snack conversation

I usually ignore the stuff added to the back of cereal boxes. I especially ignore the jokes and games on the back of kids' cereal boxes. Yesterday was an exception, though. The back of the box that Golden and I were snacking from had what was labeled as "fun questions to spark great family discussions." I am not sure I would want to discuss all of them with kids, but here is a sampling of the least cheesy questions and my responses to them.

What if you didn't need to sleep?
That's a super power only college students have. I would get a lot of work done.

If you could change sexes for a day, would you?
I absolutely would, so long as it was only for a short time like a day and it wasn't one of those "we were only kidding about changing you back" scenarios. I want very much to understand what it is to live in a world of emotion. I would probably spend the day watching chick flicks to try to get a better grasp on the appeal of those stories. I would also like to know what it is like to not compartmentalize the things in life and have all experiences intermingle with all other experiences (Did I describe that right?).

What if you had the power to know every time someone told a lie?
This is one of those things that sounds like a blessing, but is actually a curse. Do I really want to know what people think of me? I think I would still like it once I got used to the judgmental types, though. On the plus side, I could have a killer career in sales.

If you could be really smart or really athletic, which would you choose?
While ignorance is bliss, especially if you are the popular athletic type, I couldn't stand being a meathead. I'd pick smarts.

Would it be good if you got everything you wished for?
This is a little deep for the back of a box of cereal. Of course, I shouldn't get everything I wish for. I don't think this means that it is bad for me to get some things I wish for, though. :)

What if everything you wrote came true?
I'd be glad I didn't have a tattoo.

south carolina: land of paradise

Growing up I always believed that God wanted people to be conservative and that He desired to turn the nation into a theocracy. That is what conservative circles tend to preach, and that is what I accepted as a kid.

My views have changed a little since then. If God has established every authority that exists, then every nation is indirectly a theocracy already.

I was reading the paper earlier today and came upon a story (same article with no required sign-up here). Apparently, there is a group that is trying to mobilize people to move to the already conservative state of South Carolina so that they can eventually exert enough political power to make the state a conservative paradise of sorts. Only four families have actually moved as a result of the effort, though.

What makes a family decide that this is even a realistic goal, let alone a noble one? While mine is probably the blog in our little circle of sites that hits preachy topics the most, I have purposefully stayed away from true political discussion. This is partially due to the fact that I honestly believe that any time an area becomes a conservative or liberal paradise, bad things start to happen. When you start to believe that a paradise on earth can be found by getting the right laws, politicians, or judges you depart from the reality that humans, conservative and liberal, are naturally selfish.

Most conservatives and liberals (and "independents") will have specific ideals which are ends that may be justified by any means if not they kept in check. I believe that even those people with whom I most sincerely disagree has been placed in power by God to keep things in check. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll vote for them.

God has to have ultimate control, be it in Washington D.C., Topeka, or Charleston. If He doesn't we're all in trouble.

kill the boar

Sawyer points his handgun at the boar to show it that he means business. This animal has had it in for him for the past couple of days so now its days have been numbered, or so we think. Just then we notice Kate watching Sawyer but hidden from his view. She obviously has some emotions invested in the outcome of this standoff. We already know that Sawyer is just the sort of scumbucket who would kill a defenseless animal and there are no PETA protesters within a thousand mile radius to save the boar. Just then Sawyer has what appears to be a change of heart and lowers the gun. He isn't such a bad guy after all. Kate is ecstatic.

The description above is from an episode of Lost that I watched last night. There are a few things about this incredibly idealistic scene that bother me.

1. Sawyer should have killed the boar. Until this point we have unemotionally seen several boars killed for meat on the show. What is so different here?
2. Sawyer should have killed the boar. There are over thirty people on the island who need to eat.
3. Sawyer should have killed the boar. The animal obviously was out to get him and posed a serious security risk.

This is something that has bothered me for a while about TV and movies. Animals are put on the same level as humans. In Lost it isn't even realistic to think that a character like Sawyer would refuse to pull the trigger because he is going to be thinking about his next meal more than anything else. But who could kill such a sweet creature?

The movie ID4 (otherwise known as Independence Day) contains perhaps the most frustrating example of what I am talking about. As explosions are ripping through Washington D.C. we see what must be the death of thousands of people in the background. At the very same moment we are transported to an emotionally moving scene where a pet dog barely escapes the explosions to safety with its owners. When I saw that I was insulted that the movie makers thought I was stupid enough to miss the scope of the situation. I refuse to have my emotions heightened for a pet rescued while they are deadened to human life being destroyed in the background.

The two movies that I can think of that got it right were Jurassic Park II and Signs. The dogs died in those movies. It's not that I can't feel for the loss of a pet. I just don't want to be manipulated into thinking that the animals are more valuable than the humans.

peeled from the bone

A couple of days ago a conversation in my office revolved around some elements of a strong man competition. There was talk of the bus pull and the stone carry and other things that sounded equally as uncomfortable, then the discussion went in a much more uncomfortable direction that these conversations always seem to go. One of the guys mentioned a time when he saw someone's pectoral muscle tear during a workout.

There seems to be an unwritten rule that when guys discuss strong man, weight lifting, or body building competitions at some point someone is going to mention a worst-case-scenario story of a horrifically torn a muscle, dislocated joint, or really nasty hangnail.

This could be because deep down normal guys get some pleasure out of inordinately strong or toned guys suffering some tragedy. It could be that this is just an example of the male interest in more disgusting topics such as horrible injuries. It could just be a figment of my imagination. I don't know why it is, but I do know that the conversations I have noticed always tend to go that direction.

I can't complain, though. It gives me a reason not to exercise.

please don't step on the art

On the recommendation from Forrest, Golden and I visited the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art on Saturday. We both actually enjoyed it. It is rather small, as we took our time and we were still through in just under an hour. I did make two observations while I was there, though.

When I am looking at contemporary art I am never completely sure what is and isn't art. There were a bunch of toys in the middle of one room. Was that an art piece or was it to keep kids occupied while the adults look at the pieces? When I was at the The Art Institute of Chicago Museum a couple of years ago I almost stepped on some art in the middle of a display room because it looked like a mat. At one art display once (I don't remember where) I almost sat down on some art because it was made to look like a seat. It may not have been art after all, but who can tell?

Dave Barry once pointed out that while he did not disagree with displaying art, he did believe that it should be obviously marked as art so that the 98% of the population who cannot recognize non-conventional modern art when they see it will not sit on it. I agree with this sentiment.

The second observation I made was that if a body is displayed in art, the odds are very good that it is not a traditionally attractive body. However, if sexuality is alluded to within the art that does not depict a human body it is typically (in my limited experience) either portrayed as beautiful or aggressive.

Case in point, there were several statues of humans in the museum and not one of them would really typically be considered attractive. There were a couple of Georgia O'Keeffe paintings at the museum as well that were accompanied by a plaque that stated that many believe her paintings represent feminine sexuality. This was denied by O'Keeffe, but the fact that paintings of flowers are thought to be sexual simply due to their beauty is telling.

Then again, what do I know. I'm a literalist.

honor the sabbath

I am posting this due to Dar's request at Golden's site. This is a soapbox issue of mine. In case you haven't noticed, I have avoided a lot of soapbox issues simply due to the fact that most of my audience agrees with me and would probably be bored with most of what I say. Soapbox issues tend to create very long posts.

I do want to note at the start that I believe my parents have always done what they believed was right. While I now disagree with some of the stances they took while I was growing up, I can't fully fault them for my discomforts. I know that I will make mistakes when I have kids as well, and only hope that I can remain as consistent for my (future) kids as my parents were for me.

When I was really young there were certain things I didn't do. I didn't talk back to my parents, I didn't lie, and I didn't do anything that might be considered entertainment on a Sunday. This came from a view that my parents enforced that Sunday was the Lord's day. They did loosen up on the issue as I grew older.

This meant that no forms of entertainment were allowed. This was subjective and on occasions meant that we didn't watch TV, but it wasn't usually that strict. We were also often strongly encouraged to try to rest on Sunday since it was the day of rest. These rules actually varied a bit throughout my childhood, and I presume that is because it was difficult to know what specifically dishonored the Sabbath.

As I got older I determined that this seemed rather arbitrary and that my friends who did entertaining things on Sundays weren't getting struck by lightning. Also, since we were willing to bend the rules when visiting extended family, I didn't think that my parents believed this was a lightning-strike-from-Heaven offense. In the ranking of offenses, it was a relatively minor one.

Now I am old enough to have read most parts of the Bible multiple times and to have had the opportunity to study portions of it rather intensely. Given what I have read, I am sure that the idea that God set aside Sunday as a day where Christians living under the New Covenant must do nothing but sleep or think about God is not a correct view. Every day is God's day and He is more interested with how I live on the other six days of the week than He is with whether I am watching TV on a specific day.

Now for the points from Scripture:

1. Nowhere in the Bible is Saturday replaced with Sunday. I think it was moved to Sunday because of the comments in Acts 20:7 or because the Resurrection was on the Sabbath. Either reasoning is weak, though. This is one of the very few things that Seventh Day Adventists get right. If we must follow strict rules about the Sabbath, it probably should be on Saturday.
2. Of all the times that Paul referred to Sabbath days, he never was for enforcing them. He did say in Rom 14:5-6 that people who observe the Sabbath should be convinced that what they are doing is right. He also said that the person who does not observe should be convinced he is right as well.
3. Paul twice actually argued against those who said that the Sabbath must be observed. In Gal 4:8-11 he calls observation of special days "weak and worthless elemental things." In Col 2:16-17 Paul says that you shouldn't let someone judge you for not observing a Sabbath day and that it is simply a shadow of what was to come (Christ).
4. One argument that we are still under this portion of the Law generally points out that Christ said that He would not remove even a letter from the Law. In the same breath Christ said that He would fulfill the Law.
5. The author of Hebrews, Like Paul in his letter to the Colossians, pointed out that the purpose of the Sabbath was to point to Christ. This is detailed in chapters three and four. The Sabbath rest represents the fact that we no longer have to work toward our salvation, and that Christ took care of it all. That is what entering His rest is.

Thanks for indulging me (which you have if you are still reading this). I won't do these kind of posts too frequently, but it is nice to mix things up a bit.

happy fifth, golden

You are my golden gleam in the morning
And my laughter before dark

A mere five years have passed
Since on this journey we embarked

We have learned about each other
And faced each year as two

I happily look forward to the next
Five, ten, and fifty with you