I was greatly saddened this week, as many people were, by the death of Steve Jobs. He made possible many of the innovations that we take for granted, even though we didn't know that we needed them (or that they could exist) just a few years ago.
In listening to the news coverage, I was struck by how they kept coming back to the early days of Apple and how it has grown over the years. The thought occurred to me that this is something (very vaguely) like the Church itself, and its growth through history.
Catholic traditions and practices are often objected to by people claiming that they take their instruction straight from the Bible. The mantra that I often hear on it is that the early Church didn't meet in lavish buildings, or use incense, or wear special robes or use candles, or whatever. "These are traditions of men," they call, "and they were denounced by Christ! The Catholic Church has corrupted traditional worship by adding in all of these things."
The first thing to ask is: How do you know that they didn't use these things?
The second takes us back to Apple. In the early days of the company, Jobs and his friends worked out of a garage, begged equipment and did whatever else they needed to do in order to get things going. There was a lot to overcome and certain things, like comfort or new clothes, had to take a backseat for the moment. No doubt, they would have liked these things at the time, but keeping the dream of Apple alive was more important, and they could get them later when their company was a success.
Apple was a success, and it didn't stay in a garage. If one had only the original records of the company and a snapshot of
what Apple is today, they would likely balk at the improbability of it
all. It moved through its infant stages and now has a complex network of stores and retail alliances, coordinated through the company headquarters. In addition, they have a large hold on the public attention. When a new product is released, even those who don't like Apple sit up and take notice. Like it or hate it, Apple is hard to ignore.
Likewise, the Church began small. It started in a single room one morning, where a dozen or so people had gathered to pray. From that humble beginning, the Apostles went forward and proclaimed the good news. It was uncomfortable, paid nothing and the odds were entirely against their mission succeeding, except for one thing: God was with them. For nearly three centuries, they and their successors struggled to share their enthusiasm with others, sacrificing everything to ensure their mission would bear fruit.
It did. The result was that, when the Church could get things like proper vestments, candles and incense, they incorporated them, to worship God how they had always wanted to in the first place, but (often) had to forgo at the time. It would have been the height of folly to remain confined to the Catecombs. The Church needed to grow, and it grew.
Today, as with Apple, one would hardly suspect these humble beginnings by looking at the Church now. There are tens of thousands of parishes that are largely self-sufficient, but are coordinated by their Bishop and of course the Vatican. When the Pope visits another country, or releases an official statement, people take notice; some to rejoice, others to mock and ridicule. But they are not able to ignore the Church and her influence on the world.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Vineyard and Virtues
The prayer group this Saturday was really good. We were discussing the readings for this Sunday (27th Sunday in the A cycle) about the vineyards (Is 5:1-7, Mt 21:33-43) and St. Paul to the Philippians (Phil 4:6-9). When checking the cross-references in the Catechism, I was struck by the message the Lord was sending.
The first reading is referenced by paragraph 546 (emphasis mine)
The second reading is referenced by paragraph 1803 (again, emphasis mine):
True virtue is always directed toward the good, but it does not have a connection with evil. Aspects that normally are associated with the virtues (and sometimes mistaken for them) can be set up as the good to be pursued and followed at all costs. Of course, this always brings destruction, because God does not want us to set up something else, no matter how noble, as a false god. If the seeds of the virtues become poisoned in this way, the only thing that can be done is to uproot the plant; to disrupt the action and stop the individual from continuing the action which could lead to idolatry. That is why God tears down the vineyard in the first reading; it is the only way to uproot the problem vine and give the cultured grapes the chance to grow.
In my own life, I sometimes wonder why God has stopped me from engaging in some good work.
Why God? I just want to sing in choir/attend classes/teach RCIA! Wasn't that a good enough plan? How could it displease you? I'm trying to serve you! Usually, when I've calmed down, God will politely remind me that I have other priorities, and sometimes, that I was letting pride in my actions creep in. He's asked me to let go of a lot in the past year, and it's taken me some time to recognize that he was right to ask it of me.
God, grant me the grace to trust you when you are trying to keep me from falling into sin.
The first reading is referenced by paragraph 546 (emphasis mine)
Jesus' invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables, a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words are not enough, deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order to "know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven". For those who stay "outside", everything remains enigmatic.Wow. It was quite telling that this comes in the section about the proclamation of the kingdom. This was one of the same paragraphs referenced last week when we heard about the two sons sent to work in the vineyard. For the reading this week, it suggests that it is not enough that the vineyard produce fruit, but that it produce good fruit, or it will be torn down.
The second reading is referenced by paragraph 1803 (again, emphasis mine):
I love the verse, but had not connected it with the virtues before. However, it was the additional reference to good works that really caught my attention today. In the first reading, God showers down his blessings, his graces, on the vineyard; yet it still brings forth wild grapes, sour actions. In the second reading, we get the reference to the virtues, the fruit of grace and human effort."Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." [Phil 4:8]A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions.
The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, De beatitudinibus, 1: PG 44, 1200D]
Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.This leads to a key in understanding a moral interpretation of the verse. God has given us everything that we need to live a virtuous life, his graces a goal, and our free will. However, sometimes we get so tangled up with the task that we lose ourselves in it. It becomes a means for and in itself and is no longer directed toward God. When this happens, the fruit produced from the effort is no longer the good fruit intended, but a sour and pitted shadow. When we set a particular work up as our good, virtue is not the result, but self-love and in some cases, pride.
The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.
-- CCC 1804
True virtue is always directed toward the good, but it does not have a connection with evil. Aspects that normally are associated with the virtues (and sometimes mistaken for them) can be set up as the good to be pursued and followed at all costs. Of course, this always brings destruction, because God does not want us to set up something else, no matter how noble, as a false god. If the seeds of the virtues become poisoned in this way, the only thing that can be done is to uproot the plant; to disrupt the action and stop the individual from continuing the action which could lead to idolatry. That is why God tears down the vineyard in the first reading; it is the only way to uproot the problem vine and give the cultured grapes the chance to grow.
In my own life, I sometimes wonder why God has stopped me from engaging in some good work.
Why God? I just want to sing in choir/attend classes/teach RCIA! Wasn't that a good enough plan? How could it displease you? I'm trying to serve you! Usually, when I've calmed down, God will politely remind me that I have other priorities, and sometimes, that I was letting pride in my actions creep in. He's asked me to let go of a lot in the past year, and it's taken me some time to recognize that he was right to ask it of me.
God, grant me the grace to trust you when you are trying to keep me from falling into sin.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Tent
Having a thought today about survival.
Let us imagine a tent. It is a research station in the Antarctic, visited only twice a year for supplies. Living in this tent are five men. Four are old friends, but the fifth is a recent arrival. The other four are not fond of him. He disrupts their work with questions, has a different sense of humor that bothers them and his habits are foreign to them. They had mentioned at the last delivery that they were willing to take on another man here, but they had never expected someone like this.
One night, one of the group, the eldest, decides that he has had enough. The newcomer has got to go. He consults with his companions and they agree that they are not happy with their new acquaintance either. One suggests that they could wait until the next supply run, but the eldest man will not hear of it. "He's ruined several of my plans with his interruptions," he complains. "The mere thought of him is upsetting! He must go now."
The second in the group agrees: "He snores so loud I can't get any sleep. He took three bites out of the sandwich I'd left in the fridge and I was the one who lost lab space to his stupid projects."
The other two are a bit taken aback. They don't like the newcomer, but this is a bit extreme. "It's fifty below out there. He'll die if we throw him out!" one protests. "We have plenty of food and space, why not just wait until the next supply run? We can make arrangements to get him shipped out of here by then." They argue for a while, but they can't hide that their frustration with their companion. He has disrupted things. Within a few hours, the third is swayed by the promise that everything will return to normal and nobody need ever know. The fourth, fearful of damaging their friendship, consents as well.
After the newcomer goes to sleep, the four men pick up his bunk and place it outside. "It's not murder," says the eldest, seeing the fourth man is still very uncomfortable. "It will be peaceful. He'll freeze, but he won't wake up while it's happening. This way, he won't have to deal with us and the insult of not being wanted here and we don't have to deal with him."
Is what these men did wrong? They didn't hurt the newcomer, aside from removed him from an environment where he could survive. They constituted a majority in a place that could be considered sovereign. They felt they eliminated all acceptable options and the only one left, though it was one they did not particularly like, was the one that they did. He wasn't wanted. So what, if anything, was wrong? Just a question...
Let us imagine a tent. It is a research station in the Antarctic, visited only twice a year for supplies. Living in this tent are five men. Four are old friends, but the fifth is a recent arrival. The other four are not fond of him. He disrupts their work with questions, has a different sense of humor that bothers them and his habits are foreign to them. They had mentioned at the last delivery that they were willing to take on another man here, but they had never expected someone like this.
One night, one of the group, the eldest, decides that he has had enough. The newcomer has got to go. He consults with his companions and they agree that they are not happy with their new acquaintance either. One suggests that they could wait until the next supply run, but the eldest man will not hear of it. "He's ruined several of my plans with his interruptions," he complains. "The mere thought of him is upsetting! He must go now."
The second in the group agrees: "He snores so loud I can't get any sleep. He took three bites out of the sandwich I'd left in the fridge and I was the one who lost lab space to his stupid projects."
The other two are a bit taken aback. They don't like the newcomer, but this is a bit extreme. "It's fifty below out there. He'll die if we throw him out!" one protests. "We have plenty of food and space, why not just wait until the next supply run? We can make arrangements to get him shipped out of here by then." They argue for a while, but they can't hide that their frustration with their companion. He has disrupted things. Within a few hours, the third is swayed by the promise that everything will return to normal and nobody need ever know. The fourth, fearful of damaging their friendship, consents as well.
After the newcomer goes to sleep, the four men pick up his bunk and place it outside. "It's not murder," says the eldest, seeing the fourth man is still very uncomfortable. "It will be peaceful. He'll freeze, but he won't wake up while it's happening. This way, he won't have to deal with us and the insult of not being wanted here and we don't have to deal with him."
Is what these men did wrong? They didn't hurt the newcomer, aside from removed him from an environment where he could survive. They constituted a majority in a place that could be considered sovereign. They felt they eliminated all acceptable options and the only one left, though it was one they did not particularly like, was the one that they did. He wasn't wanted. So what, if anything, was wrong? Just a question...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Pre-nuptial Agreement
While having a conversation with good friends the other day about their upcoming marriage, we fell upon the topic of pre-nuptial agreements. Both my friend and his fiancee mentioned that they needed to get in contact with a lawyer who could assist them in setting one up.
Quite aside from their reasons for wanting to do so (which shocked me very much), I was disturbed by the very concept of a pre-nuptial agreement. It seems to assume from the get-go that the arrangement (one can hardly call it a marriage) will come to an end before either individual does. In other words, it will not last, and both parties are trying to protect themselves from damage if (or more accurately, when) the relationship dies.
Contrast this with the Christian idea of marriage. Note that I am not speaking of a marriage between two Christians, but of marriage as what the Church understands it to be. This relationship is indissoluble, therefore, assuming it will or could end is absurd from the outset. There are not two pieces that could be put back into their original condition again, but one single piece that if separated would mean the annihilation of not only the new single piece, but destruction of any form of the originals also. If it helps, think of marriage like a nuclear fusion. Each is individual before the fusion, but after the process, one cannot speak of there being two molecules joined, but only a single one. To destroy that single one in an attempt to recover the originals will leave you with a soup of sub-atomic particles that may reform into atoms again, but not the original atoms you began with.
Secondly, in a Christian marriage, you give all of yourself. To not do so is to not really have a Christian marriage at all. You must open yourself completely to your spouse. This, by its very nature, is a dangerous thing to do. Any time that you reveal something of yourself to another, you risk being betrayed by them: being hurt, being cheated, lied to, etc. This means that in a Christian marriage, you are making yourself completely vulnerable. You have entrusted everything you have to another, knowing that this could end badly. However, you are also entrusted with all of your spouse, and their hope that you will not betray them either. Without this intention of total trust, and the attempt to have it go both ways, a marriage cannot be made. If you intend to keep something back, a possession or habit that you would hoard for only yourself, then you are stating that you would rather remain an individual with a loose attachment to another individual. You do not intend to be married.
It may help to remember that marriage is supposed to be analogous to our relationship with God. He has already stated his intention to give us everything, to give us even Himself. Our Christian life is an attempt to do the same in return, to give our very self back to God, completely and without reservation. There is nothing that we can hold back, nothing that we can state is ours and that God has no business poking in.
As always, I may be missing something. Any other thoughts on the subject?
Quite aside from their reasons for wanting to do so (which shocked me very much), I was disturbed by the very concept of a pre-nuptial agreement. It seems to assume from the get-go that the arrangement (one can hardly call it a marriage) will come to an end before either individual does. In other words, it will not last, and both parties are trying to protect themselves from damage if (or more accurately, when) the relationship dies.
Contrast this with the Christian idea of marriage. Note that I am not speaking of a marriage between two Christians, but of marriage as what the Church understands it to be. This relationship is indissoluble, therefore, assuming it will or could end is absurd from the outset. There are not two pieces that could be put back into their original condition again, but one single piece that if separated would mean the annihilation of not only the new single piece, but destruction of any form of the originals also. If it helps, think of marriage like a nuclear fusion. Each is individual before the fusion, but after the process, one cannot speak of there being two molecules joined, but only a single one. To destroy that single one in an attempt to recover the originals will leave you with a soup of sub-atomic particles that may reform into atoms again, but not the original atoms you began with.
Secondly, in a Christian marriage, you give all of yourself. To not do so is to not really have a Christian marriage at all. You must open yourself completely to your spouse. This, by its very nature, is a dangerous thing to do. Any time that you reveal something of yourself to another, you risk being betrayed by them: being hurt, being cheated, lied to, etc. This means that in a Christian marriage, you are making yourself completely vulnerable. You have entrusted everything you have to another, knowing that this could end badly. However, you are also entrusted with all of your spouse, and their hope that you will not betray them either. Without this intention of total trust, and the attempt to have it go both ways, a marriage cannot be made. If you intend to keep something back, a possession or habit that you would hoard for only yourself, then you are stating that you would rather remain an individual with a loose attachment to another individual. You do not intend to be married.
It may help to remember that marriage is supposed to be analogous to our relationship with God. He has already stated his intention to give us everything, to give us even Himself. Our Christian life is an attempt to do the same in return, to give our very self back to God, completely and without reservation. There is nothing that we can hold back, nothing that we can state is ours and that God has no business poking in.
As always, I may be missing something. Any other thoughts on the subject?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
A Buffet Catholic
While reading through my regular feed of Catholic blogs the other day, I was disturbed by the number of times that the term "Cafeteria Catholic" was used. I'm not sure why it bothered me so much just then; I have, of course, seen the term in use for some time. But once I got to thinking about it, I decided that I really didn't like the term much.
When Catholics who are trying to follow the teachings of the Church (orthodox Catholics) refer to someone as a "Cafeteria Catholic", the goal almost always seems born from a desire to call them a name, no different than calling someone stupid on the playground. It is a way of attempting to separate oneself from another that they see as foolish, dirty, dangerous or otherwise undesirable for company. In virtually every case, the one seen as unorthodox is not there to defend themselves from the term, so we can safely rule out that it is being used to awaken them to their state. I recognize that not everyone uses the term in a derogatory way, and if you are such a one, then my apologies to you. I ask your pardon, as I am still quite entrenched in the other group, and have done my share of name-calling.
If one feels that they must continue using the term, then I propose a new term. Well, more of taking back a term and re-purposing it. If someone insists on calling another a "Cafeteria Catholic", then I must insist on my own title:
I will be called a "Buffet Catholic".
Please don't misunderstand me. I know that the term "Buffet Catholic" is seen as synonymous with "Cafeteria Catholic". I mean here to re-assign it; to take back the term and give it new life. Let me explain why I feel it necessary to take this particular new title. (Before I continue, I will state that I know the following is mixing metaphors a bit.)
When one is in a cafeteria, food is often served a la carte. One selects from the multitude of items and takes them to the clerk, who tells one how much they owe. Much of the food is same day-to-day, prepared elsewhere, separately and pre-packaged. Each item has a price, regardless of how small it is. One must be careful not to select too much, because one has only so much money available to pay for their meal. The model is that one only pays for what one wants.
In a buffet, it works quite differently. While there is still a multitude of items available, one gets to take as much as one wants. The selection is a good blend of new dishes and old favorites, all of them fresh, all prepared in one kitchen by master chefs. One need not worry about how much each item is going to cost, because the price is paid once, up front, before any of the food is available. The model is that one pays for everything, but then all is open.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to pay the doorkeeper to gain access to the feast. His price is high: acceptance of authority. But is it really that high a price? On the occasions where I have been in a cafeteria, I've often spent as much for a meal there as I would for a meal at a buffet hall. It is actually quite nice having one price to pay and not having to keep track of whether I've overstretched myself while attempting to build my own meal.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to take as much as possible from the teachings of the Church and from many different sources, the saints, the mystics, the popes, confessors and Tradition, without having to worry about whether I can afford them or where they came from. I want to be able to take from any number of fields of service. I want to accept something from each of the seven courses. I want to drink deeply from the many fountains of spirituality and not be restricted to one.
I can hear the objection, "But you are only taking what you want!" Indeed. I can sample from every category, but I will focus on a few favorites. This is not really much different from what we do in our walk of faith. We can sample from the many areas of prayer and service, but we tend to focus on only a few in our daily life. One is called to a life of study, another to feeding the hungry, another to clothing the naked, etc. We don't ignore the other dishes we don't like; we keep in mind that others at the buffet will take them and enjoy them. The important thing to remember is that one is still paying for all the other dishes just as much as for the ones enjoyed. Furthermore, in a buffet, one is encouraged to take little portions of the other dishes, to expand one's horizons and have a well-balanced meal. This is less acceptable when one is watching every little thing they accept onto their tray, fearful that this addition may be one cost too many.
The last reason that I like using this term is because it shows a basic truth that underlines everything and we are often so quick to forget (myself included). The truth that we are not so different from one another. A buffet is very similar to a cafeteria, though they are not the same. I've explained above that I think the mindset of one is good and the other needs improvement, but the major point is that they would look nearly the same to one who was not aware of the difference. I chose the name of "Buffet Catholic" because it identifies with those who are called "Cafeteria Catholic," stating that we are not the same, but we have much in common.
When Catholics who are trying to follow the teachings of the Church (orthodox Catholics) refer to someone as a "Cafeteria Catholic", the goal almost always seems born from a desire to call them a name, no different than calling someone stupid on the playground. It is a way of attempting to separate oneself from another that they see as foolish, dirty, dangerous or otherwise undesirable for company. In virtually every case, the one seen as unorthodox is not there to defend themselves from the term, so we can safely rule out that it is being used to awaken them to their state. I recognize that not everyone uses the term in a derogatory way, and if you are such a one, then my apologies to you. I ask your pardon, as I am still quite entrenched in the other group, and have done my share of name-calling.
If one feels that they must continue using the term, then I propose a new term. Well, more of taking back a term and re-purposing it. If someone insists on calling another a "Cafeteria Catholic", then I must insist on my own title:
I will be called a "Buffet Catholic".
Please don't misunderstand me. I know that the term "Buffet Catholic" is seen as synonymous with "Cafeteria Catholic". I mean here to re-assign it; to take back the term and give it new life. Let me explain why I feel it necessary to take this particular new title. (Before I continue, I will state that I know the following is mixing metaphors a bit.)
When one is in a cafeteria, food is often served a la carte. One selects from the multitude of items and takes them to the clerk, who tells one how much they owe. Much of the food is same day-to-day, prepared elsewhere, separately and pre-packaged. Each item has a price, regardless of how small it is. One must be careful not to select too much, because one has only so much money available to pay for their meal. The model is that one only pays for what one wants.
In a buffet, it works quite differently. While there is still a multitude of items available, one gets to take as much as one wants. The selection is a good blend of new dishes and old favorites, all of them fresh, all prepared in one kitchen by master chefs. One need not worry about how much each item is going to cost, because the price is paid once, up front, before any of the food is available. The model is that one pays for everything, but then all is open.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to pay the doorkeeper to gain access to the feast. His price is high: acceptance of authority. But is it really that high a price? On the occasions where I have been in a cafeteria, I've often spent as much for a meal there as I would for a meal at a buffet hall. It is actually quite nice having one price to pay and not having to keep track of whether I've overstretched myself while attempting to build my own meal.
I want to be a buffet Catholic. I want to take as much as possible from the teachings of the Church and from many different sources, the saints, the mystics, the popes, confessors and Tradition, without having to worry about whether I can afford them or where they came from. I want to be able to take from any number of fields of service. I want to accept something from each of the seven courses. I want to drink deeply from the many fountains of spirituality and not be restricted to one.
I can hear the objection, "But you are only taking what you want!" Indeed. I can sample from every category, but I will focus on a few favorites. This is not really much different from what we do in our walk of faith. We can sample from the many areas of prayer and service, but we tend to focus on only a few in our daily life. One is called to a life of study, another to feeding the hungry, another to clothing the naked, etc. We don't ignore the other dishes we don't like; we keep in mind that others at the buffet will take them and enjoy them. The important thing to remember is that one is still paying for all the other dishes just as much as for the ones enjoyed. Furthermore, in a buffet, one is encouraged to take little portions of the other dishes, to expand one's horizons and have a well-balanced meal. This is less acceptable when one is watching every little thing they accept onto their tray, fearful that this addition may be one cost too many.
The last reason that I like using this term is because it shows a basic truth that underlines everything and we are often so quick to forget (myself included). The truth that we are not so different from one another. A buffet is very similar to a cafeteria, though they are not the same. I've explained above that I think the mindset of one is good and the other needs improvement, but the major point is that they would look nearly the same to one who was not aware of the difference. I chose the name of "Buffet Catholic" because it identifies with those who are called "Cafeteria Catholic," stating that we are not the same, but we have much in common.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Didache
The other night, we had some of our friends over and I was discussing the history of the Church. He is very interested in apologetics and learning how to defend and explain his faith (which is, by the way, a wonderful goal for all people of faith, not to mention all Catholics). Many times in our discussion, he would mention that the non-denominational Christians he had been speaking with would deny that Church traditions went back as far as they claim to go. Things such as the Trinitarian baptism, relics, saints, etc. As we talked, it occurred to me that Catholics have a resource which is seldom called upon to defend the truth of the Catholic Church: the Didache.
For those who have not heard of it before, the Didache (also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) is an ancient text which claims to be the summation of what the Apostles taught. It is estimated to have been written between 50 and 110 AD. It is mentioned by many of the Church Fathers before the Bible was compiled and just narrowly missed inclusion. It was lost for many centuries and was only rediscovered in 1875.
This is an enormous help for the Church, because it is a documented piece of evidence that shows a very Catholic view of the early Christian world. I also disrupts the theory that Catholics simply made up core pieces of the faith.
To give an analogy, imagine for a moment that you go to a barbecue. You've been to many places that serve BBQ, but this place has something different. The chefs have a very specific way that they do theirs and they only smile and politely refuse if anyone suggests changing it. When pressed, they tell you that their recipie is unchanged from the very first one, handed down by the greatest BBQ master of them all.
Of course, most people would scoff at such a claim. "That can't be true. You're getting a bit conceited about your own tradition. There's no way that you have the original BBQ recipie."
Then, one day, a historian runs across an ancient document (say, 1000 years old) which mentions barbecue and lists a recipie. When compared with the one being used by that one group of chefs, it is found to be a match. All of the key ingredients are there, done in the same order, in the same amounts. Other barbecue recipies may be similar, but no others have the same integrity.
If such a situation were to happen, the claims of that group of chefs would be greatly bolstered. Their statement doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore.
This is similar to what one finds when reading through the Didache. It supports Catholic tradition and practices. It is nearly free from the claims of corruption, because it was considered lost for a great deal of history. Christians who dislike the Catholic Church are stuck too, because it predates the Nicene creed and the accepted doctrines of the Trinity. It may even be older than some of the New Testament. It is widely known and accepted by the early fathers of the Church, which throws out claims that it is a heretical work. In short, the existence of this document lends credibility to the Church's statement that its teaching remains unchanged (indeed, unchangeable) from the very earliest days of Christianity.
On a broader level, it gives another area of consideration. If one can see and acknowledge that the Didache lends credibility to the Church's claim that she has the original teachings of the Apostles, why should she not be trusted when making other claims?
For those who have not heard of it before, the Didache (also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) is an ancient text which claims to be the summation of what the Apostles taught. It is estimated to have been written between 50 and 110 AD. It is mentioned by many of the Church Fathers before the Bible was compiled and just narrowly missed inclusion. It was lost for many centuries and was only rediscovered in 1875.
This is an enormous help for the Church, because it is a documented piece of evidence that shows a very Catholic view of the early Christian world. I also disrupts the theory that Catholics simply made up core pieces of the faith.
To give an analogy, imagine for a moment that you go to a barbecue. You've been to many places that serve BBQ, but this place has something different. The chefs have a very specific way that they do theirs and they only smile and politely refuse if anyone suggests changing it. When pressed, they tell you that their recipie is unchanged from the very first one, handed down by the greatest BBQ master of them all.
Of course, most people would scoff at such a claim. "That can't be true. You're getting a bit conceited about your own tradition. There's no way that you have the original BBQ recipie."
Then, one day, a historian runs across an ancient document (say, 1000 years old) which mentions barbecue and lists a recipie. When compared with the one being used by that one group of chefs, it is found to be a match. All of the key ingredients are there, done in the same order, in the same amounts. Other barbecue recipies may be similar, but no others have the same integrity.
If such a situation were to happen, the claims of that group of chefs would be greatly bolstered. Their statement doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore.
This is similar to what one finds when reading through the Didache. It supports Catholic tradition and practices. It is nearly free from the claims of corruption, because it was considered lost for a great deal of history. Christians who dislike the Catholic Church are stuck too, because it predates the Nicene creed and the accepted doctrines of the Trinity. It may even be older than some of the New Testament. It is widely known and accepted by the early fathers of the Church, which throws out claims that it is a heretical work. In short, the existence of this document lends credibility to the Church's statement that its teaching remains unchanged (indeed, unchangeable) from the very earliest days of Christianity.
On a broader level, it gives another area of consideration. If one can see and acknowledge that the Didache lends credibility to the Church's claim that she has the original teachings of the Apostles, why should she not be trusted when making other claims?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Six Words
Had two different blogs mention the Six Word Memoirs project today, so I had to have a go at it:
"Have mercy on me, a sinner"
I can think of lots more. Perhaps some for the comments, or some other time.
"Have mercy on me, a sinner"
I can think of lots more. Perhaps some for the comments, or some other time.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What is Truth
I've been having a thought lately, spurred on mostly by C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. In the very first letter, and in many of the subsequent ones, Screwtape tells Wormwood that it never occurs to humans (at least, present-day humans) to ask if something is true. They (we) ask whether it fits with the style of thought that we are used to, what progressed up to the idea in question and how it fits with our current lifestyle. In fact, you seldom hear anyone nowadays ask if the fresh piece of gossip is true, or if the most recent scientific findings are true, or if the latest historical publication is true. The main reason we don't question these things is because society requires a high degree of trust in order to operate. We must trust one another if we are to live together. At some point, we begin to take it for granted that people are telling the truth. At this point, lies quietly slip in and become difficult to kill.
The idea struck a chord with me and so I decided to try an experiment. Whenever prodded with a situation that called for my thoughts on this topic or that, the first question I would ask (if sensible) would be: "Is it true?" Please note that this question proves very ineffective for questions relating to taste, or personal opinions. It is meant for matters that turn on a moral question, or those that require one to search outside of one's self for the answer.
In a discussion with a friend, the comment was made that a mutual Catholic friend of ours was contemplating sending his son for first communion classes. This had raised something of a scandal with the "old church ladies" (a.k.a. a lot of gossip), because our mutual friend had not formally had a first communion himself. My friend said that if he encountered this behavior in his congregation, he would immediately leave and find a different one. It bothered me a bit that he was willing to change congregations so quickly, especially because he is a member of a non-denominational church. Leaving that congregation would essentially mean leaving a micro-denomination and moving to another one. It was even more troublesome that he thought that someone could and should abandon the Catholic Church in a similar manner.
This led to the big question: Is the Church true? Or, put another way, Are the Teachings of the Church true?
Thinking it over, there are only a handful of answers to this. 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) I don't know; 4) What is truth? Interestingly, it also sets up quite the stage for the questions that follow.
1. Yes, the teachings of the Church are true. - This leaves two options: to follow them or not. The first seems almost obvious; once one recognizes that the teachings of the Church are true, it seems only logical that one should follow them. However, there are still those that will choose, for whatever reason, not to follow them. Those in the latter group are the most pitiable of all people. They have seen and recognized the light, but have chosen the darkness.
2. No, the teachings of the Church are not true - This immediately begs the question, if the Church does not teach truth, why do so many people keep taking her teachings as their own? Or why when studies are done on human behavior, they conclude that humans should act in the same manner that the Church prescribes? The Church is not opposed to rational thought. In fact, informed Catholics will tell you that oftentimes that rational thought applied to the facts lead back to the Church, not away from it.
3. I don't know if the teachings of the Church are true - An honest answer, but more of a stage of development. One realizes that it is only a step on the path to one conclusion or the other. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the professor that you do not know the answer the first time you are asked. However, if you are asked again at a later date, and continue to give this answer, you will fail your class. If the current answer is that you do not know, then the real question is whether you are you willing to find out? If one answers that they are willing to learn and test the teachings of the Church for themselves, wonderful. Such studies will soon place them into one of the preceding categories. If one refuses even to learn what the teachings of the Church are, that means they have preconcluded option 2 and will resist any attempts to sway them from that position.
4. What is truth? - Put another way, this is stating that there is no absolute truth. It is a denial that there is a right and wrong. No individual that is honest with themselves can accept this position for long. It is an easily contestable point, which C.S. Lewis and other philosophers and theologians have answered already; I will not repeat those points here, but I refer one that would take this stance back to option 3.
These are only my beginning thoughts on the subject. If I have missed something, or am off the mark, then I am open for correction.
The idea struck a chord with me and so I decided to try an experiment. Whenever prodded with a situation that called for my thoughts on this topic or that, the first question I would ask (if sensible) would be: "Is it true?" Please note that this question proves very ineffective for questions relating to taste, or personal opinions. It is meant for matters that turn on a moral question, or those that require one to search outside of one's self for the answer.
In a discussion with a friend, the comment was made that a mutual Catholic friend of ours was contemplating sending his son for first communion classes. This had raised something of a scandal with the "old church ladies" (a.k.a. a lot of gossip), because our mutual friend had not formally had a first communion himself. My friend said that if he encountered this behavior in his congregation, he would immediately leave and find a different one. It bothered me a bit that he was willing to change congregations so quickly, especially because he is a member of a non-denominational church. Leaving that congregation would essentially mean leaving a micro-denomination and moving to another one. It was even more troublesome that he thought that someone could and should abandon the Catholic Church in a similar manner.
This led to the big question: Is the Church true? Or, put another way, Are the Teachings of the Church true?
Thinking it over, there are only a handful of answers to this. 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) I don't know; 4) What is truth? Interestingly, it also sets up quite the stage for the questions that follow.
1. Yes, the teachings of the Church are true. - This leaves two options: to follow them or not. The first seems almost obvious; once one recognizes that the teachings of the Church are true, it seems only logical that one should follow them. However, there are still those that will choose, for whatever reason, not to follow them. Those in the latter group are the most pitiable of all people. They have seen and recognized the light, but have chosen the darkness.
2. No, the teachings of the Church are not true - This immediately begs the question, if the Church does not teach truth, why do so many people keep taking her teachings as their own? Or why when studies are done on human behavior, they conclude that humans should act in the same manner that the Church prescribes? The Church is not opposed to rational thought. In fact, informed Catholics will tell you that oftentimes that rational thought applied to the facts lead back to the Church, not away from it.
3. I don't know if the teachings of the Church are true - An honest answer, but more of a stage of development. One realizes that it is only a step on the path to one conclusion or the other. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the professor that you do not know the answer the first time you are asked. However, if you are asked again at a later date, and continue to give this answer, you will fail your class. If the current answer is that you do not know, then the real question is whether you are you willing to find out? If one answers that they are willing to learn and test the teachings of the Church for themselves, wonderful. Such studies will soon place them into one of the preceding categories. If one refuses even to learn what the teachings of the Church are, that means they have preconcluded option 2 and will resist any attempts to sway them from that position.
4. What is truth? - Put another way, this is stating that there is no absolute truth. It is a denial that there is a right and wrong. No individual that is honest with themselves can accept this position for long. It is an easily contestable point, which C.S. Lewis and other philosophers and theologians have answered already; I will not repeat those points here, but I refer one that would take this stance back to option 3.
These are only my beginning thoughts on the subject. If I have missed something, or am off the mark, then I am open for correction.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Caving In
I just ran across this while reading some new blogs.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
It makes me sad that we have come to an age where people don't seem to recognize the importance of anything anymore. Catholic universities are willing to set aside ancient teachings to join the popular crowd, or hide the name of Christ so-as not to accidentally offend someone who does not believe in Him.
America has its founding in the idea that all men are created equal. That does not mean that all ideas are created equal, nor all lifestyles moral. We are free to practice any religion we choose; we are not guaranteed a life free from religion, nor a right to never be offended. If you want to know how rare our actual rights are, take a walk through history, or areas of the world not dominated by Western thought. If you think you are being oppressed by religions in this country, take a look at what happened to Catholics in England after Henry VIII, or to Christians attempting to practice their faith in Egypt or Saudi Arabia today.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46667
It makes me sad that we have come to an age where people don't seem to recognize the importance of anything anymore. Catholic universities are willing to set aside ancient teachings to join the popular crowd, or hide the name of Christ so-as not to accidentally offend someone who does not believe in Him.
America has its founding in the idea that all men are created equal. That does not mean that all ideas are created equal, nor all lifestyles moral. We are free to practice any religion we choose; we are not guaranteed a life free from religion, nor a right to never be offended. If you want to know how rare our actual rights are, take a walk through history, or areas of the world not dominated by Western thought. If you think you are being oppressed by religions in this country, take a look at what happened to Catholics in England after Henry VIII, or to Christians attempting to practice their faith in Egypt or Saudi Arabia today.
If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:15
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Why Notre Dame is Important
There has been a lot of angry sentiments lately over the invitation of President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement and receive an honorary doctorate. Pro-life individuals are upset because President Obama stands in direct and unapologetic opposition to Church teaching. Pro-choice people are upset because they can't understand what the big deal is and think that it is just to attack the president. If I may, I would like to offer a thought to those who feel that President Obama should be allowed to speak at commencement.
Imagine, if you will, that a local chapter of PETA is having their yearly banquet. It will be a time to recognize the work that has been accomplished recently and get excited about what is on the horizon. The banquet will have a keynote speaker and dedicate about one-third of their time to that speaker. The speaker is chosen purely at the discrestion of the chair of the banquet committee.
As the banquet nears, the keynote speaker is announced. It is a famous businessman, who is very popular and influential in the local area. His charismatic ways will get everyone excited and ready to do their best for next year. However, it is also well-known that he owns several food plants in the state, keeping animals in small pens and butchering them.
Naturally, several members of the PETA chapter, as well as some in the wider world of PETA, are upset about the choice of keynote speaker. They send notices to the committe chair that they don't like the selection because his views conflict with their own. The committee chair is unapologetic. He is very proud to have such a distinguished individual at their banquet and refuses to find someone else. Besides, this will be the perfect chance to show people that PETA is willing to have a dialog with people of differing viewpoints. He does not mention that no one else will be allowed to speak while the businessman is present.
Undeterred, the upset members put together a petition to show the committe chair that a lot of other people are angry about the selection too. Members of the national board voice their opinion too, but stop short of throwing out an otherwise very useful PETA organizer. Other people get angry at the first group because they think that it is an attempt to smear the popular businessman, who is even now saying that he wants more ethical treatment of animals. He hasn't done anything to change his operation, of course.
Now, back to the point. If this dispute seems ridiculous, that is only because of the double-standard with which we have learned to ignore. It is okay for people to demand that their view is respected. It is laudable to state your opinion clearly and often, even to the extent that someone is embarrassed or loses their job. That is, unless, your view is somehow connected to your faith. Then, you are marginalized and demonized for being "close-minded."
A few thoughts on acceptable behavior:
Imagine, if you will, that a local chapter of PETA is having their yearly banquet. It will be a time to recognize the work that has been accomplished recently and get excited about what is on the horizon. The banquet will have a keynote speaker and dedicate about one-third of their time to that speaker. The speaker is chosen purely at the discrestion of the chair of the banquet committee.
As the banquet nears, the keynote speaker is announced. It is a famous businessman, who is very popular and influential in the local area. His charismatic ways will get everyone excited and ready to do their best for next year. However, it is also well-known that he owns several food plants in the state, keeping animals in small pens and butchering them.
Naturally, several members of the PETA chapter, as well as some in the wider world of PETA, are upset about the choice of keynote speaker. They send notices to the committe chair that they don't like the selection because his views conflict with their own. The committee chair is unapologetic. He is very proud to have such a distinguished individual at their banquet and refuses to find someone else. Besides, this will be the perfect chance to show people that PETA is willing to have a dialog with people of differing viewpoints. He does not mention that no one else will be allowed to speak while the businessman is present.
Undeterred, the upset members put together a petition to show the committe chair that a lot of other people are angry about the selection too. Members of the national board voice their opinion too, but stop short of throwing out an otherwise very useful PETA organizer. Other people get angry at the first group because they think that it is an attempt to smear the popular businessman, who is even now saying that he wants more ethical treatment of animals. He hasn't done anything to change his operation, of course.
Now, back to the point. If this dispute seems ridiculous, that is only because of the double-standard with which we have learned to ignore. It is okay for people to demand that their view is respected. It is laudable to state your opinion clearly and often, even to the extent that someone is embarrassed or loses their job. That is, unless, your view is somehow connected to your faith. Then, you are marginalized and demonized for being "close-minded."
A few thoughts on acceptable behavior:
- It is perfectly acceptable for an individual, or group, to express their dissatisfaction on any subject, provided they remain respectful.
- It is perfectly acceptable to state that someone should not be given a platform to speak at an organization that has differences with that individual.
- It is acceptable to declare that you are distancing yourself from an organization that is unable to determine whether it is more important to be popular or steadfast.
- It is acceptable to boycott the event to demonstrate your displeasure.
- It is NOT acceptable to stage demonstrations at the event itself. The person might stand against you in everything, but they are still due respect.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Get With the Times
I've been hearing a lot of commentary lately from the media and public forums about the standings of the Church. Newsweek ran a few articles in the past month proclaiming the fall of Christianity, others profess loudly that the Church is outdated, or that it needs to adjust to our modern age.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. It would seem that many people do not understand the basis of religion. The purpose of a religion is to hold people to a standard and to remind them that there are things that do not bend to their likes or dislikes of the moment.
From the way that I hear arguments on the subject today, people believe that they are the first generation in history to recognize the teachings of the Church as difficult to live out in our lives. They somehow have gotten it into their heads that the purpose of religion is to make them feel good, or to entertain them and reassure them that they are good people. Let's be perfectly clear: Christianity has always been a difficult path to walk. This was true in the first century, the middle ages, the renaissance and we should expect nothing different today. There are very, very few who do exceptionally well in it; we call them saints.
Many arguments, if you push them further, lead to the statement that they don't like the Church telling them that they can't do, or forces them to do some action or another. Again, let's be perfectly clear and honest on the subject. The Church does not, and cannot, force you or restrict you from doing something. When was the last time a member of the clergy broke into your house and threatened you for committing a mortal sin? Any sin? What rights of yours were stripped away? Were you imprisoned?
At this point, I'm guessing people will say that they're told they're going to hell, or that they couldn't receive a sacrament until they'd been to confession and repented of their sin. Yes, you might have been told that you're going to hell if you don't repent. Please understand, it brings the Church no joy to tell you this. A true Christian wants you to get to heaven as much as they want to get themselves there. We are not graded on a curve, or against one another, but against the measure of right and wrong. By reminding you of your sin, the Christian hopes that you will repent of it and be saved.
Our generation needs to remember that something does not cease to be a sin simply because the majority of people cease to believe it is one. Our Church is not a democracy; the trends of the day should not sway teachings that are to be the very declaration of truth. We should also recall that the Church does not have the authority to reverse the moral law. God does not take a vote when He declares His law and, once declared, it is not open for debate.
Frankly, I'm tired of it. It would seem that many people do not understand the basis of religion. The purpose of a religion is to hold people to a standard and to remind them that there are things that do not bend to their likes or dislikes of the moment.
From the way that I hear arguments on the subject today, people believe that they are the first generation in history to recognize the teachings of the Church as difficult to live out in our lives. They somehow have gotten it into their heads that the purpose of religion is to make them feel good, or to entertain them and reassure them that they are good people. Let's be perfectly clear: Christianity has always been a difficult path to walk. This was true in the first century, the middle ages, the renaissance and we should expect nothing different today. There are very, very few who do exceptionally well in it; we call them saints.
Many arguments, if you push them further, lead to the statement that they don't like the Church telling them that they can't do, or forces them to do some action or another. Again, let's be perfectly clear and honest on the subject. The Church does not, and cannot, force you or restrict you from doing something. When was the last time a member of the clergy broke into your house and threatened you for committing a mortal sin? Any sin? What rights of yours were stripped away? Were you imprisoned?
At this point, I'm guessing people will say that they're told they're going to hell, or that they couldn't receive a sacrament until they'd been to confession and repented of their sin. Yes, you might have been told that you're going to hell if you don't repent. Please understand, it brings the Church no joy to tell you this. A true Christian wants you to get to heaven as much as they want to get themselves there. We are not graded on a curve, or against one another, but against the measure of right and wrong. By reminding you of your sin, the Christian hopes that you will repent of it and be saved.
Our generation needs to remember that something does not cease to be a sin simply because the majority of people cease to believe it is one. Our Church is not a democracy; the trends of the day should not sway teachings that are to be the very declaration of truth. We should also recall that the Church does not have the authority to reverse the moral law. God does not take a vote when He declares His law and, once declared, it is not open for debate.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Faith we can believe in
I was having a conversation with a very good friend a few days back, and we turned to the topic of religion, as we sometimes do (I don't really like the idea that certain topics are taboo). He mentioned that he could finally understand why people would accept harsh punishments rather than give in on what they believed to be right. The example that was used was from the Holocaust, where Jews would state that they were Jewish, even though there was rumor going around about what would happen to them.
I was thrilled that, finally, someone else that I routinely converse with seemed to recognize a key truth. Therefore, I was naturally disappointed a few days later when they said that they now had changed their mind. After some simple questioning, I found that the reason for the about-face was they were taking their new-found view to an absurd length, and a mutual friend had corrected them about the extremity. Unfortunately, that also undid the truth from the original statement; that there are some things worth standing up for. Eventually, our conversation rested on two scenarios, one mine and one from my friend.
My scenario was fairly straightforward. In certain areas of the world, it is still very dangerous to be a Christian. One day, a law official knocks on your door and tells you, in no uncertain terms, that they had discovered that members of your family were Christian. They do not know if you are Christian or not, so they are there to ask you. If you state that you are Christian, then you are under arrest and subject to severe treatment. If you deny that you are Christian, then you are free to go, if you fully disassociate yourself from your family members who are Christian and accept the fact that their future is not your concern.
My friend's scenario was somewhat different. You are in a country hostile to Christianity, but with no relatives outside of your household. Someone comes knocking on your door one day and asks if you are a Christian. They give you no reason for their questioning, and you know that they will leave you in peace if you answer no and nobody will question again. If you answer yes, then someone may come by later to arrest you.
Our discussion ended with a polite agree to disagree, but I'm still troubled. In the United States, we are often mocked for our beliefs, but seldom are we put in danger for them. It is easy for us to forget that there are areas, even today, where Christians are brutally murdered for no other reason than their faith. Ironically, they are often the ones who are doing good things for the community in which they are murdered. I am troubled because of the question that I asked of my friend: If you deny that you are a Christian in either scenario, are you, in fact, still a Christian?
The question is still relevant to us, who live in a culture that is openly hostile to the Christian ideal. Are we willing to stand up for our beliefs and risk tribulations, or are we better off keeping our beliefs secreted away, attempting to live our faith in private only? Are we ready to accept ridicule when Christ and culture part ways, or will we join in the throng demanding that the church modernize or die?
I believe that God has great mercy and that He will forgive us if we ask. Perhaps that is why the question is so troubling. Is it better for one to deny Christ, then ask forgiveness and continue the Christian mission, or is it better to embrace Christ and accept what that means for your future? I have settled on an answer, but I am very curious as to what others think about it.
I was thrilled that, finally, someone else that I routinely converse with seemed to recognize a key truth. Therefore, I was naturally disappointed a few days later when they said that they now had changed their mind. After some simple questioning, I found that the reason for the about-face was they were taking their new-found view to an absurd length, and a mutual friend had corrected them about the extremity. Unfortunately, that also undid the truth from the original statement; that there are some things worth standing up for. Eventually, our conversation rested on two scenarios, one mine and one from my friend.
My scenario was fairly straightforward. In certain areas of the world, it is still very dangerous to be a Christian. One day, a law official knocks on your door and tells you, in no uncertain terms, that they had discovered that members of your family were Christian. They do not know if you are Christian or not, so they are there to ask you. If you state that you are Christian, then you are under arrest and subject to severe treatment. If you deny that you are Christian, then you are free to go, if you fully disassociate yourself from your family members who are Christian and accept the fact that their future is not your concern.
My friend's scenario was somewhat different. You are in a country hostile to Christianity, but with no relatives outside of your household. Someone comes knocking on your door one day and asks if you are a Christian. They give you no reason for their questioning, and you know that they will leave you in peace if you answer no and nobody will question again. If you answer yes, then someone may come by later to arrest you.
Our discussion ended with a polite agree to disagree, but I'm still troubled. In the United States, we are often mocked for our beliefs, but seldom are we put in danger for them. It is easy for us to forget that there are areas, even today, where Christians are brutally murdered for no other reason than their faith. Ironically, they are often the ones who are doing good things for the community in which they are murdered. I am troubled because of the question that I asked of my friend: If you deny that you are a Christian in either scenario, are you, in fact, still a Christian?
The question is still relevant to us, who live in a culture that is openly hostile to the Christian ideal. Are we willing to stand up for our beliefs and risk tribulations, or are we better off keeping our beliefs secreted away, attempting to live our faith in private only? Are we ready to accept ridicule when Christ and culture part ways, or will we join in the throng demanding that the church modernize or die?
I believe that God has great mercy and that He will forgive us if we ask. Perhaps that is why the question is so troubling. Is it better for one to deny Christ, then ask forgiveness and continue the Christian mission, or is it better to embrace Christ and accept what that means for your future? I have settled on an answer, but I am very curious as to what others think about it.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Symbology and everyday life
Another month, another post. Aren't I a slacker?
I've been wondering lately about a great number of matters, which might explain why I haven't written much. Things get all jumbled together and it gets difficult to post about one in particular.
I was thinking the other day about the various symbols that we have to represent ourselves. Most of us have something that we carry with us often, if not every day, to make a statement to the world about what it is that we believe or subscribe to. I suspect for many people, they don't think about these symbols too much, or how they are interpreted. I would encourage everyone to think a moment about what you have on your person, right now, that is making a statement.
Got something? Okay, now what does it mean? How are the people around you interpreting the message from your symbol? Is it common enough that others know what this symbol is, or what it commonly means? Are you aware that, right wrong or otherwise, others are making split-second judgments about you based only on these symbols? Given the opportunity, would these people find that you are not the person that your symbols represent? Do your symbols convey different messages?
That last one is very important, as people will oftentimes have a symbol that they wear out of habit that conflicts with one that they have at the moment. A cross on a chain worn over a t-shirt condoning violence. A promise ring worn with a low-cut dress. Examples abound in our world, from every creed, race, class and gender. This is not always because the people are hypocrites, in fact, I would wager this is very seldom the case. It is because we become so familiar with these symbols that we begin to forget that they are there. Instead of remembering why we took this symbol up in the first place, we have let it fade into the background. However, that is also the purpose of the symbols that we choose for ourselves; that others might see them and, instead of judging us as hypocrites, they might point out our symbol and remind us.
In addition to the style of clothes that I am wearing (a symbol in itself, although often less important), I keep four symbols on my person whenever I am in public, and nearly all the time in private. They serve two purposes: as a reminder to me of what I have pledged to do and a sign for others that I subscribe to a certain code. I found it very interesting that these four symbols, while from different origins and times in my life, all represent consistent beliefs. Thinking back, I have had different symbols that I used to identify myself through the course of my experiences. Over time, I might cover some of them here. A good excuse to blog more often.
Please feel free to comment on the symbols that you have in your own life. Why do you keep them, and what message do you hope that they to convey to those around you? If you had to describe yourself using only three symbols, what would you choose?
I've been wondering lately about a great number of matters, which might explain why I haven't written much. Things get all jumbled together and it gets difficult to post about one in particular.
I was thinking the other day about the various symbols that we have to represent ourselves. Most of us have something that we carry with us often, if not every day, to make a statement to the world about what it is that we believe or subscribe to. I suspect for many people, they don't think about these symbols too much, or how they are interpreted. I would encourage everyone to think a moment about what you have on your person, right now, that is making a statement.
Got something? Okay, now what does it mean? How are the people around you interpreting the message from your symbol? Is it common enough that others know what this symbol is, or what it commonly means? Are you aware that, right wrong or otherwise, others are making split-second judgments about you based only on these symbols? Given the opportunity, would these people find that you are not the person that your symbols represent? Do your symbols convey different messages?
That last one is very important, as people will oftentimes have a symbol that they wear out of habit that conflicts with one that they have at the moment. A cross on a chain worn over a t-shirt condoning violence. A promise ring worn with a low-cut dress. Examples abound in our world, from every creed, race, class and gender. This is not always because the people are hypocrites, in fact, I would wager this is very seldom the case. It is because we become so familiar with these symbols that we begin to forget that they are there. Instead of remembering why we took this symbol up in the first place, we have let it fade into the background. However, that is also the purpose of the symbols that we choose for ourselves; that others might see them and, instead of judging us as hypocrites, they might point out our symbol and remind us.
In addition to the style of clothes that I am wearing (a symbol in itself, although often less important), I keep four symbols on my person whenever I am in public, and nearly all the time in private. They serve two purposes: as a reminder to me of what I have pledged to do and a sign for others that I subscribe to a certain code. I found it very interesting that these four symbols, while from different origins and times in my life, all represent consistent beliefs. Thinking back, I have had different symbols that I used to identify myself through the course of my experiences. Over time, I might cover some of them here. A good excuse to blog more often.
Please feel free to comment on the symbols that you have in your own life. Why do you keep them, and what message do you hope that they to convey to those around you? If you had to describe yourself using only three symbols, what would you choose?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Checking Your Sources
A disturbing trend has been plaguing my attention lately. It began near the top of the year when atheistic activists began decrying the phrase "So help me God" in the presidential oath. However, given more thought, evidence of this trend can be found most places within modern life. The trend is simply, if there is no (consistently) documented proof, then the statement (or tradition, custom, etc) is invalid.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Aaaand, we're back
Welcome, everyone, to the year 2009 AD.
After some time off to research and decide where I want to take this little site of musings, I'm finally back to writing again. In truth, I've had so many different subjects that I've had difficulty deciding what to write about.
I've been musing a lot lately on a particular question and I'm curious if anyone else has some insights on it. So far, net searches have been unfruitful. I want to know what a pro-choice person can say to someone who is dealing with a miscarriage.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that pro-choice people are bad. I'm not saying that they're unintelligent or uncaring. I just don't know what they can say to someone (a friend or co-worker) that is trying to cope with a miscarriage.
The most common statement that I've seen so far is a pro-choice person stating that, if abortion is outlawed, then miscarriages will become legal issues, with possible criminal charges. They like to cite this article to emphasize the point. Again, I want to be clear. In cases where a woman miscarries, it does not and should not involve the police. However, it should involve a doctor and, depending on the woman's age, her parents or spouse. And the situation where a fetus, clearly identifiable as human, is flushed into the sewer should be disturbing to anyone. Many funeral homes and charities will donate to a proper burial for miscarriages (I've known a number of people who've needed that service).
Another argument is that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. This is citing a statistic, not what is a morally acceptable way to proceed with any particular pregnancy. The argument continues by declaring that because God does not protect all pregnancies to term, we shouldn't have to either. This objection is flawed on a number of levels. It is like saying that, because God allows people to contract diseases and die from them, we are morally justified if we inject people with those diseases with the intent that they die. God does things for reasons that are far beyond what we can know, and we are not exempt from any morality if we rationalize our position with "well, God does/allows it."
Others point to Exodus 21:22-25, or other biblical verses to state that God is most definitely pro-choice. This argument is largely based on poor translations. Going directly from the original Hebrew, the real meaning is much more clear:
Ultimately, the argument arises that, in the case of the miscarriage, the baby was wanted by its mother/family, but in the case of abortion, the "fetus" was not wanted for some reason. Reasons for abortion will be covered in another post at a later date, as it is a very large discussion. Personally, I find this a very poor argument, not only from the strength of persuasiveness, but also due to what it says about the value of life to a staunchly pro-choice person. Again, they are often wonderful and caring people. The general conclusion I draw from such arguments is that they do not understand what it is that they are arguing for.
I simply must become somewhat better at posting here. That can be a New Year's resolution.
After some time off to research and decide where I want to take this little site of musings, I'm finally back to writing again. In truth, I've had so many different subjects that I've had difficulty deciding what to write about.
I've been musing a lot lately on a particular question and I'm curious if anyone else has some insights on it. So far, net searches have been unfruitful. I want to know what a pro-choice person can say to someone who is dealing with a miscarriage.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that pro-choice people are bad. I'm not saying that they're unintelligent or uncaring. I just don't know what they can say to someone (a friend or co-worker) that is trying to cope with a miscarriage.
The most common statement that I've seen so far is a pro-choice person stating that, if abortion is outlawed, then miscarriages will become legal issues, with possible criminal charges. They like to cite this article to emphasize the point. Again, I want to be clear. In cases where a woman miscarries, it does not and should not involve the police. However, it should involve a doctor and, depending on the woman's age, her parents or spouse. And the situation where a fetus, clearly identifiable as human, is flushed into the sewer should be disturbing to anyone. Many funeral homes and charities will donate to a proper burial for miscarriages (I've known a number of people who've needed that service).
Another argument is that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. This is citing a statistic, not what is a morally acceptable way to proceed with any particular pregnancy. The argument continues by declaring that because God does not protect all pregnancies to term, we shouldn't have to either. This objection is flawed on a number of levels. It is like saying that, because God allows people to contract diseases and die from them, we are morally justified if we inject people with those diseases with the intent that they die. God does things for reasons that are far beyond what we can know, and we are not exempt from any morality if we rationalize our position with "well, God does/allows it."
Others point to Exodus 21:22-25, or other biblical verses to state that God is most definitely pro-choice. This argument is largely based on poor translations. Going directly from the original Hebrew, the real meaning is much more clear:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for lifeIn other words, if the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby does not die, then there is a fine. Should the baby die, more serious consequences will follow.
Ultimately, the argument arises that, in the case of the miscarriage, the baby was wanted by its mother/family, but in the case of abortion, the "fetus" was not wanted for some reason. Reasons for abortion will be covered in another post at a later date, as it is a very large discussion. Personally, I find this a very poor argument, not only from the strength of persuasiveness, but also due to what it says about the value of life to a staunchly pro-choice person. Again, they are often wonderful and caring people. The general conclusion I draw from such arguments is that they do not understand what it is that they are arguing for.
I simply must become somewhat better at posting here. That can be a New Year's resolution.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Hail to the Cheif?
Well, the elections are finally over, and Barack Obama will be our 44th president.
Since Tuesday evening, some backers of John McCain have begun to complain when conservative leaders congratulate Sen. Obama on his election. Comments such as 'traitor', 'idiot', and other unmentionables have been thrown at those who are graciously accepting the reality that Sen. Obama will lead this country for the next four years.
I commend and applaud those who are wishing Sen. Obama well on his presidency. Why should we not? We have many reasons to not like the policies that Sen. Obama has claimed to support, but we also do not have any record of his presidency at this point. Give the man a chance to lead before he is condemned for his poor leadership.
In his victory speech, Sen. Obama set many ambitious goals. I was looking for one line in particular, and was not left wanting: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." This is a very admirable statement, and one that I sincerely hope he means. He deserves the opportunity to earn our support.
Yes, Senator, you will be our president. Like it or not, that is a reality. It never appealing to grouch about the fact that your candidate was not victorious and it does not help the cause of conservatives to bemoan the fact. It damages our reputation to stand up and declare that we will not accept him as the president. Rumor has it that a similar tactic was tried by certain democrats when George W. Bush was elected. It leads to a dividing of the country and a weakening of us as the American people. That divide is also seen by the rest of the world, which, I believe, leads to some of their dislike of our country. We are grown-ups, our United States are heralded as the leader of the free world, and we should act as such.
In this respect, George Bush himself should be looked to for our example; offering to help the Obamas in their transition to the White House and keeping our president-to-be in the loop in all important decisions. Make no mistake, the man who has been most condemned and mocked by Sen. Obama stands ready, as a leader, to train his successor, the very person he has every right to hold in great disdain. President Bush has been called every name imaginable over the past eight years, most of those titles are not deserved. Yet, he is ready to bear, gracefully, the duty of handing over his job to someone he greatly disagrees with, because the citizens have directed him to do so. If that is not someone concerned with putting country first, I do not know what is.
Note that this does not mean that we abandon our principles and lie in wait of whatever comes. Conservative values will certainly be under attack, as they always have been and always will be. We must accept Barack Obama as our president, but that does not mean that we must idly let him or anyone else tear down or dismiss what is dear to us. A popular phrase among Christians is "hate the sin, not the sinner." Likewise, we should defend our president, regardless of party, against undeserved attack, but also be ready to fiercely defend our values, even against that president. I most certainly will.
Senator, I congratulate you on your victory. I do not know what you will do, or attempt during your term as leader of our great country. That path has not been walked yet. I do believe that you are sincere in your effort to lead well. I will pray that God guide you and give you the wisdom to not divide us as a nation. United we must stand; divided, we will fall.
Since Tuesday evening, some backers of John McCain have begun to complain when conservative leaders congratulate Sen. Obama on his election. Comments such as 'traitor', 'idiot', and other unmentionables have been thrown at those who are graciously accepting the reality that Sen. Obama will lead this country for the next four years.
I commend and applaud those who are wishing Sen. Obama well on his presidency. Why should we not? We have many reasons to not like the policies that Sen. Obama has claimed to support, but we also do not have any record of his presidency at this point. Give the man a chance to lead before he is condemned for his poor leadership.
In his victory speech, Sen. Obama set many ambitious goals. I was looking for one line in particular, and was not left wanting: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." This is a very admirable statement, and one that I sincerely hope he means. He deserves the opportunity to earn our support.
Yes, Senator, you will be our president. Like it or not, that is a reality. It never appealing to grouch about the fact that your candidate was not victorious and it does not help the cause of conservatives to bemoan the fact. It damages our reputation to stand up and declare that we will not accept him as the president. Rumor has it that a similar tactic was tried by certain democrats when George W. Bush was elected. It leads to a dividing of the country and a weakening of us as the American people. That divide is also seen by the rest of the world, which, I believe, leads to some of their dislike of our country. We are grown-ups, our United States are heralded as the leader of the free world, and we should act as such.
In this respect, George Bush himself should be looked to for our example; offering to help the Obamas in their transition to the White House and keeping our president-to-be in the loop in all important decisions. Make no mistake, the man who has been most condemned and mocked by Sen. Obama stands ready, as a leader, to train his successor, the very person he has every right to hold in great disdain. President Bush has been called every name imaginable over the past eight years, most of those titles are not deserved. Yet, he is ready to bear, gracefully, the duty of handing over his job to someone he greatly disagrees with, because the citizens have directed him to do so. If that is not someone concerned with putting country first, I do not know what is.
Note that this does not mean that we abandon our principles and lie in wait of whatever comes. Conservative values will certainly be under attack, as they always have been and always will be. We must accept Barack Obama as our president, but that does not mean that we must idly let him or anyone else tear down or dismiss what is dear to us. A popular phrase among Christians is "hate the sin, not the sinner." Likewise, we should defend our president, regardless of party, against undeserved attack, but also be ready to fiercely defend our values, even against that president. I most certainly will.
Senator, I congratulate you on your victory. I do not know what you will do, or attempt during your term as leader of our great country. That path has not been walked yet. I do believe that you are sincere in your effort to lead well. I will pray that God guide you and give you the wisdom to not divide us as a nation. United we must stand; divided, we will fall.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I'm gonna go to the place that's the best
I read a book over the weekend by C.S. Lewis titled "The Great Divorce." It is written in the style of a novella and is thoughts on Heaven and Hell. The story is masterfully done (Lewis always is, in my experience), with the reader able to clearly pick out key arguments about the existence of a Heaven or Hell, as well as why people end up in one or the other.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Salutations
Welcome to my little experiment in blogging. To those that do not know me, I hope that my thoughts are presented clearly. To those that do, I ask that you keep an open mind.
I've started this blog as an outlet to the thoughts that rush through my head during much of the day. I get very passionate about the issues important to me and this seemed a good way to keep my thoughts in order and see how they grow over time.
I want everything that I post here to be factually accurate. I truly detest lies, because if I can't trust someone, there is no basis for a friendship or even a good debate. If I should post something that is not true, please inform me and I will correct it. Please note that this condition only applies to factual information. I make no apologies for my opinions, though if you wish to discuss the point, I am willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments.
I will range through a number of things, though it will center around what I consider are important current events and my hobbies of writing and programming.
Again, welcome. Here's hoping that you and I find Three-Cycle Thoughts to be a ponderous adventure.
I've started this blog as an outlet to the thoughts that rush through my head during much of the day. I get very passionate about the issues important to me and this seemed a good way to keep my thoughts in order and see how they grow over time.
I want everything that I post here to be factually accurate. I truly detest lies, because if I can't trust someone, there is no basis for a friendship or even a good debate. If I should post something that is not true, please inform me and I will correct it. Please note that this condition only applies to factual information. I make no apologies for my opinions, though if you wish to discuss the point, I am willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments.
I will range through a number of things, though it will center around what I consider are important current events and my hobbies of writing and programming.
Again, welcome. Here's hoping that you and I find Three-Cycle Thoughts to be a ponderous adventure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)