Much Babbelry

2007-11-01T16:36:00.000-07:00

Stockwell Day Destocks Humanity

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20071101%2fdeath_penalty_071101&showbyline=True

Stockwell Day has decided, without consultation, that Canada will no longer intercede on behalf of its citizens sentenced to death in other democratic countries. It seems he doesn't want to waste government money on getting another person into a Canadian prison. I guess he doesn't want to waste government time on voting in Parliament on whether or not Canada should continue its 45 year policy of not supporting capital punishment.

"Mr. Harper and Mr. Day are trying to accomplish indirectly that which they have no authority to do directly." - Dan McTeague, Liberal MP. Damn right.

Damn Right. I like you Mr Harper. Don't be an ass.

(Excuse my language. Vulgarity is the flavour of language, which adds perfect expression at times when it actually merits use. If the word "ass" offends your Evangelicalism, I apologize.)

I should also add that the condemned man, guilty of murder 25 years ago, proved his penitence by requesting the death sentence. However, he changed his mind and tried to get it lowered to a life sentence. For Christ's sake, have mercy.

2007-10-26T18:38:00.000-07:00

My Day at Cambridge (WOO!!!)

The largest library for Biblical Studies is in the Vatican.
The second largest is in Jerusalem.
The third largest is Tyndale House, Cambridge.

Tyndale House is closed off to anyone but PhD students in Biblical Studies, so I had to adopt the clever guise "Research Assistant" to the ineffable Rev. Cpt. [future Dr.] Isaac An.

It was full of world class scholars. It's been home to such Biblical Scholars as Rowan Williams and I. H. Marshall, among MANY others. It's the old gentleman's club that's always seemed as fantastical as Narnia.

As a person whose being was located within the sacred Tyndale House, it was assumed by many'a'being that I was a fellow world class Biblical Scholar. This assumption failed when I was frequently asked "What are you studying?". "Well," I would timidly reply, "I'm actually a lowly humble B.A. student. An 'interested intruder', if you will." "Right." End of that conversation.

During the times I successfully avoided that dreaded question (and only conversation starter for socially inept scholars) I managed to pull off a pretty good "yes yes, I know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm talking about" impression. It's simple. Whenever you recognize the name of a scholar, pipe in with an "Oh yes, that fellow! Jolly good thesis on the redaction critical method applied to slowly evolving apocryphal New Testament literature!" Ok, maybe I didn't actually pull that one off on the spot.

After six hours of pseudo-hyper-intellectualism and peaceful research (the extent of which was major overkill for a B.A. essay), we indulged in a little bit of tourism. It's really easy to look like a tourist when traveling with both an American and a Korean. Cambridge is an amazingly beautiful city, with ancient University buildings everywhere. Particularly stunning is the King's College Chapel, planned by Henry VI (not Edward III, as I was sure it was). I also got some pictures taken in front of St. John's College, my Grandad's old College.

This definitely gives me added incentive to put in the necessary work; to one day, use Tyndale House without having to be an absolute poser to get in.

2007-10-05T02:04:00.000-07:00

Is God Infinitely Good, or is Good Finitely god?

While reading Jonathan Hill’s History of Christian Thought, I came across the following quote from Origen, followed by Hill’s explanation:

We must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under pretext of praising him, lose sight of his limitations. For if the divine power were infinite, of necessity it could not even understand itself, since the infinite is by its nature incomprehensible.On First Principles, II 9 i

Today, we are so use to thinking of God as infinite that we forget that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible. To the ancient mind, to be infinite would actually be an imperfection, because it was thought that to be infinite would involve being indefinite, vague, incomprehensible – all marks if an imperfect being. So Origen’s claim here is intended to support the divine perfection. It would not be until Gregory of Nyssa, 150 years later, that the notion of God’s infinity would be introduced into Christian thought.

I feel that as a big fan of both Plato and Origen, and as one who refuses to dismiss any thought without deep contemplation (my obvious Achilles’ heel), I must give this ancient and long forgotten idea a chance. Allow me to attempt to simply explain why this idea makes sense to me, though I am by no means a definite follower.

I have come to realize that love is the highest form. It is the greatest state one can be in. Thus, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). However, such an expression, from certain point of view, is boxing in God. One could argue that it is only describing God, not putting him in a box. Well, allow me to take it one step further: God must be love, because love is the highest form. If God is not love, he is not the highest form, and is not God.

Numbers 23:19 says that “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” Does this mean that God can not lie? Hebrews 6:18 says that “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie…”. I know that second verse is somewhat absconded from context, yet it seems to say there is a situation in which it is “impossible” for God to lie. I would suggest that God cannot lie, because if God lied he would be imperfect and no longer be God. Does that make him finitely truthful?

Thirdly, if God is omniscient, he must know that good is the best state to be. Therefore, if he was anything but good, he would not be the best state and not be God. He must be good to be God, and cannot not be good. I rather like this idea, because it makes it easy to understand why God is good. It makes much more sense than trying to philosophize that God could be bad if he wanted to, and could change the definition of bad if he wanted to in order to make him able to be bad, which would mean he is still good. Tell me that is not more confusing and nonsensical than God simply being finitely good?

Now, here is the most basic flaw with this theory. It requires me to put moral law (the existence of right and wrong) above God. I must say that God has to be good, and this is his limitation. If that is the case, what created moral law? Did moral law create God? I think it’s possible that God created moral law, and in doing so bound himself to it. Or perhaps he is bound to it by choice, which would be the optimum argument for God’s infinity and existence with moral law.

I feel at this point that I must bring up an annoying quote from The Simpsons. There is an episode in which Homer Simpson, while somewhat high, asks Ned a reworded classic theological question: “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?” This seems like utter nonsense, of the lowest philosophical and theological value. But perhaps the answer is simply “yes”. Thus he is all powerful, and as such has the power to create a law he is unable to break.

My favourite book of Plato’s is one called “Euthyphro”, in which he records Socrates wrestling with the idea of whether good is good because it comes from God, or God is good because good is good. The book ends without a conclusion. For the moment, so does mine.

If God is in a box, he is in a box much larger than our plain of thought, which means he is infinite compared to us. That makes this question mostly irrelevant, though my proposition that God must be good, and must be love, is perhaps a useful frame for viewing much Biblical Theology. The earliest Christian theologians believed God to be finite, which suggests that the Biblical authors immediately preceding them also wrote out of an understanding of God as finitely all powerful. Even if we judge this idea false, we should try to understand it in order to understand ancient Biblical views, and other ancient theological ideas.

2007-09-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

Vote NO on the Referendum

In a feeble attempt to balance the extreme bias that will present itself later on, I shall begin with an attempt at an unbiased explanation of what our referendum is all about. For a much better explanation, see http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/mmp1.aspx .

If you're unaware, our current electoral system is one called "First-Past-The-Post", in which we all elect MPPs to represent our constituency (riding) in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency represents that constituency, and the party with the most representatives elected forms the government. The main problem with this system can be aptly demonstrated by the 1990 Ontario Election, in which the NDP only received 37.6% of the popular vote, yet formed a staggering majority with 74 of 130 seats, 38 more than the second place party. The problem is that if a party receives 51% of the vote in 100% of the constituencies, they receive 100% of parliament.

The proposed new electoral system, titled "Mixed Member Proportional", would solve that problem. Under the new system, we would be voting twice; once for a representative for one's constituency, and once for a party. there would be only 90 MPPs elected to represent constituencies (which means larger ridings), and an additional 39 members drawn from lists made by the parties, who are put in parliament in order to balance the difference between the ratio of MPPs elected to parliament from each party, and the ratio the actual vote percentage demands. Don't quite follow yet? In the case of the 1990 election, the NDP would not be given any "list MPPs", while the other parties would be, in order to ensure that exactly 37.6% (or as close as can be managed without having 6/10 of a person) of Parliament is NDP.After giving this idea a lot of thought, I have decided that I do not believe this change to be the best idea.

My explanation begins, as do many of my explanations, in Rome.In 509 BCE (or possibly 510), Roman nobles got a bit ticked off with the monarchy and threw the king out of the city. In fact, they were so ticked off with the monarchy, that they vowed never again to let a single person hold power in Rome. To do this, they divided up the king's power (imperium) among two consuls, and eight praetors. They were all elected annually, and the two consuls would take turns possessing supreme imperium. About a hundred years later, the general public got equally ticked off with the aristocratic government, and demanded to be able to elect tribunes, who would be given the ability to veto any government decision. The tribunes could also veto each other. The praetors could all veto each other, and the consuls could all veto each other.

What am I getting at? The Roman government succeeded in not allowing any one person to possess too much power, but went too far with the vetoing, and left a system where no one had any power. After five hundred years, the system collapsed. Extreme constitutional reform was needed (for reasons I won't go into here), but every time a do-gooder tried to bring in the very necessary reforms, they were vetoed. The government needed to change, but because the system presented things from happening, change was impossible democratically. But the change needed to happen. Three men tried to change it democratically: two were assassinated, one simply failed. Then along came Sulla. He stormed his troops into Rome, and politically ripped the constitution to shreds, forcing the necessary changes. However, Rome reacted violently and spit out the dictator, remembering the taste of monarchy. Then came Caesar. Then came Augustus. And thus it was proved that a government with power was needed. Augustus seized the power out of the void Caesar left, and Rome finally knew its reform, and saw peace in the areas that had seen all this unrest. The Roman Republic fell to dictatorship because its government was unable to act.

This brings up a philosophical question. As most philosophical questions can be, we can show this question on a line. On one side of the line we have governments with the ability to act, but unfortunately act very undemocratically. On the other side, we have governments which cannot make decisions or act, but the few things that are done are agreed upon by all. So, what is more valuable? Democracy, or action?

My point is probably showing through already, but let me show you why I believe this new system will be so destructive toward the action of a government. If you recall my explanation of the proposed new electoral system, you will remember that it means the amount of MPPs representing each party in parliament will be exactly proportionate to the number of votes each party received. The problem is that we will likely never again have a majority government. I looked back myself, and the last time in an Ontario election a single party received more than 50% of the vote, was 1934. If we had been using the proposed system, we would not have had a majority government since 1937, the year end of the 1934 term. And by the way, the only reason the Liberal party received 51% of the vote that year was because it was actually a temporary coalition of three liberal parties!

So why not form more coalitions? This is the biggest plus of the proposed new systerm. It will force parties to work together. But there are certain issues that parties will never agree upon. All legislature currently in place over controversial issues will never change, because the parties will never agree on a change. Many aspects of our law will remain unchanged until Kingdom come. The government will be unable to act, because it cannot act without nearly everyone agreeing with each other, which rarely happens. It is the exact reason the Roman democracy ended. This does not mean our democracy will collapse, because our system would not be quite as paralyzed as the Roman one, but it would cause a lot of serious problems.

There are other reasons not to vote yes in the coming referendum. For one, it will mean constituencies will be enlarged. Chatham-Essex-Kent will presumably grow to include Windsor as well. That is not better representation at all. That means farmers and city-slickers will be voting for the same MPP, and their sharp disagreement will hardly be made up for by the existence of "List MPPs". This new system will severely damage local representation, though it seems that it would strengthen it.In talking to my Uncle, who has lived around the James Bay area for a while, his concern was the under-representation of the North. Northern constituencies are already huge, and would become much bigger. Meanwhile, they are Ontario's largest source of revenue. How is that fair? That's about as fair as the fact that Ontario decides Canada's election result, while our money comes from Alberta.

Third, if we want to have more fair representation in government, there are much better ways of doing it. How about a referendum once in a while? I know that sounds hypocritical given the current discussion, but the only reason this went to referendum is because it's illegal to change the constitution without one. We never usually have referendums. Switzerland usually has two a year. The U.S. usually has referendums with every election. We only have referendums when we absolutely have to, and when someone wants to split. We can't have a more fair democracy without having a more direct democracy. This new proposal is a common example of the Canadian laziness to self-govern. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but we cannot improve democracy without improving the rule of the people, which means referendums.

So, the pros:
-Government make-up will better represent the popular vote
-Small parties get representation (Green party will be bequeathed a seat)
-Parties must agree on legislation to pass
-We get to vote twice, so we can vote for a nice person and a nice party

And the cons:
-No more majority governments
-Governing process slowed and in some ways paralyzed
-Larger constituencies means poorer representation
-Better ways of improving democracy available

For me, the cons outweigh the pros. But, it's up to you to decide. And please do.

2007-05-15T13:31:00.000-07:00

It's been a very interesting few days.

On Saturday I went to a conference with Reinhard Bonnke (German Evangelist) and Benny Hinn (something or other). The Reinhard Bonnke part was pretty good. He fairly pretty level-headed for a big-shot evangelist. Next came some worship with the band from a big church in Bradford. Their music was more of a deistic romance than Hillsong's. Most of the songs didn't mention Jesus, one didn't even mention God and could very easily just be a love song. And they tried to sell their CD in between two of the songs. That was edifying *caugh*.

And then came Benny Hinn. I entered with a mind completely open to him not being what I've seen him made out to be. But alas he proved me wrong. As he burst onto stage, all of the lights were thrown up and "How Great Thou Art" was played obnoxiously loud on a keyboard set to "we wish this was an organ in a cathedral". Though it was the most emotionally manipulative worship I've ever experienced, it was still more edifying than the worship before it.

Up until this point, I was okay with Benny Hinn. He was a little old school and self glorifying, but it was alright. Then came the moment when he dissolved all respect I might have had for him. A lady in the third row got up, presumedly to go to the toilet; or perhaps she just got a text message saying "your son is dying". We'll never know. Benny Hinn pointed at her and said "Nobody gets up while I'm ministering!" He proceeded to cross his arms and say that he wasn't going to continue "ministering" until she was completely out of the building, which caused 2000 people to stare at this poor woman as she slowly made her way throw the crowd with Benny Hinn telling her to "hurry up" so he could get back to "ministering". Basically, he publically humiliated her, potentially doing her immense emotional damage, because she interrupted his "ministry".

Aside from that, I had some minor theological complaints. Mainly the fact that the second half of his sermon didn't use the Bible at all because it was anti-Biblical. He perfectly reworded stoic philosophy, and tried to say that "the presence of God cancels out all emotion" because "emotion is of the flesh". Use your own discenment on that one.

Next he did his Benny Hinn thing, involving the spiritual knocking-over of many. It is my opinion that this was the Spirit of God working through him. I won't try to justify that here. However, I will leave you with a HILARIOUS movie someone made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI

When I said I'd "leave you", that was a bit of a lie. There is much more in the last few days to tell. Normally I wouldn't post the following bit of information on the internet, but it's pretty much public now anyway.

Last night one of the students here got really drunk, physically assaulted a couple students, and violently destroyed some school property (a window and a light, apparently with a fire extinguisher). The school called the police and they arrested her. They let her go at 3am because everyone refused to press charges, and now she's living on the streets of Mattersey. Lots of people want to take her into their homes, but no one really can because she's still drinking. Today she came to the church while I was there praying and we talked for about half an hour. She's determined to get over this and come back to school next year, which we're all really hoping happens. There's a lot more I could say on the issue, but I don't really need to. Most of the school is pretty shaken up at the moment. This kind of thing doesn't usually happen at nice little angel-filled Bible Colleges.

The thing that made my day today was when I was in a prayer group with the man she punched yesterday, and he was leading the prayer. He's about 50, and apparently she spat on him a few times before swinging at him. He said that she's about the age of his daughter, and if his daughter ever did that to him, he's still die for her. So he led the prayer for her. Most of us were crying when we prayed for her, and for the college. It's all really sudden and (for most of us who didn't know this had been developing) unexpected. At any rate, I'm praying for her and really hoping she's back next year. I'm also praying she'll go get help. We'll see.

There's a lot of other stuff going on my life right now as well. I'm coming home on June 18th for a wedding. I've learned that someone else graduated from here two years ago and made it onto the same Cambridge program I'm hoping to get into. I start exams next week. And... other stuff.

This blog is ended.

2007-03-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

I now have a phone number.

0113 815 0314

I think this is the way to call it from Canada:

011 44 113 815 0314

I probably won't answer it most of the time, but you can leave a message and I'll call you back. In fact, if you're from Canada it's almost guaranteed that it's cheaper for me to call you than for you to call me. So leave yourphone number and I'll get back to you.

2007-03-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

In 1793 the French Revolutionaries, amidst their nation-wide ransacking and destruction of religious buildings, symbolized their newfound paradigm with the worship of a young lady, dressed as the goddess of reason. This paradigm worshipping reason was to be the dominant mode of thought sprouting from and encapsulating the Enlightenment and the entire Modern Era. Christianity would not submit to this worship of a pagan goddess, would it?

Exodus 20:4-5a - “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…”

Every Christian knows this commandment. The common Christian definition for “idol” is “anything that you place before God”.

Romans 1:21-23, 25 - “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.”

To oversimplify history, since then those who worship reason have sought to prove and disprove religion. As a result, those who worship Jehovah have sought to prove their faith. The love and sacrifice at the heart of the Kingdom of God were traded in for the comfort and ease of reason. The search for truth was traded in for the search for certainty. The task of disproving Reason required the worship of reason.

The search for certainty comes at the expense of truth. The search for truth comes at the expense of certainty.

2007-03-10T14:15:00.000-08:00

Ridley Hall, Cambridge

Course offered: MPhil

Entry requirements: Students must have studied theology for at least two years, having taken a degree in the subject and attained atleast a 2:1.

Length of study: full time, 9 months.

Who validates it?
The MPHil is validated by the University of Cambridge. MPhil students become members of a university college alonside membership at Ridley.

* * * * *

BC comrades, you have a few months to persuade me otherwise. It's looking like I might want to be staying in England.

2007-03-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

Zimbabwe 2007

For a short video about my trip, go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=stoYKzSaerU

I know it's been a few weeks since I got back, but now I've finally got time to write a blog about it.

From Feb. 3-14 2007 I went on a missions trip with my school to Harare, the capitol of Zimbabwe. It's a city of about 3 000 000 people, 50-70% of which have AIDS. Because of this and some other factors, 65% of the population is under the age of twenty. This adds to the economical problems, which have caused an inflation of 1100% per month. Last year the government knocked three zeros off the currency, yet the exchange rate on the parallel market was at ZIM$7000:£1:CDN$2.35 when we were there.

As can be expected, the country has an immense amount of orphans. The ministry of our team was focused around schools and orpans. Usually we went to two schools and two orphans every day. In total, we ministered to over 16 000 kids. Most of what we did consisted of loving kids that weren't getting love anywhere else. We got to hug them and hold them, play with them, tell them we love them, and more importantly tell them that God loves them and that they have hope. We also gave out shoes, clothes, and food to a lot of orphans.

At this point, I'd like to include a few selections from the journal I kept while there.

Day 3
Today we went to one school and two orphanages. The two things that touched me most were:

When we spent ten minutes in a swarm of hundreds of kids, shaking their hands and hugging them. It took half a second, touching a child’s hand, to genuinely touch the child’s life. Three different kids said “I like your face”. It’s never been so easy to show someone love before.

At the second orphanage today, we got to hang out with the kids in more of a one-on-one style. There was a little boy, probably about three years old, sitting under a table by himself, watching everyone else. I went and hunched under the table and sat with him for about half an hour. He didn’t know any English. He barely responded to me at all the entire time, even though I had my arm around him. I kept telling him how much God loves him, and how valuable he is, hoping he would get some encouragement from my voice. He was sick, and spent the whole time sniffling and coughing. I wiped his nose with my hand. I think he was in pain. I gave him some candy, and helped him open it. Near the end, he started playing with my nametag. Every once in a while he would look at me, but the entire time he never showed any emotion. I don’t know if I impacted him or not. I can’t wait to see him in heaven and find out if I actually made a difference in his life. I could see that he’s a thinker, and has so much potential. I really hope he doesn’t have HIV/AIDS, but he probably does. Please God, take care of him.

Day 4
The highlight of the day was definitely when Alan threw $1 000 000 in the air, while teaching that money won’t bring you happiness. The boys didn’t even move to catch the money. Also, I had a great time at the first orphanage today. It’s wonderful to see so many kids singing their hearts out, honestly, for God.

Day 5
Today we reached about 3500 kids. I got to look at about half of them in the eye and say something to them individually. My favourite part of the day was when we spent 30 minutes saying goodbye to a queue of over 1000 children. I looked each one in the eye and sincerely said “goodbye”, often getting some sort of response. One of the orphanages we went to today had the best kids yet. One little girl named Primrose is the cutest child in Africa. All the boys wanted to climb on our backs. I got to carry three of them around. What really amazed me was how much these children already know about God.

Day 6
Today we reached 3500 kids in 3 schools by 11:00am. It was incredibly hot. The headmaster in the first school was fully devoted to loving the kids and sharing the Gospel. He was an encouragement to us all. After lunch we went to an orphanage. We painted kids’ faces and sat with the kids while they ate. They sung some songs for us, and we all had a good time. Before we left, four of them presented poems to Alan’s wife, “Mother” Dorothy. They said how they couldn’t have made it without her support.

Alan and Dorothy minister to about 40 000 kids each month. They share the Gospel with all of them. They love and encourage all of them. They pay school fees for well over a thousand orphans. They give out shoes and clothes to any child that needs them. They give food and money to the orphanages. The Zimbabwean history textbooks written in 20 years will mention them. In downtown Harare, children constantly yell out “Pastor Alan!” as we drive by. If it is possible for one couple to double the size of the Kingdom of God, they are doing it.

* * * * *

Despite how amazing all of that was, the best moment in the trip for me was definitely the lion at the end. The last day we were there we went on a safari, and got to ride elephants. We saw ostriches, buffalo, zebras, and alligators. At the end of it, we went to see the lions. The only thing between us and them was a relitavely small chicken-wire fence. We got within inches of them. I think we all came quite close to soiling ourselves.

The team I was with was amazing. I think because it was the most expensive trip, everyone there had paid to enjoy it so we all put a lot into it. We got really close to each other over the 10 days, and learned a lot from each other.

I'll leave you with a picture that summarizes the trip for me, yet didn't quite make it into the video that's on youtube (see link above).

2006-12-10T19:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=f77a1937e150ad683befd1fG20061210

This is your brain on Greek.

2006-11-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

For a project for Worldview class, Clive and I went to a Buddhist meeting tonight. First, I will describe to my best ability what happened.

When we got there, Clive was a little scared. To be honest I wasn't, but that could be because of my experiences at Catholic mass a few weeks ago. People are good, and don't want to make others feel uncomfortable. There were only four of them there, plus Clive and I. We stood around for a few minutes talking, during which they explained things to us. It was pretty difficult to explain Buddhism in 20 minutes. It's got to be the most complex religion there is.

Part of the explanation included telling us a little about what meditation is, since that was to be the main thing they did. They said that it is about emptying yourself of yourself. The only goal is goal-lessness. One of them said that this is how we try to connect with our primordial form... or something like that. Apparently, "there's nothing supernatural about it. Until you become supernatural, that is."

We then sat down on some chairs lined up in front of their rather simple "altar". It had a statue of Buddha, and some other symbolic items like a living flower, a jar of water, and some pictures of their "master", a female monk who started their order. One man lit some incense, and they made it clear that the incense was not necessary or religious, it was only there to give a scent to take our minds off of other things. We read something out of a book that very strongly represented Anglican liturgy. It was a passage that we read together about the purpose of meditation.

Next came the part that was not in any way anti-Christian: meditation. If I had my concordance, or a certain one of my books, I would now be inserting some of the many Bible verses talking about meditation. Instead, I'll just explain what we did. We sat on matts, cross-legged, with our hands forming an "O" on our laps, and our backs fully straight. This posture was not religious, but is simply the way they do things to feel most relaxed. They shut off the lights, and instructed us to keep our eyes open and not think. One man then talked himself in a circle trying to explain how to not think. I think I got what he was hinting at. It made sense, even if it didn't make sense the way he was explaining it.

We sat there for twenty minutes. Every so often he would ring a bell, which served the purpose of catching us when we started thinking about something. The irony was that the large old church next door had bells going constantly the entire time. We kept our eyes open, and stared off into space, trying not to try.

After that, we put everything away, and had tea together. It was some pretty decent fellowship. We listened to a tape of their master talking about meditation, and then had some more fellowhsip, during which we were allowed to ask some questions. We got some pretty good dialogue going. After a few minutes, we shook hands, politely bowed (as a sign of respect for them, not of worship), and left. I'll reiterate again that they stated that bowing is not worship for them, it is just being polite. If you're a Christian and you can't grasp that, get over it. Actions have different meanings in other places in the world.

I have tried to give you an objective account of what happened. Now I will proceed with my opinion. I'm warning that it will have a have a heavily Christocentric epistemology. If you object to my views on the nature of truth, talk to me, and you may find them less biggoted than you'd expect.

They're so close. They're about as close as you can get while completely missing the mark. The meditation was so good. They don't worship Buddha, though some Buddhists may. They follow his wisdom, and the wisdom of other wise people, never claiming this wisdom to be divine. They recognize human belief as human belief, and in doing so are not doing anything wrong. They are as close to truth as we can expect someone without the Living Word of God to be.

The thing that struck me most is how easy it is to talk to my God, and how easy salvation is. Have faith in Christ, and you will be saved. Once you're saved, you can talk directly to God with no priest, and no hours and decades of meditation. And God talks back. You hear his voice. When you trust him, you see his works. It's so simple.

It's like they have the human half down perfect, but so desperately need the God half. They managed, or at least have the goal, to empty themselves. From this, they receive a calm and almost stoic approach to things. It gives them the ability not to be angry, and to do all forms of good. Yet they are still empty. There was no life behind their eyes. They would be such amazing tools for God if only they could receive as much into their lives as they give out. The meditation was good, but it didn't seem to be getting them anywhere. There was no evidence of them feeling fulfilled, or having the increased understanding they talked about.

What struck both Clive and I the most is when the man said "we don't have a purpose". He was saying that they empty themselves of self, because they do not have any purpose. I just wanted to shout to heaven, "I HAVE A PURPOSE!!!" And the thing is, they're sort of right. How can you know your purpose without God? Again I must say, they've got as much figured out as you can without having God in your life.

Aside from my deepened (yet hardly deep) understanding of another way of seeing things, I am taking away three main things from the meeting tonight:

1) I need to meditate more. Their method of meditation was rather stellar, but was missing one obvious thing. I shall do it in a very similar fashion to what was taught tonight, but with God. Empty self, fill up on God. Also, empty self, listen to God. And that's not all that will compose my relationship with God, obviously. It's just a nice thing that I should start doing. It might help with the stress of life.

2) I'm so glad my God is a heart-length's reach away. I can talk to God so easily. We've got a pretty good relationship, and it's only going to get better. He gives me joy and sustains me. His Word is my bread. Yada yada yada, my God's in me. He loves me. He's right here. And he says "Hi! Knock, knock."

3) I have a purpose. Because God is in my life, I can do what he wants me to do. All prejudice aside, it was obvious that they did not have God. And they wouldn't claim to. But there just wasn't that Christian joy. They would say they don't need the self pleasure of joy. But... I wish they knew what the joy of the Lord was. So wonderfully delightful. And all we need.

They were nice people, and I'd like to go again some time. I wasn't compelled to do anything that was against my belief, and they didn't even do much that is against my belief. I can do most of the things they do without feeling like I'm stepping out of the lines God has drawn. Buddhism is a very honest and human religion, from what I saw in this specific sect. It is trying to find truth with the best of human ability, like so many of us out there. If ever you get a chance, drop by a Buddhist meeting and talk to them. It might help your nerves. It helped my back as well.

2006-11-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

Remember, remember,
The Fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day everyone. My day went off just as I've been planning it for the last year. Ever since I heard the movie V for Vendetta was being made I planned on watching it tonight, and ever since I knew I was going to be in England for Bonfire Night, the plan has been written in stone. We had a a nice bonfire and fireworks, though there were no Guy Fawkes effigies to be seen. Then we went for a walk in the Mattersey park and had a nice theological discussion (is there anything more enjoyable?) We came back here, and watched V for Vendetta in my room.

Normally I would proceed in detailing an elaborate philosophical dissection of the wonderfully crafted film, but this one is even deeper than the Matrix, so it would take at least 3000 words. I think I'll just list some of my favourite quotes.

"A revolution without dancing wouldn't be a revolution at all."
"We are being buried beneath the avalanche of your inadequacies, Mr. Creedy."
"Ideas are bullet-proof."
"People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people."
"One thing is true of all governments. The most reliable records are tax records."
"However, this vital visitation of a by-gone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition."
"I say it's time we pay them back for a little tea party they held for us a few years back."
"And as always, England prevails."
"Strength through unity, unity through faith."
"We only tell the stories, we don't make them up. That's the government's job."

If you have not seen this movie, go rent it. If you have no idea what Guy Fawkes Day or Bonfire Night are, go straight to Wikipedia and find out. It is a rather intriguing day. Bon voyage.

2006-11-04T16:10:00.000-08:00

Question: does Christ need defending?

On the news today was a group of Christians threatening to picket a film festival. Why? Because one of the films shows a "1964 sculpture of Jesus Christ pinned to the wings of a U.S. air force jet, an image [originally] created to protest the Vietnam War. [Also objected to is] a work that shows the Virgin Mary as a voodoo doll, one showing Christ popping out of a toaster, and images that link a former pope with Adolf Hitler."

What Would Jesus Do?

Probably amass a large group of people to form an army, and defeat the Romans posessing the Holy Land. Oh right, Jesus wasn't the expected military general. Jesus would have done absolutely nothing. And beside that, if God actually did want us to defend him from the blasphemies of unbelievers, he wouldn't tell us to "go unto the unbelievers and picketeth their film festival." What we have here is people who aren't Christians, probably doing something that is not meant to provoke Christians at all. Even if it was, we are still strictly forbidden from judging them. Why doesn't the Church understand this simple and solitary dichotomy that we are suppose to have? Don't judge those outside the Church, judge those inside the Church.

In other news, "A top U.S. evangelical pastor embroiled in a sex scandal has agreed to step down from his church after its independent investigative board found against him." Rev. Ted Haggard has been accused paying for gay sex on a regular basis. He denies that claim, but has admitted to "having contacted Jones [the male prostitute] for a massage and to having purchased crystal meth from him out of curiosity." He claims to have discarded the crystal meth and not used it. The appearance of this event days before the US mid-term elections and the vote on a same-sex bill in Haggard's home state are probably not coincidential, yet his admissions are clearly not fabricated. Let the judge decide what really happened.

Here's the real issue. Haggard was the head of the U.S. National Assembly of Evangelicals. He was also a rather vocal opponent of gay marriage, and had weekly meetings with Bush or his advisors. He is the embodiment of the stereotypical Evangelical American pastor, ordering his adherents to vote Republican. If proven guilty, he will also be guilty of supreme hypocrisy, the only thing Jesus really blew up at.

American Christianity is something I could blog for hours on. Of course it's not all bad, but the general sour aftertaste it leaves in one's mouth brings up the question, does Christ need defending? Also, how much of the American Church's meddling in state affairs qualifies as judging those outside the Church?

If you read on, please watch my wording carefully. I do not believe that the Church has any grounds on which to protest the isolated issue of a man legally marrying a man. I believe that the gay marriage issue is important and debatable. However, I believe that the Church's place in this argument is to be entirely secular, aside from where gay marriage pertains to the Church (for example, pastors being forced to perform gay marriages). I also believe that any individual, Christian or not, should take his or her lawful political place in voicing his or her reasons for or against gay marriage, with the exclusion of all religious arguments. The words "God" and "Bible" should never appear in these arguments. We are not to judge those outside the Church, and we cannot expect them to give the slightest care when we argue using these terms. However, if one wishes to argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because of its impact on the family, or to use any other entirely secular argument, it is no less than your democratic duty to defend what you feel passionate about. Go ahead, lobby your MP. Wave your signs. However, do not bring God into situations that he could rain brimstone onto if he so chose. In the New Testament, we have no Biblical grounds to bring our religion into the government process. The greatest example we have is that of Christ, who never spoke a word against the Romans, other than saying to Pilate that he "would have no power over me if it were not given from above." God has things under control. He knows what earthly governments are doing, and allows it. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that he is more concerned with the private life of Rev. Ted Haggard, if indeed there is something to be concerned with. I also think that God is very concerned about the children who grow up with two dads, but if that is a wrong thing than we do not need to use the word "God" to explain that it is wrong, and we must not use God to argue that it is wrong.

I must admit that I am currently split over the issue. While it really doesn't bother me if two males believe they are married to each other, it does bother me when a child is brought into it. If it wasn't for that one element I would not raise a finger to stop the government from passing bills supporting gay marriage. Let the world without Christ do what the world without Christ will do. I also do not think that any clergy should be forced to perform a gay marriage, and as soon as it is written in stone that gay marriage is a right, the repealling of legal choice on the issue for clergy will be inevitably removed. However, if that becomes the case, the Christian answer is simply to not perform the ceremony, and take whatever comes. Follow God, turn the other cheek, and forgive.

While I'm on the topic, this brings to mind the entire issue of Christianity's response to homosexuality in general. I've already ranted about my history teacher's perspective on this issue, but his words are rather pertinant to this blog as well. He said that he wishes we were back to the Victorian days when homosexuals did not "come out of the closet", because it was considered shameful. I would like to say here that any Christian who is offended by the gay pride movement should A) not be offended, and B) realize that the ENTIRE cause of the gay pride movement IS Christianity itself. There is no one else to blame. Pride is the natural reaction to oppression, and homosexuals were and are oppressed by people who label themselves Christian. I will never forget the words of my beloved friend Austin when she said to me "you're the first Christian who has ever shown love to me." Those words stung. What a putrid cult I seem to be part of. The more we oppress homosexuals, the more pride they will have, and the stronger the conflict will grow. Do people actually think that there is an end in sight when we politically move with harshness against homosexuals? The conflict between Evangelicals and homosexuals is only just beginning. The only way to diffuse the gay pride movement and live in peace and morality is to step down. If we believe that gay marriage will hurt children, then that is something we must fight for. However, the move to have homosexuality reinstituted as a moral evil must die. The secular world has no reason to believe homosexuality is wrong. We must go on in the love of Jesus Christ, and not in the oppression of Pompey the Great, desecrator of the Jewish Holy of Holies. When we act in anything other than love, we are cloning his actions. Look them up some time if you're interested in what Christianity is currently doing to itself.

I'm suggesting that Christianity do two things. A) Resign from politics completely, aside from the civic duties of every civilian, and B) Go find yourself a homosexual, get down on your knees, and beg forgiveness for the centuries of anti-Christian actions. Then, take him or her out to the fanciest restaurant you know of, and when you get back, clean the person's house, do their laundy, cook meals for a week, and never say the word Christ until he or she asks the question "why are you doing this?" These words should be the first thing to the lips of any person, anywhere in the world, asked for their opinion of Christianity. If someone can actually give an answer when asked for their opinion of Christianity, it means that they understand us, and no one without the Holy Spirit living through them knows what it's like to be a Christian.

The Church has one more view it desperately needs to change. If in fact Rev. Haggard struggles with homosexuality, the fact that he is 50 and hasn't gotten over it says a lot. Chances are that the reason he hasn't gotten over it is because he's been too ashamed to tell anyone. The reason for this is that most churches are either horrible at judging those in the church, or way too good at it. The clear fact is that the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, tells us to judge each other. Christians in the circles Haggard is probably use to would judge a struggling homosexual by automatic and harmful excommunication. That's not Biblical. Christians in some circles would refuse to judge, on the grounds that you can't love someone and judge them. Other Christians simply don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality.

Here's the way I see it. Any individual struggling with homosexuality, should have absolutely no reason to believe that they would be scorned by the Church for it. We are suppose to confess our sins to each other. The extent that Christians should judge each other is to tell the individual that what they are doing is wrong. If they refuse to change, then perhaps there is valid reason to take some sort of disciplinary action. However, as long as they are clearly trying to change and clearly repentant, our course of action once again is love. No more, no less.

From what I've seen and read, the biggest reason people come out of the closet and leave the Church is because of the Church's attitude toward homosexuality. Usually, a Christian will do this late in life. The individual will fight homosexuality all by theirselves for years and years, until eventually it takes over, and they give up. If they could only feel free to tell things to their pastors and their friends. So many pastors have left the ministry and their families because, somewhere in their fourties, they gave up the fight against homosexuality, after struggling without telling anyone. If Christians would only see homosexuality as an honest problem for a lot of Christians, then those who struggle with it would be able to get the help from their Christian brethren that is suppose to exist. I believe homosexuality is always reversible, but much easier to fight when diagnosed early on. The Church would be so much healthier if people struggling with homosexuality had no fear of telling their Christian friends, and Christians treated homosexuality the same way it is gradually (very gradually) learning to treat porn-addicts and alcoholics. Christians must rally behind each other to build each other up in love and encouragement. We have so much power to help each other. The prayers of many are so valuable. Even if they were hitting ceiling, they give so much encouragement. Christians have the ability to share their own testimonies and past and present struggles with each other. Imagine what a powerful force we could be if we learned to love each other. Then we could love others. And the world would wonder what hit it.

Selah.

2006-11-01T02:56:00.000-08:00

Certainty.

It seems like one of Christianity’s favourite topics these days is truth. The debates about absolute truth, relativism, and ecumenicalism continue to rage. If you want to tick people off or get an amen in a sermon, just say the word "truth". The word inspires dread in those who fear other people's beliefs, and inspiration in people who believe they are right.

Whatever you believe truth is, whether you believe in absolute truth or not, there is a deeper question, which is the inevitable product of all of these questions. Should we be certain?

Certainty:
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state of being certain.
2. something certain; an assured fact.
—Idiom
3. for or of a certainty, certainly; without a doubt: I suspect it, but I don't know it for a certainty.

It has been my experience that most of our questions about truth are actually just a form of this question of certainty. Those who believe in absolute truth are just more certain of ideas. A wise man once said to me, “the only certain thing in the world is that only crazy people are certain.” Is that just a statement of relative truth? Or is it wisdom stemming from a realization of the limits of the human brain?

If in fact it is wrong to be certain of something because we are human, where does that place us in relation to God? Belief is a function of the human brain, and I believe that this function is no different no matter what its target is. Thus, if certainty is not a positive modifier of the function belief, certainty in God cannot be a good thing.

I also believe that faith and trust are synonymous, and that faith has nothing to do with belief unless you are trusting in someone who told you to believe something. I do not see faith as a reason to be certain of God’s existence.

The problem with certainty is that we are always capable of being incorrect. Certainty is what stops us from seeing when we are correct. I once knew a Christian who was so certain that God created the world in six days that she said “I wouldn’t believe in evolution even if you proved it right before my eyes.” She then proceeded to say that her certainty came from her faith in God. The equation, as I see it, is as follows:

Belief + Faith = Certainty

I’m almost certain that is incorrect. But what about this one?

Belief + Proof = Certainty

Or this one:

Belief + Proof = Absolute Truth

I must distinguish the difference between certainty and absolute truth. This is hard to do since in my last blog on absolute truth I discovered that people have three different definitions of the term. Certainty is when your belief is “without a doubt,” in an “assured fact”.

The biggest pro of being certain is that it allows you to develop ideas on a firm foundation. When you are sure something is true, you can then base other ideas on the fact you have already discovered. Also, certainty can be considered necessary in order to have assurance of salvation. The main drawback of certainty is that we are human and could be wrong. Also, certainty is offensive to those who believe differently.

I am currently writing a book on the topic “truth”. I have gotten to a point where I cannot continue to write until I know what side I am on in the argument over certainty. I would love to hear your ideas.

Is certainty a positive, negative, or neutral characteristic of one’s beliefs?

This blog will shortly be posted on the site http://jeremypostal.blogspot.com/ because it has more people that read it, and I really would like some discussion on this question. If you want to comment on the question, comment there. I'll be reading them. If you just want to say something to me, feel free to comment here.

2006-10-29T04:24:00.001-08:00

Catholic Mass.

Three of us went to Catholic Mass this morning. My clothes smell of incense. I actually thought the incense smelled nice, though. I wonder if the Book of the Four Gospels thought so as well. It was well smothered.

We participated in as much as possible. We didn't pray to the saints or to Mary. I was the only one to bow to the altar on the way out (I was bowing to Jesus, in the direction of the altar?). I thought the whole thing in general was pretty good. It seems like it would be a nice place to go if I was Catholic. The people were nice.

There was much less of an emphasis on the transubstantiation of the Eucharist than I expected. It appears that they don't actually believe that the bread and wine physically change into the body and blood of Christ, they just change substance. Their physical appearance remains the same. I always thought that you took them, and then the priest transubstantiated them when they are already in your body.

The sermon was about community, but the priest threw the word "tradition" in as many times as humanly possible. The point of the sermon was that the members are in constant communion with each other, and with the deceased members of the church. A little sketchy, but his purpose was to build a sense of community within the body of believers, which, in itself, is a good thing.

It was quite clear, however, that his reasoning was not from the Bible. His only reason for most of the beliefs he stated was tradition. I heard the words "this is the oldest" far too many times to count.

The final result is that I'm a little bit less ignorant toward Catholicism, and I would say that they are good people honestly seeking the truth, yet, in my opinion, further away from it than I am. We'll find out when we get to heaven.

Next time Jon gets a break from his Sunday ministry we're going to try to find an Orthodox church. That should be equally thrilling.

2006-10-27T08:26:00.000-07:00

A + B = C

A1= My school isn't on OSAP's list of approved schools, so I can't get my student loan.
A2= I don't have any money to pay for the missions trip God wants me to go on.
A3= The injections that keep me alive don't happen in Europe, so no doctor will give them to me.
A4= Homesickness.
A5= Lifelong personal issue.
A6= Problem that arose, but I can't discuss it because the outcome is secret.

B= Faith (Trust)

C1= OSAP has given me the forms to have my school fill out in order for the school to be approved for my student loan. The deadline for this form to be in was May, but for some strange reason OSAP is letting my school fill it out a tad bit late.
C2= More than enough money to pay for my missions trip was donated, from some expected sources, and some rather unexpected and clearly divinely ordained sources.
C3= My doctor over here just called for me to arrange an injection. Apparently it worked out.
C4= The great thing about small Bible Colleges is the sense of community which developes and kills the homesickness. Aside from the lack of Wendy's fries here. I don't think that homesickness will go away.
C5= The lifelong personal issue seems to have been mostly resolved, in a way that I couldn't explain without the word "God" no matter how much I tried to think like an atheist.
C6= Problem six was also solved by none other than the Creator himself.

2006-10-26T16:34:00.000-07:00

I just got in to my room after having theological debates for about the last three hours with different people. They were perfect debates. There weren't any annoying epistemologies present, and there were enough doses of humour for no one to get frustrated. Just a bunch of theology students debating one of the best debate topics there is (yes, that's my wonderfully biased opinion).
As I got in my room, I sat on my bed and opened up my laptop. I read an e-mail, then turned on mediaplayer so I can have some music. Because I hadn't in a while, I put on the Christian Music playlist, which I usually ignore because it's full of bands that weren't good enough to write real music. However, the song that first played is one by a band that actually writes Christian music because Christ and his message is what they feel passionate about. The name of the song is "The Kingdom". My first thought was "Oh great. A band writing a song about one of the most difficult topics in Christian theology: the Kingdom of God." Naturally, I decided to listen to the lyrics so I can cynically criticize (not good, I know - I'm changing that). I was quite taken aback by how good the theology in the song iss. It pretty much culminates my entire essay on the Kingdom of Heaven (St. Matthew's unique title for the Kingdom of God - same thing though). I'm posting the lyrics because they're just so good. Of course, that could be my opinion because the Supertones are a Pentecostal band. However, when I first studied the Kingdom of Heaven I started with no understanding and used no Pentecostal sources. Anyway, here they are:

SUPERTONES The Kingdom Lyrics

I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is on the way, on the way
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is here today, here today

I think I found it,
An inspiration
I can see a glorious nation

It's over there just above Zion
And it looks like Jerusalem

It's on the way, the date is set
It's here today, but not here yet
Can almost hear, can almost see
It's a banner caught upon the breeze
Upon it is a Lion...

I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is on the way, on the way
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is here today, here today
Christ reigns now and don't forget that the kingdom is not yet!

It's getting closer
To fulfillment
But the kingdom began with the advent

He is reigning through his people
The first will be nothing compared to the sequel
No more war, no more crime, no more unemployment line!

And there is Christ upon His seat
Where mercy, truth and justice meet
And He will never falter...

I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is on the way, on the way
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is here today, here today
Christ reigns now and don't forget that the kingdom is not yet!

And with one voice, we all will sing
(Yeah yeah yeah)
To the Prince of peace and King of kings
(Yeah yeah yeah)
His reign is everlasting
(Yeah yeah yeah)

I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is on the way, on the way
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is here today, here today
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is on the way, on the way
I tell you the truth when I say that the kingdom is here today, here today
Here today

2006-10-17T07:11:00.000-07:00

I'm going to try to write myself into an understanding of an opinion I'm beginning to loathe. I'll begin with a quote from my history teacher.

"Wouldn't it be nice if Christians could form culture?
(pause)
Now, on to the Crusades."

I thought he gave us a wonderful rant. Going on about how culture is influencing Christianity, and instead it should be Christians who form the culture. It was appropriate that he taught us about the Crusades right after. I've heard lots of debate over whether or not there should be a Christian culture at all. Should we be a sub-culture, or a counter-culture? Should Christians be so diverse that there's no such thing as a Christian culture? These are good, appropriate questions. However, this paricular old man seems bent on the "glory days" when Christians formed the dominant culture. Today marks the second time he's mentioned how horrible it is that homosexuals no longer feel shame. "At least in the Victorian days they'd cover it up" he said. "I once watched a gameshow with a gay and a lesbian on it. They proudly proclaimed it without an ounce of shame."

He clearly stated that Christians should be the ones forming culture, and that non-Christians should feel shameful about their sin. Logically, he's suggesting that if Christianity were back to being the cultural norm, we could shame sinners into smartening up.

BULLSHIT!!!

*Ahem* sorry. I'm not even going to bother going through the countless Biblical commands for us not to judge anyone outside of the church. There's too many of them in any one book of the new Testament for me to fit them in one blog. I'm going to try to reason his point for a second here.
If Christians were living the way we are suppose to, the world would look at us and feel shameful for their sin.
That's probably his line of thought, but it's still a no go. What reason does a same-sex attracted man have to refrain from homosexuality if he's not Christian? Seeing a bunch of straight guys is not going to make him feel shame. When it boils down to it, there is no reason for people outside the church to feel shame, and shame is not the answer. I'm fully aware of what shame feels like, and it burns. One can argue that trace amounts of guilt are a positive aspect of having a conscience, but shame is not guilt.

Shame–noun
1. the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another: She was overcome with shame.

No matter what the method of causing shame, it is still exactly what the above states it is. Pain. It's not even constructive pain. It has no positive end. Guilt causes repentance. Shame causes suicide. Guilt is when an individual comes to a place of sorrow over one's own actions. It involves only one person. Shame is when an individual comes to a place of pain, due to other people's opinions.

Guilt–noun
2. a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.

In both of the above definitions, I have selected the definition referencing the emotion, as oppose to the states of being shamed or guilty. Both were taken from dictionary.com, without permission.

Usually I can argue the other side pretty well, but I can't think of a good reason why non-Christians should feel shame about things they don't even think are wrong. Nor do I see any reason for non-Christians to think that something is wrong, when Christian morality is usually the only reason Christians think it is wrong.
The Christian attitude toward EVERYONE OUTSIDE and INSIDE the church is LOVE. LOVE can cause GUILT, but not SHAME. The ONLY way Christians should come close to shaping culture is by pouring so much LOVE into it that people want to know what makes us different. That is the full extent of our influence on culture. We love, and when people ask, we share why we love. Jesus loves me, I love you.

2006-10-09T14:35:00.000-07:00

So I got in a little scuffle with an 800 year old national treasure. I thought we had been nice to it. Clive and I had been complimenting the building on how well the age-old concrete had kept the stones together. Maybe it heard us wrong or somthing. Or maybe it just didn't appreciate being mounted. Whatever the cause, the climax was rather tumultuous. I got about 5 feet up the wall when it decided to shed itself of excess stones. Perhaps it didn't intend to shed the stones that my weight was relying on. Humpty Dumpy Dyck went falling like a stick. He landed with a thud, too bad it wasn't mud. The ground below was stone. Oh grumble, oh moan. Now he walks with quite the limp, please don't call me wimp! It's alright, it's not broken. Just a alittle bruised, that old wall's token. I'll be better shortly, until then, not courtly. Farewell blog readers, don't assault charismatic leaders.

2006-10-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

I'm going to Zimbabwe, and it's confirmed that I have enough money. PTL.

2006-10-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

As most of you probably already know, I was suppose to be going on a missions trip to Pakistan in February. I really wanted to go on this trip, but I was nowhere near having the money. I can't even afford tuition as it stands. However, God told me to sign up for it and trust him for the money. So that's what I did. Now money is flying at me from all over, from the most unexpected of places. I needed about $2000, and it's beginning to look like I'll have more than that. God is good.
Strangely, the trip was cancelled. Only one person signed up for it, and that was me. Apparently, God has different plans for that money. We'll see what happens. The real problem here is that we were given a week to pick a trip, and a week more to pay for it. That means I had to start trying to get money for the trip before I even finished filling out the application form for it. That's kind of inevitable though since the trips are in February and flight prices are rising. They had to rush everything to make it as cheap as possible. However, it means that I'm now left with the last choice of trips because mine was cancelled. I'll probably wind up in Zimbabwe for the same price. Either that or South Africa. Wherever they can fit me in now. There's nothing to complain about there.
I'll have to go back to everyone who's given me money and ask if I'm allowed to use it for a different trip. This could cause a problem if anyone says no, and then I don't have enough money for this trip.
Oh well. It's in God's hands, and I haven't been given any reason not to trust him. It should be interesting.

2006-10-03T11:20:00.000-07:00

The following is the script of a reconstructive drama, based on a true story.

Friday Night...

Simon: Hey Jordan, Nick's actually a pretty good rapper.

Jordan: Oh yeah?

Simon: Tell him Nick.

Nick: Yeah, I can pretty much rap about anything.

Simon: Really? Even Jordan's shoes?

Nick: Yup.

Simon: Bet you can't.

Nick: Yeah I can.

Simon: Fine, if you can make up a decent rap about Jordan's shoes by tomorrow night, I'll give them to you.

Jordan: Say what?

Simon: If Nick can rap about your shoes, he gets them for a day.

Jordan: Fine. Deal.

Well, here's the rap about Jordan's shoes, so eloquently composed and performed by the marvelous Captain Nick:

Writing a rap song
About a Canadian’s shoes
Want to hear cheers
Not hearing any boos

He wears his shoes
Everywhere he may tread
Loves ‘em so much
He even takes ‘em to bed

My shoes are on
The wrong way round
Dude that’s cause
They cost a pound
Yeah you bought them
In the lost and found

Pray
Pray
For a new pair
Someday

Hey man
Can you tie my laces
Got my feet
In the wrong places

His name is Jor-dan
But he can’t afford ‘em

A new pair
He doesn’t care

He loves ‘em
What about you
Even though
They smell of poo

Jordan from Ontario
Man those shoes
Have gotta go!

They’ve never been washed,
And a size too big
Sorry my friend
Just having a dig

Just having a laugh
But I’ve passed the test
No shoes for the day
Haha – all the best

We'd agreed that I could have them on Sunday for church. It was really wet Monday morning. I carried socks to chapel in my hands and stuck them on when I got there. The Dean appeared rather quizzical, mayhaps confuzzled. Eventually Clive gave me a pair of shoes. They actually fit, and because they were cheap he said I can keep them. Thanks Clive. And I don't want to hear any wise cracks about Clive's name. It's not that English!

Lesson learned: shoes are a valuable posession, and never understimate the powers of the Rappin Cap'in Nick. Yarr.

2006-04-04T17:46:00.000-07:00

A new epistemology.
The desk exists.