So long, Minnesota, I hardly knew ye

Over the last couple months I've been saying to myself and to friends that "I'm at the end of the line, I might be leaving very soon if I don't find work." Well, it appears that time has come. Now, I'm not all that crazy about Minnesota winters, so on the one hand I wouldn't mind being somewhere warmer, even if it's only slightly warmer. I would also get to spend the 25th with my folks (weather permitting).

Outside of that, though, it seems unfair that I'm leaving a place where I'm just now realizing the roots I seem to have laid. Back on Friday I went to my choir's holiday party at one member's house, and amid the food, fellowship, singing, and a intense game of Catchphrase, it seemed I had successfully managed to blend socially with the group (if you know me, normally something like that would be an intense challenge). Towards the end of the night, several choir members somehow learned that I wasn't going to be back in January due to my situation, and we probably spent half an hour right at the end trying to figure out where there might be openings. All this time I'd known I wasn't really planning on staying in Northfield too long, and yet I've managed to make somewhat of a home with a chunk of the population here. I kinda want to leave, but I also don't want to have to start all over again re-laying roots. I don't know what to make of it; I really don't. But I imagine that's normal when things are in flux (and/or have been in flux for quite some time).

Basically my plan for Chicago is this: ride the winter out (did I mention I'm not a fan of winter?), study for and take the GRE, and then aim at returning to Minnesota (Northfield or Twin Cities) sometime during the spring. In other words, it would seem I need to be as deliberate as I can in not laying roots in Chicago, because it would cause undue pressure when I try to return to the place(s) where I do have roots -- something about people wanting me to not leave, something with which my conscience is struggling. My first challenge, as I see it, would be the choir get-together some of my ex-St. Luke's friends/acquaintances have been organizing. I know of a couple friends that are going, and because of them naturally I would be inclined to go as well: however, other people that I haven't talked to in years will also be going; and it would be quite awkward to go with the self-knowledge that I'm actually here for a while and not just on break.

[Postscript: There's more garbage coming from this coconut than I'm letting on in this post, but I'll leave them for now, and possibly bring them back sometime later. See ya on the other side.]

The Christmas sermon, part 2: why we celebrate

"Dar gave me a picture of what ought to be this season, how we should behave. Regardless of religious belief or affiliation, this winter will be cold and lonely, metaphorically and literally, and if people can come together like in the song, "finding faith and common ground the best that they were able," then maybe, just maybe, there's some hope left for us all. And I am ever grateful that there are people like Dar out there coming up with beautiful reminders like this, because thanks to them will be even more who will hear and think twice about what it is they're celebrating this season and with whom and why."

--Si ["http://josiah.blogware.com/"]

I rarely do multiple-part posts on the same topic. [It might explain all those long posts I've written over the last few months.] But I couldn't leave last post hanging without a crucial point, one that I felt might do better separated from the seemingly anti-Christmas sentiment; and I felt it would better serve this post's particular topic to separate it, since it does contrast that of the previous post. I took the above quote from a friend of mine (you can see his blog entry here ["http://josiah.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/12/7/4011318.html"]), which focuses on two things: the lyrics behind Dar Williams' song "The Christians and the Pagans," ["http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/thechris.htm"] and his reflections from having heard that song at that point in time. The last sentence in his quote (the one I highlighted) is what I want to delve into further detail, as well as it being the driving force for this post and the previous one.

What are we celebrating? In the previous post, I've hopefully established the truth about Christmas, that it is in reality a pagan holiday mixed with a religion that suddenly looks quite hypocritical in condemning paganism. [N.B. I am saying neither that paganism is good or bad: this is not the purpose of debate; rather, that for one to criticize or condemn a different set of beliefs one must be pure; in this case Christians are not.] But, negativity aside, in our examinations we discover that we celebrate family, togetherness, love, and [fill in other positive adjectives]. And ultimately, isn't that the important thing?

With whom are we celebrating? What I found beautiful from Williams' song is how a Solstice-celebrating niece calls up her Christ-loving uncle and tells him she wants to spend the holiday with him. Before, she was celebrating with her friend/partner/whatever classification fits the two.

Why are we celebrating? We've established the coming together of a pagan and some Christians. And one takes the initiative to call the other up, someone they haven't talked to in a some time, and asks to celebrate together in spite of a separation of their beliefs. In other words, screw philosophical and religious differences; we're family, and I miss you: a recognition and an acting-upon basic human emotions. Our similarities outweigh petty differences. So what (and with whom) are we celebrating? How about each other? And why? Because we (somehow) care about each other. Ultimately, that should be it.

[Postscript: I've been reading more on SimpleToRemember.com's ["http://SimpleToRemember.com/"] entry about Christmas. I won't say too much, but merely reiterate my comment about its Jewish bias. Down towards the bottom of the article, it talks about how the Jews in ancient Rome were victimized at the derisive pleasure of the pagans and/or the Christians, and how each element of Christmas can be tied to this humiliation. Scary, indeed.]

The Christmas sermon, part 1: origins

Another topic that caught my attention from AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically concerns the lack of the major Christian holidays in the Bible, specifically Christmas. Although I've grown up with celebrating this holiday by having a triangular-shaped evergreen tree at home, and the obligatory singing at the Christmas Eve service (this was tradition); my wanderings over the last five years, plus the bits of information I learned (i.e. Jesus wasn't born in December; the stories of Jesus' birth and St. Nicholas proving to be nothing more than a mishmash), have made me question what I once believed so dearly.

I did some research (unfortunately for those highly-educated, scholarly types who happen to be reading this blurble, said research was exclusively online), and found Christmas to be pagan in origin. I can hear the cynics now: Wait! Christmas is a Christian holiday! How dare you suggest that! Well let me explain. First off, Jesus wasn't born in December; sources suggest a mini-myriad of other dates, largely during either the spring or the fall. Specifically, in the Gospel shepherds were said to have been tending flocks the night of His birth, something said to be impossible during the winter. Secondly, before the Roman Catholic Church came into power, there was a ritual (I believe the birth of a Roman god) said to have taken place on December 25th; thus said date was a date of pagan celebration preceding Christendom's influence. And thirdly, it only became the Christian holiday that we know and love upon the decision and declaration of the early church, possibly by Pope Julius I.

For those of you truth-seekers curious for more information, the SimpleToRemember.com ["http://SimpleToRemember.com/"] website, albeit containing a Jewish bias, helpfully explains the origins of every Christmas tradition ["http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm"]. I also found these two sites ["http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/history-of-christmas-faq.htm"] ["http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm"] to also be helpful (at least somewhat). Amazing what one can find when one types "origins of christmas" into google.com.

Good news/bad news, pt 2, plus...

Bad news: I didn't really get the job. I apparently misinterpreted whatever my temp employment agent told me last Friday when he said there was an opening. Of course, I only found that out after I made the drive to South St. Paul and acquainted myself with some of the folks in the mail room.

Good news: Now I'm not tied down to a mere two-week job, with further confusion as to what to do when it ends in January. [My goal is having something that lasts at least a few months.]

Bad news: I'm 1,000-something dollars poorer.

Good news: I can actually spend the 25th in Chicago.

Bad news: It might mean I have to move to Chicago pretty soon.

Good news: It might mean I have to move to Chicago pretty soon.

More good news: I can take the winter off, study for and take the GRE, and look at returning to Minnesota in the spring sometime.

Now, for the "plus" (although you should know, the definition that I'm invoking for "plus" is "in addition to", and not "a benefit", nor "a cause for happiness") ... I helped Erik, my roommate for the past year-and-a-third, essentially move out. He'd been gone for the vast majority of the last four months, but it was only the last couple days in which he officially moved out. I'll miss the guy. We have our differences, and we have our similarities; but it was nice to just hang out with him and his dad for the last couple of days, and I know they were grateful to have me around to help them out. For now, though, my space looks like a whole bunch of empty. We'll see how long that lasts.

Good news/bad news

Good news: I will be making a decent amount of money for the rest of the year.

Bad news: The year is almost over, as it is December (I'll only be working two weeks).

Good news: I found work; that's why I'll be making money.

Bad news: It starts at 8 AM.

Good news: It's in South St. Paul (I've kinda been wanting to move to the Twin Cities for some time).

Bad news: It's in South St. Paul (I still live in Northfield; the commute will be a pain).

Good news: It'll most likely get my foot in the employment door once this ends.

Bad news: Because of my work schedule, I'm skipping Christmas this year.

A plea for re-examination of athletes as role models, and for unity in unions

--Appetizer

The wind's really blowing out there. Had quite a payload of snow dropped through all of yesterday and yesterday night. Sometime between now and sundown I'm going to take advantage of the white presence and go make something with it. It's funny, I've lived my whole life in a place where snow is expected every winter, and yet I still haven't made a snowman or a snow fort (OK, a college friend of mine also commented the same thing a few years back with the same amount of emphasis, but she's from California, so she gets excused for that one: I don't). Also checked the TV channels; many schools are taking today off. If memory serves, the same thing happened exactly a year ago today, because it would explain why I posted ["http://amidthenoiseandhaste2.blogspot.com/2008/12/off-day.html"] about Rod Blagojevich's arrest during school hours. Freaky, this calendrical symmetry; very freaky.

--Salad

By now Tiger Woods' car crash and leaks about his adulterous life are old news. I must first say it's sad that the topics I'm about to dish out are the first I will have ever talked about Woods. No mention of his 14 PGA grand slam titles. No mention of his endorsements. Nope; we gotta go straight to the stuff that covers the tabloids. Not only did he get cited for crashing his vehicle into a tree at around 2:30 in the morning, but somehow his wife gets ahold of his cell phone, which leads Woods to call his mistress (or one of many) and tell her to get her name off her phone so his wife wouldn't find out. Eventually, he half-admits it to the public (admits his "transgressions"), without going into any particulars, instead pleading for privacy on the matter.

Brief reflections on the matter before the entrée: Woods becomes the latest examples of athlete role models gone bad, or perhaps he's a human who's finally had his mortal weaknesses exposed. In the long line of athletes' shortcomings, Magic Johnson contracted HIV, Michael Jordan gambled, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa (among hundreds of others) took PEDs, LeBron James and Adrian Peterson got caught driving 100+ mph on a highway... the list goes on and on. A question I will address is the issue of holding celebrities and athletes as reliable role models. Another question I will address is the potential loss of marriage's sanctity, thanks to a phone conversation I had last week with a friend concerned about said issue.

--Entrée

It's not hard to hold professional athletes high. Starting with Jordan, they endorsed all sorts of products and put their names out into the public. Essentially, they're saying: "Hey, I'm LeBron James! You might know me... I play some damn good basketball. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I think "Gatorade" tastes good... so if you ever want something to drink, I'd recommend that." But also, there have been countless sports metaphors that people latch on to for real life, whether it's related to their own work, or raising kids, or other stuff like that. It's even better when said great athlete plays for your team, wins championships for your city (thanks, Mike), and fills you with happiness when seemingly just about everything else would send you into despair (thanks, city of Chicago).

Where we err, is placing athletes at some "god-like" status. The problem is, they're human, and as Woods, Jordan, and James proved, some of them are still going to commit adultery, gamble compulsively, and speed. These are "transgressions" (to borrow Woods' term) that many Joe Schmoes fall to every day. There's nothing wrong with looking at what drives them to succeed in their line of work to motivate ourselves or others around us; there's everything wrong with expecting them to, well, not be human. I mean, aside from the few example I've listed a few paragraphs back, celebrities falling to temptation and getting caught doing stupid things seems to be the norm. The events with the Woods family over the last couple weeks is merely another example of it. On the one hand it's surprising, because up until last month Woods has appeared to be a model citizen; on the other hand it isn't surprising at all, because with more stories of athletes and celebrities falling to bad habits, it's almost as if we expect the best to fail (the recent steroid mess in baseball in my opinion having played a large role).

I used to idolize Jordan and Sosa as a kid. The way they performed amazed me; I often dreamed of being an NBA player myself, and by high school I had the Sosa batting routine act down pat. But over the years I found myself re-examining these idolatries. Part of it had to do with my faith/spiritual journey that became thrust on me, but part of it also had to do with Jordan retiring, and with Sosa committing acts of selfishness (his leaving early on the last day of the 2004 season still grates at me).

Now, if you were to ask who I consider my heroes these days, I'd list Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Richard Webster (my first choir director), and Greg Maddux. Now, that list isn't exhaustive, but you'll notice I only have one professional athlete on this list (and he's retired). Essentially the first three stood up against injustices they faced in their lives... and Maddux; well, he had an approach to pitching that I believe no one will ever match. I consider Maddux a hero solely for said approach. [I hear he also has a clean record, not just in his work, but also in his life, which always helps.]

I must get to the second point, the one my friend had more of an issue dealing with: adultery. Yes, Tiger Woods fell to it. Yes, he has a really attractive wife, and it boggles the minds of a decent chunk of the population as to why he would cheat on his attractive wife with others, and why he would do so for a few years (as opposed to merely a few times).

More importantly, it brings to light a larger issue: the crumbling of marriage as an institution. I still get riled up when people say gay marriage is what's damaging marriage. Divorce... you're getting closer. Truth is, impulsive marriages are the primary culprit. Most divorces don't happen without them. Of course, each and every relationship is different in nature, but in each there is a common development, a common growth and/or decline. I agree with the wisdom of taking time with a relationship to get to know one's partner and seeing where it might go before making any kind of commitment. Getting married six months after meeting someone for the first time is by far not enough time to get to really know the person and know how the two... work together (for lack of a better term).

Another point I had made to my friend during this conversation was the issue of how people approach relationships and their different stages -- i.e. "just" a relationship, engagement, marriage. [Granted, I don't have a lot of knowledge in this field, so bear with me as I spout out my theories.] Back in the day (a couple generations ago) when marriages tended to last longer, people approached the beginnings of a relationship with a focus on the long term. When they were in the "just a relationship" stage, one might assume they were already putting the idea of commitment and monogamy into practice, so that by the time the actual status of "marriage" were to arrive, these values would already be ingrained in each partner. Nowadays, it seems the rules (as they were) are much more relaxed; as I understand it [and remember, my understanding is a bit limited] most relationships tend to be more experimental, experiential (granted, I wouldn't be surprised if TV was a culprit). Consequently, said couples would be less likely to practice commitment, their bond towards each other weaker, ready to rip apart at the first sign of monetary or other outside problems.

So, with less time spent together before the date of commitment, the partners don't learn how to be faithful and really care for each other, and consequently it's much more likely that the marriage will crumble and they will need to split in order to maintain what remains of their sanity. I don't know much about relationships, but I do know it's a two-way street; and in order to learn the nature of this particular two-way street, it's imperative to take the time to get to know one's partner, his/her strengths and weaknesses, and how each can satisfy the other's needs. In a word, one must attune himself/herself to his/her partner; after all, marriage is supposed to be a union, not a bi- uh, partisan thing. Not a, "I need to figure out how to satisfy myself without asking my partner for help" type of mindset. DUH! That's what the partner's for! (And if said partner refuses, then the burden of proof is on him/her.)

--Dessert/Postscript

OK, that was a bit longer than I would have liked. Aside from the fact that I didn't feel the most comfortable spilling out my views on relationships (part of it is said views are still developing), I think I was holding something back, and decided to talk my way around it before finally getting to my point by the end. In a larger sense, I've kind of forgotten how to be concise. Maybe I'll remember someday. In the meantime, I've got snow to move around and/or mold into some type of sculpture.

A parallel and a warning

I remember another dream I had as a kid, where in this dream I apparently had to take a nap (or hide) in a dark, enclosed spot all afternoon, not to come out until evening. To be honest, I'm not sure why I had to be asleep or in hiding all afternoon. I recall having a twinge of fear that my life might be in danger if I dared go outside before sundown. I remember being impatient, waking up a couple times, only to learn that it wasn't evening yet. Finally, I woke up (still in the dream) in a car, looked outside, saw it was dusk, and checked the time. It was 5:30 PM. I was looking eastward, through the back of the car and at the road behind me.

The image above doesn't quite capture what I remember seeing in my dream. I envisioned an actual highway, with some of those streetlights that you see on Texas highways (I actually remember the detail, not sure why). This is a parking lot, and even if I were on a highway, it still wouldn't quite fit, because neighboring I-35 runs north-south, not east-west like in my dream. The time was also 4:40 PM... not that it matters, but I figured I'd throw it in to further show the difference between my dream 15-ish years ago and my reality today.

But, like my dream, I did spend this afternoon inside a dark room. I went to the Lakeville Theatre to watch 2012 ["http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/"], a 2 PM showing, one that finished in time for me to get outside just past 4:30. I had done some reading and youtube video-watching in the past, and I decided I needed to see this movie to see what it predicted might happen. Last weekend, while killing time with a friend while waiting for other friends to show up, my friend and I briefly engaged in a conversation about this movie, about how some critic apparently deemed it the worst movie he'd ever seen. I'm not a movie critic, and I never will be, but this movie was about more than plot, effects, the technical works. It's about the end of the world, about how the very fabric of life as we know and understand it has the potential to crumble beneath our feet. We think of the ground as solid, we think of our institution of family and friends as solid, but the truth is everything gets lost in the pandemonium and fear. Granted, there are plenty of arguments supporting both sides of the issue, and one I will not engage in this post.

One lesson I learned from "2012," though, is humanity will be doomed if we can't figure out how to take care of each other. We've always had issues with favoritism, and of protecting our best and brightest (and richest, I might add) at the expense of the common people. If the apocalypse does indeed come, I fear we will still fail to take into account even the least of us, to ensure that they have a fair chance at survival. The argument of "life isn't fair" is there, and it's quite frankly a fair one, but one that must be thrown out in life-and-death situations, especially on a massive scale. If the events of December 21st, 2012 are as, well, catastrophic as the movie suggests, the only hope humanity has is a collective change of heart for the better. Time will tell.

Sermon on the Sabbath

Passage 1: When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

--Numbers 15:32-36

Passage 2: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.

--Matthew 12:1-8 (abridged versions also in Mark 2:23-28, and in Luke 6:1-5)

Passage 3: After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. In these lay many invalids -- blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me." Jesus said to him, "Stand up, take your mat, and walk." At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.

Now that day was a sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, "It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat. But he answered them, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Take up your mat and walk'." They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take it up and walk'?" Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had disappeared in the crowd that was there. Later Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you." The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working." For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

--John 5:1-18

I want to begin by reflecting on these two quotations:

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath."

"My Father is still working, and I also am working."

It didn't take me too long in my reading through Numbers to find a potential contradiction within the Scriptures. I was right; each of the Gospels (with which I feel I have a reasonable amount of familiarity) present an "otherwise" of sorts. Now, it is tempting to look at this and say, "Aha! The Bible isn't infallible! See, it contradicts itself!" But, we must remember, the first passage was written thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years in advance. We have to look deeper, for if the Bible were to have any value at all, it is imperative that we take it in its entire body of work.

The storyline in Numbers takes place during the Israelites wandering on their way from Egypt to, well, roughly present-day Israel. Back in a time when walking was the primary mode of transportation (and general geographical knowledge may not have been top-notch, let alone the availability of GPS systems), it's going to take some time and a lot of patience to get from point A to point B. There's one section that continuously talks about a cloud (God) residing over the tabernacle, but when the cloud would move, it meant it was time for the people to set out and walk. When the cloud stopped and set over an area, it was a signal that this was the place to camp. Sometimes the could (and consequently the people) would stay camped for a day, sometimes a few days, sometimes a week, depending on what the cloud saw fit. (Numbers 9:15-23)

But there were a lot of issues with anxiety and despair among the people. Being stuck in what is considered "no-man's-land" will do that. In a couple instances God wanted to do away with them, but because of Moses' and Aaron's faith and begging He relented. God's human emotions and tendencies seem to be on display often in this early book. Like the Israelites, it appears God is just as desperate that the people stay with Him and trust Him as He slowly and systematically (not to mention, safely) tries to lead them to where they are to end up. And to me it's kind of a startling concept: God as fallible? Is this really possible? (I mean, how do you explain that even God can fall prey to such human emotions as anxiety and despair... and rage?)

Let's pretend for a second that the atheists are right and God somehow doesn't exist (which, as a Theist, is kinda hard for me to do). [I guess this means the cloud and the tabernacle don't exist, either.] Then let's assume that the Israelites' travels across the Sinai Peninsula are still historically accurate. I mean, you look at other trips in early history, for example Alexander the Great's conquests through the Middle East, and all the way to the Indus River. How would the people have narrated the trials of such travels? There's a possibility that mention would have been made about how many of the travelers went insane and killed themselves. It's possible that word would have spread about who decided to return to Egypt and vanished (because they didn't know where they were, and couldn't figure out how they got to where they had been), who decided they needed meat and somehow got trampled by a boar-type animal, and other acts of insanity.

The point is, even back then, it was human nature to adopt the "what have you done for me lately" mentality, because quite frankly our memories are terrible as to the kind acts we've received years ago. I remember growing up and hearing about how the Israelites kept forgetting God and He'd have to find a strong way to remind them, "Hey! I'm still taking care of you! Don't forget about Me!"

So, allowing that God did and does exist, and that there is some credence to this story (even though I am both somewhat amazed and skeptical as to the intense detail of all of this), we turn to the sabbath-related ordinance. I mean, there were a lot of rules listed during this time of travel, and apparently stoning a guy who's picking up sticks is an appropriate law. [Now, I'm aware of the irony that I also happen to be working on the (Christian) sabbath, but no one's stoned me in all these years, so I figure I'm fine at this point.] What would be the purpose of this? Why stone an individual to death merely for the infraction of picking up sticks on a [Saturday]?

This law looks ridiculous if taken by itself. The important key word here is "context." In Exodus (or Leviticus) there's an intensive series of commands concerning building the tabernacle, and a lot of the other commands were in such a way that the folk back then needed to understand it. In ancient Egypt, if a man whose house he built collapsed and killed its owners inside, he needed to be put to death. In modern America, if the same thing happened, he'd probably get sent to jail for manslaughter (or perhaps murder, if the judge and jury decided that the faulty house-building was intentional). But he wouldn't have been stoned. Stoning was merely a common method of punishment back in the Israelites' day, much like crucifixion during the Roman era. This stoning of a man picking up sticks on the sabbath was merely a commandment shaped to the human societal code, a punishment at a level that was acceptable to the people of that day.

So that takes care of stoning. But what about the simple concept of working (or playing) on the sabbath as an infraction? I will argue that this particular value is what's timeless. Regardless of the amount of truth in the creationist story "and God rested on the seventh day and blessed it..." (paraphrased from Genesis 2:2-3) I hear there is some degree of peace when it comes to doing something... different. Nowadays, everyone seems to be some sort of workaholic, either by habit or by necessity (or in my case, I'm a bum). But, as human beings we still need a break from whatever we spend our days doing. Working, gluing one's eyes to a computer... the purpose of a sabbath is to do something different (in most cases rest, pray and reflect). AJ Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Biblically, is a confessed workaholic. But he also discovered he immensely enjoys resting on the sabbath. I imagine more people would take this view if they disciplined themselves well enough to follow through (myself included).

My last point deals with the supposed contradiction in the Gospels. In Passage 2, Jesus explains that King David fed his companions with bread at the temple on the sabbath for the same reasons that He was feeding his disciples: they were hungry. In Passage 3, Jesus heals a man who had been sick for quite some time, and it also happened to be the sabbath. The message: doing good and showing common sense were more important than sticking to some tradition at the expense of helping others. In other words, while it is important to revere the sabbath, it is not the most important thing. Jesus' message reflected the idea of God as Love, and the greatest commandments being "love God," and "love your neighbor." Revering the sabbath fulfills the "love God" commandment; feeding or tending to others by any means necessary fulfills the "love your neighbor" commandment.

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." When in doubt, ask God what to do.

"My Father is still working, and I also am working." Love God, and love your neighbor.

Picking up (sort of) where I left off

"This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24)

OK, so today isn't Sunday (or Saturday, depending on who you ask concerning which day the Sabbath really occurs). And that's not the main topic of today's post, although I found myself pleasantly surprised with the decent weather we've been enjoying up in Northfield. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a warm and sunny winter this year. I really wouldn't.

On to today's topic...

Alternate post title 1: "Who'd'a thunk the book of Numbers could be PG-13?"

Alternate post title 2: "Sacredness of a woman's womb"

[Now you see why I rated this post PG-13. I'm a guy, and I kind of feel weird talking about this, but at the same time, today's reading combined with relatively recent past readings kinda made me think. So here goes...]

After having read AJ Jacobs' book (and currently in the process of re-reading it), I found myself a little more interested in going through the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, for those who care about political correctness). Today I found myself starting to go through the book of Numbers, the point in the Torah I had stopped a couple years ago during a previous attempt ["http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/so.html"] ["http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/im-no-job.html"] to read through the early Scriptures. I came across this passage about a ritual people would perform when a man would bring in his presumed-unfaithful wife to the priest. I'm not going to quote the whole thing (it's rather long), but I will break it down into sections.

The first section (Numbers 5:12-13,15): "If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband ... (basically a couple more instances that could apply to the situation) ... then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour ... (plus a couple other provisions for said offering)." This section is the statement of the issue, in this case, infidelity or suspected infidelity. I will go ahead and say now that while this ritual, like many others in the early books, are considered obsolete, there is a point to it I will explain after the story is all told.

The second section (Numbers 5:16-18): "Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse." In the rest of this section, the priest makes the woman take an oath to drink a water that would put a curse on her if she were unfaithful (specific details to the curse's effect not intended for children 12 and under). Conversely, if she had been faithful, then the water would have no effect on her.

The third section basically has the priest write down the curse and then wash it off into the water, then has the woman drink it. The priest will also take the grain offering that the man (the accuser) gave him, and offer it to God. It can be a potentially very humiliating scene, one that apparently stays with the woman (if she is indeed to have been unfaithful) for the rest of her life.

Were I to have come across this passage anytime earlier in time, I probably would have brushed it off and called it unimportant. After all, Christians say that Jesus' death and resurrection made many rituals as outlined in the Hebrew Bible defunct. But having read Jacobs' book has drawn me back, to understand the significance of them. The passage goes on to say (Numbers 5:29-31): "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."

In his book, Jacobs tackles the issue of impurity, specifically not touching women in the first week after their discharge (like I said, content may not be suitable for children 12 and under). At first glance, it seems quite absurd that said individuals would be considered "unclean" at this time, but what he had gathered was that it signified respect for them, and for the loss of a potential life, rather than an act of shunning them. In the movie "The DaVinci Code" (and I assume the book as well), the characters talk about the womb's sacredness, specifically the Virgin Mary's. The chalice (for those who don't receive traditional communion, it's a cup in which wine or sometimes grape juice is poured and given for churchgoers to receive towards the end of a Sunday service) also resembles this symbol.

This argument could very well translate to the significance behind this ritual and argument against infidelity. Going off the sacredness-of-the-womb theme, if one is unfaithful, it could be seen as a loss of sacredness. The individual who cheats defiles her womb, and therefore (at least symbolically) part of her dies. I can understand that. I myself find beauty in purity, and in today's society it appears to be quite sparse.

On the other hand, I don't exactly think it's a good idea nor necessary to render a woman barren via some kind of weird potion in response for infidelity. I mean, I understand the kind of frustration that might come with a loss of purity and sacredness, but that's just taking it too far. Besides, the same passage also lists the woman as completely under her husband's authority. Why should he decide what happens to her body? And if it's right that he should have such powers, shouldn't she then have at least a say in what happens to his body? (As in, castration for him sleeping with another woman?)

Maybe we're focusing on the wrong part of the moral. Far too many people are obsessed with sin and punishment, as if everyone should have their reproductive system removed when they make even one mistake. If that were true, the human population would probably be 1/10 of what it is now. Instead, maybe we should celebrate purity and those who succeed in staying pure. That's the tactic teachers are encouraged to employ with at-risk children; focusing on positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement. At the very least, we could let God handle all those negative cases. He would do a much better job at it than all of us.

If I ever write a book...

Author's foreword: Below is an excerpt of writing I'd been working on for a few days. If I ever write a book in my lifetime, this would be one of several topics I would choose, either as a stand-alone book or a chapter. With more research, this argument will become more polished, but for now, I humbly present this piece, with hopes of using it in a more prestigious place down the line.

________________________________________________________________

A few weeks ago I bought and read this book ["http://www.amazon.com/Year-Living-Biblically-Literally-Possible/dp/0743291476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215441601&sr=8-2"]. I’d seen the online video ["http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html"] about this adventure several months before, but I came across it again at a bookstore. I was curious as to other people’s forays into religious/spiritual disciplines, specifically the forays of skeptics. The book itself is quite something. AJ Jacobs ["http://www.ted.com/speakers/a_j_jacobs.html"] spent a year—a little more, actually—studying and living the Bible, obeying every single law with no questions asked (no picking and choosing for this guy!). That meant growing his beard out, wearing only clothes with single linens (it’s sinful to mix fibers), stoning adulterers, praying multiple times each day.

Ultimately, his thoughts at the end of the book on the Bible and “Cafeteria Religion” hit the nail on the head, for the most part. Due to copyright concerns, I will only quote bits and pieces, and try and outline his argument as best as I can.

Argument one: everyone practices cafeteria religion, including fundamentalists. How do we know this? If they didn’t, “they'd kick women out of church for saying hello ("the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak..."--1 Corinthians 14:34) and boot out men for talking about the "Tennessee Titans" ("make no mention of the names of other gods..."--Exodus 23:13)” (AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, p. 328). In other words, people would treat each other like crap for the sake of staying true to the Bible. Many of the fundamentalists I have met are quite nice, and treat others around them well. There is no way I see them criticizing their fellow human beings for putting their hand over the heart during the American national anthem, for instance (as this would be an act of worshiping the United States of America).

Also, some self-professed “true Christians” (like Pat Robertson) have a penchant for running their mouth. For in James 3, leaders are encouraged to discipline their words; if they fail, they are judged by God with greater harshness than lay persons: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sister, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle.” (3:1-2) James’ reason for this? “How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” In other words, if you read the tabloids about the latest celebrity gossip, even false rumors ruin their lives and the lives of everyone who care about them.

I bring up the last paragraph largely to show that many of these critics pick and choose themselves. They accuse moderate Christians (and their counterparts criticize moderate Jews, and Muslims) of being sinners in this regard, when in fact they too are sinners. Major sinners. Not to mention cafeteria practitioners themselves.

Argument two: practicing cafeteria religion is not only unavoidable, but necessary for true faith. Sounds heretical, right? Let me explain. The concepts of faith and religion have long been based on doctrine, beliefs taught either by God or by humans, interpreted by humans over the centuries, and enforced by humans. The Roman Catholic Church, in all its storied history, had held the distinction for being the sole link between mortals and God. In this arrangement, the Church was the authority, thereby interpreting God’s laws as its human leaders saw fit. After the Reformation shifted a good chunk of the population’s perspective away from the theocratic institution, the Bible became the new source of theological authority. Unlike the RCC, the Bible contained presumed-to-be-unblemished wisdom (at the very least, said wisdom was comparatively unblemished), and allowed commoners to have direct access to God; whereas RCC bishops and cardinals often took passages out of context to support their own personal values, precisely the “cafeteria religion” that many people decry.

However, the Scriptures are just that: scriptures. Without some level of interpretation, the written word is stale, stuck only in the time period in which it was set. It is necessary to look beyond the text that appears, to find a proper transposition of the original meaning of a particular law or value. Morever, for the purpose of having a strong faith in God, one must actually look to him (i.e. outside of the Bible as well as in) to find the Truth. Consider the passage from John 5:39-40: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The thing about the very existence of cafeteria religion is that there are a lot of written holy words in the Bible. A stack of rules, a list of values, a plethora of advice. Jacobs is right: there is only so much we can heap on our plate. He explains, using an actual cafeteria metaphor: “I’ve had some great meals at cafeterias. I've also had some turkey tetrazzini that gave me the dry heaves for sixteen hours. The key is choosing the right dishes” (Jacobs, p. 328). There are a lot of marriage-related laws, and yet there are a lot of single people in the world right now, a group certain to increase in size. Those same people, so long as they remain single, will supposedly never have to worry about violating the commandment on adultery. Vegetarians will never have to worry about eating sacrificial meat. The point is not that these laws are useless and should be ignored. By no means! Rather, those individuals can choose other guidelines (“laws” is so black-and-white) that would fit them better to focus on.

Now, I understand the opponent’s fear. Cafeteria religion can enable people to conform the Bible to their own potentially sinful values. I can hear various people’s justifications towards this end: “Divorce is OK if it’s mutual or amicable.” “I don’t have to give my money to the poor, because the government will tax me anyway.” “It’s OK to watch/play football on Sunday.” “It’s OK to commit adultery if my significant other is fine with it.” “It’s only a bee! If I hadn’t squashed it, it would have stung me.” “It’s only a fetus! If I don’t want the kid I don’t have to have it.” “Jesus wants me to live the American dream and to have a good life! After all, he advocates the capitalistic system. Just look up his parable about the five bags of gold!” “God doesn’t really care about homosexuality.” “Nothing I do matters. So I’ll raise hell while I’m young and convert to Christianity on my deathbed.”

The problem with this attitude is that the individual doesn’t really spend time actually thinking about the bit of Scriptural wisdom that he/she may come across. This is a part of human nature: we find something we like and live by it. So for those who fall in love with “the American dream” will be drawn toward any statement that’s remotely pro-capitalism. Supporters of gay marriage will naturally steer away from any anti-homosexual reference, and toward anything that says God is love. And so on and so forth.

Many people are also afraid to deal with challenge, or differing interpretations of a particular phrase or concept. Many of these same people also grew up with the idea of putting their trust into a doctrine or series of doctrines for their faith. Those who were taught that either their church (or synagogue, or mosque, etc) or a collection of books (that’s what the Bible is, anyway) where the only sources of truth will have issues with new ideas. They will not be curious; rather, they will either run away from them, or attack them, and neither option allows them to grow in their faith.

I know where I am. I am often afraid of challenge and confrontation myself. But I also know that, to grow in faith, I must combat these fears. And it hasn’t been easy. A couple summers ago while I was staying up in Minneapolis looking for work, I listened in on a religious discussion between two friends on opposite sides of the issue of cafeteria religion. At the time I didn’t feel comfortable contributing (partially because I was somewhat biased), but my Biblically-religious friend raised this issue of picking and choosing. That question stuck with me for some time. I didn’t have an answer. I’d like to think, after having spent some time picking apart this topic, that I do have one now. But for me to truly justify following my own cafeteria religion, I still have to do it right. I have to actively practice what I preach, pick my spots when doling out criticism, and above all look to God for guidance. After all, since this is a faith, it’s all about God. Far too many religious people forget that.

Brief commentary on a dream and teenage psychology

Sometime around when I was ten years old, I dreamed I was a teenager. I don't remember much (it was about fifteen years ago when this dream happened), but I remember being really frustrated at everything in life. When I'd woken up, I recall being quite surprised by it, having recalled conversations with friends at some point earlier in life about what it would be like being a teenager (or, more accurately, how "cool" it would be to be one).

Predictably, that dream turned out to be prophetic. But of course, I was far from the only one who went through the massive ups and downs during this stage. Last year, while with AmeriCorps, I listened to a brain development expert in this area speak about the teenage years, and learned that the still-developing frontal cortex is the primary culprit. I came across this online article [“http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr07/teenage.html”] about teenage psychology that could sum up all the points better than I could in a blog entry. But I will say this: the frontal cortex is directly related to judgments that teens have to make, especially while driving. The hormone-related aggression is there, but the faculties as to how to deal with it are not.

If I ever have kids, I'm probably going to make them wait until at least 17 before getting their driver's license, like my parents did for me. Maybe I could even convince them that driving is useless, or even bad for the environment, like several of my Chicago friends embraced during their late teens and early twenties (at last check, I think they all have their driver's licenses now). Even more so, I might employ a strategy of finding all my kid's "new" friend's parents, connecting with them, and swapping information with them about our kids and their possible doings, at least as a means for having a plan to safeguard them as much as we can. But I will admit, that plan is quite ambitious, so we'll have to see if it ever happens. Of course, that's if I ever have kids.

A lesson about favorite living spaces

If you were to ask me my favorite dorm room from my entire time at St. Olaf, it would be the tiny room I occupied for two weeks on the second-highest floor in Thorson at the end of my summer before junior year (i.e. 2006). Now, if you know me, you know I like space, so you might think it strange that my favorite room happened to be the smallest. It probably helped that, during the summer, I have fewer possessions (and less of each possession, specifically referring to clothes), so in spite of the tininess of said room, I didn't have as much stuff in tow. But it was my space (it was a single room), and for the first time in my whole collegiate career, I didn't have to share anything with a roommate. I enjoyed the simple pleasures of having the desk in one corner, the bed by the window, and my two portable fans running all day long on top of my dresser. I wonder if, had I lived there for longer than two weeks, had more stuff, and had schoolwork on my plate, if I would have loved it as much. But that's no matter. Now you have the answer to, what was your favorite all-time college dorm room?

The other side to this storyline was that this was the room I moved into after my roommate issues hit a climax the previous week. In some ways this was quite a low in my life, and it also happened to accompany the reason for my having my favorite dorm room. Why does this story matter? Because right now, I have essentially my own apartment, arranged largely how I want it, and as a bonus I have the parking spot I coveted for a year. Hmm, "coveted" ... yeah, religiously that's a problem (spiritually, too). Materially I am quite satisfied in my living arrangements, but I also know that my living here like this accompanies another long-ish low stretch. I'm continuing to strike out in job-searching, my means for survival; and I'm at the very juncture where it's do-or-die for my continued habitation in my current dwelling. Meaning, I probably won't have my arrangement nor my parking space for much longer.

There has to be a lesson in this, or at least a connection. It seems I've been happier when my living conditions were less than ideal. Consider my junior year in college, which I personally claim as my best school year on the whole. My room was a constant mess, and I really didn't care much to clean it up. Last year, while working for AmeriCorps, I had one of the longest continuous high stretches of my life. I also lived in an extremely cramped space, with all my possessions either crammed into my 12x8 bedroom or a 6x4 plot right outside my bedroom. [Note, this last point is not a complaint, but rather an observation proving my point. And yes, I did actually measure the spaces.] So there's a connection between favorite spaces or arrangements, and rough life patches. And the lesson probably is, don't set your heart on "dream" living spaces. Problem is, if I actually manage to learn said lesson (and I'm not quite sure I want to), how do I go about making a personal change to accommodate it? Not sure if I really can... (thus explaining why I have doubts about accepting this as a possible lesson)

In other news, Paul Manz, the great composer of "E'en So, Lord Jesus, Quickly Come," ["http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNyLmy3ml5Q"] ["http://www.wfn.org/2009/10/msg00252.html"] passed on Wednesday. I've actually attended a few services at Mount Olive Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, one of the places he worked. Manz was one of the few living composers whose music I had sung as a kid (outside of compositions by my choir directors), as most of the others had already passed. He will be missed.

E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come,

and night shall be no more;

they need no light, nor lamp, nor sun,

for Christ will be their All!

--Ruth and Paul Manz

Without the internet... (and reflections on late-Generation Y)

I wandered onto youtube, and curiously explored some of the video blogs -- called vlogs, apparently -- primarily as a means of exploring youtube (largely because my exploration to date has consisted of typing up the name of an artist or song that I like, and then watching the video of what I was looking for). I'd occasionally wander onto some sports vids, but that's a relatively unimportant tangent which doesn't need further explanation.

After having watched a couple (what I consider) boring vlogs [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EC_AJOY4Ss&feature=popt16us0a”], I came across this one vlog [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5d_YGHjBk&feature=related”] of a guy tackling the question, "What would my life be without the internet?" and encouraging other vloggers to chime in with their own vresponse (yay! I made up a word! if this ever makes it into the vernacular, and history proves that I'm the first to come up with this word, I want credit. and monetary compensation.). Now, I currently don't have a camera or a computer with enough capabilities to post vlogs on my buh-log, so a vresponse is out of the question. I'll have to settle for a slightly more conventional and less hip way of responding.

Before I do, I just wanted to reflect on the few vresponses I came across so far tackling this "what would my life without the internet be like" [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5d_YGHjBk&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNpGdXpZXo4&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74K80hweWyo&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVj1NOIm5Es&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xl1lcDcniQ&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW44e_kLD9M&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZUtAuLgqYg&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu2Q7Xfq-e8&feature=related”] [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ZUHVvwam0&feature=related”] query (I should let you know, I didn't watch all of these). First off, several of those whose vids I watched on youtube (and some that I couldn't re-find for the purpose of linking) are currently in college. Think about it. College! I'd known about middle school and high school kids walking around constantly texting as their main form of communication, in front of cell phones (for actually talking to people! what a concept!), getting on a computer to send an email, or (even more ancient) putting ink or graphite to papyrus' modern ancestor. This has been true for at least 3-4 years. Secondly, many of them are posting 2 or 3-minute deals where all they do is talk, talk, talk, and maybe occasionally walk. The most productive vlogs have some kind of purpose, either detailing a trip (with some tips for anyone who wants to go wherever the vlogger went), or imparting some bit of wisdom through a story or a life event also captured on said video... not just some, "I'm gonna hang out with my buddies...", "Now I'm hangin' out with my buddies...", and then "I had a blast with my buddies, tomorrow I gonna do mo' sheeat, g'nite!" kind of crap. Ohhhh boy, as a very young elder statesman, I have to ask: what has this world come to? Junk gets posted all the time now, whether it's on youtube, in music, or elsewhere, and, depending on the person's popularity, permeates the worldly culture. It's times like this, I think, the apocalypse has to be coming pretty soon, right? (Not that I really care for it to.)

Now, my original intent for exploring people personal vlogs on youtube was to try and get a scoop of the current human condition, up-to-date vproof (hah, another one! I'm going to put a "v" (for vid) in front of every word it modifies and claim my right to collect any and all compensatory change)... where was I? Oh yeah, video proof, or vproof, as I'm now calling it -- basically I'm interested in where human nature is right now. You know I have strong moral issues with it, and none of them necessarily because I read out of a book that, while I admire and recommend everyone read it for his/her own edification, I think is fundamentally flawed in some areas. But that's going to be a post for another time (unless, somehow I get enough dough to spill on a new compy and new camera, then it'll be on my next vpost... but, don't count on it).

You'll notice how easily I got distracted the last couple paragraphs. And I'm making no guarantees that it will change this paragraph. I just realized, today's topic goes quite nicely with my post on multitasking [“http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/great-now-you-tell-me.html”] several weeks ago. While multitasking has affected the vast majority from older than my parents' generation to our budding members in Generation Z (the one after Y), this reliance on the internet has caused our children (and now collegians) to become more powerfully distracted (my opinion, not fact). "Sometimes I twitter in my sleep!" exclaims this one vlogger [“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O5d_YGHjBk&feature=related”]. "I just absolutely have to check my facebook or twitter at 2 AM! Someone may have commented on my status!" (OK, I made that one up; but I have heard something to this effect from someone in real life.)

Reliance on the internet has also created somewhat of a divide between everyone born in the 1990s and younger, and everyone born in the 1970s and older. That leaves the remaining few of us, those born in the 1980s (myself included, having been born in the smack-dab middle), kind of as a tipping island, doing all we can to keep both sides remotely connected. We have to be both internet-savvy and ancient-methods-of-communication-savvy.

So, to finally get down to the question: where would I be without the internet? Two-part answer: 1a.) Lost. 1b.) More relaxed. To answer 1a, I reply that a good chunk of my communication comes from gmail [“http://www.gmail.com/“], facebook [“http://www.facebook.com/“], AIM [“http://www.aim.com/“], and occasionally, skype [“http://www.skype.com/“]. Without it, I don't keep in touch with people from college, New York, or even Chicago. I also confer with Google Maps [“http://maps.google.com/“] frequently when I'm going someplace new, and rely on it quite a bit to get the best route(s). I also check with weather.com [“http://weather.com/“], as well as other sites for either education on a subject, or aid in job-related searches, or for information in general. Without it, it means I'm going to the Northfield Public Library, and then staying there for hours hoping my brain can muster the stamina to get enough work done to justify my leaving so I don't have to exert the effort to rush back for any last-minute closing of information gaps. Without relatively immediate communication with other people, and ready access to whatever information I want and need, I'm lost.

To answer 1b, I will link you to this blog blurb [“http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/osr-immediate-recap.html”] I posted immediately after returning from Mississippi a year-and-a-half ago (that long already??). I will admit, it helped immensely that I had ready access to food, water, shelter, a pretty immediate knowledge of my schedule, oh, and a lot of people around that I could just sit and talk to. Also, I communicate with my family and closest friends largely over the phone, (I do still feel weird facebooking my parents sometimes), as well as friends I know who happen to be around (either when I'm in Minnesota or Chicago). I think I'm more relaxed, because I'm actually conversing, hearing their voice (although I'm still quite nervous talking on the phone). I don't know about you, but I always get a good feeling after a deep two-hour conversation with a close friend or family member. It's just not the same online. I still enjoy the conversation, but it feels less involved.

Now, I couldn't live like the Amish (occasionally I envy them for this reason), but I do believe a limit in internet use is optimal for my daily well-being. The stuff I described to explain why I'd be relatively lost without the internet fails to mention the laziness factor. If I walk or drive to the Northfield Public Library, it means I've gotten out of the house and made actual, physical contact with the world. It means I was outside when it was sunny and 76 degrees, or rainy and 42 degrees, or snowy and 10 degrees. It also means I'm communicating with people in person that I wouldn't have met online (the converse of the pro-internet argument where you meet people online that you wouldn't have in real life). To expound on the physical contact, it means you actually shake a boss' or a client's hand, hug a friend, or kiss your significant other, rather than type *shake hand*, *hug*, or *XOXO* (for kiss), all of which mean the thought is expressed, but the act of doing is still missing.

To conclude, the internet is great for keeping in touch, but terrible for any kind of physical contact. Heck, it might as well be midnight all day long, and winter all year long, as far as you know. I need it for the services it provides, but I can't substitute it for things that it just can't replace.

Brief source of inspiration

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me.

I once was lost but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.

And Grace, my fears relieved.

How precious did that Grace appear

The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares

I have already come;

'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far

and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.

His word my hope secures.

He will my shield and portion be,

As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,

And mortal life shall cease,

I shall possess within the veil,

A life of joy and peace.

When we've been here ten thousand years

Bright shining as the sun.

We've no less days to sing God's praise

Than when we've first begun.

--Amazing Grace, John Newton (1725-1807),

I came across this text on a bathroom door at a restaurant. To be exact, it was at the Ruby of Siam in Evanston, a place I frequented as a kid, but hadn't gone very often since high school. I'd made myself familiar with said text, having sung it in hymns at all sorts of different churches over the years. I scrapped up an a cappella piece with the complete set of text (at least according to the source responsible for providing me with the words above) just today, so I suppose it's a good sign I'm composing again, something I haven't really done for some time. I suppose it's also a good sign, because, between an increasingly daunting job hunt, and lack of contact with friends who are either really busy or just plain gone, it's been an increasingly agonizing situation. I think, for my own sanity, I'm going to compose more, and I'm going to set a finite date for independent job searching/finding before I pack it in and return to Chicago, even if for a brief period of time.

Lesson of persistence

One of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." He said to them, "When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial." And he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.' And he answers from within, 'Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.' I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs. So I say to you, ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. ... If you then ... know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11: 1-10, 13)

During my last two years in New York, every Friday the 7th and 8th graders would go attend a youth group called "Focus," which predictably would include food, games, and Biblical study (mostly Psalm study, actually). One theme I kept hearing was how we never deserved anything (good) because of our humanly unworthiness, but because of God's graciousness we were able to partake in them. Over the years I seemed to adopt the first half of that, and during my high school years I never thought about asking God for anything because, given the lesson(s) imparted from Focus, I knew deep down I didn't deserve them. Thankfully that began to change when I started going to FCA during my first year at St. Olaf, but even in college -- and since college -- I still have struggled to just outright ask, let alone be persistent, as verses 8-10 recommend.

I know this, because a few days ago I had been persisting in calling back this one place I'd had an interview a week earlier, but the night before I was to call for the final time, I'd prayed to God about this job. But in this prayer I wasn't sure what to ask for, because I didn't want to change God's will for me. I didn't ask to get this job specifically; technically I just asked for a resolution, and for it to be his will, regardless of which way it went. And maybe that was the issue. See, another thing I picked up from FCA was trying to see what God was planning for me, and trying (and often failing) to follow it; instead of trying to put my own wishes on him.

This morning I once again opened the scripture to a random page, and it happened to be Luke 11. Maybe it means I should stop worrying about going against his plan by not asking for anything, and actually be persistent in what I want or need. At this point in my life, it's time to stop being a child and actually take charge of my life like an adult. I'm now into my second year post-college, and this is essentially the juncture where I have to decide whether I'm going to strive for a decent career, or be stuck with minimum-wage dead-end jobs. I sincerely hope it's the former, but now it's time to put hopes into action. Persistence isn't really one of my strong suits, but if I am to survive and thrive, it will have to become one.

A message to all politicians and politically-inclined people

especially to those who claim to care for and represent the nation in which I live...

It seems that there's a lot more anger and fighting than there used to be, especially when my grandparents (and even parents) were my age, and it seems that instead of trying to work together, people on both sides have been stonewalling each other. Last I checked, we live in the... 

oh, shoot, what's it called again?

The Divided States of America? No wait, that doesn't sound right...

... our acronyms are U, S, and A. Hmm, what could it be?

The Unorganized States of America... ? Dang, I can't remember now.

My message to all politicians and politically-inclined people: get back me to me when you figure it out.

A Response to "The Discipline of Love"

I never really understood the whole "if your [body part] causes you to sin, tear it out, for it is better to have one [of said body part] and go to heaven, instead of going to hell with two [of said body part]." The passage from Mark 9:42-49 leaves much to be interpreted, in that if my right foot slipped on a banana peel, causing me to slip, bump into another person, and cause [him/her] to fall into a [pool, mud puddle, insert other object that you don't want to fall in or on].

I went to St. John's ELCA this morning for the first time since my out-of-state sejours last month. On a side note I guess, I've been visiting all sorts of places that I didn't go during my first five years in Northfield, but at the same time, I've gotten increasingly comfortable doing so (and not just going to one place all the time). That said, I knew I'd picked the right place this week -- I hopped into my car at about 10:30 this morning, and I knew of about three places where worship services were starting at 10:45, and just picked one -- when I glanced in the bulletin at the sermon's title. It read, "The Discipline of Love."

You probably know I'm a big believer of the importance of God's love and love in general, so I was going to take a decent bit of interest in this. This passage is surrounded by many passages involving bodies possessed by demons, including a young boy who could not speak and foamed at the mouth (Mark 9:14-29), and immediately follows the disciples' question about whether or not to stop a man "pretending" to cast out demons (Mark 9:38-41).

To say the least, casting out demons is pretty heady stuff, and most importantly there is a lot of love involved with this particular issue. God shows us the greatest example of His love by giving us Jesus specifically with the intention of saving those in trouble (John 3:16, anyone?). Casting out demons is yet another example of this "love/salvation" bundle, and getting back to the post's thesis, the "cutting off body parts" passage reflects God's love for us. For instance, if our coveting things or people (i.e. "the eye causing one to sin") prevents us from being examples of said love, we need to figure out how to remove it from our lives. In short, cutting off an eye, or a hand, or a foot is a metaphor. As humans, we were created imperfectly, and it's something we have to live with (to some degree). But with God's help and His love, we can be rid of it.

There's one final point I'd like to make to expand on this. Looking at people who preach (and in my opinion obsess over) the "badness" of sin, they often miss the crucial ingredient of God's love, and the uttermost reliance (faith, might I say?) on Him to help us. The attitude that one must change oneself in order to be "acceptable" to Him (i.e. saved) might appear to work for some, but I'd argue it doesn't for most. It puts distance between individual and God. This process of overcoming (if there is overcoming to be done) needs Him first and foremost, if any progress is to be achieved.

_________________________________

Last night, I went to an observatory event for the first time. It was one of those things I didn't quite get to do while down in Texas, but now I've made up for it. Plus, I got to see the planet Neptune!