Blogging worth its words

A quick note...

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Watched "A Flock of Dodos" the other night. It's a documentary along the lines of a little seriousness mixed with one-off caricatures, awkward sound effects and the occasional comment from the camera guy whispered under his breath. While I'm generally not a fan of these new "pop-documentaries" this one is interesting in that the documentary's technique is to barely take a stance, by criticizing those supporting its own opinion. This method is used to confuse the viewer.

The technique works like this:

I'm Pro A you're anti-A
1) I create a documentary pointing out legitimate challenges to the Pro A party. (I build credibility)
2) I then point out legitimate challenges to the Anti A party (building more credibility)
3) **THEN** I sprinkle illegitimate claims about the Anti A party through out the documentary.

Thus when I reach the conclusion supporting the Pro A party at the end (with the credibility I've gained from points 1 and 2) , many viewers trust me.

While this has nothing to do with books... I thought it was interesting

The official website

The Discovery Institute's Rebuttal to the "pop-doc"

A second book, a second post...

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:35:00 +0000

As I mentioned in the last post, I’m currently reading a few different books. One of them is God, Marriage and Family by Andreas J. Kostenberger. I like telling people that I read this book, primarily because I like saying his name. I could almost argue that Dr. Kostenberger’s name alone ranks him up there with the Nietzsches, Kants, Chestertons and Kierkegaards. But I won’t.

This particular book is considered by many to be the foremost compilation of the Bible’s view of marriage and family. Initially, I would have said the “Christian” view of marriage and family, but based on a recent Newsweek article (The End of Christian America), Christianity, as it is popularly known today is fading, while “Chistendom America” is growing (at least according to Mark Driscoll).

The interesting thing that I found so far in my reading was a clarification of the word patriarchy. You can find a number of definitions online, through Google, or Bing.. and you’ll basically find a definition that ranges from the father holding majority responsibility for the well being of this family and therefore majority authority, to the father holding absolute power and authority over women and children. In his book, Kostenberger cites Daniel Block in stating that “While most identify the ancient Israelite family structure by the term ‘patriarchy’ ... Block contends that the expression ‘patricentrism’... may be better suited for this type of arrangement, since first, feminism has permanently discredited patriarchy even in its non-abusive forms...” (94).

While not specifically dealing with the substantive areas of the book I just found it interesting how sometimes words are hijacked by different parties from time to time and used or abused or indirectly censored.

Regarding the book, so far Kostenberger has given thorough history of families in the Old and New Testaments examining an area that many non-christians bring up for debate in a number of discussions: The misunderstanding of what God has commanded and what people the Bible actually did. A more recent example would be non-christians pointing out the Crusades as evidence of the cruelty of religion, over looking the fact that Jesus never condoned such actions. The current chapter deals with the permanency of marriage. Kostenberger examines whether marriage is a sacrament (as put forth by organizations like the Catholic Church), a contract (as we view it in civil society), or a covenant. Initially, one might not see the distinction between contract and covenant, but there are major differences that have broad implications.

Maybe I’ll address this comparison later... Until then...

Wow, it's quiet around here.

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:06:00 +0000

So I remember Jon mentioning that I had hung him out to dry on this blog... seeing as he was the only one posting.. So I'm back.. Got some time over the next few weeks and thought I'd throw down a few words.

I'm currently reading a few books and today I happen to be reading Death by Love. So far it's an interesting read. A blend of some hard core theological mixed with the occasional "dude" reference. You'll find words like "Cristus Victor" and "Expiation" well laid out and defined using whole chapters.

However, I just wanted to write something that came to mind as I was reading today. Driscoll writes of Jesus' death on the cross, "...on the cross Jesus hid his victory in defeat, hid his glory in shame and hid our life in his death. Satan and the demons did not see this because they lacked the sight of faith and did not understand the humility of Jesus" (44).

As I stopped to think about this text, I started to question why Satan would miss such a thing? I was having a conversation the other day about the devil and whether or not he could repent. It's interesting because of all creatures, you would think that having lived and communed with The Holy God, having witnessed the creation of man, the playing out of the Old and New Testaments, if anyone had enough "proof" it would be Satan. But then I remembered a conversation I had with a good friend a while back. He was struggling in a relationship and wanted the opportunity to be able to explain himself to his ex. The challenge is that she believed that she "understood" everything and her decision was final. In our conversation he kept reiterating that she COULD NOT have understood what he was trying to say, for if she did, then she would see it his way.

I wonder how many times we don't see or understand things simply because we believe that we are right and that everyone who is right would see exactly what we see and respond the same way? And if they don't see it "our way," then THEY must be the ones that are wrong.. because everyone must be like us, or at least aspire to be like us.

I have to admit that I've felt this way many times and on occasion joked how the would be a better place if there were just more of me around. I wonder if Satan feels the same way? How much better would things be if everyone were just a bit more like him? A little more prideful, a little more deceiving, a little less gracious, a little more angry, a little more scornful, a little less forgiving... why? because then he would be god.

I wonder if Satan didn't see, and continues not to see his future because he believes that everyone, including God, is like him. When he saw Jesus broken and torn on the cross, he assumed that he was really defeated, not that he was simply masking his victory in defeat and his glory in humility...

Tolstoy and Ivan

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:05:00 +0000

I have been reading Tolstoy. His book, The Death of Ivan Ilych, is serving as my introduction to his work. To say that I love it would be an understatement, his writing is so pure, so true to human emotion, that putting myself in the protagonist's shoes is accomplished without me so much as trying. The story follows Ivan Ilych, a man who has lived a successful life as a prominent judge in a small town in Russia. He has a family, friends, a good reputation and money. In short, he is happy. In fact, the first few chapters end with various statements emphasizing his comfort, such as: "and everything went on in this way without change, and everything was very nice." Obviously, Ilych's story eventually takes a turn for the worse, as he becomes terminally ill and begins the brutal process of dying slowly, painfully. The book chronicles his thoughts and emotions as he confronts the inevitable prospect of death; a death he deems to be unjust, unprecedented and ultimately unbelievable. The revelation that proves perhaps the most telling is, just before Ilych dies, he comes to the understanding that he has, contrary to what his peers believe, wasted his life on trivial pursuits. In one telling instance, Ilych begins to see life, “As though I had been going steadily downhill, imagining that I was going uphill. So it was in fact. In public opinion I was going uphill, and steadily as I got up it life was ebbing away from me...And now the work’s done, there’s only to die.” Throughout the story Ilych wrestles fiercely with a dichotomy, one side of which says that he has lived his life well, respectably, comfortably, without major error; and the other is a nagging sense that, somehow despite this success he hasn’t lived his life as he should. To peer into Ilych’s mind as he wrestles with these ideas is intense, and at the same time it feels like a privilege and a warning that must be heeded at the risk of grave consequence. Tolstoy is eloquent, formal, and at the same time remarkably informal in his description of a simple man meeting his reluctant end. This book was a great read.

Inspired... to start a business?

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:53:00 +0000

I've recently been gorging myself with some business books, including The Art of Possibility (Zander and Zander), Rules for Revolutionaries and The Art of the Start (both by Kawasaki). I also finished reading Blue Like Jazz but I'll leave that one for another post.

The Art of Possibility was probably my favorite book of the three, perhaps because it was written by a husband and wife duo, or perhaps because Ben Zander is the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic? Whatever the reason, I found several bit of inspiration throughout the book. Initially the book comes across as another "power of positive thought" book and I already consider myself the optimist's optimist so my first inclination was the lay the book down. However it was recommended by Mark Batterson (another great author whose new book comes out shortly) so I figured I would fire through it pretty quickly.

The first part of the book that really jumped out at me was the section titled "Stepping into a Universe of Possibility." Zander mentions that so much of our thoughts are based upon or founded upon the idea of scarcity. And argues that such an "attitude prompts us to seek to acquire more for ourselves no matter how much we have and to treat others as competitors no matter how little they have" (22). I'm a pretty competitive fellow so I have to admit this struck a chord with me. I was forced to reflect how many times I was walking by someone who had less than me, perhaps was a bit less articulate, had a little less "game" and unconsciously made a comparison in order to shore up my value, as if I didn't hoard greatness upon myself, there wouldn't be enough after this guy got his?

A few sections later in a chapter titled, "Leading From Any Chair," Zander asks the question, "How much greatness are we willing to grant to people?" (73). Zander goes on to mention that for leaders this is extremely important because the measure of people we (leaders) believe we are leading will directly impact what kind of leader we are and will become. Example: If I feel that I'm leading a bunch of misfits that by some crude joke from the "man upstairs" were forced upon me, I will have a much different outlook and behavior toward those I'm leading than say, if I looked that those I was leading as the world's best, most elite thinkers, producers and movers.

Next, in a section titled, "Rule Number 6" the Zanders tell of the following inscription on one of the pillars in the Holocaust Museum at Quincy Market, Boston:

The sixth pillar presents a tale of a different sort, about a little girl named Ilse, a childhood friend of Guerda Weissman Kline, in Auschwitz. Guerda remembers that Ilse, who was about six years old at the time, found one morning a single raspberry somewhere in camp. Ilse carried it all day long in a protected place in her pocket, and in the evening, her eyes shining with happiness, she presented it to her friend Guerda on a leaf. "Imagine a world," writes Guerda, "in which your entire possession is one raspberry, and you give it to your friend."

Finally, in one of the closing chapters, the Zanders state:

"The foremost challenge for leaders today... is to maintain the clarity to stand confidently in the abundant universe of possibility, no matter how fierce the competition, no matter how stark the necessity to go for the short-term goal, no matter how fearful people are, and not matter how urgently the wolf may appear to howl at the door. It is to have the courage and persistence to distinguish the downward spiral from the radiant realm of possibility in the face of any challenge."

I'll be coming back to the books by Guy Kawasaki, but I felt I should throw this book up, if you should read it and have any thoughts, they're always appreciated.

Cohelo and Camus

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:29:00 +0000

I have recently finished two books, (something I am not accustomed to doing,) and, though I enjoyed them both, they could not have been more different. The first, and my favorite, I might add, was The Alchemist, by Paulo Cohelo. The book follows the adventures of Santiago the shepherd boy as he goes on a quest across Egypt to find his “personal legend” and along the way he runs into an Alchemist who helps him. The boy discovers alchemy to be the unique process of turning lead into gold, something that can only be done by master alchemists; but the idea of alchemy is something he finds applicable to everyday life, that is, the process of turning something ordinary, dull, or worthless into something full of value, dynamic, and worthwhile. That is the spirit of alchemy, he concludes. This idea of a practical alchemy that we can perform in any situation struck me as quite a beautiful concept, the weight of which I am still trying to realize.

The second book was The Stranger, by Camus. This book stands as a monument to existentialism, and an in-depth look at what Camus sees as the reality of absurdism. The book is simple and short, telling the story of Meursault, a man living in France who kills a man simply because the sun was shining too brightly in his eyes, and goes on to live, and eventually die, a completely unreflective and unsympathetic individual who is completely content with letting life run its unaltered course. Halfway through this book I realized that I simply could not relate in any way to the protagonist. Throughout the book things happen to him, such as his mother dying, and he doesn’t bat an eye or feel anything. He doesn’t even try. As his trial proceeds he doesn’t care about his possible fate, and even as he is sentenced to death by the guillotine he seems unfazed. Not to spoil it, but the book ends with this haunting line, "As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself — so like a brother, really — I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” Yikes. It amazes and frightens me that this book is widely considered one of the best of the twentieth century. I believe its very essence to be endemic of our current social climate, with its heavy message of relativism, existentialism, and absurdism. It’s quite sad really. So, what did I learn from these books? 1) Existentialism and any belief that involves me creating life’s meaning is frightening and hopeless 2) The concept of Alchemy is something that is quite beautiful, really, and can and must be applied to life everyday 3) It is healthy for me to read and try to understand things I don’t agree with 4) There is something fundamentally different between myself and Camus, and that difference for me is everything that matters.

Forgive-ah-wadda?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:48:00 +0000

I have been assigned a book to read that I have to force myself to put down so that I don’t get too far ahead of assignments. The book is called, “The Sunflower” by Simon Weisenthal. When I picked up the book and noticed it's huge sunflower on the front if it I thought, "lame" and tossed it aside. Now I know you really can't judge a book by it's cover. Weisenthal bases his book off of something that happened to him in real life when he was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. One day while working he is called to the bedside of a dying Nazi Soldier. The soldier tells him of all the atrocities he has done to Jewish people and asks his forgiveness. Weisenthal tells of his process of dealing with the decision he made in response to this man. He asks, “What would you do?” to some very distinguished men and women and writes their responses down for all of us to read. Some of the responses come from The Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Dennis Prager, and fifty other people. The responses and his story are fascinating and have taken me through a process of understanding forgiveness and it’s layers that I didn’t know existed. So good!

...the never coming concert.

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:49:00 +0000

I've often felt as if I didn't have to sleep there'd be enough time. If I didn't have so much to learn then I'd really have the extra time I need.

The days of the years of our lives are few, and swifter than a weaver's shuttle. Life is a short fevered rehearsal for a concert we cannot stay to give. Just when we appear to have attained some proficiency we are forced to lay our instruments down. There is simply not time enough to think, to become, to perform what the constitution of our natures indicate we are capable of..."

wow backwards is wow.

noreply@blogger.com (Cigarbox) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:47:00 +0000

What a beautiful morning it is. I woke up as usual, showered and then sat in my chair. I have this tacky, red velvety chair inherited from my dad. He had it before we became a part of his family and we've kept it through the years. Of course my mom changed most of his house around when it became their house..but this item somehow survived through the years. I can't seem to part with it, I mean it's not even comfortable and it's bulky and tall and has an unsightly dark brown frame, but it's a chair that reminds me of our old house, the house I grew up in and when we used to do things as a family. Once upon a time, when my dad was still full of life... when he was passionate about life, and painted, took photographs, when we'd take trips to the lake...

i love that chair.

I often sit in it to do my quiet time in the morning, or just sit and ponder and it's set up right beside my bedroom window. My bedroom looks out from the second floor of the house, I enjoy the elevated view even if it's of a suburban neighborhood in which every house looks identical. Anyway, this morning I was pleasantly suprised to see the skies were dark and grey, filled with clouds... The drive to work was exhilirating, I blared music with my windows rolled down and found comfort in the cold, wintry air... and I felt God. Today was a day that He had specifically crafted... each intricate detail the work of His hands- the temperature, the scents, the colours, the clouds... my soul.

read the full post here.

Freakonomics 101

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:35:00 +0000

Just picked up and put down the book Freakonomics. I've been wanting to read it for a while, as I consider myself a student of the school of non-linear thinking ;) What I found in the pages were quite interesting. The book claims (of course with economic style evidence) that the single greatest contribution to the drastic decline of crime in the 90's was... Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in the 70's. Can you believe that!? It also tackles the question of "black" names versus "white" names. It proposes that kids/people with uniquely black names, like Jamal or Essence, tend to succeed less than do people with generally white names, such as, Catherine or Benjamin. While that may not surprise many people, the reasoning might. At first glance, one might quickly dismiss such a "gap" to racism or discrimination on the part of businesses or managers in the hiring process. But what Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt go on to show it that, people with uniquely black names, generally come from poor, uneducated single mothers, while those with typically wealthy names, come from wealthy, educated parents.

I would give you some more nuggets, but I feel like this is enough to get your mind rolling or your blood boiling or both...

Democracy Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:10:00 +0000

The book I have been into lately I have a of love-hate relationship with. It’s by a guy named Cornel West and is called Democracy Matters. It has this great picture of West on the front; leaning forward with his hands pointing at you, wearing these great Malcolm X style glasses and a look that says, “I know a lot that you don’t.” West is an Ivy League professor who is an accomplished scholar, philosopher, and intellectual, who writes with an eloquence reminiscent of a 17th century rhetorician.

His thesis: “The aim of this book is to put forward a strong democratic vision and critique, rooted in a deep democratic tradition, forged on the nightside of the precious American democratic experiment – a tradition of Socratic examination, prophetic practice, and dark hope.”

Every sentence is packed with information and ideology, and to get the most out of this book I have found that I have to carefully read each page and really take my time. So the love part is that I love his form of writing, I love the points he makes, almost philosophical in nature, and I love that he hasn’t given up on the century old idea of methodical, eloquent and meaningful writing. To read this book really is like reading something written a hundred years ago, except for all his references to current events. The book was published in 2004, at the height of the Iraq invasion, and is the sequel to his highly acclaimed book, Race Matters. And that is where the hate part comes in…well, maybe not quite hate, its more of a disagreement really. He makes no bones about the fact that he is pretty far to the left, and he spends a bit of his time early on beating the Bush administration, which I have some problem with because in some ways it seems like such a cop-out because its such an easy/trendy thing to do. But he is careful to, eventually, critique the democratic side of the political spectrum, which I appreciate. He goes on to talk about race, equality, hypocrisy, nihilism, politics, greed, corruption, and a variety of other things that taint our democracy. It’s really a great read overall, and, though I obviously don’t agree with his every point, I have loved learning from his ideas, and picking up some new vocabulary.

Who knew?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:59:00 +0000

The book I'm reading now is very much out of the norm of what I like to read. Actually I scoffed at the book the first time I saw it saying something along the lines of how much I hate books like this one. Turns out the book is pretty good so far. It was recommended to me by some friends, it apparently changed their whole outlook on relationships. As much as we hate to feel like focus needs to be on relationships, we are all in them at some point so maybe giving the book a chance is a good idea. It is called, "for women only" by Shaunti Feldhahn. Don't worry men there is one for you too, it's called, "for men only" ( I know you weren't expecting that title) and that one is written by she and her husband. The book goes into the supposed inner lives of men. The author took the time, with help from professionals (the former chief of survey for the U.S. census bureau and another lady that does research and surveys) to survey men in and out of the church all across the country on issues in relationships. The men were from the ages 21 - 75, they were anonymous and the questions referred to how men think, how they feel and what their needs are. She did a couple of follow up surveys to finish her analysis and then wrote this book. So far the biggest revelation is that most men would rather feel alone and unloved than to feel inadequate or disrespected. That's so opposite of women who mainly want to feel loved and as far from lonely as they can get. I guess respecting someone can be what makes them feel loved. We'll find out. The author has a master's degree in public policy from Harvard, has worked on Wall Street and Capitol Hill. She has many bestselling books, is a syndicated newspaper columnist and a public speaker. I bet there is some validity in the stuff she has to say.

Admitting what I cannot do...

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:03:00 +0000

It's interesting to me, that most of most of my days is filled with me convincing either myself or others that I Can. Perhaps it is the mentality instilled in us from birth, the stories of the little engine that could or simply the affirmations from our parents.

This morning I read from My Utmost for His Highest and it began with these words:

I cannot save myself and sanctify myself; I cannot atone for sin; I cannot redeem the world; I cannot make right what is wrong, pure what is impure, holy what is unholy. That is all the sovereign work of God. Have I faith in what Jesus Christ has done?... The great need is not to do things, but to believe things...

What a difference it could make if we began every morning with such a confession.

Nigger: by Dick Gregory

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:44:00 +0000

I am 3 pages away from finishing up Dick Gregory's book entitled Nigger. I read the book because I was planning on interviewing him, but everytime I called his number it just rang through. After being encouraged to call him again I picked up the dialed his number once more and then I heard his voice. It took me off guard, but I quickly switching into pitch mode, the conversation was short, and direct but Mr. Gregory was very warm.. I'm looking forward to doing an interview with him in the next few weeks. Its crazy how much you think you know someone after you have read a personal account of their life. The book, is over 40 years old, and there has been an update since, but he seems like he has not changed a lot. Gregory is a comedian/ author/social activist/ dietician, all around he seems to be concerned about consciousness. Some people may misunderstand his passion, but he is true blue. My Dad has a lot of respect for him, and that says a lot. Gregory in his day was a top comedian, even before the time of Richard Pryor, and he put a lot of that aside to be apart of the civil rights movement. He wasn't simply making speeches and giving money, but leading protests and going to jail for what he believed in. Even now, Gregory at age 75 is very active and travels frequently. In 2001 he was diagnosed with cancer, but he refused treatment choosing instead to go on a strict diet. Now he is 85% cancer free according to his website. So anyway I'm setting up some more interview with authors because its an excellent way for me to learn, teach other people and build my professional portfolio.

Following Who?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:25:00 +0000

Ok, usually I won't post political things, but every now and then I feel too strongly about something to just sit back and not say anything. So here it is, short, and I hope to the point. I promise no more political things for a while...

She’s at it again. Ann Coulter, outrageous as ever will spew anything hateful and erroneous as long as it sells books. In this interview with the New York Observer she states that women shouldn’t have the right to vote.
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
Anyone see anything a little contradictory there? To her credit I don’t think she actually believes anything she says, it’s all about staying in the limelight due to saying something utterly ridiculous and inflammatory. What I really don’t get is this: why do so many in the Christian community blindly support her? Have we forgotten the fundamental message of Christ? To love each other? Its almost as if we throw our support wholeheartedly after anyone who votes Republican. Have we forgotten the purpose of democracy? The purpose of our two party system? It was meant to encourage dialogue, understanding, and collaboration, not divide, anger, and slander. Calling people like John Edwards a “faggot” and labeling all liberals as “godless” sets us back miles from where we should be, and miles from where truth is. Come on. She talks about believing in God, but does she ever ask herself what he would say? I doubt it would sound anything like the hateful divisive filth that comes out of her mouth. And the worst part of it is, people are going to think that she is representative of all republicans, that all conservatives are as hateful as she is. It makes me sick. I can’t help but feel like Jesus would be pretty far from agreement with her, in fact, I can’t see him saying anything like what she says. So come on, who are we following?

Biochemistry. A little too much to digest?

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:53:00 +0000

I'm interested in the idea of evolution. I've realized recently that if I claim to be a christian, and there are overwhelming arguments that claim to not only pose slight challenges to my faith, but claim to overthrow them, I should take time to consider the opposing arguments. My goal is not to defend what I believe at all costs, but on some foundational level, believe that which is most defendable. I know that this view is already getting some adverse reactions, but let me expand for only a moment. My goal is to seek truth. Assuming that you believe in some sort of absolute truth, then this search will lead you to truth and the truth will be the most defendable. This does NOT mean that it will be the easiest, or the nicest. (The Holocaust is not nice, but its is a historical truth).
Today I began reading Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe. I have decided to take this book slowly, picking it up only when I'm ready to be mentally engaged and overwhelmed. In the very first chapter of the first section (designed to wet the appetite) Behe refers to the biochemistry of vision:

He concludes the first chapter by writing:

"Yet for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true, it has to account for the molecular structure of life. It is the purpose of this book to show that it does not."

While I will not in any way attempt to blog about this book in detail, I will from time to time point out interesting points that Behe makes. For those of you who are more familiar with the topic, or would like additional information on a particular point I may address or skip, please feel free to comment and I will attempt to respond accordingly.

The Grand Weaver

noreply@blogger.com (Cigarbox) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:03:00 +0000

What a week it's been... I went through forgetting about my own problems...to being emotionally drained...to remembering my hurdles...to getting migraines.

This morning I followed my routine... I showered, read a little and noodled on my guitar...then I headed off to work. I felt for some odd reason that I didn't want to follow the normal route (101 E to 56th St) instead i opted to drive down Union Hills all the way to Tatum blvd. I sang along to worship songs...though I didn't really feel like it. I attempted to remember the things that I was grateful for... one of them was simply the fact that there was another way to get to the store...

I've been continuing my reading of The Grand Weaver, by Ravi Zacharias. I hit a section about finding our "Calling" according to God. Ravi has some very interesting ideas... I love when you're reading a book and an idea is provocative enough to make you hit the brakes...

A calling is simply God's shaping of your burden and beckoning you to your service to him in the place and pursuit of his choosing...A call may not necessarily feel attractive to you, but it will tug on your soul in an inescapable way, no matter how high the cost of following it may be.

Ravi actually shares that he has held two lifelong dreams. One was to open a restaurant of his own, the other- to be a professional cricket player. - that makes everybody laugh for some reason? Apparently both dreams haunt him from time to time to this very day. But Ravi knew he was called to evangelize, particularly in hostile environments.

Ravi actually shares that he has held two lifelong dreams. One was to open a restaurant of his own, the other- to be a professional cricket player. - that makes everybody laugh for some reason? Apparently both dreams haunt him from time to time to this very day. But Ravi knew he was called to evangelize, particularly in hostile environments.

How fortunate are we that people like Ravi who have added tremendously to the furthering of the gospel had come to submit their lives to fulfilling not simply what they desired, but what God had in mind for them... I have to admit I do at times feel like I have a dream and I just want God to back me up... when in actuality I should simply find what God's dream for my life is... and follow Him.

God trained Moses in a palace to use him in a desert. He trained Joseph in a desert to use him in a palace. Some come through winding paths, some through the nicely paved road of priviledged birth or influential friends. Others come through the visitation of circumstances with wanderings and sudden signposts. Finding one's calling is one of the greatest challenges in life, especially when one has gifts that fan out in many directions.

So I have an aptitude in music, to take it further I love doing it...it brings me tremendous satisfaction to write songs and perform them... It makes me feel more like me... like i'm doing what i was designed to do. I also know I have an academic mind, and a heart for contributing to the lives of others... and I feel evangelism is the most important work any person could do...whether on a small or larger scale. I have always imagined doing both, in the sense that I would always leave it open to minister and share with others while in the music industry... but I can't help but think about how Ravi could have felt the same way about opening a restaurant. He would likely have been a great person to his clients and employees and shared the gospel within his sphere of influence. But how different would the WORLD and millions of lives be without RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries)?

"I wanna be a rock n' roll singer,
I wanna be a rock n' roll star..."

(I just couldn't resist quoting AC/DC in the middle of all this serious pontification.)

The real challenge is to ponder how we come to terms with God's sovereign working and how we respond to his plan and calling. This is where our hopes and dreams often become confused with our capacities and our calling...

During my first semester of college I recall taking a UNI 100 course. We had a bohemian-type professor who consistently stressed the importance of "finding ourselves." One day she led us in an exercise where we closed our eyes and sat silently for a while. She talked us through a scenario, fast forwarding time by 10 years and then suggested a number of questions like, "Where are you? What are you doing? Who are you with..etc..." To this day I can hear her calming voice...

I imagined myself waking up next to someone, presumably my wife, the bed was purely white, white sheets, comforters and pillows held together by a dark vintage metal frame. I brewed a pot of coffee for two and then walked over to the balcony of our 2nd story condominium and opening the windows that swung inwardly, I took notice of a beautifully overcast monday morning. I was in San Fransisco the fog common in the early hours were telling enough.

After breakfast and a short conversation I would head down the street through enormous slopes which the bay area is known for. The air was slightly humid and cool and cars were lined up for miles to usher in a new work week. Eventually I would land at an unmarked building along the busiest street in town... I was a musician heading into another day at the recording studio to finish out our latest project...I was tired and slightly stressed, but excited to see what the day would bring... This was the life I had imagined.

My life might not look like this at all...and I guess i'm mostly ok with it. If i'm truly honest a part of me is resistant to letting it all go. Truth be told, life would not be paradise if I had every bit of that dream... life is life.

It brings with it trouble, pain, and we have to barrel through it most of our days. We all hold elusive dreams, idealisms... but reality often suprises us...and we know that even the greatest of fantasies will ultimately disappoint us or they won't last. But maybe this is also a liberating thought. To hope for so much more than doing great things in this life...and enjoying it. The truth is, you might win a pulitzer, be the next Claude Monet, make your mark on wallstreet or write the next best selling album or book... and you might be remembered for for years to come, save a place in hisotry for yourself, have monuments or statues in your honor...but you won't be here to enjoy any of that...

at the end of this life...it will only matter who and how many people you took with you to eternity... so what should this look like in my own life? More questions...

crosslisted at http://joeshintaku.blogspot.com

A Declaration of Doubt

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:57:00 +0000

Recently I stumbled upon something that I found quite interesting given that I have recently been enjoying several of Shakespeare’s works (one of his finest I believe to be "Twelfth Night") To me he is a staple of what greatness a simple man can achieve, his writing represents what is internationally regarded to be some of the best plays, sonnets, and dialogues ever written. He is a legend, and has had his life and writings meticulously analyzed and recorded in countless biographies. I, myself, had the chance to attend a four-hour performance of King Lear by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Shakespeare’s hometown of Stratford Upon-Avon several years back. He is and will remain one of the most esteemed writers and playwrights of all time.

Which is why I was so surprised to learn that there is a theory with quite a large and educated following that believes that Shakespeare was not the one who wrote the majority of the material attributed to him. I knew that this theory existed and had for some time, but until now I had no idea what the details of this theory consisted of. This theory boasts believers such as Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Sigmund Freud, Walt Whitman, Charles Dickens, R.W. Emerson, and others. Well anyway, it turns out that their theory has recently been put onto paper by several educated Brits, many of whom have called upon other intellectuals and scholars to sign on to what they call a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt." Thought you all might find it interesting. Check it out here: http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration

"I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." - Einstein

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:34:00 +0000

As I sit at here at my desk, I can't help but feel a somberness covering me. I don't know if it's simply the events of today or the pinpoint prick of my latest read. It's interesting to think that generally the biggest problem with "the church" (or christians in general) today is their lack of knowledge of the position of God.

...and the most portentous face about any man is not what he at a given time amy say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like.

As I was doing a bit of reading tonight, I couldn't help but recall the countless number of times I have heard friends and strangers say something like "I just don't believe God could do that." Generally, this is in reference to the concept of hell, some idea of absolute morality or the idea that bad things just happen.

I want to start by asking myself how I would describe God. I mean, if someone came up to me tonight and said, "Hey Tim, I'd like to know God, tell me about him." What would I say? How would I respond? Ask me that a week ago and would have said something like, "Well He's God and by definition that would mean omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Of course the bible also says 'God is love' so that's important to keep in mind too." Then I wonder if I would make an analogy, maybe tell a story about a father and child or try to compare someone I knew, maybe Mother Theresa, or someone else, to give the inquirer some way to link the concept of God to a tangible idea. And this becomes the point, am I helping the person to commit idolatry? Hear me out for a second before you get all "damn, Tim's crazy... kid must have lost his mind. Must be something in the water" on me. Let me see if I can clarify.

I have a couple of friends that refer to God as "pal," they begin their prayers with "what up God, how're things?" And initially, I have to say that felt pretty uncomfortable about it, but I wrote it off to being raised in a religious household, maybe this "super-reverence" is really just a form of religious shackle? Then I heard Ravi Zacharias say once that we as a people, Christians in general and especially westerners, have a very loose concept of what it means to show reverence. He goes on to say that there is a way to show intimacy and yet be reverent of God and the position He holds. (He tells of the concept of "daddy, sir"). Tozer hits hard on this subject and goes so far as to say,

Without a doubt, the mightiest thought the mind can entertain is the thought of God, and the weightiest word in any language is its word for God.

If this is really the case, which I am still considering, I can almost start to see why using "the Lords name in vain" is such a big deal. I mean think of the last time you heard someone yell "god-damn" or "oh my god!" If God is the "weightiest word" then what are we saying about a) the current situation in front of us, that we would use such an expletive or b) about the weight of God? I don't know the exact implications for my life, but this is definitely something to at least chew on...

On a side note, I'm considering taking a year off to study theology and apologetics... and while I haven't totally decided if I'm going to pursue this course of action, there is a sentence that brings the need to the forefront of my mind. Tozer says that the greatest problem in all of heaven and earth is the "problem of God:"

That He is; what He is like; and what we as moral being must do about Him.

This is interesting to me because I recall a couple of conversations I had with newly acquired friends. When I was asked about my interest in church and God, part of my response entailed, "Well I think for me personally, I believe that a God exists, and so it makes sense that I should know everything about Him as it seems there would be major implications to what He is like..."

Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:58:00 +0000

I am reading The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis and while it is one of my favorite books, this read through is throwing me for a loop. Maybe it's only that I am a little bit older and see the world a little differently.

If you haven't the read the book before you should, and if you have read the book before you should read it again. It is about Heaven and Hell or really, reality. I've been stuck re-reading the same chapter for a couple of days now. It is a part where a ghost has come through purgatory to a place where he meets a Spirit and the Spirit is trying to convince the ghost that he should continue on to Heaven with him and that his old way of thinking was wrong but now he has a chance to put his past thoughts behind him. The Spirit points out to the man that even though in his later years he became a bishop that he never knew truth. That's such a scary thought. The Spirit tells the man that when they were younger they got caught up in modern day thought and said the things that they knew people would give applause for. He says, "When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not occur? When did we put up one moment's real resistance to the loss of our faith?" He then tells the ghost that they were, "afraid (above all) of real spiritual fears and hopes."

The perception Lewis gives on reality is amazing and makes you wonder if you are only a mere shadow. The character in the book gets to this brilliant place with the ghost and the spirit and realizes that he too is a ghost. He says, "I also was a phantom. Who will give me the words to express the terror of that discovery?" That is such a terrifying thought. Maybe we're all a lot more fake and transparent than we think, at least we know we are transparent to God but how much do we really believe that?

In the beginning...

noreply@blogger.com (Scholar:) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:28:00 +0000

So I'm readying a couple of books right now, each for its own reason. Atlas Shrugged was recommended by a good friend and it's probably the first book I've read for pleasure in.. well since I can remember. It's quite a large book, just over a thousand pages and I'm about a third of the way through. It's one of the most interesting fiction books I've ever read. While it was written to show the clash between communism / socialism and capitalism (of course from the authors point, capitalism is what allows the atlas' of the world to thrive) While I agree with the political and economical implications of removing or shackling the great work horses of our time, but I don't know how I feel about the way the book works with emotions or the point Rand is trying to convey. (granted I'm only a third through the book).

I also picked up A.W. Tozer's The Knowledge of the Holy. I'm going to go out on a limb and call it an amazing book. I'm going out on a limb because I haven't been able to get past the opening prayer of the first chapter! I seem to be getting stuck on:

...therefore enlighten our minds that we may know Thee as Thou are, so that we may perfectly love Thee and worthily praise Thee...

It's pretty substantial to me that those who claim to be Christians, myself included, often go around thanking God and giving him what we would consider the praise that He's due, and really the praise we offer, the love we profess are unworthy of him. Tozer mentions in the preface that it's because we really don't take the time to truly know God. He says...

The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils... With our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of religious awe and consciousness of divine Presence... Modern Christianity is simply not producing the kind of Christian who can appreciate...the words "Be still, and know that I am God," [the words] mean next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshiper.

So this is where I'm at right now...