A glimpse of a McDowell

ChurchWith.Us - Post | Submission to the Authorities

2011-10-30T23:15:00.000-04:00

Submitted to ChurchWith.Us on 10/30/2011:
___________________________________

Looking back through time, we can see that there have been many good and many bad governing bodies over its people. Some rulers have treated people with respect giving them freedom, choices, and a voice in the marketplace among other things. Other rulers have governed with an iron fist and neglected and oppressed the people seemingly unjustly. Many other variations of what one may deem as "good" or "bad" can be drawn from past governing bodies.

What constitutes as a "good" versus a "bad" governing authority may vary among people, however, Paul tells those in Rome that it is God himself who has established governing authorites. Looking at Romans 13:1-7 (ESV) we read:

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

- Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

Let's break this down. And I would like to say that this is a fairly initial thought process that I had this morning during our 20 somethings Sunday school class where we read this passage.

Verse 1: All authority is from God, including those HE placed in power here on earth. Did you catch that? Is Paul stating an all inclusive proclamation of truth here that all governing authorities throughout time have been, are, and will be intentionally placed there BY God?

For me, this is a hard one to swallow. From every good to every bad governing authority, God has INTENTIONALLY placed them in that position? Is that what Paul is stating? I'm initially assuming that this is what he seems to be claiming, at my initial reading. God put every oppresive dictator in power too? Is Paul just talking about governing authority over Israel? Perhaps, I'm not sure, as this is just a preliminary take on what I'm implying from the text prior to any further study. If this is all inclusive across the earth, then we have to believe that God also put evil men in power such as Hitler, to name an over quoted reference for bad men, though he's earned it. There are many references in the books of Moses where God intentionally hardens the hearts of people and rulers, so it would seem that God could use evil rulers for his good, but that's just simply hard for me to take in. I'd like to state that just because something is hard to take in, it wouldn't in and of itself make something immediately untrue.

Verse 2: Resisting the governing authority is effectively resisting God, since he reigns over them in his authority. Whether this is any and every ruler or just over the Hebrews or some other sub-set of rulers I don't know.

This is also hard to swallow because at first glance that appears to stiffle all resistence to government corruption. Going off my assumption that this governing authority could be ANY governing authority, then was it wrong for our Founding Fathers to resist England and establish their own country? I find it SO difficult to believe that people should not resist government if it becomes corrupt, unreasonable, etc., as this is the very basis of our being in America. Is this what Paul is saying?

Verse 3: This verse has more narrowly defined the scope of what it seems Paul is talking about. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." It seems that Paul is implying that the ruling authority is in very nature good; that the authority is just. This leaves me confused.

Verse 4-7: The authority is God's servant and carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. The recipients of this letter were under Roman authority. So was Paul saying that God was rulling over them through the Roman government? That when they tortured, persecuted, and killed those of faith in Jesus Christ, it was really God extending his arm of wrath and judgement? God wanted them to remain strong in faith and deed through Christ, and then God wanted to persecute them through the Roman authority? Perhaps to 'test' them? Something else? I don't really understand this sort of working if this is how God worked and continues to work.

Paul makes the authorities sound like they have direct revelation from God, or are at least being directed by God to will what God wants, which seems to be against the Christian faith, no?

I'd like to follow up my confusion here with further study and I'd appreciate any further insight someone else may have as it seems very strange from an initial reading. Am I missing something, or is Paul stating something similar to what I have detailed above?

ChurchWith.Us - Post | What I Love About My Church

2011-10-30T23:02:00.001-04:00

Many months ago, I joined an online blogging community focused on Christian writting called ChurchWith.us created by Adam Lehman. I had become deadweight over a few months, as I had yet to contribute to it. I believe there is a set amount of contributors which at some point was near 100 if I'm not mistaken. I decided to start off my first blog entry with thoughts on what I loved about my church. I have reproduced the original blog post below (from 10/3/2011):

_____________________________________________________

Big spacious rooms. Rockin’ band. Sweet chairs. Good moral lessons.

Wait. What?

While some of those are true, it’s not what first came to mind. Residing in Indianapolis, I’ve been attending College Park Church for the past two years.

A very consistent and important thing that I have come to look for in a service is the Gospel. Woven into the fabric of every Sunday, it doesn’t matter what the sermon is about, they’re always pointing back to Christ. If a Church isn’t preaching Christ as the risen Savior, then I would question whether it’s a Christian church. It’s the foundation of what is at the core of Christianity.

What is the Gospel? It is what God has done through Christ for saving his people. God calls people to Himself. People respond and are transformed.

What is the Gospel not? The Gospel is not what I do. I can’t live the Gospel because the Gospel isn’t what I can ever possibly do. It is simply what God has done in his sovereignty, and the impact of that continues throughout time as he continues to call sinners to himself.

It can be easy to miss the point and think “Okay, I’ve heard the Gospel, now onto living as a Godly Christian.” The Gospel needs to be at the core of who we are and how we respond to everything. Without the Gospel holding everything together, there are simply moral teachings and good ways to live out life.

At the end of the day, all that a Christian really has is Christ.

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 6)

2011-03-12T16:55:00.000-05:00

Audiobook: 11hrs 19mins\ 22hrs 42mins.

This post will cover four different 'listening sessions': 2/28, 3/1, 3/8, and 3/12 (today).

2/28...
This wrapped up the rest of the neuroscience material previously being discussed. This concluded audio part 1 of 3 (through chapter 5).

3/1...
Audio part 2/3 started off explaining that the majority of the rest of the material will cover and deal with the implications (political, moral, etc.) of the content presented so far.
During the next 90 minutes he discussed how people resist certain claims of science because they fear that those claims could be used to directly justify things such as inequality, descrimination, racism, and the likes. The logic goes something like: well science says this is natrual and how it is so therefore I can justify my actions with it.

Science exists to explain phenomena in the universe by formulating models and theories that encapsulate and explain as much of the collected body of data as possible.

If scientists found that a certain subset of people were lacking certain genes or chemicals in the brain which showed they were (on average) not as intelligent as the general population, should that information be used to justify inquality and outright discrimination against those people? Some may reject this evidence outright based on idealogical premises while others may accept it. some that accept it may use it to justify treating these people as less 'human' from the general population.

Science has historically stood on grounds of explaining how things are, not how things should be. In Nazi Germany, Hitler decided to take a mixure of his religious beliefs and his understanding of the implications of evolutionary biology to justify the killing of millions of people, namely Jewish inhabitants.

Numerous other examples could be given throughout history. When people first heard the idea that the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentricity), they rejected it outright because that would make humans less significant and give us less meaning as being the center of the Universe, placed there by their creator. Benjamin Franklin placed conductive rods atop structures to study lightning as well as make storms less dangerous. Many priests responded in criticism stating that Franklin was directly opposing the will of God, which was for God to smite those chosen for punishment with bolts of electricity.

Many mix up description from prescription in the findings of science. Description tells how things are thought to be. Prescription says how it should be.

For example, "Humans are made of selfish genes. That is, they only care about passing themselves along from generation to generation." This is a description of genes. A prescription would be something like, "Since we are made of selfish genes, it is okay to be selfish and we can justify those endeavors because the very fabric of our bodies do the same."

Discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing. When is it good and when does it become socially accepted as an evil? If you are a parent looking for a baby sitter for your young girl, you are probably going to steer away from male prospects out of fear that he may sexually abuse your child. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

Referring to the less intelligent subset of people in my generic example above, if one of them were to interview at a job, how should the employer handle the information that this prospect lies within this group? What if this subset was a specific race or nationality? The employer cannot reject the person due to their race, however, should they be able to take this information into account and reject the individual person on account of the intelligence factor? As long as the rejection was on account of the intelligence factor (no matter what race), then I believe the author (and myself) would agree.

3/8...
This covered part of chapter 9 and went through chapter 11.

He further discussed the implications of biology and how science can seem to undermine human value and meaning. For example, if the brain and all of our thought processes is only made up of evolved matter, then life is meaningless. Another example is in more recent forms of scientific discovery that is questioning whether we actually have any free will at all, or whether our thoughts and actions are based on our biology. The concern people have is that if we take away the notion of free will then people no longer believe we can hold people accountable for their actions, because their biology 'made them do it'. 'My genes ate my homework'.

3/12...
This covered chapters 12 and 13. He discussed the geneis of the term stereotyping. It was first used in reference to a type of printing on a press, however, it has changed into a pejorative, stemming from the 1920's. We use stereotypes as a type of short hand for trying to quickly understanding something. There are many stereotypes that are fairly accurate and do their job while there are others that are more misleading. People can't all be boxed into simple groupings of behavior and character. Each individual is different, however, it is easier to remember things by grouping a set of similar things together.

While most of these chapters were on stereotyping, he also discussed his distaste with many ideas coming from relativists. A major point with which he agrees is that our eyes (and experience) are not a direct window into reality. Our perceptions don't automatically match up with reality. Pinker, however, does believe that we can grow closer to knowing reality, while the relativists don't believe that reality is actually out there, but it is only a construct within the framework of a society.

For the most part, our eyes do seem to tell us the truth, because people normally don't go walking into trees and other objects they perceive in front of them. The idea that the eyes are a window into reality was debunked thousands of years ago when masters of illusion came up with ways to trick the senses, namely the eyes.

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 5)

2011-02-20T17:30:00.000-05:00

Audiobook: 5hrs 7mins/ 22hrs 42mins

Chapter 4 discussed how culture is not completely independent of our biology. It is not a separate entity existing "out there". He asserts that we aren't so much shapped by culture as we actually shape our culture ourselves, from our biology.

Chapter 5 has been discussing how neurons, genes, and environmental factors such as experience all affect our decisions, behaviors, and the like. He recognizes an interplay between Nature and Nuture for our behaviors, but it is mostly vastly different from the publically acquired understanding of it.
There are many points of discussion that make sense to me, while others, from my vantage point, seem to be taken too far.

For example, his main line of discussion is that we are much more affected by our biology (genes, neurons, etc) than we are our culture. There have been studies where twins are separated at birth and grow up in completely different familes and environments. When they finally meet each other face to face years later, they feel like they've known each other all their life, because they are so similar. Same genes, different environments. Biology seems to have won out.

There are other studies that take children from vastly different families and raise them in the same environment. There were big differences in between the two kids even though they were raised in the same environment. These are very shortened examples that don't go into further detail of the factors at play, but biology seems to be the largest factor for behavior, skills, etc.

The important thing is that biology is not everything, although it can be very important. If you take a child and raise him in a good environment versus a bad environment (however those are defined), we would suspect there would be very different outcomes for how that child makes decisions and behaves.

I don't think Pinker would disagree at all with this, but I get the feeling that biology is near everything, and in many senses it is, at least for a foundation of ability. I have a feeling that he may be pushing it so hard to counter-act the other extremists that don't believe biology has much to do with it at all, namely that the environment is everything.

Intuitively, I currently side more with the proponents declaring that the environment is so important. However, I also recognize that biology can present real limiting factors. I think biology gives us our baseline, and the environment can either utilize the maximum ability or leave it untapped.

Goodreads: The Koran translated by J.M. Rodwell (checkpoint 1)

2011-02-17T21:50:00.011-05:00

On page 210/500

I read SURA XVI. - The Bee, which is the 73rd chapter in this version of the Koran. It is a chronological version. I began reading this several months ago, on and off.

God's gifts to man and the infidels who reject them
This Sura declares all that God has given man, from livestock, to vegetation, to the mountains and rivers, created for man's guidance and purposes. It decalres his gracious mercy, knowledge, and power.

But the infidels have gone astray and have denied what God has done for them. For this evil, they will be repayed. It is Hell for them, however, those that fear God will be rewarded. It then goes on to discuss more that God has done for man.

It seems to attribute nearly everything that helps man to God having done it for the purpose of man: mountains for shelter, garments to defend from the heat and in wars, tents to dwell in, skins of beasts, furniture and goods and so on.

The blank slate?
One that caught my eye since I'm reading The Blank Slate by Pinker is:

"God hath brought you out of your mothers' wombs devoid of all knowledge; but hath given you hearing, and sight, and heart, that haply ye might render thanks" - v80

An initial read of this leads me to believe it is standing for what Pinker refers to as the blank slate, that all behaviors are learned from experience and not by innate knowledge, however, I could be reading into this too much from the Koran (or just this particular translation to English).

Election?
The next verse that really jumped out was around 95:

"Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but He causeth whom He will to err, and whom He will He gideth: and ye shall assuredly be called to account for your doings."

That sounded a good deal like predestination, election, though I could also be miscontextualizing it due to my lack of Western American understanding read into this Eastern text.

Abraham was a Muslim?
Around 124, it seems to state that Islam is the same religion of Abraham, which has also been stated in other Suras as well:

"We have moreover revealed to thee that thou follow the religion of Abraham, the sound in faith."

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 4)

2011-02-16T20:38:00.001-05:00

Audiobook: 3hrs 12mins \ 22hrs 42mins

This concluded chapter 3 from last night and tonight.

Here we continued the discussion of the four major points and areas of science that are helping to converge the body with the mind (e.g., genetics and psychology). That is, to be able to describe the mind and the body as one in the same, not two distinct parts, one controlled by physical and chemical processes (body) while the other is not (mind).

Pinker described the role of genetics in human behavior from early childhood development into adulthood.

He wraps up the chapter with a daunting idea for the cherished intellectual belief of our age, namely that love, the will, and consciousness are all assumed to be part of the soul and have always been placed in opposition to mere biological functions. For, if these three things are only biological adoptions implemented in the circuitry of the brain, then "the ghost in the machine" has even less to do, and renders it practially unused, or dead.

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 3)

2011-02-15T20:48:00.002-05:00

Audiobook: 2hrs 30mins \ 22hrs 42mins

This covered part of chapter 3. He began discussing things that have been historically (and currently) thought to be independent of each other. The main one that stuck out to me was the mind and body (previously referred to as the ghost in the machine, dualism). More and more, scientists are discovering that our behaviors can be explained by physical processes occurring in the brain. This goes in the face of many previously and currently held concepts of the mind being separate from the physical body; that the mind makes decisions freely on its own and isn't something that can be known or discovered through natural processes.

Since human skills such as creativity, memory, logic, reasoning, intuition, etc. are all thought to be results of physical and chemical processes occurring in the brain, we should be able to mimic this in a reproducible way, such as in a computer (e.g., Watson built by IBM that is currently a participant on Jeopardy). If some part of the brain changes physically or chemically, that person actually changes as well.

There have been studies that can predict what the subject is thinking based on brain activity, externally monitored. As science progresses, it may not be too far fetched to say that a detection device could know every thought going through the human brain, conscious or sub-conscious, so long as it emits magnetism from the moving neurons.

Many of these ideas are very controversial in the public eye, however, I don't see that as the case in the scientific community. I've also seen some other studies that are able to predict, based on brain activity, what a person will choose, given a set of questions, even before the person consciously knows they have made the decision. Even consciousness, it is stated, is only a mere illusion that the brain uses to trick us into believing that we actually have free will, when in fact our consciousness is only the brain telling us what it has already decided to do based on mechanistic physically and chemical processes.

Here are a few videos that I have watched in the past, and you can also following the surrounding related videos for more content:

This video's maker doesn't allow content embedding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 2)

2011-02-14T01:01:00.001-05:00

Audiobook: 1hr 38mins \ 22hrs 42mins.

This covered chapter 2. Pinker discussed the origins and development of the blank slate theory. It seemed to have primarily come into existence at the hand of John Locke in an attempt to counter the religious and political claims of his day, namely that we are innately born to be, for example, a king with God given kingship, that we have an innate moral code, etc.

The blank slate remained a thriving idea through at least the mid 20th century, especially pronounced by arguably one of the most important psychologists of that time period, B.F. Skinner. This was the era of the Behaviorists who proclaimed that no genetic makeup, nor race, sex, etc. could limit the outcomes of ones life in regards to their behavior and achievements. Everyone could be built from the ground up since they were thought to all begin at the same marker, that is, nothing, the blank slate.

New models of parenting and the likes were built into culture since the most important part according to this theory is the development of the child in relation to his or her environments and experiences. Therefore, as long as the parents did their part, their child would have a good chance to be successful, and if the child failed, well it was because the parents failed in someway since heredity had no part in a child's behavior.

Goodreads: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (checkpoint 1)

2011-02-12T19:47:00.003-05:00

Audiobook: 50mins \ 22hrs 42mins.

I just finished the preface and chapter 1. Pinker discussed some of the social, moral, political, and intellectual positions and conflicts between the two extremes of Nature versus Nurture (blank slate). Human Nature states that we are innately built a certain way in terms of behavior, namely through genes or as some would additionally attribute to the soul or spirit. Human Nature states that we are born with no slant towards anything, we are blank slates, and as such, all behavior is learned through the environment as experience. Most would blend the two together to form their ideas on human behavior.

Many are reluctant to consider the Human Nature aspect of our behavior, since it seems to imply that we are, at least in certain respects, a result of mechanical and machine-like processes. This implies a restriction of free-will and leads some to believe that if we don't have free will, then we can't be held responsible.

He discussed some notable contributors to the philosophy of how people have thought about these things throughout history. These include John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and René Descartes. There are three main aspects to this arena that will be discussed: the blank slate (experience), the noble savage (inherently good, untainted by society), and the ghost in the machine (dualism).

Should We Fire God? (Part 3b-3)

2010-12-17T17:53:00.003-05:00

Building the list
In the last post, we asked the questions of how far should God go to restrict our pain and suffering. If we were to build a list, what would it look like and when would it end?

Continuing on page 67, “The big problem for the person who makes that list really isn’t where you start, but where you stop. In a world where pain is constrained, what pain is allowable? Any ? None? This really starts to get tricky. The cancer can be removed, but what kind of life will be left afterward?”

He then goes on to discuss some of the purposes of pain with an example from his life, similar to the ones I alluded to above about pain being good in some circumstances for the short term and more often long term well being of our body and its constituent parts.

Jumping to page 69, “But let’s get back to serious issues – the end of our list. What about intentional pain we cause or feel as a result of someone else’s actions? Does God just take over our bodies to keep us from harming someone in anger? What would that make us if he did?... Our freedom requires our being able to hurt and to be hurt. Our freedom to make any decision at all seems to require our being able to make terrible ones too.

Even if we could just eliminate intentional harm, how many of us have been hurt unintentionally? A breakup, a word said by someone in anger, a simple mistake. How about those times when we believed that we were wronged, only to later find out that wasn’t the case? An inaccurately perceived wrong can hurt as badly as an actual one.

Should God take over at those points as well? Should he prohibit the break up that we desperately did not want to happen? Where would that put the one who needs it to end? Does that person’s pain not matter because our pain matters more?

Or what about the pain that causes us to make a decision that works for our good?... What about all the powerful contributions of normal people in the world that started with the simple thought I will never allow that to happen again? What, if any, pain do we consider allowable?... Would we ever grow tired of being pleasant robots?...

For now it would seem that God has chosen a much more personally painful path: no easy answers and no quick removal of all suffering. But no avoiding it for him either. Perhaps this is the clearest way he resembles an oncologist. As painful as our experience with cancer of our souls is, at some point it ends and we are able to move on. Not so for God. Just as the oncologist faces cancer in the lives of different people every day, God faces our pain constantly as well. The reality is that the God who created the universe is suffering right here with us. Right now.

The infection cost him the life of his Son.

Maybe he isn’t turning his back on anything or anyone. Maybe he isn’t a sullen superhero turning a deaf ear to our cries for help. Maybe he just sees the complexity that we miss. The Scriptures say that even though he cannot remove the horror of sin right now, that when the time is right, he will. For now he walks with us through our lives. And his grief is as real as ours.“ Should We Fire God? (page 69 – 71)

The implied recipients of the eventual and final removal of all pain and suffering and hence sin, after physical death, are those that are called to God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Vantage point
Prior to reading this book, my cynicism towards God’s ‘job performance’ as Jim puts it, had been increasingly growing. This was growing in part due to my (failed) attempts at reconciling the stark differences I saw between the God of the OT with the God of the NT. I began questioning God’s motives for his actions more and more. Each successive question (over time) exposed more and more just how cynical of God’s actions I had become, namely those as seen in the OT and from experience in today’s world of suffering. Both the things he had commanded to do as well as his lack of action both in history and today really started to bother me. Many of these actions and commands in the OT began to look quite immoral, and what I saw today was his restraint in letting ‘all hell break loose’ upon people for which he was said to love.

I would like to wrap up the remainder of this post with a story from Jim’s life about his child Noah.

“Baseball for Noah started out very well, much better than it had for me. Things were looking good. Then about halfway through the season the wheels started coming off the cart. He had a couple of strikeouts in a row – frustrating, but normal for almost everyone. But the next game he struck out every time he went to the plate.

He didn’t hit the ball again that season.

I remember the feelings; the nervous look on his face was the same one I remembered having. The eyes that were mostly closed instead of being wide open to watch the ball. The bat that shot out to where you were hoping the ball would be instead of making a smooth arc to where it was. Getting angry at yourself for swinging wide when you shouldn’t, then while you were still angry watching a perfect strike come floating in right after it while your bat stayed on your shoulder. I remember all of it. And I was watching the storm build on his face.

One game, it just became too much. He finally broke down in anger and frustration and embarrassment, and his team saw him break. And he knew it.

I walked behind the dugout when it was time for him to take right field. He looked up and begged me not to make him go out there. He just wanted to go home. He was hot and tired and embarrassed and why couldn’t we just leave? And I was right back at Jackson Street feeling the exact same feelings.

I was a buddy with his coach; I could have pulled him out. The coach would have understood; everyone would have. And in that moment, all I wanted to do was rescue him and get him out of there. I wanted to help him stop feeling the horrible stuff that I so very well remembered. And as I looked down at my son, his face red with the heat and frustration, I realized something.

I absolutely could not do it.

So many times as parents, we have to go with our gut. Scripture gives us some guidance, but God (not surprisingly) was wise enough to know that the approach to parenting would need to adjust to the times in which the parents and children were living. So Scripture handles parenting mostly from a principle standpoint, more of the way you approach things and less of what you do here, here, and here. So I pray a lot for a God-guided, faith-filled gut. And in that moment, I felt I heard from God clearly and specifically.

Noah needed to go out into the outfield with his team. And I had to tell him.

Putting Power Aside
In that moment, I had all the power in the world to control that situation. I could make it easier for Noah – even make it easier for myself. As much as I hated that part of my life, I would have traded with him in a second if I could have. But I couldn’t. As embarrassed as he was, as frustrated and angry and disappointed and hot and ready to leave as he was, he needed to stay. There was much more going on in that moment than he had any idea about. And I was responsible for the fact that I knew what it was.

I knew I wouldn’t be able to exercise the power in the situation that I had available to me. Noah had to learn the importance of keeping his commitments, of not giving into fear and embarrassment, of trying as hard as he could even when those attempts didn’t result in the outcomes he was looking for. He had to learn that even when you desperately don’t want to take the field, if you have said you will, you do it. Most important, he needed to see that he could.

So, on that day, to use all the power I had available to me would have been selfish. It would have made us both feel better, but some lessons can only be learned with stinging eyes on the way to right field.

A Little Bit of an Idea
Out of nowhere, in that moment I got just the smallest sense of what it might be like to be God. That God might feel the way I felt that day behind that dugout, with someone I loved more than I could describe getting sadder and angrier at me and realizing he needed to continue to walk down the path that had caused him pain. To have the power to remove the struggle, but knowing the removal isn’t in the best interest of the child, is a painful place to be. Making decisions based on a larger right is always tougher. But sometimes it is unavoidable.

The point here is not whether I did the right thing in that moment or not. Neither is it just that it pains the heart of God to allow difficulty to get to us that he would rather, in a (literally) perfect world, restrain. The real issue here is the response from Noah. He didn’t get what my goals were and if he did, he certainly was on the side of reaching them a different way. As I said before, he didn’t understand what he didn’t understand. From his vantage point, a loving father would behave differently. If he were a father, he would behave differently. It was a very straightforward issue from where he was sitting. We should go. We could handle the other stuff in other ways. But right now, in the moment, we should head home…

…we can understand only parts of God. He has made himself knowable to us through the Scriptures and through the experiences people have had with him across time. We get to know God through truly giving ourselves to and appreciating his creation – not looking to use any part of it selfishly, but seeing every part of it as a divine signpost pointing us back to him.

But even then, we can get only part of him. We will never be able to understand the fullness of God’s thoughts, concerns, and plans. At least not while we are living on a broken planet…

… This being said, if we don’t get him, then we also don’t get the larger picture that he is moving us toward. Just as surely as Noah didn’t see what I was up to that day in the field, we don’t get what God is up to on a daily basis. Just as surely as Noah’s lack of understanding made him angry with me, our lack of understanding of what God is fully up to can make us angry with him. And just as surely as I still needed to respond to the larger pictures that I knew brought risk of Noah’s anger, God must do the same. And the risk is large.” Should We Fire God? (page 98-103)

Going from here
From reading this story, coupled with the rest of the text, I began to see that perhaps my vantage point was skewed. Maybe I was wrong. Just maybe. Once one can consider that just maybe they have a partial vantage point that is giving them an incomplete or even skewed picture of God, then there is hope for that person to be proved wrong.

Alas, perhaps God is not just “the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

While these are the major points that came across to me, I would recommend picking up this good read to experience the interweaved stories, illustrations, frustrations, and the like that will give a more complete picture of what Jim is painting. This will prove to strengthen the believers view and trust in the God of the Bible as well as (hopefully) present some points of reflection and doubt in the non-believer as well as perhaps the believer struggling with these same issues of pain and suffering. This will no doubt be an ongoing dialogue throughout my entire life.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

** I would like to extend my gratitude towards the author, Jim Pace, for allowing me to publish the longer excerpts above from his book “Should We Fire God?” as well as for this work that has helped expose cracks and holes in my cynicism leading to some reversals and questioning of my previous attitude(s) towards God’s ‘job performance’.

Should We Fire God? (Part 3b-2)

2010-12-17T17:52:00.001-05:00

From Normal to Abnormal
Let’s take an excerpt from the book.

“Something – we’re not sure what – takes the very natural process of cell replication and causes it to go haywire. Cells start reproducing too quickly or begin producing the wrong things; in some cases, they simply don’t die when they are supposed to. This is all because of something deep within the human body breaking down, a normal process becoming abnormal…

… We probably all have stories of someone hearing the ‘There is simply nothing else we can do’ speech. In our society, which so highly elevates personal choice and flexibility, this can be an especially stinging conclusion. We are immersed in a culture that allows us to do everything from ordering our burgers our way to setting up our own payment plans, to choosing the background for our Twitter home pages. So, beyond the clear implications of hearing that phrase pertaining to a battle with cancer, we are generally unaccustomed to hearing that our choices are severely limited.

And it is almost true.

The truth is that there is almost always another thing that can be done, almost always another step that can be taken against this medical horror. But the problem is that curing isn’t just about eradicating the disease, is it? It is about eradicating the disease in such a way as to preserve the life of the patient, and even to allow for a certain level of life beyond cancer. In some cases the most effective and straightforward approach to removing the cancer would be to simply open the patient and take it out. Unfortunately, in many cases that would kill the patient. Other times, the patient would live but have no discernible quality of life. We hate these truths, and very wise and dedicated men and women work tirelessly to try to put them away; but for now, they are a reality that we must deal with.” Should We Fire God? (page 63-64)

That dirty word…
Upon hearing this word, peoples’ reactions vary as much as the stock market. In the bigger picture, it may be seen as something that will one day be rendered powerless for some or all. It may be inevitable and will never cease. The mention of it may stir anger and hostility, guilt and shame, or perhaps nothing. The thought of it may seem illogical, unreasonable, offensive, and outright untrue as one of man’s inventions. Perhaps something else comes to mind or a combination of the above. What’s the word I am trying to paint with different colors and artists? Sin.

Scripture paints ‘sin’ as something that all people are naturally inclined to do. That is, to turn away from God and go their own way. The moment when sin is first said to have entered the world is when Adam and Eve took the first step to disregard what God previously said: don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The deceiver told them they surely would not die like God stated and that they would in fact become like God, perhaps so that they may not need him anymore, knowing good from evil. God cursed many things (and indirectly all offspring of humanity) for breaking this one commandment he gave to them. The reason I mention this is because it is the back drop for which Christians speak of a broken world. A world tainted by sin. Each of us infected from birth, in the fiber of our being. The original and continual cause of our pain and suffering. Unavoidable. Inescapable.

Weeds among wheat
I’d like to pick back up where we left off with Jim, regarding cancer, on page 65.

“May I pose a question? What if the same were true of God?
What if God hates the symptoms of this broken world as much as or more than we do? What if our suffering and pain burden him even more than they burden us? But what if there are issues that keep him from being able to eradicate our infection, our rebellion? What if his cure would actually kill us? Or what if it wouldn’t kill us, but it would dehumanize us? What should God do then? What if God were less like a superhero not doing his job and more like the oncologist fighting the cancer of our rebellion every day? He would be personally watching the horrors it unleashes but know the treatment limits as well.

Let’s toss this idea around a bit.

Jesus deals with this issue in the Gospel of Matthew, the first book in the New Testament and an eyewitness account from one of Jesus’ followers and good friends. He relates a story Jesus told that reveals how God is limited in doing everything he might like to do by the implications of those actions:

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away. When the crop began to grow and produce gain, the weeds also grew. The farmer’s workers went to him and said, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds! Where did they come from?’ ‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed. ‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked. ‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30 NLT)

This scenario was meaningful to the people hearing it, many of whom relied on crops for their livelihood. It was bad news to find weeds growing among your wheat plants. You never wanted them there because they competed for resources your wheat needed, and in some cases they would choke out the much more delicate wheat plants. But as bad as it was, your acting in the most clear-cut way would exact terrible damage. Just pulling out what you didn’t want was too damaging an option. You can just imagine those listening nodding their heads in agreement when Jesus said, ‘You will hurt the wheat if you do.’

His point was very clear. If God did what we think he should and just removed all evil, it would exact a toll on us that we have no understanding of. See it? We are the wheat – and apparently we are the kids in the ice-cream aisle. God holds off doing what he would most want to, not for himself, but for us.” Should We Fire God? (page 65-66)

Okay, but what about…
…things outside of humans, like natural disasters or large scale killings? If there is this sin interweaved into our fabric, then can’t God at least step up and change the course and outcome of these? Let’s continue with where Jim left off.

“But if we are honest, that only pushes the question back a step.
Even if we agree it is best for God to wait to ultimately deal with the evil infection in our world, our concerns about his management style deal directly with the amount of suffering that innocent victims must endure. Sure, maybe everything bad cannot be stopped just yet, but still, too much gets through. So, let’s tighten that filter up a bit. Perhaps we will discover a cure.

If we were going to start picking things in our world that we would like to put an end to, devastating disaster would be a great place to start. No one would argue against the eradication of those. As storm fronts become super cells and start to create the noticeable spin that allows them to strengthen and create tornadoes, God could simply stop them. A cold or warm front at the right moment from the right direction means no homes destroyed, no vehicles tossed as if they were toys. No one has to die.

Eradicating ethnic cleansing and racist hatred would be agreed upon as well. Childhood hunger, millions of people being killed by malaria-bearing mosquitoes, human slavery and trafficking: again, no arguments. How great it would be to be able to make that list: ‘Horrors That Will Never Happen Again.’ God steps in and simply stops evil.“ Should We Fire God? (page 67)

This is where I found myself asking the same questions about why God can’t do the big things like that, but I also felt like there was an answer that provided at least a partial explanation for some of my questions. This may be no real answer if you don’t take this scripture seriously in any way, however, I do think the analogy opens up the possibility that if there is this God out there, he may be limited on his current reaction to our suffering. The question, though, is how far would we expect God to go in order to clean up the sources of pain and suffering on our list and how far is too far?

We will continue in Part 3b-3.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

** I would like to extend my gratitude towards the author, Jim Pace, for allowing me to publish the longer excerpts above from his book “Should We Fire God?”

Should We Fire God? (Part 3b-1)

2010-12-17T17:50:00.001-05:00

Perspective Three: Holy Scriptures and religion
There are the big three monotheistic Abrahamic religions that dominate the world today, along with others such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. I’ll just be discussing the Christian scriptures and influenced perspective(s) since that is what I am familiar with, grew up with, and adhere to.

Did you catch that? I just gave away my world view and my presuppositions about my thinking. So I’m not so open-minded, now am I? I am just building up a straw man and blowing him over to push my ‘religion’, right? I’ll let you be the verdict on that. Everyone holds to something, and this is an expression of my current understanding of a piece of mine.

I think it is possible for one to be a Christian and wrestle with some of the previous questions throughout this series and pose doubts about what God is really up to. However, the main focus here will not be on what most Christians think but rather what Christian scripture may have to say about this topic along with some points of reasoning.

Scriptures… what about them?
If one does not consider these scriptures as authoritative and accurate about the nature and character of God, then the ideas presented here may be greatly resisted either due to their source or by the content. Likewise, if one simply cannot fathom God as possibly good and having good reasons for things, then it will be hard to accept something built on a premise that is the opposite of one’s current perspective. You may be under the persuasion that both of these presumptions, and other related ones, are much too large to make.

I hope that leads one to take a serious look at the literature among us that speaks to these topics, namely whether one can reasonably trust these scriptures and if so is this ‘Big Guy’ ultimately good? Many have stepped away on either side of the line (trust or don’t trust) after their studies and searching, as well as in between it. While these can be initial barriers using one’s current state of thought, I do believe there are some interesting and thought-provoking ideas to be taken away whether one can take the Christian scripture seriously or not.

Large and small, living and innate
In its most simplistically and perhaps overly reduced and inaccurate form, you could say cells inflict pain on other cells of which we would consider living organisms, namely humans and higher life forms with the cognition and/or sense to feel pain. This is insufficient because I don’t think we would say sources of pain such as wind and the like have cells, and also pain may be a perception of the life form(s)’s interaction with other matter made aware through consciousness.

Scripture speaks of humanity’s value and dominion over all other life forms, and so I will cover the pain and suffering of humans. It should be noted that similar questions could be asked in regard to animals, though not in the same category as the questions about humanity given the divide between spiritual beings (humans) and non-spiritual beings (all other natural life) in the scriptures.

We all face differing amounts of pain from both living and nonliving sources. The pain may be large or small, with its effect(s) being either temporary or spanning a life time. It could harm us physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. It doesn’t take long to recognize this in the world we live in.

There is a wide range of pain inflicting sources that can affect us for better or for worse. It’s easy to see how certain types of pain are not only good but crucial to our survival and long-term well-being. This could include the pain felt when pressing your hand onto a stovetop burner or when the body says to stop doing something through its convincing pain in order to prevent permanent damage. Pain isn’t just a suggestion; it can be a very forceful and effective means for shaping our behavior to protect the body. It’s easy to take a step back and see the long-term and short-term goodness of physical pain of this nature, but what about things that happen to us that are harmful across the different dimensions of the physical, mental, emotional, etc. nature?

We will continue in Part 3b-2.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

Should We Fire God? (Part 3a)

2010-11-22T23:32:00.001-05:00

My approach
When I initially thought about this post, I wanted to list the major points that I felt were Jim’s strongest from the book along with my reaction(s) to them. After further consideration, I decided to diverge from my initial approach. I will be breaking this down into what I see (from a 21st century American’s eyes) as some of the major different perspectives from which we can address these questions about God, pain, suffering, and the like.

I realize that I can’t catch all the fish with the nets I am casting (my generalizations and stereotypes encapsulated by each section below), but I am going under some assumptions based on experience and exposure to the below world views that will help convey different ways I see that one can approach these questions. I also realize that in areas it may seem incomplete or oversimplified, either due to the fact that this is a blog entry and I can only do so much or perhaps because I simply am not well versed in it. One can and may indeed float between the different sections of thought I discuss below, because this can be a very complex undergoing of exploration for the human mind. One cannot simply avoid the full spectrum of observances and perspectives if they wish to take this on in its entirety, which by no means do I subscribe I am fully doing here.

Let’s proceed.

Perspective One: There is definitely no God | God is possible, but by no means probable | God can’t be discovered, confirmed, or denied
This perspective doesn’t just include atheists, agnostics, non-deists, and the like. As previously alluded to, adherents to a specific religion and others may find themselves at least partially involved in this camp, whether led here by science, experience, history, or perhaps just a hunch or personal decision without really knowing why. Any one (or a combination) of these reasons, leading oneself to a certain camp of thought, could be descriptive of any person across any perspective. We all have our reasons (or lack thereof) for our position.

Generally, I think of the following for this camp:
-    Shaped by modern culture, progress, and science.
-    The human mind arrives at perspectives based on the current understanding of our world through the natural sciences (and its implications), experience, and history which illuminate our past, present, and future.
-    Logic, reason, and skepticism are highly regarded, respected, and sought after as tools to better understand the reality of our increasingly complex and changing world.

Most of my experience with this camp has been primarily intellectually based: those that hold this position based on a set of steps taken intellectually that have guided them to their current understanding of the cosmos. In fact, many in this camp are former adherents to religion, especially those that grew up in the church here in America. A good percentage here actually know the Christian doctrines and scriptures better than many Christians themselves do, since many took a long hard look at their religion, resulting in the gradual and eventual renouncement of it.

The question of “Should We Fire God?” almost seems irrelevant or pointless, just like asking “Should We Fire Santa?” or “Should We Fire Tooth Fairies?” If one believes there is little to no reason to believe a deity, that some may call God, exists then why ask this hypothetical question? Perhaps it’s not even a good question to ask if there indeed was a God. If one goes so far as to entertain the idea that a god(s), or God, may indeed exist, then there should be things we can conclude about him based on the natural world around us, right?

What tools would one use to determine or conjecture what God might be like? We live in a time of much moral progress. In general, human beings in the emerging first world countries treat each other much more civil and moral than they did decades, centuries, and millennia ago. If our actions (or lack thereof) can be cataloged as either moral or immoral, then this is one tool we can attempt to measure God against since he should be a higher moral being, correct? Or at least able to stand against the same moral ruler?

If you see your friend tied to a chair being tortured, could you neglect that? If you just didn’t care and walked away or simply just watched, then you would be neglectful and labeled as evil if you had the power to stop it. If the man doing the torturing had henchmen that were numerous, strong, and wielded powerful weapons, then you likely would not be strong enough to go up against them. Your efforts would fail and in fact you would die trying. You would be labeled either heroic or idiotic for your attempt to protect your friend. Perhaps someone kidnapped your friend and you simply don’t know about the torturing. You can’t be held responsible or even try to protect your friend if you don’t know about it.

Neglectful – evil
Powerless – not at fault
Lacking Knowledge – not at fault

This is the same story as mentioned in the first post of this series which seems to lead (or confirm with) many to conclude that God simply is not there or if he is, then he would be characterized by the likes of Dawkins' description in the first post. If he was there, then the world would be much different, in terms of biology, pain and suffering, etc. This is the expectation. In regards to pain, suffering, and evil it only seems logical to conclude then that God either doesn’t care (neglectful), isn’t powerful enough (not omnipotent), or doesn’t know about it (not omniscient), mostly painting God as actively evil, or at least immoral (if there’s a difference). There is no chance for God really to be good in these scenarios since any real perceived action on God’s behalf simply is not there. Good things and bad things happen to both good and bad people alike with a blind indifference to their morality.

There may be those out there that give God allowances for more leighway in their interpretation and perception of him gathered from the world around them, but I think the content here fairly accurately depicts the common stance I hear from those characterized by this camp.

Perspective Two: I think there may be a God | I’m not sure
Deists, agnostics, etc.
Many of the same things above could be used to describe this section as well. The main reason for including this section is to acknowledge the perspective that the hypothesis of God’s existence is at least 50% or higher for many, though they may not subscribe to a particular version of God(s) from Holy text. There really are so many different views of gods/God that I feel like I am throwing and grasping at straws trying to contain them in these nice little neat categories. But for the sake of some structure, I will leave this section mainly as a place holder that can borrow from the other sections as well as from its own.

I ended up needing to break this post here so that I can attempt to keep the post shorter. In Part 3b, I will explore Perspective Three: Holy Scriptures and religion.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

Should We Fire God? (Part 2b)

2010-11-15T22:51:00.002-05:00

The beginning of questioning and doubting
At the end of 2007, I began my first real questioning of God, my faith, and what I could trust as real. This questioning was moreso in regards to factual truth and whether what I knew was reality and not something just in my head or thought up by humans thousands of years ago. It never really reached a questioning of the character of God, his goodness. Those six months or so were a painful time for me as I wrestled through questioning the basic tenets and assumptions in my faith. Is God the way I know him? Does he even exist? Can I trust the Bible? Is it all in my head? What is real? How do you determine truth? Have I been somehow deceived? Can I ever know?

This gradually brought up in me a tendency to question and doubt. Most of these questions and doubts slowly faded away throughout the summer of 2008 as I went to Leadership Training with our on campus church “The Revolution”. It was a summer of close fellowship with other believers, and through personal time in the Gospel books as well as the main sessions we had biweekly, I began to see God as living and powerful in my life again through the compassion I found in Jesus through scripture.

I came back from that summer at North Carolina to Ball State University where graduate school hit me a lot harder than I thought it would. I barely had enough time just for school. I became out of touch with God and would forget who he was to me. I was aware of the doubts creeping back in though I never really spent any significant time exploring those as I was so focused and busy with school. I graduated on July 25th, 2009 and moved down to Indianapolis, IN to start my new job on the 27th.

The next stage: character
Starting somewhere around 5 or 6 months ago, I began to look at the Old Testament in a different way. I had never really read much of the Old Testament and to be honest, it seemed mostly boring and not that useful. Jesus was where it was at. New Testament was my Visa. It was everywhere I wanted to be.

When reading the Old Testament before, I would sorta make everything okay because now we are in a new era. The era of Jesus and God’s infinite love. Nothing really bothered me in the Old Testament. The wars, the killings, the decisions made. That just didn’t happen anymore and didn’t really apply. I didn’t know why there was so much bloodshed back then, perhaps it was just the culture and was expected. It didn’t bother me because the emphasis and highlight is Jesus and I don’t have to think about God the way he was in the Old Testament right?

A new idea emerged in me, perhaps directly or indirectly from friends, that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I had already believed this, but what that meant to me now was that I couldn’t just fit my idea and view of God into my mind solely from the New Testament, but I needed to also use the Old Testament to shape my view of God. After all, they are one in the same God (or at least should be), right? However he was then, he should be the same today and tomorrow character-wise. Maybe his actions change between different cultures and how they respond, but the essence of God should be the same. I believe this was the beginning of the next level of questioning and doubt, only this time it wasn’t whether God WAS, but HOW he was. His character. I began to cast God into more and more negative light as I read the Old Testament.

Stream of questions
To avoid running the risk of making this post way too long, I will try to condense this section to just a few recent examples. Most of the below examples read like streaming thoughts, rather than complete ones.

Example A: Why would God let what went down in “The Garden” happen? Why setup a trap that he knew they would fall into eventually? He certainly knew they would do it. He must have been okay to let it happen. He gave the ability for them to choose it, and he told them not to with his foreknowledge that they would choose it.

Some may state that God did it because they needed to have free will. Without the choice to disobey God, they would have been robots with no free will. Is that true? Could they have only disobeyed God by God explicitly stating not to do something (i.e., eat from a specific tree in plain sight)? Weren’t Adam and Eve sinless? Made in God’s image and at that point perfect, complete? Will people be sinning ‘in heaven’ and if not, then does God not give them the choice to choose good or evil? Why go through this whole process when it all could have been avoided? I don’t know…

Example B: Why all the bloodshed as seen in the Old Testament? Not only did they fight to protect themselves, but God actually commanded the complete slaughter of everything for certain peoples including all adults, children, babies, animals, and property. If a human ordered this, we would call it genocide. The complete wipe out of a particular people. This is morally reprehensible. Did God have a good reason? Should he be held to the same moral standards? Is he a part of or apart from morals? Why make humans do it? Why not cause some sort of natural disaster or the likes? Either way, I find myself asking why. There are way to many questions and concepts packed in here to barely begin.

Example C: I began to see the Gospel as generally not good news, because it meant the condemnation for most people. It may be good news to those that are given the faith to respond, but what about the majority that won’t? To them, this would be the worst news ever. Far from good. If God is sovereign, he could save all people, which honestly I wish he would do. But scripture doesn’t seem to teach this.

I hate the concept of a state of eternal separation from God in what is referred to as hell. I can't fathom eternal punishment for finite disobedience because one either wasn't chosen by God or didn't choose him. I can't fathom God letting this happen if he loves every single person. And if he doesn't love every single person and only loves those that he calls to 'heaven', then his love seems limited and why would that be? Yet, if he did love all, then he seems cruel for loving someone but not saving them (unless he's not able, and thus not all-powerful) from eternal separation and punishment.

I can see why God might let some things happen, but what about the big things? Natural disasters, mass murderers, etc. If God did step in and take care of these things, how far should he go to protect the creation? At what point should he allow things to happen, and should he just go ahead and try to take care of everything and prevent as much suffering as possible?

You really need to read the book to journey through all of Jim’s questions, personal and general examples, and responses that continually occur throughout the book. He doesn’t present questions and doubts in the beginning and then proceed to definitively answer them. He continues the questions and responses throughout the book, gradually shifting and building upon his previous ones. It reads as honest and raw, which I found accessible and easier to relate and understand.

“I distinctly remember, time after time, going to God in my frustration. Maybe, somehow, he hadn’t realized what was happening. This was my career! Tracy and I had left behind jobs and a plan for PhD so we could come here and do this [working on staff at the church he now copastors]! I didn’t know what made me more nervous: the idea that God had in fact not been paying attention to my life and this massive failure seemed to be coming, or the idea that he had – that God knew what was going on and wasn’t doing everything at his disposal to stop it. It was as if he just suddenly left the table, dropped the phone, whatever – he just stopped talking to me.” Should We Fire God? [page 79-80]

“If you have extraordinary power, then you use it to help those who don’t. In the real world, we even have Good Samaritan laws in some states that require us to step in and help if we can. Watching preventable pain unfold without taking action is not considered a mark of restraint, or wisdom, or concern for the larger good. We don’t classify it as ‘seeing the bigger picture’. We see it as selfish and wrong.

Many people look at God that way. He is up ‘there’ in heaven, with a courtside view of the devastation. Maybe he’s just sitting on his hands while it all happens, or worse, he’s causing it himself. God starts to look pretty cruel. And once again the questions return: does he not stop the damage because he isn’t strong enough or because he doesn’t care enough? Or is it that he isn’t real enough? And we even argue over which of those reasons is really true.” Should We Fire God? [page 136-137]

Jim also lists God’s track record of protecting people, all of whom died terrible deaths for their faith. God saw it all coming.

Next, I would like to dive into some major points that began steering me to an understanding that began covering and in some areas replacing my cynicism and doubts about God’s performance, ability, and character, though the doubts, frustrations, confusion, etc are still interweaved through it all.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

Should We Fire God? (Part 2a)

2010-11-14T22:45:00.005-05:00

Punishment from above
Up until perhaps the last few years, moreso the last few months to a year, I had never really considered some of the questions presented in the previous post (Part 1) concerning God and pain and suffering. Had I been presented with those same questions then, it wouldn’t have bothered or shaken my view of God because although I could see pain and suffering around me and in the world, God was good, merciful, and love. I thought, our suffering and pain is due to the effects of sin since the beginning of time. Not that your sin has a direct cause and effect relationship like the Jews of Jesus’ time believed, but in the sense that we live in a broken world tainted by sin, and the only hope we have of eradicating this would be the full return and glory of Jesus Christ to end all pain.

I can’t say that I can blame the first century Jews for thinking about their relationship between God and themselves in terms of cause and effect with regard to their sins and what happens to them in life. Israel’s history was full of examples where God would command obedience to what he said, and time and time again Israel would wander and go its own way like a ‘whore prostituting herself’. God would bring down wrath to punish them for their ways so that they would realize he was the one and only true God worthy of their devotion and praise. Israel would come back to God and he would bless them through certain times. Then they would eventually start going astray and repeat the process. Not all Israelites went astray, but God dealt with them as a nation, a Holy people he called out.

So if this is how God had interacted with his people, then doesn’t it make more sense that the first century Jews would believe that if a person was going through bad times (disease, death, etc) it was a direct result of God punishing them for their sins, such as assumed Job's friends? But how did Jesus respond to this, and why the seeming change? Perhaps because in the old days God dealt with Israel as a people, and Jesus seemed to turn everything on its head and break it down to the individual level?

"And his disciples asked him,"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him." John 9:2-3

Luke 13:4-5 seems to hit the same point. Bad things that happen to people are not a direct result of their sin.

So if pain and suffering isn’t a direct divine response to one’s sins, then that would follow that pain may be either caused by God for non-punishing reasons or that he merely allows it to happen (or a combination or perhaps something else even). Assuming that God at least loves some people, how could he standby and watch it happen to them? He certainly saw it coming and didn’t do anything to divert it from their path.

Neglect speaks for itself
I’d like to go through a story presented in Jim’s book. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported:

“The crime scene photos of Sierra Tisdale shows a lifeless, emaciated baby with curly dark hair in a soiled crib, with feces oozing from every corner of her unchanged diaper.

At the time of the child’s 2002 death from starvation, the case was considered on of the worst examples of child neglect in Clark County in recent memory.”

Sure, the mother Sophia Mendoza was under many pressures: she was nineteen, had five kids, an abusive boyfriend, and there were indications she did meth. That is not the best home life, but is there any excuse for what she did? Baby Sierra was found dead for 24 hours the same day her mommy went out to celebrate her own birthday. A wax apple in the house was found to have bite marks in it. As Jim agrees that much neglect is just too much.

“To some, God is guilty of similar levels of neglect and abuse. The specifics are different, but the lack of care is the same. To some, God’s explanations aren’t important – in much the same way that many would say that Sophia’s aren’t. Many people aren’t looking for the deeper issue, the bigger pictures. The facts are what they are: Sophia created a child and then let that child slowly, and probably painfully, die. Enough said.

Just imagine a friend comes up and starts talking to you about Sophia Mendoza. Let’s say he doesn’t’ just bring her up, he talks about the great things she had done. As he talks about Sophia’s selfless acts, he sees the look of disbelief on your face. He responds with a knowing smile and says, ‘I get this all the time. You are missing the point! She is really a wonderful woman!’ Then he describes to you how you should follow Sophia’s example in your life!

The problem is that you don’t think you have missed anything at all. To some, the good things someone (or God) might do simply don’t make the bad go away.” Should We Fire God? [page 52]

I can’t say that I have been free from the same thoughts and accusations placed on God. He then goes on to quote a somewhat common view of God:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins

That’s quite the accusation, though with the world we live in God can seem to deserve having some of those characteristics applied to him.

On the job
I walk into work. I go to my desk and logon to my computer. I decide that I won’t be doing my responsibilities and I play games and watch videos on youtube.com. Some co-workers need my help, but I decide not to do anything. I just sit there idly and watch. I say I wish I could help you but you’ll have to do this one on your own or with someone else, I can’t do it now. It wouldn’t take too long for an employer to recognize this sort of blatant disregard for ones job and they would likely be packing up their things shortly thereafter. Is this what God is doing with our world? Just watching and not helping? Should he be fired?

In Part 2b, I will discuss my personal stages of doubt leading me to question God, my faith, and his character.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

Should We Fire God? (Part 1)

2010-11-12T22:17:00.004-05:00

The Characteristics

Hatred. Evil. Neglectful. Merciful. Maliciousness. Uncaring. Love. Selfish. Lazy. Vengeful. Compassionate.

These are all words that can easily be ascribed to people throughout time including our own here in the 21st century. But what about God? Or gods? If there in fact is a God and we can know anything about him, do any of the above words characterize him?

Millennia ago, adherents to a specific set of gods certainly would have attributed those characteristics to them. Generally each god had their own unique niche, such as the Roman gods and goddesses:

Aesclepius: god of medicine
Apollo: god of brightness, music and art
Liber Bacchus: god of wine
Ceres Demeter: goddess of agriculture
Mars Ares: god of war
Nemesis: goddess of retribution
Venus Aphrodite: goddess of love
Vesta: goddess of hearth and home
Vulcan: god of fire

Firing the gods
These are just a handful. It seems there was a different god to account for almost every part of human life, nature, and events. Today we would attribute these same processes with natural cause and effect relationships as found through science, rather than attributing something to a specific god like the Romans and their counter parts did. Those Roman citizens likely would have seen certain gods as carrying the aforementioned characteristics, but does God, as depicted through the Christian scriptures, carry these attributes as well (in addition to others)?

With the progress of mankind, we have “fired” those gods and goddesses, rendering them useless and even nonexistent. We don’t need them to explain how things work, and in fact they are seen as mechanisms that were invented by naïve and superstitious peoples. Today, monotheistic religions thrive and have been doing so since their origins thousands of years ago.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” – Richard Dawkins

If we go one God further and “fire” the last of the modern day gods/God, then we should not have anything further to say here, unless we would like to conjecture about a non-existent deity for purely educational and historical studies.

If there is a God, what can we make of him?
Let’s imagine, however difficult, that there is a God, or at least the potential for one. Not merely just a creator God, but a relational God. What is he like? Where has he been? What is he doing up there? Why so much unnecessary pain and struggle? Doesn’t he care about his creation? Where was he when my cousin hanged himself? Where was he when my former friends were killed in high school? Where is he when countless numbers of people die, are tortured, and are starved day in and day out? Where will he be tomorrow when it continues to happen?

If there is one thing people can agree about God, whether they believe in his existence or not, it is that he should be our protector. It’s God’s job to make us safe and happy. The American dream right?

Corey Taylor from the band slipknot states:

“ 'O almighty, all knowing, compassionate Lord..'

In hearing these words from a priests mouth one must look at the contradictions and conundrum of faith in regards to the problem of suffering. Just look at the world around you. Read the newspaper once and you'll understand this as every rational human being should.

If this "God" does exist, in co-ordinance with the priests statement, and is aware about the matters of his creations, then either:

1. God knows about suffering and could stop it but doesn't care, in which case he isn't compassionate

2. God knows about suffering, and cares about it but can't do a thing about it, in which case he isn't all-powerful

3. God can do something about it and cares about it, but doesn't know about it, in which case he isn't all-knowing.”

To read the rest of his thoughts on religion, visit Rational Responders.

These are issues man has been wrestling with ever since he was first able to think about it. Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, [341-270 B.C.] is quoted with saying:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

These are no light questions. They shape the way we view and think about God, or lack thereof.

“A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.” – Richard Dawkins

If he is right, then how would the world look different without a God? How about with one? One may find that their answers likely reflect their own sense of justice, compassion, ethics, morals and the like.

Next, in Part 2, I would like to take a look at some of my own struggles, doubts, and concerns in this area as well as Jim Pace’s, who recently authored a book titled “Should We Fire God?”.

Should We Fire God? series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Part 2b
Part 3a
Part 3b-1
Part 3b-2
Part 3b-3

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 4

2010-06-07T22:53:00.014-04:00

I wanted to wrap this series up with a few closing thoughts.

I agreed with many aspects of the video and how the thought life of a person heavily influences their attitudes and actions. But to me, where they really left reality was when they took those truths and tried to push their claim that the Universe instinctively is listening to your thoughts and wishes, and it will respond accordingly if you just keep asking and believing. Eventually the Universe will give it to you. It may be soon; it may take some time.

What is the most convincing part of The Secret? Why are people convinced it is true? Is it solely what it claims that is convincing, or also what you can experience based on its claims? Can we take bits and pieces of truth from it, or does The Secret as a whole count for truth? Does it live up to the expectations that it sets? Any ideas? Thoughts?

Correlation vs. Causality

I would claim that they are violating a basic tenet of statistical analysis: correlating events and then claiming causality*. If I rub my belly every morning I get up and repeat to the Universe that I want to win tickets to an event, and one day I win it; did the Universe respond to me and give me what I wanted? Is it only coincidence? There is a correlation (rubbing my belly that day and I won the tickets), but not causality. The belly rubbing did NOT cause the ticket winning. It's just that it so happened at the same time.

We can conclude this based on the statistical probability of rubbing my belly and getting an expected result. If most times or EVERY time I rubbed my belly, something happened that I was wishing for, then that would be grounds for more than mere coincidence. The only thing needed to help consider support for it, would be that the chances are statistically improbable, not that it happened every time I rubbed my belly or even most times when I did so.

Followers of The Secret would likely dismiss this claim, because they would state that these things don't just come right away and that it would be facetious to believe so. Okay. What factors determine when the Universe decides to align things to 'happen' for you? What are the personal characteristics and mechinism(s) of the Universe by which it makes these decisions? Does the Universe decide whether to act now or later based on the results of entering your request into the massive database of events for the Universe to see if it can still accommodate your request along with the requests of others potentially at the same time? Help me understand how one can know that the Universe did it and that it wasn't due to some other factor or coincidence? I could go into much more detail concerning the theoretical nature of a personified Universe and the complexity of its operations of conducting and managing schedules to accommodate the requests of people, however, I will withdraw any further inquiries here.

Confusion in general

I think in general it can be easy to confuse the two: correlation and causality. We can see something happen and may automatically think it was due to something we had been thinking, asking, and/or believing to happen. Depending on the circumstances, that may or may not be true. One example from the video, as seen in Part 3 of this series in the 2nd embedded video, was of a man that thought and wished for his parking spot and there just so happened to be that prime open parking spot everyday for him.

If I think positively about a job interview and I practice before hand, then I will have a better chance of nailing the interview and thus a better chance for receiving an offer. The actions are a result of the thoughts and can help aid in confidence and delivery. This would be the initial agreement I would have with the concept. But 'The Secret' takes it further to say that the Universe is actually responding and aligning things so that you will receive what you want; as if the Universe exists and serves as a genie bound to our thoughts and desires to make us happy (refer to the picture at the top as seen in The Secret). Our thoughts, via the law of attraction, will attract things we want, because of the Universe's response.

Please leave comments and feedback!

* This could be said to be true for many religious beliefs and thoughts people have, as well as many non-religious thoughts and decisions that people make each day.

Please see my related posts detailing my thoughts after watching 'The Secret' video:

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 1: Intro

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 2: Things I agree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 3: Things I disagree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 3

2010-05-27T00:08:00.023-04:00

First of all, I apologize how long this post ended up being, but I really wanted to hit all the points that I did. I plan on writing a Part 4 to address a few other things in closing. That being said, let's begin.

Things I disagree with…

…include*:

1.      The Universe responds to your thoughts, that is, it is intimately aware and responsive to your thoughts and what makes you happy.

       - Sounds like ‘If you think it, it will come’.

2. The Universe wants you to act quickly. Don’t second guess yourself; seize the opportunity.

- I have a lot of issues with this when initially interpreting what I believe they mean. There are many decisions in life for which making a decision hastily could be costly. There are many decisions in life that should not be taken lightly and should be accompanied by advice and insight from family and friends.

The particular context of this statement was when a girl was hoping for a boy friend and some guys asked her to come over and play volleyball and then leave with them to hang out or 'go out'. Does the advice refer to specific situations where it would be good to take a risk and go for it? Are there times when the 'Universe' would want us to second guess ourselves?

3. We create our own happiness with the law of attraction. If you just think it, you will be wealthy and happy.

- This seems a bit oversimplified and optimistic that if you would ONLY think it, you could be wealthy and happy. Is the root cause of poverty and unhappiness in the world due to people neglecting to just think happy thoughts? Peter Pan?

4. Your joy lies within you.

- I'm not sure what they mean by joy or how they differentiate it from happiness, but happiness is based on and dependent of happenstances, or life situations and experiences. I would like to think that joy is something that lies outside of my experience and interaction with the world as something that can remain constant in both good and bad times. For the Christian, my understanding would be that this joy would be found in the saving works of and faith in Jesus Christ.

5. If you are thinking bad thoughts, such as about the debt you are in and the bills you will be receiving, then that’s why you have debt and bad things are happening to you. If you think that debt bill is going to be in the mail, then indeed it will be.

- I had the impression that if you just don’t think about it, and think about ‘good’ things such as getting money, then those debt bills will stop coming. They are likely, I hope, referring to the power of your thoughts in preventing action that will help you get out of debt; though I suspect they may also or alternatively mean that the Universe actually listens to you and responds accordingly.

6. If you have a disease and you focus on thinking about it, then you are just creating more diseased cells. Healing will not occur until you have happy, positive thoughts and emotions. The body heals itself; you are curable from within; and you can change your life and heal yourself.

- I have heard about the wonders of the human body to repair and heal itself, such as when there is hope, but can we really extrapolate that finding to say that if you are sick and you are only thinking about the sickness, then you are only creating more diseased cells? And that healing won't occur until you have positive thoughts? How many people never really have positive thoughts and yet are healed? How many have great positive thoughts, but end up passing away? This seems too hopeful and unrealistic, not grounded in reality.

7.      If you want it; if you can see it; then you can have it.

            - A) One example included a boy that would stare at a picture of a bicycle he really wanted. He became upset since he never received one, so he threw the picture away. But wait, he decided to persist in his thought process, asking (the Universe?) for it anyways. He had faith; he believed. One day a man (grandfather?) showed up at the front porch with it. And the kid happily rode away on it.

B) Another example was with a man that wanted a car. He visualized it in his living room and acted like he was driving and hearing the sounds of it. C) Yet another had envisioned his dream home.   (see the second video near the bottom of this post)

            - On the surface, I don’t really see anything wrong with visualizing and setting goals. However, they push the notion that the Universe is actually responding to these people, and that some general spiritual guidance (or matter and energy in the Universe) is doing the work, rather than the thought process and actions just remaining with these people as motivations for pro-activeness and pre-planning.

8. We’re all connected, we just don’t see it. We’re all spiritual; you’re a god manifested in human form. That means you have (god) potential to create your own energy and world. The power within you is greater than the power in the world. Are there any limits to this? Absolutely not!

- See this referenced video from my last post (Part 2) that is somewhat related, but only in terms of connectedness: 'The Hidden Influence of Social Networks'

9. Your purpose is what you say it is.

- I won't go into any long comments, but check out this related blog (a great work) that a friend of mine wrote on purpose comparing two views on opposite ends of the spectrum: Rick Warren and Richard Dawkins on Purpose

10. You should do anything that makes you feel it (good). It’s about finding something good that resonates with your heart.

- I have a lot of issues with this statement. If we should all just do what makes us feel good, then do we need to care about how others feel? There is a great deal of sacrifice in relationships, especially marriage, that can't be overlooked. We would need more context into this statement as well as more details since they may be stating a subset of something larger, and they may very well agree with my last statement and state that there is a give and take and we have to do things for others so that they will repay us to make us happy later.

Humans are self-centered beings, but I don't like the idea of scratching someone's back just so that they will scratch yours later, no matter how valid the argument. Point number 10 sounds very new age, in that it alludes to the fact that we create our own realities and that what you feel, say, and think is truth, as if truth does not exist outside of you.

11. People will look at you and ask ‘what is different with them?’. Well, the difference is that you know the secret.

12. Now you get that you are the creator of your destiny. The moment you begin to live your life this way, it will feed you, guide you, direct you, sustain your existence if you let it. Now, that is what I know for sure.

- I don't know if this is stated metaphorically or literally, but I get the feeling that he means that the Universe will literally take care of you intentionally in response to your wishes and desires. This statement, among others above including 11, was from a Reverend. My perception is that his god is the very material and energy of the Universe intellectually responding to his every wish.

One of the interviewees had explained that ‘this is not just wishful thinking’. I don’t know how he can honestly support all of these claims. If you feel that I have any misguided assumptions and/or interpretations, please feel free to dialogue about them below.

These series of posts so far, were only intended to reflect my initial thoughts based off the video of 'The Secret'. For further information regarding what 'The Secret' and the 'Law of Attraction' is and how to use it, visit the link above by clicking on the header image, watch the video, and/or just search around online. The image below is a screen shot from the website:

Also, check out 'The Masters of the Secret' website, which touts that: "Millions of people saw these stars of The Secret on Oprah!, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Larry King Live, and The Montel Williams Show. Interest in this course will therefore be staggering."

Some other related videos:

This one is a comical but quite accurate retelling of the video with actual video footage:

* These just include paraphrases and quotes from the video 'The Secret' and no other source. These points were meant to be grouped together as related thoughts and ideas.

Please see my related posts detailing my thoughts after watching 'The Secret' video:

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 1: Intro

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 2: Things I agree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 4: Final comments

Thoughts on ‘The Secret’ - Part 2

2010-05-24T23:00:00.015-04:00

Things I agree with…
…include*:

- Your thoughts are powerful things; they can drive, shape, and impact your actions, relationships, and your future.

- What you put your mind on, impacts your attitude and actions. If you are always thinking about negative things then those thoughts will negatively impact your attitude and actions. Put your mind on things that are ‘good’.

- Thoughts and emotions can manifest into material things, insofar as the placebo effect.

There is a lot of truth that I found in the video, mostly regarding the importance of your thought life. If you always have negative, cynical thoughts, then that will impact your attitude and actions, which emanates through your social circles and impacts them as well. This can be seen in the workplace from a person that is always complaining, i.e., a ‘Debbie-downer’. This, I have no issue with. But here, is not where it ends.

Up Next: Part 3 - Things I disagree with.

Check out this TED video concerning 'The Hidden Influence of Social Networks'

Video reference thanks to my buddy Adam Lehman.

* A mixture of paraphrases and quotes I took on my cell phone during the video

Please see my related posts detailing my thoughts after watching 'The Secret' video:

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 1: Intro

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 3: Things I disagree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 4: Final comments

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 1

2010-05-23T21:05:00.017-04:00

Last night, 5/22, I sat down to watch a movie (more of a documentary) with my family that I had never heard before: The Secret. See the Trailer.

I am going to offer my initial thoughts and reactions to it in several different blog postings, this being part 1. First let's take a look at an excerpt from the above Trailer:

Trailer Excerpt:
"And now the great glimmering of truth can be revealed again.

You know this secret gives you everything you want: happiness, health, and wealth. You can have, do, or be ANYTHING you want.

I've seen many miracles take place in peoples' lives: Financial miracles, miracles of physical healing, mental healing, healing in relationships.

All of this happened because of knowing how to apply the secret"

This is perpetuated as the great secret of life. At first glance, it has similarities to what is referred to as…

'the prosperity gospel'

…seen many times by so called Televangelists. Some preachers that may come to mind include:

- The founders of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), Paul and Jan Crouch - who are never shy to ask for money: "even viewers who couldn't afford a $1,000 pledge should take a "step of faith" and make one anyway."

- Joel Olsteen,

- Joyce Meyer

- among others

Now, I don't really follow the above ministries among others potentially labeled 'Prosperity Gospel Preachers and Ministries', but these types of ministries have been labeled by some as 'Believe with all your heart and soul, they tell the faithful. And give, give, give until you can't give any more. God, they say, loves a cheerful giver.' (online source).

Another component to this prosperity is that God wants us to be prosperous. Does God Want You To Be Rich (Time Magazine concerning Joel Olsteen). We will find that ‘The Secret’ has both similarities and differences to this ‘prosperity Gospel’. They may appear to be somewhat similar in practice, but the worldviews are fundamentally different (both of which I have problems with).

As we dive into the details of what ‘The Secret’ is, I will uncover what I agree and disagree with, Part 2 and Part 3 respectively, from the notes I took on my cell phone during the video. I look forward to open dialogue and comments, welcomed to all.

Please see my related posts detailing my thoughts after watching 'The Secret' video:

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 2: Things I agree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 3: Things I disagree with...

Thoughts on 'The Secret' - Part 4: Final comments

Hey, can you send me that picture?

2010-05-09T22:08:00.004-04:00

A friend just asked me if I had a picture on my phone of an item, in order to show their grandma. When asked, I responded 'nope don't have', because I assumed they were wanting me to send the picture from my phone to them at that moment.

If I were to write this down in my journal and then someone (dubbed Person A) in the future came along and read it, they may say 'Oh look! Proof that he was lying and didn't want the other to see it! He said that he didn't have the picture, but later on he emailed it to his friend, probably out of guilt for lying. So he did have it!'
This is true, I DO have the picture within my email account. My phone was low on space so I sent the picture to my email account and then deleted the picture on my phone. My friend also knew that I wouldn't have access to the Internet until the next day, so effectively, I didn't have it (on me).

With this extra given backdrop to the story, does my journal seem less contradictory when contextualized?

Perhaps Person B hears Person A...
...and says 'Oh no, you've got it wrong. This man was not intentionally lying. He didn't have the picture to send at the time so he responded with a quick 'nope don't have'. If you take that statement literally, as you understand it, as he doesn't have it anywhere, then yes you may be onto something. But the thing is, he intended to send it later, which is why he did so. You are just looking at it from a cynical point of view. He had good intentions and within the context that you don't seem to be aware about, it makes sense.'

How you approach and decipher the meaning of something can largely be influenced by a number of factors such as your culture, environment, perceptions, knowledge and understanding, and more.

This is true for anything in life whether it be friendships, learning in school, marriage, reading a text, or listening and engaging in a conversion.

How does 'who you are' flavor your perceptions and interpretations of life and the things surrounding you?

It's been a long time

2010-05-07T21:26:00.002-04:00

Wow, March 7 of 2009: my lost post. What have I been doing? That is over a year, amazing how time flies. I am updating my blog and I intend to post more regularly now (linking to it via my Twitter account).

Spring Break: March 7-15

2009-03-07T22:32:00.003-05:00

I was originally planning to go to Mississippi for a rebuild project from Katrina, but due to some complications I will be home for the break. Unfortunately, I have a mid-term exam this coming Wed. and I still have numerous hours left to finish reading (chapters 1-15, currently on 9).

I will briefly mention EQT180. That stands for Extended Quiet Time 180 (minutes).

I did this over the summer at LT and I continued for a month or two after I arrived back at BSU. I let my busy schedule squish that out of my schedule and now I am excited to get it back again! My goal is to let others know I am doing this and establish a group of people that can do this on Saturday mornings around 10am - 1pm. We would all meet up at a central location and disperse throughout the campus to where ever individuals would like to go. There would be no structure and people could do anything from straight up conversing with the Lord, read a book, journaling or numerous other things.

My intentions would be straight up conversing with the Lord and journaling for the most part, since I don't get much quiet/reflective time during the week.

January 30th Parkview cancelled

2009-02-05T18:09:00.007-05:00

Since Brandon and I were both sick last week, we decided not to infect the staff and residents at Parkview.

My congestion has been better and the vaporizor gel has been helping as well. Since I have a few minutes before class starts, I will briefly discuss a few projects I am currently working on.

CICS

ICS600: AT&T Challenge

ATT presented an RFP to our class and as groups we must respond to that RFP by the middle of April. It is a huge project management task to first understand exactly what the requirements are and what they actually would like (from about 60 pages). We, as a division of ATT (ATT Elite), must provide wireless mobility services. The bidders conference is tommorrow, Friday, where they will present our questions concerning the RFP. Our team has a good start but it is a daunting task with all of the extra documents to read as well concerning ATT information such as very detailed pricing and specifications for services.

ICS660: "Human factors, needs assessment, and user-driven design"

The Human Factors Institute (HFI) is a research group operated through the Center at Ball State University. "Its focus is the interaction between humans and technology, and the need for understanding the impact of a good interface. " Dr. Jay Gillette is our professor and involved with HFI. As I see it, HFI is essentially being subcontracted out to our class for six (6) projects. My group will be working on a new usability lab. It will be dedicated to Thomson for donating their equipment to the lab. Our goal is to assess, design, develop, and deploy the Thomson Usability Lab in an existing conference room. It may be used for software testing and a room connected to the conference room will host the control room.

ICS 621: research paper
album
web design (x2)

Time for class.

Parkview #2 1/24/09

2009-01-28T22:14:00.008-05:00

[As transcripted from my journal]

1/24/09 12:40pm

"Yesterday, Friday, I went to Parkview for the 2nd official time. Brandon was sick and couldn't make it. I had a short moment where I wanted to take the easy way out and just not go. It would save me the trouble of catching MITS buses and walking in the cold, I thought. I had to work from 10-1pm and after I ate at home I came back to campus at 2:15 to get some things done first (turn in course-add registration form and drop off keys to room mate). Activities time starts at 2:30pm and it was almost that time already. I also had several things that I could start on like the AT&T Challenge for CICS and mixing songs I would like to have done soon. I thought back to my freshman year in high school for a split second and remembered my hardcore tennis coach Mischler and how he said to 'stick to the path' & 'no shortcuts' & 'shoulda, coulda, woulda' (although his 'stick to the path' was literal, he would yell at us if we didn't stay on side walks to cut through grass to get some where quicker).

I remembered some of the reasons I'm going there in the first place (e.g., interact with residents to develop relationships and let them know they are important and people (especially God) loves them and values them, to server and to see change and be changed).

I found the bus stop and I thought it couled be a while since it only comes every 30 min. I sat on the ground and about 5 min. later the MITS bus was there and I was in the nursing home just minutes later.

I walked in around 2:45pm and they were playing bingo (about 15 people). I sat down next to probably the most normal, youngest, a black lady. She may be about 60. The bingo cards are really big and she had 4. I sat with her and watched and helped her play.

It made me smile after ever few spaces were called. People are a little hard of hearing and will yell out questioning what the number was. The lady I sat with is Ellen. She carried on some small talk as she played. She had better hearing than anyone in there I would think. She told me about some serious bingo places she has been to, unlike this one. She said 'people don't play right, they keep talking and then no one can hear any numbers'. The talking wasn't that bad but it was enough to miss a number. They actually get paid in quarters for winning. They seemed to take it fairly seriously, many in good fun though. About 30 min. later they were done with bingo and I helped pickup all the game boards and chips. Also, while Ellen played she would sorta talk to herself as she searched her boards.

As I turned in all the parts, I walked around looking for someone to talk with or something to do. AFter a few steps on of the other bingo players said something to me, so I sat next to her to talk. There were about 5 people left out in the main dinning 'living room' space. (oh, it was also funny/cute when a little old lady said 'bingo!' in a very faint, confident voice.) One of the other volunteers, younger girl, was tehre along with Laura, called 'Grandma' by some for her old age (90ish?). The lady I sat with was Pauline and she had to be close to 90 as well.

She asked if I would like to play Uno, "Yes!" I would. I laughed because she just reached into her wheel chair and whipped out a deck that looked like it was heavily used. Very worn. Then she grabbed an off brand mouth wash bottle. I thought she was going to rinse her teeth, if any, right there! It turns out that is used as an arrow to point which direction the game is going for uno. When someone throws down a reverse card she flips it so as not to forget the direction. So we started a 4-player game and I was the designated shuffler. I could keep going into detail but I really enjoyed playing for about 2.5 hours.

I also came to find out that the man I met last time, Constant, isn't well received or like. He never looks sad or mad. he is either somewhat expressionaless or has a smile. He also doesn't get many visitors. He will roll up in his wheel chair close to people and either that alone or he may bump them with is feet upsets them. This happened several times during Uno. At first I thought they were just joking and teasing when they raised their voices and told him to get away and they he makes them mad and why does he have to torture them to death, etc.

Whenever he got too close it sounded like a knife fight was about to go down by the way they reacted. So I would like to get to know the situation better and why they react this way and why Constant does it. Constant doesn't really talk at all, so it may be hard to dialogue.

I enjoyed my time there and look forward to knowing them better and helping out. When I was waiting outside of Parkview for the bus, I started to think, I had fun and I am getting to know them better and help out, but is that all it is? Am I only able to have fun with them once a week and that's it? Many of them aren't capable of good discussions and many are at least to a point. I started wondering if I was 'wasting' my time by just having fun with them. And then I realized that there is potential for deeper friendships and serving Parkview and its residents. I don't know where this will all lead, but I want to trust that God will use me to step out in faith and help people see the Kingdom of God, including myself."

1st Official Parkview Nursing Home visit (1/16/09 )

2009-01-24T16:14:00.006-05:00

[As transcripted from my journal]

1:15-2:45pm

"After several trips to Parkview Nursing Home here in Muncie IN last year (month or 2 ago), we had our first time with the residents today. I made up 1.5 hrs of work in the Nursing LRC from 9:30-11am and then I worked out until ~ 12:15pm. I caught the MITS bus and met a friend, Brandon, at the main station downtown. We hopped on the 1:00pm bus and arrived at Parkview about 10-15 minutes later.

Arrival
We met Kathy, whom we have coordinated our volunteer work with, to see how we could serve. We were about an hour early for activity time so she said we could mingle with the residents. I sat in a chair closer to the entrance where a lady was trying to call her son. It was a long open room with a big flatscreen TV and chairs and tables. Attached was the dining facility. I talked briefly with this lady. Next, I met a man who I later realized his name was Constant and not Don. He was getting his excercise in by moving around in his wheel chair with his feet. Most residents are in wheel chairs while others have walkers. This is a much different atmosphere than I am used to.

Next I met Louis, shom I ended up staying with for most of our time there. Brandon also found others and we went different ways. She had a walker. We first met her when we were speaking with Laura, one volunteer calls her grandma. Lous came up to me and asked if there was a fire alarm and if they were evacuating. There was clearly no alarms ringing so I told her I didn't think there was a fire drill. (She may be around 90). I started talking to her for a minute and then she asked 'which way do people usually get out of here'. I thought she meant out of this area to some where so I repeated the question to her and some of the staff heard and said 'oh no, Louis you don't want to go outside, it's below 0F.' We started walking after I asked her where she was going or trying to go but she didn't know. The building layout is mostly a square. We started on our way around it, passing resident rooms. It didn't take long to see she had a sense of humor even though it was hard for her to hear and understand sometimes. It seemed like she would go any way I went and waited to hear confirmation on which way to turn. "

Break--------Break [in writing in my journal]

[resumed 1/24/09 around noon]

"I remember her saying after she made the correct turn on her own, "Aren't I brililant?". She was fun to walk with. I remember having my perspective changed and feeling more somber. I am still relitively at the beginning of my life and now I had jumped to a place where many were at the end of their life. Many didn't seem to function like they used to, while others are a little younger and seem like they wouldn't need to be there (upper 50's)."

2008-11-24T18:44:00.002-05:00

Parkview Nursing Home

2008-10-16T22:16:00.004-04:00

What's going on with this?
When our group got back from LT this summer, one person (Brandon) talked to me about an idea he wanted to run with. He feels like there are mainly two groups of people that don't receive enough attention or get pushed aside: children and the elderly.

This vision was to visit a local nursing home every week to let them know people care about them and that they are not forgotten. We would talk to them and listen to their stories and our own as well.

We recently picked up some applications from Parkview to volunteer. We have each talked to our separate house churches to bring others into reaching out to the homes by volunteering and building relationships. Brandon and I turned in our applications today and since they were out of the TB testing kits, we will be going in tomorrow to get tested. We will have to go in again on Sunday for them to get the appropriate results from our hopefully TB (not Taco Bell) free bodies.

My thoughts
When he first talked to me about this idea at the beginning of school, I thought it was a great idea but I didn't know if I would have the time to do it. It has been a somewhat disconnected idea in my head. I have vaguely thought about how we would go in and hopefully be able to build relationships through talking and then to share our faith when the situation is there. Actually being there in the environment for a few minutes last week and this week as well has really opened up my mind to the environment in which we will be going. There are many opportunities for us to volunteer to help the staff there while building relationships with the staff and people living there as well. I think this can be a life-changing/enhancing experience for both us and everyone we run into while we are there. I want to take some time alone with God to talk about this opportunity and the potential impact on our and their lives. Most of the time I do not realize the impact that I can have on people by my attitude and actions. I will be posting more information on this after each visit to describe our time there.

Projects

2008-10-07T00:07:00.004-04:00

Here is a brief rundown on the current projects I am working on:

602 - Human Communications - practical communications in a seminar setting

I wouldn't consider this a project, but I am working on my Theory of Human Communications for my mid-term exam during week 10 (currently in week 7).

630 - Research Methods

IBM's Symphony System620

Design and conduct a research study of IBM's Symphony System in comparison with Microsoft's Office System. We will examine:

1) The installation process
2) The instruction material
3) The ease of operation and usability of the system for class assignments
4) Student productivity in employing the system for class materials preparation

This is a class led project where each team takes one of the above tasks. We will create
reports to be sent to IBM concerning the usability of this product and we may have the
chance to present it to IBM.

620 - Tech class (CCNA, phone systems, etc)

The Healing Net Hospital Case

Prepare a strategic plan that presents our vision for an integrated network to serve Healing Net Hospital (I believe this used to be a real ongoing project but is done now. This case study still has been used for educational purposes across the country.) We will provide an implementation timeline, one-time costs for equipment with the network and communication devices for the physicians and nurses, consider all health care and privacy related legislation, security and integrity of information moving throughout the system, a disaster recovery plan, minimize costs for our budget, etc. We will present a documented solution that will be entered into a national contest, ITERA. A judging panel will review the papers and the top 3 teams will be invited to Atlanta in April 2009 to make an in-person presentation to a final judging panel who will select the winning team. Ball State teams have made it to this point many times from my understanding. They may have even won last year.

Ball State's CICS graduate program named best in nation

601 - Management focused class

Digital Media Programs in the USA

The intro on my handout: "At least since the turn of the 21st Century the "emerging field" of digital media (and art) has exploded across the U.S. higher education landscape. There was lots of speculation about hundreds of programs enrolling thousands of students but there was no concrete data until the CICS class of 2007 did a preliminary research study in this class (601) which became the 'Digital Media Programs in the USA' survey book. The class of 2008 had the task of improving upon the original work and their work resulted in the directory titled, "Digital Media Programs of the USA." It doubled the number of entries and was distributed broadly across the US last November."
The program was technically founded at BSU in 2002. Our tasks are twofold: 1) "First you must find a way to determine whether we missed any digital media and/or arts programs across the U.S. There are slightly over 3400 higher education institutions in the 50 states. " 2) "Second, using the current directory, you must confirm the accuracy of the content, updating and expanding where possible. This involves contacting those in the directory".
After we presented our proposal for going about this, we decided (more so the teacher decided) how we were going to do this. I started about a week ago by sending emails to 61 schools in Pennsylvania. If they don't respond in 3 days, I send another email, slightly different from the first. Each email has a memo from Dr. Steele (our Prof) and an attached survey questionnaire. There are 50 students total working on this project. I sent out my round 2 emails last night on Sunday. I will likely start making calls tomorrow until mid next week. This is when we should have contacted everyone. I have only had about 5 replies so far. That means I will be calling 50+ people and I don't have that kind of time, especially during the business hours of the day. We will be using campus land line phones.
iDMAa

2. The next project is the same case study as above for 620 but it is much less technical and
focuses on the management/business aspect much more.

699 - Study in Technology - Internet Penetration test (Pentesting)

This is not a part of CICS but it will count as an elective. This is the first time this class
has ever been offered (in my undergrad computer tech department).

The main outcome of this project is a security guide for small business. We will be gathering information about IT infrastructure in small businesses, setting up a typical small business networking environment as an Internet penetration spot (to hack it), applying best practices to enhance the security of the Internet penetration spot, launch ethical hacking to break into penetration spot run by peers at a different country, and to summarize our findings of the course project to develop this "Security Tips Guide" for small business. I am most excited about this project as it relates to security, one of the topics I am most intrigued about in my field.

Week 6

2008-09-29T11:14:00.004-04:00

Somehow it turned into week 6 already. Whew. I really need to push myself to shoot for at least posting once a week, since that is the idea of a blog, to consistently journal over time.

Over the past month, I would say I have learned more about human factors and business than I have since April 4, 1985. The way teachers conduct the class differs greatly from professor to professor. One professor conducts our meeting time as a seminar and it is ran nothing like a normal undergrad class by any means. Another prof runs it similarly to most undergrad classes I have taken. He has many stories and experiences he lectures on. Most of my other teachers fall somewhere in this range.

The main difference from my undergrad work that I have seen in my graduate program here at the Center for Information and Communication Sciences is in what they expect from us. A much higher level of professionalism is expected and much is demanded for our schedules. I'm starting to realize what one of my professors said the first week, "... just wait until week 6 when everything is coming together...". There are many projects, assignments, and readings going on at the same time and it is all still building up to some point weeks or a month down the road. The first week this exhausted me with stress. I have now adapted in many ways to being busy and expect it. The program is only built for 11 months of fast paced work, so it won't last forever.

Week 2

2008-09-04T22:14:00.001-04:00

Well, as you can see I haven't posted for a while. I think since my last post I have written several papers, read 300-400 pages, and have tried to figure out what exactly it is that I am supposed to be doing since there is a lot of confussion amonst my collegues as to what exactly we are supposed to be doing. I've pulled some late nighers staying up until 2:30 or 3:30am while I am still kinda sick. I would like to post several times a week but I have not been able to even think about posting and spend time doing it until now. I feel that I have been eating, breathing and sleeping CICS classes, homework and my graduate assistant ship (GA) in the Nursing lab for IT. I have had a few down times on the weekend to spend more time with friends and have down time but I don't really get that at all throughout the week.

Before I had come back from LT with my church this summer I had many goals I wanted to initiate so that I could continue pursing God. The goals in and of themselves weren't the accomplishment, the goals were simply a way of discipline in hopes of spending time pursuing and encountering God in the context of alone times and with others.

I am at the library right now, just got done with class at 9:15, so I don't have all my goals with me, actually I think they are in my phone...standby...Here are the original things I had:

wake up 30 min earlier each day than I need to, in order to spend time in the word, reflection, or prayer in hopes of starting off the day with some sort of purpose or direction

initiate Bible study (mark) with family

initiate Bible study throughout the year with bro and friend (justin and austin)

have a weekly goal to single out aspect of character/faith/etc and be intentional with it (ie showing grace) in hopes that it would become habbit

be transparent and honest with my close friends and hold each other accountable for pursuing God

get involved with homeless or children one on one or in an organization to connect with the community around me

try to continue a 2 chapter a day reading of where I left of in the Gospels in North Carolina

extended quiet time (2-4 hours)

prayer list to pray over every day (preferably in the morning)

Some of the goals changed while I essentially got rid of others. It turns out that I became much much much busier than I had thought I would be.
Currently:

wake up 30 min earlier for time in the word (currently in John), one chapter a day, reading the commentary, reflecting and journaling.

My family and I went through the book of Mark during the 5 days I was home before coming back to Ball State

A co-pastor at Virginia tech, who I built a good relationship with while in North Carolina, told me that the best book on Jesus he had ever read was by Phillip Yancey The Jesus I Never Knew. I decided to buy a copy for my fam and my bro's friend Austin. My hopes is to go through a chapter a week and then to discuss

If I do have any goal for singling out an aspect to work on, I'll just use the message of that week at church

I have been able to meet with some people about my experience at LT and others I haven't had the time yet. I have been wanting to sit down as an apartment (4 of us) but our schedules have not really lined up yet and it just hasn't happened yet

I was going to drop the homeless/children idea since I couldn't really commit to that, but one of my friends who went to LT had wanted to start going to a Nursing home to talk with them. He said he feels there are 2 main groups of people largely neglected, elders and children and he wants to go in and just talk with them to talk about their life and to let them know people care. So I told him I would be interested in working that out. We will probably try to go once a week for an hour or 2 or however long on the weekend.

One thing that I needed to continue very much was the extended quiet time along with journaling. I have been able to take 2-4 hours on Saturday mornings to just head out on foot and talk with God.

Ultimately my number one goal that can simplify all the previous goals is to:

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'^[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'^[b]"

Luke 10:27

After last weekend I wanted to post some things after my extended time, but our internet hasn't worked for over a week and I can only get on at the library really.

Last Wed (over a week ago) our house church met and we talked about what we wanted it to look like for the year and to have some sort of vision for the year to seek and be used by God. We want to be a community that grows close to the Lord together and we can be there for each other through any and everything whether good or bad.

It has been so hard keeping up with studies and work, but this is a great opportunity to truly learn how not only manage my time but be effective with it. I can't possibly do all the work required unless I dedicate all of my time since I am not a fast reader, so I might have to start learning how to skim and be real effecient. I have yet to get an organizer to help know what homework I have to do and other various tasks.

I hope to get into some more detail over what I am learning and thinking about in general and in my faith. peace out.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

2008-08-28T13:44:00.001-04:00

I didn't know what to call this post, since it's an overall update on many things.

Alright, I have started adding some new info here.

CICS
Things have been really busy between classes, work, and other various things going on throughout the week. Graduate school is definitely a lot different than undergrad work. There is a higher sense of responsibility, professionalism, time management, commitment, etc. The teachers have a different method (and personality) of teaching. This program has a very high success rate of grads being placed in great companies in high positions. As the semester has gone on, I have come to see how much more prestigious the program is with all of their faculty enabling students to become great. I just included the link on the right under 'My Links' for the program.

I have felt a little stress from all the new classes and the new environment. Hopefully I will be able to take one class one day at a time and become more comfortable in managing my time. I will end up having around 15 books all in all between 5 graduate classes for a total of 18 credit hours.

Apartment
My apartment is pretty much unpacked and organized, with several exceptions of stuff I haven't really organized well yet. There are 4 guys total in the 3 person apartment, but 2 are sharing the master bedroom which cuts down on the rent nicely. I think I will have a great year living life together with my apartment mates.

Revolution
The Rev has begun! I am excited to see how people will grow this year in their faith and their relationships (including me). The sound team has been slowing dying off over the last few years and there hasn't been much interest for a while. I have been praying about it a few times here and there over the last few years but now its about crunch time. I will be gone in about a year and that leaves Schoon primarily in charge mostly by himself. I'd like to get more to help in the transition for when I leave and then shortly after when Schoon leaves. We have to firstly find people interested in serving, no matter what their background knowledge is. It all starts with desire. When I came on the sound team in 2004 I knew practically nothing and over the years I learned quite a bit at the Rev and personally on my own time. When I got the email from Carl about people interested in sound this year I was so excited! I saw 8 names and I know there is at least one other not on the list who is interested. I'm am excited to see the team grow and to be able to work with our new team mates.

I've got an interesting story of a person I ran into yesterday at the library but I have been here in the library for over an hour and it's 2:30 and I'm hungry. Time for lunch and more reading from Good to Great.

Blog created

2008-08-17T12:42:00.000-04:00

Alright, just got my first blog created! I will soon be posting, standby.