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.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
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)
