The other night NJ asked me one of the hardest questions he could ask, "Am I good?" He followed it up by, "Are people who don't love Jesus bad?" There may not be two questions with more potential pitfalls than those two.
If I were to tell NJ that he was good that would lead to doctrinal problems later. Why is the Gospel good news if I am already good? That sounds minor, but it is the lynchpin that holds the entire Christian faith together. If I am already good I do not need Christ's righteousness, and if that is the case Christ died in vain.
If I were to tell NJ that he was not good that would lead to behavioral problems later on. Kids live up to or down to the expectations placed on them. If NJ was told that he was bad he could just fit his behaviors to the standard of being bad. He has already asked in the past why he was not allowed to be bad, so I know he would like an excuse to lower the standards he has to live by.
I discussed this with Golden, and we are going to teach our kids that there are two types of good. This is a bit nuanced for early elementary-aged kids, but it is something they will need to understand at some point anyway.
The first type of good is righteous good. Neither Golden nor I are righteous good, NJ is not righteous good, CD is not righteous good. Our only hope is to rely on Jesus, and his righteous good is credited to us as our own righteous good, even though we are not good in and of ourselves. Technically, believers are concurrently not righteous good (of their own works), and are righteous good (through the work of Christ) at the same time.
The second type of good is behavioral good. NJ and CD are deep-down behavioral good because they are generally obedient and respectful. One does not need to love Jesus to be behaviorally good because apparently good behavior can come from all sorts of motivations. A lot of people mistake this kind of good, which is really too superficial to mean much morally, for the other kind of good because the word "good" is ridiculously broad.
So, I am hoping that as the kids grow they are able to have a better sense for what "good" is than I had. I think that would be good.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
torture is wrong
I include the video below only because I started thinking about this topic due to watching this tonight.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
a different means of encouragement
I am sorry that I have been away a while. Things pile up and a lot of things do not get done. I did have a quick thought that I wanted to share, however.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
Friday, August 22, 2014
kids' independence
This is the first year that both of our kids are in elementary school. That in itself is quite a change, as we have had four years of having a kid in preschool leading up to this year. For whatever reason, something that happened today is as significant in grasping that our kids are growing up.
The elementary school that our kids attend is laid out in a confusing way. The primary hallway is circular, but there is also a branch off that circle that leads to further classrooms. As such, Golden had walked NJ (whose classroom is difficult to find) to his classroom a couple of times and CD to her classroom for the past week. While NJ has been walking to his class alone for several days, today was the first day that CD walked to her classroom without Golden. NJ passes that classroom on the way to his classroom, so he was supposed to help her get to where she needs to be.
I was thinking about that this morning. As a parent I am used to my youngest child at all times being under the direct supervision of an adult. In this case she was under the direct supervision of her eight-year-old brother (obviously, in a setting where there are responsible adults). The idea that our youngest is now at the age where there can been short periods of time where she has that sort of independence gives me pause.
As a dad, this is all exciting. I think that it is more difficult for Golden as a mom. We both know that our kids are growing up.
The elementary school that our kids attend is laid out in a confusing way. The primary hallway is circular, but there is also a branch off that circle that leads to further classrooms. As such, Golden had walked NJ (whose classroom is difficult to find) to his classroom a couple of times and CD to her classroom for the past week. While NJ has been walking to his class alone for several days, today was the first day that CD walked to her classroom without Golden. NJ passes that classroom on the way to his classroom, so he was supposed to help her get to where she needs to be.
I was thinking about that this morning. As a parent I am used to my youngest child at all times being under the direct supervision of an adult. In this case she was under the direct supervision of her eight-year-old brother (obviously, in a setting where there are responsible adults). The idea that our youngest is now at the age where there can been short periods of time where she has that sort of independence gives me pause.
As a dad, this is all exciting. I think that it is more difficult for Golden as a mom. We both know that our kids are growing up.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
forgiving the well-known
Most people like to be righteously indignant about someone else's objectively bad behavior. I am no different. The question I have is at what point do we need to let that indigence go and allow for someone to move on with their lives.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
contentment
Last week I completed a six month read through the Bible which ate up more of my spare time than I anticipated it would. This has been enlightening, but it has solidified my belief in something that causes me a great deal of concern. God promises a lot of things in the life to come, but in this life we are promised little more than fulfillment and faith.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles."- Philippians 4:10-14To summarize, Paul understood relative wealth and poverty. In all of these circumstances he had learned the secret to contentment. The implication is that this is found in the Lord. The challenge to my faith lies in the fact that we are not promised easy lives. We are only promised that Christ's strength can give us contentment in the middle of difficult times.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
toy cars and fireworks
Last week we visited my parents' house for the Independence Day holiday. There were two noteworthy things about the visit.
First, my mom pulled out some of my old toy cars for the kids to play with. I did not expect CD to get excited about playing with them, but she found some Micro Machines that she liked. Her statement to me was that the were cute, and she asked if I thought they were cute when I was a kid. I told her that is not the word I would have used.
Second, I do not recall being anywhere where there were more fireworks being set off by random people in the neighborhood than this last weekend in the town in Nebraska where my parents currently live. Every July Fourth brings some fireworks no matter where I am, but I was not used to half the neighborhood in their driveways setting off fireworks at once. I think this is due to the official display being on the night before the Fourth.
First, my mom pulled out some of my old toy cars for the kids to play with. I did not expect CD to get excited about playing with them, but she found some Micro Machines that she liked. Her statement to me was that the were cute, and she asked if I thought they were cute when I was a kid. I told her that is not the word I would have used.
Second, I do not recall being anywhere where there were more fireworks being set off by random people in the neighborhood than this last weekend in the town in Nebraska where my parents currently live. Every July Fourth brings some fireworks no matter where I am, but I was not used to half the neighborhood in their driveways setting off fireworks at once. I think this is due to the official display being on the night before the Fourth.
Saturday, May 03, 2014
the plans I have for you
"...For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." — Jeremiah 29:11Something that I am not proud of is that I judge people who claim that Jeremiah 29:11 is one of their favorite verses. In case you were not aware, this verse makes it into a lot of peoples' favorites lists. I do make an exception for people who can provide some context for the verse, but few people who understand the context would choose this as a favorite passage. While I know that I am right about the interpretation of the verse, I am sure I am not approaching this with the necessary love and respect, and this is what embarrasses me.
There are a few reasons that people pick favorite verses. The reason to pick this specific verse always struck me as looking for reassurance in the Scripture rather than looking for the truth. If I want to believe that God has plans to prosper me I'm going to be motivated to latch onto this verse, and if I am not the type to verify things I will not notice that the verse is saying almost the complete opposite of the popular interpretation for that verse.
In the previous chapter the false prophet Hananiah had predicted that the Jews would leave Babylon within two years. After Hananiah's prophecy God informed Jeremiah that this was a false prophecy, and so Jeremiah told Hananiah that he would die for persuading the nation "to trust in lies." True to Jeremiah's word, Hananiah died in the middle of that year.
After all of this occurred, Jeremiah wrote a letter to the exiles in Babylon, and Jeremiah 29 contains the content of that letter. The letter opens with the command to the exiles to settle down and make the best life they can in Babylon because they will be there seventy years. The vast majority of the people reading that letter would die in Babylon having never seen Jerusalem again. However, to reassure the people that God's promise to Abraham would remain true, Jeremiah included some long term encouragements to the people about how God would not forget His promise for His chosen people.
A lot of people read, "I know the plans I have for you," to mean, "I have a special plan for you individually." Then, they read the rest of the verse as an encouragement that they will prosper and not be harmed. To read the verse in this way is to trust in lies as Hananiah had caused Israel to do in the previous chapter. The plans that God has for "you" are the plans that He has for the nation that He chose as His people. They are not plans for individuals receiving the letter since most or all of them would be dead before any of those plans would see fruition.
In the interest of consistency with other Scripture, can you imagine some of the people described near the end of the faith chapter (Hebrews 11) being perplexed at God while bad things were happening to them? I certainly can.
- Verse 35: "God, I was about to be tortured and I gave in because being harmed is not part of your plan. I hope it does not impact my resurrection that I denied you."
- Verse 37: "God, it is taking some effort, but I have faith that that large saw those men are holding is not going to harm me."
- Verse 37: "God, this shabby goatskin I have is not a designer brand. That Gucci camel fur would go a ways toward your promise to prosper me."
- Verse 38: "God, I and my family woke up in a hole in the ground today just like yesterday and the day before. Where are those plans to prosper me you promised in Jeremiah? How about—oh, I don't know—a small starter home in the suburbs to get things started?"
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." — Matthew 11:28-30
Sunday, April 20, 2014
what i'm learning from scripture
I have to apologize for my lack of posts as of late. This latest dry spell has been because I am doing a reasonably aggressive Bible reading plan that takes much of my spare time. It is a six-month plan that covers all but one book of the Bible (it skips Job for whatever reason). Whenever I end up doing a plan like this I am torn between frustration at the loss of spare time (a precious commodity for a parent with young children) and the immense value I get from the reading.
The insights I have received from reading through the Bible in past years have always been reflective of the knowledge and faith that I have at the time. Better yet, they are reflective of the lack of knowledge and faith that I have at the time.
The last time reading through the Old Testament I greatly struggled at what--to a Western reader--feels like cultural baggage of sexism, racism, slavery, and sexual abuse. The code word in a lot of circles for this unpalatable aspect of Scripture is, "patriarchy," and in that time three years ago I felt the full force of this in my reading. In some cases there are still no easy answers or explanations for individual issues, but I have had three years to better understand God's priorities in Scripture. The other theme I picked up my last time reading through the Bible was that God desires broken people who know they are broken rather than self-righteous, pious ones. God will absolutely break people if He deems it necessary as well.
This time reading through the Bible there are two themes that have jumped out to me. The first is due to the fact that we have been studying Deuteronomy for the last year in Sunday School. This is that God works with His people in covenants, and so most of the commands in Scripture have to be understood through the lens of the covenant to which they are associated. A lot of the odd commands from the Mosaic Law only make sense in the context of the nation of Israel and the fact that they were a nation redeemed from Egypt and set apart for God's glory.
The second theme I have noticed this time through is how much of the Old Testament points directly to Christ. I am not even to the Major Prophets or Minor Prophets in my reading yet, and still so much of what I have read was fulfilled in Christ. I read from one of these passages today in Sunday School since it is appropriate for the present holiday, and I was embarrassingly choked up in the reading. I present it below without further comment.
Psalms 22:1-18
The insights I have received from reading through the Bible in past years have always been reflective of the knowledge and faith that I have at the time. Better yet, they are reflective of the lack of knowledge and faith that I have at the time.
The last time reading through the Old Testament I greatly struggled at what--to a Western reader--feels like cultural baggage of sexism, racism, slavery, and sexual abuse. The code word in a lot of circles for this unpalatable aspect of Scripture is, "patriarchy," and in that time three years ago I felt the full force of this in my reading. In some cases there are still no easy answers or explanations for individual issues, but I have had three years to better understand God's priorities in Scripture. The other theme I picked up my last time reading through the Bible was that God desires broken people who know they are broken rather than self-righteous, pious ones. God will absolutely break people if He deems it necessary as well.
This time reading through the Bible there are two themes that have jumped out to me. The first is due to the fact that we have been studying Deuteronomy for the last year in Sunday School. This is that God works with His people in covenants, and so most of the commands in Scripture have to be understood through the lens of the covenant to which they are associated. A lot of the odd commands from the Mosaic Law only make sense in the context of the nation of Israel and the fact that they were a nation redeemed from Egypt and set apart for God's glory.
The second theme I have noticed this time through is how much of the Old Testament points directly to Christ. I am not even to the Major Prophets or Minor Prophets in my reading yet, and still so much of what I have read was fulfilled in Christ. I read from one of these passages today in Sunday School since it is appropriate for the present holiday, and I was embarrassingly choked up in the reading. I present it below without further comment.
Psalms 22:1-18
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.
Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises. In you our ancestors put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. To you they cried out and were saved; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
the agreeable idiot
This is a short post as I do not intend to call anyone out and this is not really about a specific person or incident. It's just something that gives a hint to what's important to me.
Possibly the thing that annoys me more than anything else is when I find that I agree with someone and that someone is either obnoxious or an idiot. When it happens in matters like politics or philosophy it makes me feel equally unpleasant or stupid. When it happens in matters of faith my core is rocked in a way that few things can affect me. I typically feel a bit betrayed in that moment.
I know I am being hypocritical because I have been obnoxious and I have been stupid many times throughout my life. I am sure I have made many, many people cringe and feel intellectually betrayed throughout my life. Even so, these situations bother me deeply when they happen to me.
So, if everyone could decide to disagree with me when they are feeling particularly unpleasant or unwise, that would be great. I'll do my best to disagree with you when I sense I'm coming across as belligerent and unintelligent, and we'll call things even.
Possibly the thing that annoys me more than anything else is when I find that I agree with someone and that someone is either obnoxious or an idiot. When it happens in matters like politics or philosophy it makes me feel equally unpleasant or stupid. When it happens in matters of faith my core is rocked in a way that few things can affect me. I typically feel a bit betrayed in that moment.
I know I am being hypocritical because I have been obnoxious and I have been stupid many times throughout my life. I am sure I have made many, many people cringe and feel intellectually betrayed throughout my life. Even so, these situations bother me deeply when they happen to me.
So, if everyone could decide to disagree with me when they are feeling particularly unpleasant or unwise, that would be great. I'll do my best to disagree with you when I sense I'm coming across as belligerent and unintelligent, and we'll call things even.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
on the board
While I have been nominated for our church board a few times, this year was the first one that I both let my name run and expected there to be a chance I would get the position. Indeed, this year I was confirmed as a board member.
I have not commented on the nomination or election on Facebook because I'm friended with half of the church, and with all of the other people who were nominated. I am bringing up some thoughts here because this seems a more appropriate forum. I don't have anything to say that it would be wrong for anyone specific to read, but I am more comfortable opening up on some thoughts here.
In some past years I may have had some pride issues regarding the idea that I would be nominated. That is a dangerous place to be, both because Scripture warns against conceit in church leadership (1 Tim 3:6) and because it obscures the real responsibility of the job. While it is dangerous to ever say that there is a sin that I don't struggle with, this year pride about being nominated or elected was not much of an issue for me.
My big issue this year has been a bit of trepidation at the responsibility. I am very concerned with the expectations of the individuals who were strongly behind my getting elected. If I am to fulfill the role properly I will probably do things in disagreement with their desires many times throughout my term. I do not know if those who voted for me realize this, but I'm the risky vote. I'm the one who will probably shake the boat if I feel something is important, and I am probably going to take the minority position in a lot of situations. Though I am a troublemaker in this respect, I also detest having to argue, so I hope those situations are few and far between because every one of them will be an internal battle for me.
One thing that I can promise is that I will serve attentive to the guidance of Scripture at all times. I just hope that how I see Scripture and how I understand church responsibilities is how God sees things and how the rest of the members of the church see things.
I have not commented on the nomination or election on Facebook because I'm friended with half of the church, and with all of the other people who were nominated. I am bringing up some thoughts here because this seems a more appropriate forum. I don't have anything to say that it would be wrong for anyone specific to read, but I am more comfortable opening up on some thoughts here.
In some past years I may have had some pride issues regarding the idea that I would be nominated. That is a dangerous place to be, both because Scripture warns against conceit in church leadership (1 Tim 3:6) and because it obscures the real responsibility of the job. While it is dangerous to ever say that there is a sin that I don't struggle with, this year pride about being nominated or elected was not much of an issue for me.
My big issue this year has been a bit of trepidation at the responsibility. I am very concerned with the expectations of the individuals who were strongly behind my getting elected. If I am to fulfill the role properly I will probably do things in disagreement with their desires many times throughout my term. I do not know if those who voted for me realize this, but I'm the risky vote. I'm the one who will probably shake the boat if I feel something is important, and I am probably going to take the minority position in a lot of situations. Though I am a troublemaker in this respect, I also detest having to argue, so I hope those situations are few and far between because every one of them will be an internal battle for me.
One thing that I can promise is that I will serve attentive to the guidance of Scripture at all times. I just hope that how I see Scripture and how I understand church responsibilities is how God sees things and how the rest of the members of the church see things.
Friday, February 21, 2014
out of place
A lot of the time corners must be cut in television shows, movies, and other forms of entertainment due to budget. To an extent I understand that, as I believe that most people do. Some of the cost savers bother me more than others, though. The biggest may be having someone who is very obviously not from a certain area of the world portray a character from that area of the world. In this case I am talking about when this is blatant.
An example of what I am not talking about is having Apu in The Simpsons voiced by Hank Azaria or Kahn Sr. in King of the Hill voiced by Toby Huss. In both of these cases the characters are presented as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and there's at least a hint of what seems like it should be the right accent in their voices. I am also not talking about the fact that ancient Roman, Greek, and Hebrew individuals are frequently presented with a British accent. I don't know how people are supposed to have sounded like in those regions a few centuries back, so it isn't as offputting as it might otherwise be.
Three examples of what I am thinking about spring to mind.
The first example is more significant to me than it would be to others since I had some childhood experience living on and around reservations. Native Americans have historically been portrayed by non-Native actors who do not talk a bit like any Native Americans I have met and whose facial features were very Caucasian.
This has gotten better in more recent decades than it used to be. I remember talk about relatives of a Native family I knew actually holding a short part in Dances with Wolves when it was filming in the area so some Natives have found roles. My bar for acceptability here is pretty low. All I am really ask for is someone with a believable accent and who looks Native American to play Native American characters.
As an aside, Dances with Wolves was a pretentious and poorly paced movie if ever there was one.
The second example is from a movie I rewatched several months back: Around the World in Eighty Days. One of the main characters is Princess Aouda who is presented as an Indian (from India) princess who the protagonist rescues from a cult that is trying to sacrifice her. She is played by Shirley MacLaine in this movie. In case you are wondering how not Indian Shirley MacLaine looked in 1956, the below image from the movie should give a hint.
She made no attempt to adopt even a mild accent during the movie, so the entire time that character was on the screen I was thinking, "Had anyone associated with this film ever met someone from India?" Now I know that I am asking a lot for a movie released fifty-eight years ago, but I also know a lot of people from India. No film holding a Best Picture Oscar should have been allowed to pass off Shirley MacLaine as Indian.
Finally, I spent some time last month playing a game on the Wii called Secret Files: Tunguska. It's largely a puzzle game where you are supposed to pick items up around a playing area and figure out how to combine them to work toward a specific end goal. The storyline for the game has German characters traveling on a Russian train, in an Irish pub, and through a Cuban psych ward. At no time did any speaking character in the game come close to having even a fake German, Russian, Irish, or Cuban accent. Ultimately, since this was a puzzle game the storyline did not matter so much, but it was jarring hearing "German" and "Russian" characters who sounded like they were from the American Midwest interact.
All of this being said, throw the flimsiest of Sci-Fi plots my direction and I will eat it up. Perhaps I am not as discerning as I am portraying myself here.
An example of what I am not talking about is having Apu in The Simpsons voiced by Hank Azaria or Kahn Sr. in King of the Hill voiced by Toby Huss. In both of these cases the characters are presented as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and there's at least a hint of what seems like it should be the right accent in their voices. I am also not talking about the fact that ancient Roman, Greek, and Hebrew individuals are frequently presented with a British accent. I don't know how people are supposed to have sounded like in those regions a few centuries back, so it isn't as offputting as it might otherwise be.
Three examples of what I am thinking about spring to mind.
The first example is more significant to me than it would be to others since I had some childhood experience living on and around reservations. Native Americans have historically been portrayed by non-Native actors who do not talk a bit like any Native Americans I have met and whose facial features were very Caucasian.
This has gotten better in more recent decades than it used to be. I remember talk about relatives of a Native family I knew actually holding a short part in Dances with Wolves when it was filming in the area so some Natives have found roles. My bar for acceptability here is pretty low. All I am really ask for is someone with a believable accent and who looks Native American to play Native American characters.
As an aside, Dances with Wolves was a pretentious and poorly paced movie if ever there was one.
The second example is from a movie I rewatched several months back: Around the World in Eighty Days. One of the main characters is Princess Aouda who is presented as an Indian (from India) princess who the protagonist rescues from a cult that is trying to sacrifice her. She is played by Shirley MacLaine in this movie. In case you are wondering how not Indian Shirley MacLaine looked in 1956, the below image from the movie should give a hint.
 |
| Shirley MacLaine playing an "Indian" princess |
Finally, I spent some time last month playing a game on the Wii called Secret Files: Tunguska. It's largely a puzzle game where you are supposed to pick items up around a playing area and figure out how to combine them to work toward a specific end goal. The storyline for the game has German characters traveling on a Russian train, in an Irish pub, and through a Cuban psych ward. At no time did any speaking character in the game come close to having even a fake German, Russian, Irish, or Cuban accent. Ultimately, since this was a puzzle game the storyline did not matter so much, but it was jarring hearing "German" and "Russian" characters who sounded like they were from the American Midwest interact.
All of this being said, throw the flimsiest of Sci-Fi plots my direction and I will eat it up. Perhaps I am not as discerning as I am portraying myself here.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
world games?
I'm not sure how much of the Sochi Olympics we will be watching this year. The kids are at that age where they can sort of watch the events, but they get bored with most of them. Our five-year-old daughter was able to sit through and watch one or two figure skating routines this evening, but otherwise complained when the games were on. I think the upcoming games in Rio de Janeiro and in PyeongChang will hold their attention better than this year's games in Sochi.
For my own part, some of the Winter Olympics sports can be a little difficult for me to get into. I sort of alluded to this eight years ago (Has it really been that long?), but a lot of the events feel like the sorts of things that only a few hundred or a few thousand people in the world even have the access and resources to compete in if they are interested.
As an example of what I am talking about take a look at the list of official bobsled tracks in the world. Cool Runnings taught us that you don't need to live near one to compete in the Olympics, but you certainly cannot expect to place well unless you live near a good track, can afford a bobsled, and have the time and money to practice. This means that there are only a few thousand people in the world who can even realistically have the opportunity to compete in the sport, so this doesn't feel have the world-reaching feel that it should.
As another example if you live in the United States and you want to get into ski jumping you'd better hope you live near one of the seven ski jumping slopes in the country. Really, any skiing competition limits the pool of potential competitors quite a bit based on means and geography, but the ski jump is the most extreme of those.
Every sport requires some sacrifice and/or means, but it seems like there are more that have this limit in the Winter Olympics than in the Summer Olympics. My sense is that there are more Winter Olympic games that are outside the reach of what a typical family with an Olympian could afford than there Summer Olympic games. I do acknowledge that there examples of accessible and inaccessible sports in both.
I think speed skating, and especially short track speed skating, is among my favorite sports in the Winter Olympics for this overall reason. While training and equipment are probably expensive, it is an accessible sport. You can become fast on skates without a trainer and without equipment, and so it is conceivable that you could acquire a sponsor of some sort to get a trainer once you prove your natural and practiced abilities. It's the track and field events of the Winter Olympics.
I am looking forward to the Rio games in a couple of years.
For my own part, some of the Winter Olympics sports can be a little difficult for me to get into. I sort of alluded to this eight years ago (Has it really been that long?), but a lot of the events feel like the sorts of things that only a few hundred or a few thousand people in the world even have the access and resources to compete in if they are interested.
As an example of what I am talking about take a look at the list of official bobsled tracks in the world. Cool Runnings taught us that you don't need to live near one to compete in the Olympics, but you certainly cannot expect to place well unless you live near a good track, can afford a bobsled, and have the time and money to practice. This means that there are only a few thousand people in the world who can even realistically have the opportunity to compete in the sport, so this doesn't feel have the world-reaching feel that it should.
As another example if you live in the United States and you want to get into ski jumping you'd better hope you live near one of the seven ski jumping slopes in the country. Really, any skiing competition limits the pool of potential competitors quite a bit based on means and geography, but the ski jump is the most extreme of those.
Every sport requires some sacrifice and/or means, but it seems like there are more that have this limit in the Winter Olympics than in the Summer Olympics. My sense is that there are more Winter Olympic games that are outside the reach of what a typical family with an Olympian could afford than there Summer Olympic games. I do acknowledge that there examples of accessible and inaccessible sports in both.
I think speed skating, and especially short track speed skating, is among my favorite sports in the Winter Olympics for this overall reason. While training and equipment are probably expensive, it is an accessible sport. You can become fast on skates without a trainer and without equipment, and so it is conceivable that you could acquire a sponsor of some sort to get a trainer once you prove your natural and practiced abilities. It's the track and field events of the Winter Olympics.
I am looking forward to the Rio games in a couple of years.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
kjv: the context killer
I am not a fan of the modern use of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A lot of people do seem to connect better with the Scripture in old English, so I do not necessarily want to knock it for those people. I do have my reasons for preferring modern versions over the KJV, though.
To be fair, one of my reasons is more personal than rational. I associate the Shakespearean English of the KJV with people trying to manufacture a vibe of Godliness, and so that style of speaking in a church or when reading Scripture rings fake to me on a visceral level. That in itself does not mean the version is better or worse than other versions available today, but it influences me personally.
On a more rational note I do believe this translation of the Bible is more difficult to understand, and this has caused a lot of issues that simply do not crop up with modern English versions. There are two reasons for this, and the second is less obvious than the first.
The first reason I believe that the KJV causes modern readers to not understand is simply that it takes a lot more conscious effort to understand this archaic version of English than what is found in a modern translation. Words that are not even in use today are scattered throughout the text, and there are oddly-structured sentences throughout. Until I was fourteen I only had a King James Bible and I rarely understood anything I was reading for this reason. I didn't understand Shakespeare for the same reason, but not understanding Macbeth is not as big of an issue as not understanding Romans.
The second reason is really what I wanted to get at in this post. This is that verses are presented as individual statements rather than portions of a more complete thought. There are no paragraphs, and sentences that span multiple verses are not laid out as if they are a complete thought. Rather each verse is presented on a new line as if it is a completely separate statement from the verse prior.
This entered my mind because I recently realized that I had not heard a specific verse improperly quoted for a very long time. This specific verse is one that I had heard quoted out of context throughout my life in prior years by multiple people many, many different times. Why did I stop hearing the misusage? Simply put, the mistake is due to how the KJV presents the verse and most people use modern translations of the Bible now. The verse in question is 1 Thessalonians 5:22, and I present below the context from both the KJV and the NIV to illustrate my point (emphasis mine).
1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - KJV
1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - NIV
Throughout my life I have heard the instruction that we are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, which sounds great at first but ultimately leads to subjective legalism that does not in any way resemble the Gospel. It turns out that this popular interpretation of verse 22 only makes any sense when the verse is forced to stand alone as a statement in a vacuum without a hint of context. Reading the complete thought establishes that this is about what to do with bad prophecies rather than not doing something because someone in the church believes it has an appearance of evil. In the NIV this complete thought is obvious, but in the KJV noticing it takes an observant eye.
There are other reasons to prefer more modern translations over the KJV as well that largely deal with the reliability of the texts used in translating that version of the Bible. However, the issue of simply understanding the text is significant enough to me that I question the advantages for those who continue to prefer the KJV even without considering the underlying texts. Is there a possibility that you're missing something in the text due to the choice of version?
To be fair, one of my reasons is more personal than rational. I associate the Shakespearean English of the KJV with people trying to manufacture a vibe of Godliness, and so that style of speaking in a church or when reading Scripture rings fake to me on a visceral level. That in itself does not mean the version is better or worse than other versions available today, but it influences me personally.
On a more rational note I do believe this translation of the Bible is more difficult to understand, and this has caused a lot of issues that simply do not crop up with modern English versions. There are two reasons for this, and the second is less obvious than the first.
The first reason I believe that the KJV causes modern readers to not understand is simply that it takes a lot more conscious effort to understand this archaic version of English than what is found in a modern translation. Words that are not even in use today are scattered throughout the text, and there are oddly-structured sentences throughout. Until I was fourteen I only had a King James Bible and I rarely understood anything I was reading for this reason. I didn't understand Shakespeare for the same reason, but not understanding Macbeth is not as big of an issue as not understanding Romans.
The second reason is really what I wanted to get at in this post. This is that verses are presented as individual statements rather than portions of a more complete thought. There are no paragraphs, and sentences that span multiple verses are not laid out as if they are a complete thought. Rather each verse is presented on a new line as if it is a completely separate statement from the verse prior.
This entered my mind because I recently realized that I had not heard a specific verse improperly quoted for a very long time. This specific verse is one that I had heard quoted out of context throughout my life in prior years by multiple people many, many different times. Why did I stop hearing the misusage? Simply put, the mistake is due to how the KJV presents the verse and most people use modern translations of the Bible now. The verse in question is 1 Thessalonians 5:22, and I present below the context from both the KJV and the NIV to illustrate my point (emphasis mine).
1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - KJV
16 Rejoice evermore.
17 Pray without ceasing.
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19 Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - NIV
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.Notice how completely different that verse appears in these versions largely because in one case it is presented as a complete thought and in the other it is presented inline with the rest of the context.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.
Throughout my life I have heard the instruction that we are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, which sounds great at first but ultimately leads to subjective legalism that does not in any way resemble the Gospel. It turns out that this popular interpretation of verse 22 only makes any sense when the verse is forced to stand alone as a statement in a vacuum without a hint of context. Reading the complete thought establishes that this is about what to do with bad prophecies rather than not doing something because someone in the church believes it has an appearance of evil. In the NIV this complete thought is obvious, but in the KJV noticing it takes an observant eye.
There are other reasons to prefer more modern translations over the KJV as well that largely deal with the reliability of the texts used in translating that version of the Bible. However, the issue of simply understanding the text is significant enough to me that I question the advantages for those who continue to prefer the KJV even without considering the underlying texts. Is there a possibility that you're missing something in the text due to the choice of version?
Sunday, January 26, 2014
everyone is now dumber
Adam Sandler is one of those actors who you either loved in the nineties when he was relevant or you didn't. I really didn't. It's not that I had such overwhelmingly cultured taste that I couldn't appreciate his low-brow humor. I just felt like most of his jokes were rehashes of his other jokes. There is one scene from Billy Madison, however, that rises above Sandler's typical mediocrity. I present it below.
For those who didn't click on the video, the main character in this scene has just provided a wildly inaccurate answer to a question in an educational competition. The judge then insults the main character with the assertion that everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard the irrational answer, but he does it in a much more humorous fashion.
I will frequently hear someone say something mind-numbingly idiotic, and my mind will come back to this quote. If I am honest I have to acknowledge that that someone is often me, but I realize how dumb it was in retrospect.
I'll stop now before I provide too much opportunity to justify this being quoted at me today.
For those who didn't click on the video, the main character in this scene has just provided a wildly inaccurate answer to a question in an educational competition. The judge then insults the main character with the assertion that everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard the irrational answer, but he does it in a much more humorous fashion.
I will frequently hear someone say something mind-numbingly idiotic, and my mind will come back to this quote. If I am honest I have to acknowledge that that someone is often me, but I realize how dumb it was in retrospect.
I'll stop now before I provide too much opportunity to justify this being quoted at me today.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
conversational companion
One question that I see pop up every now and then is what famous person would you like have a meal and a discussion with. This is an extraordinarily tough question for me to grapple with. Certainly, part of this is that I am an introvert, and so the implied social interaction would have to have some value to me.
A lot of people pick famous actors, writers, leaders, or pioneers in various fields.
Even though I could do without most of them, there are a handful of celebrities who I respect on one level or another. I can imagine myself having dinner with one of them I guess, but I have to wonder why I would care about the interaction more than to be able to say I've spent some time with the person. There are some celebrities who would probably be painful enough to be around that being able to say I had met the person still wouldn't be worth the conversation.
World leaders past and present would be even more difficult. I can find out their individual opinions and unique qualities if I want, so it wouldn't be too helpful to use my time asking them their position on such-and-such issue. I would be interested in getting a sense for some leader's individual personas, though I suspect that most successful world leaders are experts at hiding their true selves.
I can imagine wanting to speak with a Biblical author (such as Paul, Peter, or John) to clear up doctrinal confusions that I have, and to get their reaction to the issues of the day. Obviously, I would need an interpreter in this case, and there would probably be a hundred other logistical issues, but this is a fantasy question anyway.
I also suspect that most people that I struggle to carry a conversation with have as much interesting information that they could relay as a famous person would. Everyone has intriguing stories, or off-the-wall viewpoints, or quirky personalities that should make for a decent conversational companion. I am just not very adept at getting to that information. Perhaps my approach should be to treat everyone I talk to as if they are famous and use that to guide the conversation.
If you could have a conversation with someone famous is there a rationale that you would follow to decide who it would be? Who meets the criteria defined by your rationale?
A lot of people pick famous actors, writers, leaders, or pioneers in various fields.
Even though I could do without most of them, there are a handful of celebrities who I respect on one level or another. I can imagine myself having dinner with one of them I guess, but I have to wonder why I would care about the interaction more than to be able to say I've spent some time with the person. There are some celebrities who would probably be painful enough to be around that being able to say I had met the person still wouldn't be worth the conversation.
World leaders past and present would be even more difficult. I can find out their individual opinions and unique qualities if I want, so it wouldn't be too helpful to use my time asking them their position on such-and-such issue. I would be interested in getting a sense for some leader's individual personas, though I suspect that most successful world leaders are experts at hiding their true selves.
I can imagine wanting to speak with a Biblical author (such as Paul, Peter, or John) to clear up doctrinal confusions that I have, and to get their reaction to the issues of the day. Obviously, I would need an interpreter in this case, and there would probably be a hundred other logistical issues, but this is a fantasy question anyway.
I also suspect that most people that I struggle to carry a conversation with have as much interesting information that they could relay as a famous person would. Everyone has intriguing stories, or off-the-wall viewpoints, or quirky personalities that should make for a decent conversational companion. I am just not very adept at getting to that information. Perhaps my approach should be to treat everyone I talk to as if they are famous and use that to guide the conversation.
If you could have a conversation with someone famous is there a rationale that you would follow to decide who it would be? Who meets the criteria defined by your rationale?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
