? Each has a slightly different theology, and each has its own following. Clearly, to choose one denomination over another would cause divisions.

But what if we use the universal principles of the Church? Principles that everyone agrees on? Things like the Ten Commandments. Wouldn't that work? Well, let's see. In that case we would make laws like "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not give false testimony," "Do not commit adultery," and "Do not covet-" - but wait a minute. Do not covet? How can we make that into a law? Who is going to know if I am coveting or not? Clearly we can't make all biblical commands into laws. But if we choose only the laws that can be enforced, then how is it any better than a secular government? Even a good secular government is based on moral laws that consider murder to be wrong. (Granted, in our government we try to redefine murder, but at least we generally agree that murder is a bad thing.)

So now what? Our laws are nearly the same as those of a secular government - possibly better, but very similar. But who enforces these rules? Remember, the definition says a "religious authority." That is presumed to be the Church. But we don't have a universal, official Church of Christianity. We would need something akin to the Catholic Church, complete with Pope, Bishops and so on down the line. And that brings me to my second point; that history proves that theocracy does not work.

Anyone with a basic grasp of history will be able to recall several examples of failed theocratic government. Think of the Papal States, ruled by various Popes; think of the Vatican; think of the Church of England that choked religious liberty during the 17th century. Even theocracy on a local scale is impractical at best, and dangerous at worst, when it produced persecution in the form of the Salem Witch Trials and other similar incidents. History seems clear enough - put absolute political power into the hands of a "religious authority" and you lose freedom of religion.

My solution is not separation of church and state, but careful integration of the two. I believe that the Founding Fathers planned the most practical, carefully thought out government that has ever existed in our history. Because of their forethought, we have been able to enjoy an amazing amount of religious freedom. Why? Because instead of handing political power to the church, they used biblical principles to curtail the power of government. A republican democracy is not the perfect form of government - there will be no "perfect form of government" until Christ returns. But I believe it is infinitely better than a theocracy. When Christ comes back to rule the world, then we may have our theocracy. Until then, we're better off sticking to what we have.

2004-07-09T11:36:00.000-07:00

Something there is that loves a riddle.

Something about an enigma draws us. Why do we instinctively turn towards a puzzle, and not away?

I think of Bob Dylan's cryptic rhyming, and I marvel at the popularity it had once-upon-a-time; but I don't marvel because I'm surprised. I could be fascinated by his enigmas too, if I didn't know they meant nothing. Somehow people are intrigued by what they don't understand.

Maybe that's why God leaves a bit of mystery in religion. He seems to like a paradox; but maybe that's for our sake. G. K. Chesterton said that mystery was healthy--Man should have something he doesn't understand--or something he can't.

I like that thought: we're hard-wired to love a mystery. For one thing, it excuses all the mystery novels I read. For another, it explains my fascination with hieroglyphics, and ancient languages, and greek myths and miracles.

It also explains Man's interest in the unknown. Why did the Greeks invent the Pantheonic gods? Who set up Stonehenge, and why? Who were the Druids?

I think our thirst for mystery is a gift from God--it turns our thoughts to the spirit world. If Man denies the divine, he does so only through deliberate disregard of his innate knowledge that it exists. Man searches for the divine not because he knows it isn't there, but because he knows it is.

The proof of God's existence is our desire for mystery. We look for it in myths and riddles, but we find it in Him.

2004-07-09T06:22:00.000-07:00

Just to satisfy my curiosity, people:

Do you prefer my cognitive posts...or those other short things I post?

(yes, I know that "thing" isn't a word that should be in anyone's vocabulary after the age of 6)

2004-07-09T06:19:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'll be posting more "real" posts soon--you can stop picketing in front of my house now.

2004-07-08T12:11:00.000-07:00

G. K. Chesterton on the subject of Cheese:

Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.

Virgil, if I remember right, refers to it several times, but with too much Roman restraint. He does not let himself go on cheese. The only other poet that I can think of just now who seems to have had some sensibility on the point was the nameless author of [a] nursery rhyme...[e]xcept Virgil and this anonymous rhymer, I can recall no verse about cheese.

Yet it has every quality which we require in an exalted poetry. It is a short, strong word; it rhymes to breeze and seas (an essential point); that it is emphatic in sound is admitted even by the civilization of the modern cities. For their citizens, with no apparent intention except emphasis, will often say Cheese it! or even Quite the cheese.

I reached one of the great northern cities, and there I proceeded...to a large and elaborate restaurant, where I knew I could get a great many things besides bread and cheese. I could get that also, however; or at least I expected to get it; but I was sharply reminded that I had entered Babylon, and left England behind.

The waiter brought me cheese, indeed, but cheese cut up into contemptibly small pieces; and it is the awful fact that instead of Christian bread, he brought me biscuits.

Biscuits - to one who had eaten the cheese of four great countrysides! Biscuits - to one who had proved anew for himself the sanctity of the ancient wedding between cheese and bread!

I addressed the waiter in warm and moving terms. I asked him who he was that he should put asunder those whom Humanity had joined. I asked him if he did not feel, as an artist, that a solid but yielding substance like cheese went naturally with a solid, yielding substance like bread; to eat it off biscuits is like eating it off slates.

Amen!

And thanks to my friend Pieter, for bringing Chesterton and Cheese to my attention a few years back!

2004-07-07T17:27:00.000-07:00

I saw an old man on inline-skates today. It made me smile--he moved with such a young confidence. When I am an old lady, I will skate often in the park, and drive a yellow convertible, and wear high-top sneakers. I want to make people smile too.

2004-07-07T17:18:00.000-07:00

I'm having a friendless day. Maybe I'll move to wildest Africa. Or to the frozen wasteland of Siberia--a wasteland could be a very attractive place right now.

2004-07-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

One of the few Stephen Crane poems I like:

The Wayfarer

The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that no one has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads."

-Stephen Crane

2004-07-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

I'm back, but the post I was going to write lost itself in New York. If any of you are New York natives, keep an eye out for my lost brainchild. And if you should come across the poor thing wandering cloud-like over hill and vale, please send it my way.

2004-07-01T20:25:00.000-07:00

GON OUT BACKSON BISY BACKSON
PLES RING IF AN RNSER IS REQIRD
PLES CNOKE IF AN RNSR IS NOT REQID

(if you get the title, you're a kindred spirit)

Jamie has gone to New York for the weekend and a wedding.

(You know it's a good post when the title is longer than the body)

2004-07-01T17:47:00.000-07:00

When Saddam Hussein was arraigned today at Camp Victory, he reportedly said: “You know that this is all a theater by Bush, the criminal, to help him with his campaign”.

Has he been listening to CNN too?

2004-07-01T16:04:00.000-07:00

Doug Wilson and Homosexuality

In Doug Wilson’s article Owning the Curse: Rethinking Same-Sex Marriage, Wilson rethinks the same-sex issue right into the church camp.

Not only does he claim that the outbreak of homosexuality in America is largely the fault of the American Christian tradition, he also insists that it is Christian fathers, specifically, who are “the primary cause of the curse of homosexuality”.

I find these to be pretty amazing claims, especially as they are unsupported by any evidence. That makes me skeptical of Wilson’s statements, such as “Even in our own congregations, fathers are provoking their children not only to sin, but into patterns of resentment, into the patterns of homosexuality", and "For generations, we, as fathers, have lied about God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through our refusal to live self-sacrificially."

Doug Wilson, by the way, claims that his perspective is that of classical Protestantism. I hope he’s wrong.

And this isn’t all. I don’t know if Wilson claims a Reformed theological viewpoint as well as a Protestant, but his views on homosexuality seem a natural outgrowth of that view. He says that homosexuality is, indeed, a genetic problem—in fact, he “grant[s] any and all scientific claims about the genetic basis” of homosexuality, on the grounds that since God controls everything, genetically-caused homosexuality is part of the “providence of God”.

To top everything off, his solution for the church’s “sin” is just dandy—not only should we “not…stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage” (because to do so would oppose God’s will, which imposed the curse), but we should “[confess] publicly before the non-Christian community that we are the problem.”

I can just see what a hey-day the media would have with that one.

If, indeed, Wilson is right that the church was ordained by God to lead culture, then perhaps his suggestions would be valid. But he has yet to prove scripturally the most basic of his presuppositions—that God has, indeed, made the church responsible for the misdeeds of culture, and that homosexuality is actually a curse directed towards the church, not towards a wicked society, as Romans 1:18-32 seems to make very obvious.

When Doug Wilson can provide scripture to back up his statements, that will be time enough to start thinking about making public confession for the sins of others.

2004-06-29T09:28:00.000-07:00

I don’t understand Reformed theology. I’ve considered it, but I don’t understand it. For one thing, it contains contradictory premises. It teaches that God does not coerce Man’s will, and thus Man has free will—yet it also teaches that Man is unable to choose to believe in Christ; rather, God must first claim a man for Himself before that man may choose Him.

As I understand from Reformed articles I’ve read, and Reformed people I’ve talked to, this contradiction is explained away as being one of those things we’ll just never understand. Thus I find in one article, side-by-side, the statements:

GOD never forces men to act against their wills.

and

When by the Spirit a mind understands essential truths, by the same Spirit the will must trust Christ. [emphasis mine]

If Man is unable to choose God before God chooses him, then why does Jesus lament:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings and you would not !'” [italics mine] ?

If Man can’t come to God unless God calls him, then why Jesus’ cry? Apparently He chose not to call Jerusalem, and that’s all there was to it.

Yet this article uses these verses as an example of Man’s refusal to come to Christ. How can anyone respond if he is not called? And how can God complain of Man not coming if He will not call him?

The doctrine of Irresistible Grace is at odds with such passages as the above.

Another necessary corollary of Reformed theology is that God solely determines who will go to heaven, and who to Hell. Since He alone can “quicken” Man’s heart so that Man must (not may) choose God, He therefore chooses to save some people, and chooses to condemn others to Hell—and where they end up is not contingent on their choice at all, insofar as they may only choose what He has already chosen for them—hardly an exercise of will at all, unless it be “programmed” and not “free” will.

Calvin himself said "Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death."

If Man is “predestined either to life or to death”, then surely Reformed theologians cannot speak of “free will”! There is no free will where Man’s destiny is determined at his very creation.

Rather than believe Calvin’s interpretation of scripture, or Luther’s, or anyone else’s, I choose to go to the Bible itself, which states clearly

“God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If God is not willing that any should perish (and the word “any” in Greek literally means “any”, just as the word “world” in “For God so loved the world” means “everyone”), then He did not create some for eternal life and some for eternal death. Likewise, if God is not willing that any perish (i.e. He doesn't want anyone to end up in Hell), and yet some people will end up there, then it is of their own volition, not God's.

So whom do you want to believe? God or Calvin?

2004-06-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

It's back! So glad y'all repented! *wink*