Change my mind for me

My biology professor is the most abundantly friendly teacher I have had in all my life. She's tough, pulls no punches, and never, never quits smiling. She just expects you to know your stuff.

Last semester, in my naivety I spoke out about the problems that the theory of evolution suffers. I was met with some resistance, but it was short lived, and we went on. A few weeks ago, when Mrs. Rock and I were arranging the details of a school visit that I would be handling, she approached me and said, rather cautiously,

"Can I ask you a personal question?"
"Sure" I said.
"You do realize..." she paused, "you do understand..." another pause, "You do realize that the world really is billions of years old.

I smiled politely, not really sure how to answer such a fallacious question coming from a superior. So I sidestepped it.

"I understand, Mrs. Rock, that there are fundamental problems with the idea of molecules-to-man evolution."

I hadn't answered her question, and she wasn't satisfied.

"But you understand, it really has been proven, I mean look at all the dating methods!"

I wasn't going to dignify a geological question coming from a biologist, and thereby expose my ignorance.

"I'm not a geologist, Mrs. Rock, and frankly, neither are you. All I know about radioactive dating is that they're all based on boatloads of assumptions about the history of the world; a history that was shaped by the ideals of biologists."

I shared an anecdote about rocks of a known 2-digit age that were dated using some modern dating method, and "shown" to be thousands of years old.

"But the biggest problem I have with Darwinism is the idea of the complexity of life originating from a conglomerate of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor."

And do you know what she said?

"I KNOW! Its incredible! It was a h*** of a roll of the dice!"

Ah words, words, words!

IN MY WORLD of graphic design we do a lot of advertising. We do it often for people who are less than initiated in advertising (Read my last post to see how well I interface with the uninitiated). These same individuals are also less than initiated at many other things, such as aesthetics, and... speech, actually.

Let me back up. Among the Deitsch speaking population, there are always words that get translated badly, whether from Dutch to English or vice versa. A good example of this is the common phrase "Mahs un goodah dag!" or in English "Have a good day!" These don't directly translate. The dutch text becomes "Make it a good day!" and the english text becomes "Hab un goodah dag!" which seems to imply that a good day would need to befall you by chance, or by a roll of the dice, and you would have to catch it and pin it down.

There are hilarious examples of these transliterations. A popular one is as follows: 2 little Amish boys are having a conversation. In English, it might sound like this:

Boy 1: "To get to town, you have to go down the road to the bridge, and turn."
Boy 2: "Oh, I know where the bridge is, my dad used to get water for his horse there!"

Because of word order and some dutch words sounding awfully much like english words ("bridge" in dutch is "brick"), that conversation has been comically rewritten like this:

Boy 1: "For to the town come, you go the road down to the brick, and turn over."
Boy 2: "Oh, I know where the brick is, my dad used to drink his horse there!"

Recently, a fresh new word has come to my office by way of an overzealous Amish man trying out a freshly crafted word: "I like most of de ad, but I chust wanna change some of dis verbage."

We're all fairly certain this man didn't know the meaning of the word "verbiage" which is used to insultingly describe a body of text that is wordy or overly technical. The great thing is, this one customer was not the only man to use this term! 2 customers, but men, both furniture makers, both likely acquainted with each other, have used this word copiously. We all love it, and find cause to use it over and over in a days work.

"Dat was some quality verbage, I sink."

Getting back at it.

If you'll look closely to the date on the post directly below this one (and do me the favor of not reading said post), you'll note that it was written within a few days of 3 years ago. It wasn't the last post I'd written, though, I had managed to post at some point near the end of 2006. A curious thing happened to cause me to be interested in posting again. A friend, Matthew, WhenElephantsMuse, sent my wife and and I a rather nice christmas letter through which I discovered he had a blog. Cheers, Matt, and thanks for the beautiful pic of the kids! You're a wonderful photographer.

Bottom line is, I'm suddenly struck with the beauty of writing all over again. I haven't written in a long while. Back in the day, when I was young and rather more thoughtful (read: more filled with thought ;-) and philosophical, my musings tended to be rather unwieldy texts.

I'm a bit smarter now, by one semester of college (including an English Comp class, fortunately) and a few years of real life which included getting married and now I'm on the verge of becoming a father. That real life has also included the death of a friend, which lead to a strange, wonderful calling from the Lord to follow Him through College and Medical School.

Hopefully, now, when I write, it will be worth your while, and not so heady, high-societal, or ponderous. That's not to say that it won't be arcane occasionally.

-------------------------------------------

"Bloeks dih net?" My friend asks curiously whether or not it bothers me to see a surgeon's knife slice through human skin. We're standing side by side atop the printing press he runs for a living; I'm dressed in khaki pants and a dress shirt that sharply contrasts with his ink-stained clothes.

"No, it isn't a big deal really," I reply, patiently bearing this question yet again. A dozen uninitiated people ask me this every week, it seems, and after a dozen operations I'm too calloused for my own good. I don't interface well with the uninitiated, just ask anyone. Wonderful, well-meaning people who are genuinely interested in my life all seem to ask the same questions and crack the same stupid jokes.

"Let Nic cut that pie, he needs practice with knives, right?"

"I'm a freshman in college, for crying out loud", I think as I pass a practiced smile in the direction of the jokester. "Don't take me to the bank just yet, man."

"Hey Nic, I better be nice to you cuz I don't wanna end up on your OR table with you having a grudge against me!"

"How many people do you know that operate on their relatives?" I fume.

But folks really do want to see me succeed. Dissidents hardly exist, which is fortunate. Surprising, even.

I was once in the presence of a really accomplished surgeon when someone wisecracked to the whole group "I was kind of frightened when I saw the surgeon walking around with a big, sharp kitchen knife, but finally he set it down so I was OK."

I asked the Dr. afterward "What do you do with that kind of thing? Don't you just get tired of it?"

His reply was a classic understatement. "The way I see it, a person is just trying to show his interest in you, that's all. Yeah, it gets old, but finally you realize, Hey this guy really likes me and wants to tell me so."

You know, I've really had to change my attitude after starting to associate with physicians. What seemed like major annoyances for me start to fade dramatically when a I see the disturbances that plague all physicians.

“Things cannot always go your way. Learn to accept in silence the minor aggravations, cultivate the gift of taciturnity and consume your own smoke with an extra draught of hard work, so that those about you may not be annoyed with the dust and soot of your complaint.” - William Osler, MD

That quote single-handedly changed my life. In hindsight, I realize that I often didn't react well to my circumstances in photography at Carlisle Printing. "Stupid Amish furniture makers with no idea what art was" constantly "plagued" my life, I thought. Now I realize the truth. I could have been more convincing and successful had I dealt with them like a good physician. "Here's a client with an excellent product who needs to sell that product. What's the best way to do that?"

Anyway, enough retrospect. Enough writing, for now. Happy New year all.

So what's the scoop on morality?

Be forewarned: Long post.
On MennoDiscuss, I ran a poll about the [a]morality of music. It got quite the response. Split right down the middle. It's gone for 3 pages so far, with most of the people actually posting seeming to lean toward amorality. But really, what is the proper response to this question.

Just last evening, I was pondering this, and came upon another question. What makes something moral? What validates something as a moral existence? The following thoughts are (probably very opinion-oriented) thoughts along that theme (please note, I'm open to being wrong, this is a very new concept for me):

First of all... morality gets it's origins as being something who's actions have consequence eternally. It is based on the Law of God, and particularly on the fact of his existence. This is key. In my opinion, the fact of Man's morality is brought about by the fact that he has a soul, and an eternal choice. If this is true, then nothing has moral consequence except for man, his actions and intents.

What then, is to be said about the morality of music? Paul said "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me, but I will not be enslaved by anything." (I Corinth 6:12, ESV) Where does that leave morality? Somewhere between man's actions and his intents, in my humble opinion.

Let's take a look at the Ten Commandments.

I "You shall have no other gods before me.

What are we dealing with here? Certainly a moral issue. It deals with God, and Man's worship of the One True God. So man's devotion is moral.

II "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God..."

Pretty much dealing with the same issue: Man's Devotion.

III "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

God is concerned with the way Man perceives God. God is concerned with His name. Probably the only example we can find where our words apparently REALLY matter. Unless I'm not interpreting this correctly.

IV "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God."

Here we deal with something that God ordained from Creation. An important thing to keep in mind. Still, we shouldn't be OVERLY "wise", or strict about it, as Jesus showed us during his life by healing on the Sabbath. Me, I'm like "Hey, what better day to show the power of God then the day we've set aside to give to God?"

V "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Is this moral? It's not a "Though shalt not" verse, so is it really a moral command? I've experience the blessing of following this command, abandoning logical though, but this, in my opinion, is probably not a moral command. Feedback?

VI "You shall not murder."

Life, as the most sacred institution available to man, is just that: sacred. Period. Ultimately, and besides God, Life becomes "King". What else is there? What else is more foundational than life, aside from God Himself? So, we're not to take that away from anyone. Period.

VII "You shall not commit adultery."

Adultery is a direct violation of another God ordained institution: marriage. One man, one woman. Lust, on the other hand, while also a violation of this (if in a less direct way), it is also an issue of Man's devotion.

VIII "You shall not steal."

How is stealing a moral offense? After consulting a few friends, we've decided this relates to covetousness, which is a condition of selfishness. Selfishness=Godlessness.

IX "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Don't lie. It's fundamental. God is all truth. Only truth. Lying is opposite of truth=Lying is opposite of God. It's fairly straightforward.

X "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Why aren't we allowed to want someone else's things? What's wrong with wanting? "Godliness is contentment with great gain." That's why. Contentment. What is more joyful than to be content with your lot in life?

All in all, the Ten Commandments are only a few examples of the ways we can morally offend God. It's only a simple list I was able to grab as an example, and it worked, I think. I'm interested in hearing feedback on these thoughts before I broadcast this further than... the world wide web. Ha! It doesn't get an more broadcast than that, does it?

Emerging Anabaptism

Want to witness a revolution?

It's been some time (longer than I've been alive) since the last big anabaptist reformation has come to pass. But we may be on the brink. Emerging Anabaptism, founded by Art Kauffman and Javan Lapp may be the beginning of the greatest revolution our generation has ever seen. It's aim: undeniable, deep-rooted, more-than-contemporary-christian-theology, earth-moving FAITH! And, providing you meet the criterea, you can be a member of the cause. The criterea? Only wish passionately for a life beyond this, a life with deeper meaning for all, and a stronger love for Christ, the Source of all meaning in the world. Check it out.

A laughing matter

I've wondered already of God, as an infinite God, has to look at our human endevours to know lots of things, and think we know a lot, and just chuckle. How do we, mere mortals, manage to gain SO much knowledge? Isn't it amazing? Ha! But what about having an infinite God? EVERYTHING soon becomes a whole lot less than it used to be, doesn't it?

If you haven't lately pondered the implications of the existence of an infinite being reigning over us, please do. It's quite a load on the mind. First of all, you pretty much surrender control of your life personally. Secondly, hard as we may try, we just can't quite keep the infinite and the finite seperate! All manner of good things occur, such as miracles, and defy the laws of physics that make our chaotic existence on earth at least semi-orderly. Though we think we've got the four-oh-one on life we're only setting ourselves up for a supernatural ride.

A challenge: spend a week of your spare spare time (yes, I intended for two spares) pondering what it means to have an infinite God. Write down your ides and email them to me.

The Virgin Birth

What is the miracle of the virgin birth? According to the laws of science, it certainly is not physically possible. Indeed, it is contrary to any logic one could subscribe to, for when one considers the absence of life leading to it's presence, with only a non-human intervention, it becomes necessary to believe that there IS another world, another existence, one much more powerful than ours, and who's path is not restricted from our own. They can intertwine. And they have. What really took place? Did the Holy Spirit place a living embryo in her womb? Was matter really created, brought forth into existence at that moment? If so, we nullify the idea of having all matter begin at creation, and Solomon's view that there is "nothing new under the sun" cannot be held consistently. The two times that Jesus fed the many crowds of people with only a small amount of food must have been the same way. Atoms, particles, electrons and neutrons, all in conjunction with each other, were brought into being at that moment. The two world's paths crossed, and denied all the conventional idealism that might have existed. God, from nothing, made something. And there is nothing more powerful than that.

New features

For all you techies out there, I just wanted to make you aware of the RSS feeds and email subscription stuff that I don't know much about, I just put in on there cuz it looks cool, and it works, and it was free. And it makes it easy for you to read my blog without having to actually visit the site.

All the links and information are on the left near the bottom of the links section. The icons are mostly links and will help you get started on RSS and so forth, if you haven't already.

Also, as a side note, I'd like to annouce the birth of my nephew, Taras (ta-ROSS) Jamison Miller. Cute little guy.

New York City, lacking color.

Though you may detest it (I doubt), I'm going to post photos of NYC, all or most of which are black and white. I hope you enjoy.

Conversation on the by-log

There's a particularly interesting conversation going on at the By-log. A debate about Catholics and Homosexuality is raging in the comments. I think it's extremely interesting. Content Warning: Visit the above link only if you're not embarrassed by casual talk about the scientific basis for human reproduction!

America's Youth and their Clothing Suppliers

OK, folks, how 'bout a little stream-of-conscience post to enlighten the teens.

Last Saturday I was dragged kicking and screaming in a car with two girls, to the Westfield mall in Canton, "Beldon Village", for you old-timers. Truth be told, I wasn't kicking and screaming, it was sort of an interesting idea. Me—the bodyguard. Wouldjabelieveit?

At any rate, I found that I could hardly bring myself to enter even the most innocent of stores. American Eagle, Hollister, and the like. Because of what I've heard, not seen, I never went into Abercrombie & Fitch. Hollister was bad enough.

All in all, having visited these stores, and few others, I found it awefully hard to keep from becoming intellectually cynical. In fact, I found it impossible.

Hollister is an amazing store. Complete brand identity in only one word: Hollister. It means nothing to me, but to the rest of the teen world, it means everything. So, really, as a marketer myself, I can really respect that. The way they've done up their store is incredible. A real surf shop! But the whole thing was too authentic! It was so poorly laid out, I found that leaving the store required becoming intimately acquainted with a few strangers, the very people I was trying to get away from! And the music created an indescribably oppressive atmosphere, along with the closing-in walls, that made being in that shop nearly claustrophobic. It was insane.

American Eagle. I had to laugh. It was a polar opposite to Hollister. Brand Identity in 2 words, now, instead of 1. (jk) But the store was really boring. I'm trying to figure out if it would be good for business or not. Hollister creates an identity, American Eagle sells. I don't know. It seems to me, in hindsight, that I really don't have a clue what kind of clothes I saw at Hollister, I was too busy analyzing the atmosphere. My graces, it was awful. But American Eagle was less memorable than it's clothes were. I still have flash-backs of khaki jeans, torn, nearly from limb to limb, all in the name of individuality! Ha! It's hilarious just to think about. Individuality, for those of you who think it can be supplied in the clothes you wear, can not be supplied in the clothes that you wear! It certainly can be helped along, but if you're shopping at AE, Abercrombie or Hollister, chances are, you're not!

When describing my opinions to a friend, I thought of an endless plain of fabric (most likely torn fabric) from which all these people were cut. Thousands of youth from all over the world, trying to fuel their individuality by purchasing from the same stores! I have to kinda laugh at the ignorance of it.

Of course, in the end, it's not a battle of which clothes you want to wear that makes me so cynical of the aforementioned stores. As in Hollister, from a marketer's perspective, I think they did well. And AE, making their clothes more memorable than their store, good job. But I can't get past the kind of moral force that they are in our states. Of course, the people that habitually shop there are already exposed to all the sin you can imagine, but:

"As for me and my house, we will shop at Kohl's!"

How Far is Heaven?

Many of you may have heard Salvador sing the song, possibly even on a secular station. My guess is, most of you liked it. But this post has nothing to do with the song nor the length of time 'till heaven is my (our, fellow Christians) home, but rather what we will see when we get there.

Meditate a moment on the infiniteness of God. What would it mean to be infinite? Interestingly, the concept of infinite is impossible to grasp, because of the boundaries of finiteness. I'm only beginning to see that "infinite" is not possible to even picture, because of our finite mind. The basis for finiteness is essentially infinite constrained. And it's constrained absolutely. There are no boundaries outside of finiteness; after finiteness is only infinite. Only. The boundaries to infinite are not constrained; indeed, they don't exist.

In Heaven, will we be infinite? Will finiteness end at death? Or is time the only constraint that will be invalidated. Regardless, what we will experience will be beyond finite language's ability to communicate. This is not so hard to believe. Philippians 4:7 says

"And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding..."

If it passes all understanding, without a doubt it passes the boundaries of human communication. Even with our amazing capacity to convey emotions, etc. we are not able to intimate the essence of the peace of God! This insight will help you understand John's (the Revelator) lack of ability to write, in finite language, even the most incomplete of descriptions! Think of a city, or an entity of some sorts, that surpasses the boundaries of what constrains our wildest imaginations! Infinite! A mansion, a city, all without the constraints of finiteness; all which are absolutely outside of our minds to imagine! That's my home! and yours, if you choose.

Well, there's nothing like a good ol' hangout time with a few of your internet pals. This past weekend, on Saturday, the first "MennoDiscuss party took place at Pizza Parlor, with Hans Mast, his father Marvin, and his brother Benji (Sorry Marvin and Benji, but Hans is the most famous of the three of you, so I needed to use him as the reference point). The whole Marvin Mast family was in the area for a wedding, so we had a great time on Saturday nite. I missed curfew by over 45 min, for the first time that I'm aware of. Hans attended our Sunday morning service at Gospel Haven, and ended up inspiring his whole family to come.

For the record, we talked about anything and everything. Hans insisted on taking a picture of me, wearing a tie that I had worn for a special youth social, and is planning on posting it in the "To Tie or Not To Tie" thread on MennoDiscuss. I might end up regretting the day I made the purchase. It did look sorta cool, though. I felt, for the first few minutes, that I had two tounges, one in my mouth and one sprout directly of my adam's apple.

I'm really only posting this for sake of making it look like my brain is functioning, and I'm really fumbling with what to post next. If this is how bad it is for me now, on the internet, I don't want to get a job at a newspaper and have to write every day. I'll be back before too long, and when I am, I think I can promise something meaty.

Thanks for your patience!

John 1

I'm in the process of reviewing (if you can call it that) John 1, and scriptures related to it in order to derive a fuller meaning out of it. As a Gospel, it is the only one that isn't synoptic, and it's thrust is in an entirely different direction. As a friend of mine put it to another friend: "I read John 5 times, and I knew God." The other friend replied with "Now read the other Gospels 5 times, and you'll know Jesus."

I'm not entirely sure what to make of

"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation."

in Revalations 3:14, but think about it once: Obviously, the "Amen, the faithful and true witness" is Jesus. But the beginning of the creation of God? That strikes an unfamiliar chord in my mind. Jesus was created? But wasn't he always part of the Trinity? Doesn't that mean that he would always have existed? So why does Revalations say that He was created by God?

This little post was really only meant to serve as a mental stimulator. Now, I'm very curious about one thing. Why has no one EVER signed my guest book? If you are reading these words, you must be at least somewhat interested in what I have to say, and therefore, I would be more than somewhat interested in knowing who you are. You don't need to say much, but leave me a note. Humor me!

Love... Dependent on evil?

This post is in response to a plea for comments on the latest post by Pat Miller, of "Stand Up. Be A Pillar." First of all, I think Pat did a good job at conveying his message. He's a great writer. Second, what I have to say will be deemed by some as "splitting hairs", but to me, the essence of it is fairly important. (Also, lets keep something VERY clear. Pat is one of the best friends I've ever had, and has by far the coolest job title: International Travel Agent [Yes, Hans, for your papa]) Another questions I'd like to throw out there is this: Did God create anything after creation? Was ANYTHING, person, place, thing, or idea, created after God created the universe for the very first time? If we can so "No" definitively, then it will help us in solving this issue. Alas, I'm not prepared to do so.

If you really care about helping us resolve this, please read his blog first. If not, just read mine and tell everyone about how Pat and I disagree...

Pat, for sake of understanding eachother, without talking past each other (I have an awful tendency), let me ask you this: Did God create Evil? If yes, how do we tell people about a loving God... who created Evil? Please read my blog on this subject to be enlightened as to my opinion

"Evil is why we are free moral agents, right?"

If you have read my entry on God creating Evil, then you may see my point of view already, and that is this: No, not exactly. Evil isn't why we're free moral agents. Evil is the product of us being free moral agents. You see, if we were not free, we would never have separated from God, and thus we would not have evil. For that is what evil is, the lack of Go[o]d. So, evil is our fault, not God's. It sounds preposterous, but I don't believe it to be.

"Our love for God would not be as strong if we had to love him."

Exactly right. Dead on. But go deeper, and think about this: God created us this way, and he created us this way so that we would commune and fellowship with him. Had he created us any other way, our communion would not have been enough to be worth the "trouble," as he already communes fully and purely with... Himself! That is why we have the trinity! We don't really have a clue as to what would exist, rather, how it would exist if it were any other way. As true as the phrase is in off-the-cuff logic, it's really an invalid point, as God created us with such a purpose, and without the purpose of us loving him, we would be ultimately invalid and absurd.

The Bible does say husbands, love your wives. So to not love them is evil. Against the Bible. So, again, we can safely say, that yes love is dependent on evil."

No. Love is dependent on the way we were made "free moral agents." Evil, as I have said before is the product of such. And, in this case, love is not made dependent on evil, rather it is superior to it in sense, really, the Love being "Good" and Evil being the vacuum of it. Make sense?


What it boils down to is that "evil" is not even really a solid concept. It is a vacuum, created by no one, no thing, and doesn't even really exist! "Evil", as such, does not exist! I'll paraphrase what I have said in an earlier post: Darkness is the absence of light, black is the absence of color, death is the absence life; similarly Evil is the absence of Good. This forces evil to only exist as a concept, particularly so because all of the other examples are non-spiritual, physical properties, making them visible to us humans. The question "Did God create Evil" is therefore really an invalid question, because evil is uncreateable.

Skin Deep

As time goes on, my experience deepens, my opposition becomes more and more diverse, and the jazz resolves itself less and less, my views on certain things become more and more... wide.

Probably I shouldn't use the word wide, rather maybe, different. From many other people, that is. I keep running into situations where people don't understand me because I use everyday terms to go "deeper", but the everday terms do not suffice, or I'm not able to communicate their depth with the context I'm using them in.

Just tonight I was talking to someone, and I was in a situation where I couldn't talk like I wanted to, I didn't know how to talk, rather, how to communicate with the person, because I want to communicate more than our contemporary language allows us. I feel the depths of what I'm trying to say, but I'm not able to convey that with the atmosphere and context of our conversation. I believe it's because of the contemporary lifestyle. I'm tired of it.

What of grandeur is so... grand? What of majesty is so majestic? What of the classical is so endearing? Or is it only me? I can't help but be bugged by our skimming-the-surface attitudes, over-emphasizing things that block or view of the underlying problems. Basically, screaming our heads off at people who scream their heads off, and things like that. Here's a good example. The most-visited part of MennoDiscuss.com is the Theology part. Around twice as many posts as any other subject! I was impressed. Until I looked into it. Indeed, there are a few interesting posts, I daresay, quite a few, but looking at "Is it OK for men to wear shorts?" or "To Tie or Not to Tie?" or "Why the suitcoat?" or, (my personal favorite) "Mennos, Make-up, and Manicures...", I smile.

Now, obviously, we all understand that none of us can picture the perfect church body, or, more specifically, the perfect individual, but how we critique our own culture's essentially non-consequential behavioral habits, standards for "modesty", is just amazing.

In reality, it's only skin deep.

Trinity

I had an enlightening thing happen to me this weekend; picture this:

Three teenage boys, 16, 18, and 19, in a cabin somewhere off the map, warming themselves in front of a fire, drinking hot chocolate, eating creamsticks, enjoying eachother's company and... reading philosophy.

It actually took place. This past weekend, Chris, Micheal, and I spent Fri. evening and Sat. morning together at a small cabin in the middle of nowhere (and when I say nowhere, it's 4 miles east of New Bedford, that sprawling metropolis built around the 600-643 intersection). When morning came, the fire was out, and the boys were cold. So I got some starter shavings, some dry logs and a match, and warmed that little cabin right up.

While we were all sitting around warming up, it was my bright idea to begin reading from Fracis Schaeffer's book, He is There and He is Not Silent. The boys were agreed, so I began; ended up reading the whole chapter, in fact, and I'll probably never be quite the same.

All that to introduce tonight's subject (if indeed it is night when you're reading this, if not... never mind):


The Holy Trinity.

First of all, why does the Trinity exist? What is the need fulfilled by the Trinity? Let's go back a little, to the days of Aerostotle, Socrates (not "SO-crates" as in a movie I recently wasted my time on), and all those guys. The Greek philosophers had this troubling thing; actually, we see it in most Eastern religions who had any brains. The trouble was this:

You know how the Greeks had so many gods? The reason they did this was because the had to have gods in order to be over everything that exists, or as Schaeffer put it, "to be a sufficient reference point for all the particulars." Their dillemma was that they kept thinking of stuff they didn't have a god for, so they'd make another, and another, and another.... We actually see an bit of this in the bible, on Mars Hill, where there was the alter to the unknown god. They always knew they were missing something, so they just made a god they didn't know about to account for their missing stuff.

We know who that God is, but what makes Him a sufficent reference point for all existence and for all our morals? What is special about God that makes Him able to be such a huge thing? Two things: No. 1, He's infinite, No. 2, He's not alone.

No. 1
Of course God is infinite. Just that fact makes him almost sufficient to be our reference point, our validation.

No. 2
He's not alone, for he is Three! He, alone, communes as Three; Three Who loved and communed with eachother before time, before the world began. The reason for this is: if He were alone, He would need the universe as much as the universe needs him! He would have needed the love and adoration of all things as much as they needed His sustaining hand! And if that were the case, He wouldn't be completely sufficient! He would be dependant upon us, humble humans to validate Him! There is no way that my God is not sufficient to live without the earth. It is peaceful to know that my God is completely self-sufficient.

So Jesus intercedes for us, communing with His Father, and the Holy Spirit moves, the catalyst of Christian motion.


Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Amen.

The clearing

I rode toward the edge of the forest at a gallop, the almost-chilled wind throwing my horse's mane into a beautiful flow. I entered the woods at a small opening, where the trees where less dense, and there were clearings every few hundred feet. I was late. Late, not for some event, not for someone, but for the sun. Every spring, when the sun was only so high, it entered one of these clearings, one I had memorized the path to, and glowed off the spring mist that was lifting from the wet forest floor. The leaves in the trees created rays that made the small clearing feel like... heaven. And it was there I was headed, for I was meeting the maker of... heaven.

I galloped on, dodging the trees as they became thicker and thicker, until finally, I arrived. It was just as it always was, just as it needed to be. I jumped off the armoured, battle ready stallion, with a rattle, my own armour making the descent difficult. I left my horse in the darkness of the dense leaves, and made my way to the center of the clearing where I removed my helmet. My long hair, wet with sweat from the ride, dropped almost to my shoulders, and I fell to my knees to begin.

When I did, there was nothing else. No other one. Only I, and my Maker. My thoughts never realised, became words, but neither did they stay in my head. My heart was full. And this was how I spoke.

Silently, I said "Father," then paused my speach to think of the weight of it. Father?

"Worthy, precious, Holy, Being of Love and Grace, here I am."

He approaches me, silent, invisible, but certainly existent. The presence was incredible.

And I begin, the thoughts finally realise, materialise, and I feel them, for I am... Warriorpoet.

Did God Create...?

Evil? Did He? Raise your hand if you said yes. No, I'm serious, raise your hand.

Did God create evil? Francis Schaeffer noted that, if God had created evil, He Himself would have to be intrinsically evil himself. Both intrinsically good and intrinsically evil. Do you believe God to be partly evil by His very nature?

In a recent discussion I had with a coworker, Jacob Brown, (partial credit to him for the thoughts that inspired this post) about the debate I had that I posted on this site, we were talking about something that I had said, "Evil is the opposite of Good". I was trying to make a point, but I see now, that I think I may have been wrong. Rather, I should have said, "Evil is the absence of Good".

Similarly, Darkness is the absence of Light, Cold is the absence of Heat (look it up, naysayers), Black is the absence of Color. Makes sense, right? But there's more. When you look at the Biblical account of Creation, where man sinned and was separated from God, we see that man had the potential for evil, right? Not really.

You see, Evil is still only the absence of Good, and Good is only God, therefore Evil is the absence of God. Thus: God didn't create Evil, he created man with the potential for being separated from Him. Angels, too, apparently, as with Lucifer.

Think about it for a while, it may change the way you view certain things.

Battle Bible

This morning, I made a visit to the local Bookstore, in response to a sign that said "Storewide Sale"! I went in, and of course, bought something. A Bible. The aluminum, snap-shut cover sported an embossed medical cross wherein are engraved the letters "ESV". English Standard Version. The interpretation of the Holy Bible in the version English Standard. The cover said this: "Herein are contained the very Words of God."

Huh?

The Words of God? Words?? Language? The communication of an Almighty Diety? In my... coat pocket?

The language of such an Existence, humbling itself to be contained within my hands?! Within my pocket? With the amount of kings in the world that would never allow their subjects to see them without a myriad of red tape, I have a GOD who was gracious enough to allow me to put His Words within the confines of my coat pocket, to view them, memorize them, meditate on them, inhale them, on a whim; no red tape, no introduction, just a pure heart, and a prayer.

That's my God for you. Amazing.



The Lord's Prayer from Luke, in the English Standard Version

Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread,
and forgive us our sins,
as we ourselves forgive everyone
who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.