Alphabet of Virtues - Starting with P?

"Patience is a virtue."
My mother used to say this to me all the time. The funny thing was, I understood the meaning of the word patience. I just had no clue what a virtue was.
So, let's google this word and see what the internet comes up with, shall we?

According to Google, it is "Behavior showing high moral standards."

Going down the list to Wikipedia, it reads: "A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being.
Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. The opposite of virtue is vice."

And apparently the Catholic church has a more specific distinction about virtue, listing Seven Heavenly Virtues.

Ok...but what determines if something really is a virtue? I mean, according to Relativism, there is no absolute truth, but concepts of right and wrong are based off of culture.

So let's look at the definitions for virtue again and analyze their points of reference.

First Google's definition. This is behavior showing high moral standards. What is a standard? And what are morals? You see, whenever you define something, each word using to define it has meaning which implies something else.

A standard, defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, is a good number of things (paraphrased):

1  A conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem

2.  Something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example :  criterion <quite slow by today's standards>

 

3.  Something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality

 

4.  A structure built for or serving as a base or support, such as  a shrub or herb grown with an erect main stem so that it forms or resembles a tree

 

5. A musical composition (as a song) that has become a part of the standard repertoire

 

If you look at all the definitions of standard, they all contain one common element. That the item is usually something looked to as an accepted reference point. Like a flag, you look to it to rally the forces and avoid chaos on the battlefield. Like standards of measurements, we follow them to avoid chaos and make things fair. As a base of support in plants, it strengthens and organizes the plant to grow better. And even with the music, it creates a familiar, common thing which all can join in and recognize. All of these indicate a common source to either look to or follow. So it can be safely said, a standard, no matter what type, gives the group a rallying point to follow.

 

Moral, according to Google is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

 

Morality, according to Wikipedia, is "is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles."

 

Notice it mentions how it is derived from a "body of standards or principles" that are part of a "code of conduct" from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture. To be clear, it means, according to Wikipedia, Morality is relative to the source in which you base it on. 

 

So, this is where you have to ask, is there Ultimate Truth? Or are all things relative? Are there virtues? Or is that just a cultural norm, a construct to make us feel superior to others?

 

Here's what I think.

 

A virtue is a trait that improves upon the quality of human life.

A vice is a trait that damages the quality of human life.

 

Patience is a virtue in that it helps us endure the boring times. It also helps us not to get angry so much, as while being patient we have time to see more points of view, more time to think about the consequences of our actions, and more time to understand the circumstances. Patience rewards hard work, and is often coupled with persistence and growth. Patience is a friend of time. It is also kind to others.

 

The vice opposite of patience? Impatience, of course. Impatient people are impossible to live with. They get angry fast. They are cranky, often unhappy, complain all the time, and often jump to conclusions. Impatient people are often unkind.

 

Virtues benefit human life. Vices harm it.

 

Here's an added dimension to my POV. Virtues are Godly traits. They are the traits that make us more like God...the perfect example of patience.

 

Agree? Disagree? Indifferent?

 

I'll be starting on A next. I just have to think of an A virtue. Hmmmm.....

Accepting 'No' for an answer--Free Will Part II

I never could understand why people thought it was acceptable to say to someone else, "I won't take 'no' for an answer." To me it is the same as saying, "I have the right to (whatever) but you don't."

Let me elaborate. I believe in not just my free will, but the free will of others. This means, if someone says 'no' to me, I must accept it and go on with life. This means I cannot always get what I want, another fact of Free Will that people don't quite comprehend or like. Accepting another person's 'No' is in many ways the first step to respecting other people.

This has been bugging me lately because I have this roommate who thinks she is being sociable by offering me these ice cream bars at night, and I don't want any. She gets this offended look on her face every time I say 'no'. She keeps telling me she will set aside it for me for later. But I don't want it for later either. I just don't want it.

I know, you might be thinking..."It's just an ice cream. What's the big deal?" Simple. I don't want any.
And then the argument ensues, repeating the statement "It's just a (insert item here)." then adding, "Isn't your relationship with your roommate more important?"

This implies that in order to make everyone happy I have to do what my roommate wants. But look at the question above again. What if the item were alcohol and I am 12? Or what if the item was crystal meth? Or if it was pork, and I was Jewish? Or let's turn it back into ice cream and quite possibly I am avoiding sugar...which is the case here. Am I really obliged to break with my conscience just to please another person?

Even then, what if the item was not forbidden to me and I simply did not want it? Am I obliged to always take when others want me to take something?

You might ask, "What if the thing is good for you? What if they are only looking out for your well being? What if this is an intervention?"

I think there are fundamentally only a few instances where another person's free will can be lawfully infringed upon.

• Their free will is leading them to harming others. Thus to end the harm, you take action to stop the bad behavior.
• They are not acting with a sane or clear mind....and have lost self-control. (You had better have clear proof of this, rather than a presumption based on a difference of opinion).
• You are a parent training a child that is too young to see the consequences of their actions and must protect them from physical harm.

But cultural customs to satisfy the other person to placate their sense of friendliness is something I think ought to be regaled to individual choice.  That is to say, if someone is rude in saying 'no'...that is  their manner of rejection is rude then you can say they are being unfriendly. But if they are polite as they say 'no' then they are being friendly. But 'no' still means no.

Still think I am being silly?

Let's expand on this. What if a girl says "no" to a boy? Is it the boy's job to convince her to do what he wants to do? Or is it the boy's job to respect her wishes? This is the issue of rape, in case you are wondering.

Now you are thinking I am taking things to the extreme. But really, am I? How many of us live our lives compromising things we never wanted to give up? Or have made choices because we were going along with the crowd? Is it really a good thing to placate the people around us rather than think for ourselves? Free will, you see, is about deciding our own futures rather than just going with the flow. It is often uncomfortable.

Now here is another thing about accepting 'no' as an answer, and why it is a good thing. You, the person having 'no' said to you learn several things. The first is that the world does not revolve around your desires. Second, that respecting others' feelings generates respect from others. You become more trusted. Accepting 'no' from people makes it easier to accept 'no' from God... which happens. It builds humility and makes you more teachable. And that makes you wiser.

'No' is not a bad word. In fact, it is a very good word that prevents much harm. It is also a concise answer, no waffling. Of course, said too much it can be oppressive. But too much of anything can smother. A glass of water is great. A tsunami is not.

So when I say 'no', I mean it. It also makes that 'yes' more significant when it is said.

Free Will

This is not the same as Free Willy.... No whales involved.
Free Will is sometimes called Agency. And some people like to combine both phrases into "Free Agency". But what does this all mean?

Some people define Free Will to mean you can do whatever you want.

Others define Free Will as freedom from compulsion... that is, no one will make you be good, you have to choose it for yourself. 

I think when people talk about Agency, the ability to choose your own path, some get wrapped up in the whole 'my choice' thing rather than it is a path you are choosing. Paths lead somewhere. They have destinations. End results.

Free Will is not a free for all, as some people like to think. It has...dun dun dun.... consequences.

I know. Scary word.

Children and immature adults hate this word. It basically says that with the freedom to choose, you take the consequences that come after those choices.

I had this entirely awesome third grade teacher who taught this concept very well  (I really appreciate him for doing this too, since it has led me to avoid some disastrous situations since). He taught cause and effect. Let's try it now, shall we?

Cause: You stick a fork in a wall socket.
Effect: You get electrocuted.

Cause: You follow the directions on a cake mix box.
Effect: You get a perfectly made cake.

Cause: You ignore the instructions to your pill bottles.
Effect: You overdose, get really sick and probably have to go to the hospital.

Cause: You lie to your family and friends.
Effect: Your family and friends no longer trust you.

Cause: You give a thoughtful gift to someone you love.
Effect: That gift makes the someone you love happy.

Cause: You laugh at and tease and talk about other people.
Effect: People around you don't trust you to do the same to them, and you lose friends.

Cause: You plant seeds in the proper season and care for them.
Effect: You reap the benefits of your hard work and produce food.

This concept is also called the Law of the Harvest or "You reap what you sow."

Now, in my religious denomination we believe there was a war in Heaven and that the Adversary was already defeated. God won. And what is going on in our life is not God fighting for our souls, but us choosing which side we want to be on. We are choosing to be on the side of God (who has already won), or the side of the devil (who has lost and will perpetually lose...and wishes to drag us down with him).

For example, free agents in sports are basically athletes who are open for hire to be on any team that wants them. They negotiate contracts with their future employers and then work for them. In a way, this is also how Free Will works. You choose the team you are on.

So, when you make a choice, remember, with every choice you make, you are also choosing the end result.

Why Do We Have Struggles in Life?

I found this thing on YouTube that sums up how I feel about the purpose of trials in life. 
So I'll let her say it.



Worth thinking about.

Her husband's POV on God. I love what he says. He is so human.

Nature of God and the Purpose of Life

I think the most important reason the identity of God is under debate is because it affects who we are and what God expects of us.

For example, if there were no God, then we are what the scientists say, the product of our genetics as the result of evolutionary change. I won't claim that we are the peak of evolution, because that is a little presumptuous, and does not allow for error or degeneration in genetic coding. Some people think this view point is freeing...but if you follow the logic, it is actually quite oppressive. They feel that if we are indeed the product of our genetics, it takes away responsibility because we can blame our actions on our genes rather than on free will (which does not exist if you are merely following genetic coding). We could also justify all human behavior by saying it is 'natural' and therefore not bad behavior at all. We can also blame dangerous behavior on bad genes, saying I was just 'born that way'. This is called Biological Determinism. Let's keep following this train of thought and see where it leads. You see, people could justify the extermination of millions by saying that we were cleansing out the bad genes - as Hitler (and others) did. This philosophy is called Eugenics. It proposed the possibility of life that is unworthy of life. We could justify the separation of classes of people by saying genetically they are inferior to those who are born with 'better genes'. It creates a genetic caste system that would rival old India.  We would be reduced to something more animalistic...more mechanical, rather. We would be only the sum of our parts.

Yeah...This is why I am not atheist. It is actually a rather limiting view point. It says a lot of "you can't' rather than 'you can'. I remember the film GATTACA and how these people were strapped and restrained by the extent of their genes. But the story was really about how you are not your genes...but what is human, what is real is not our coding.

So, as an non-atheist, I believe in a God. The issue now comes to what kind of God. Am I a monotheist or a polytheist? And can we tell the difference? Monotheists worship a singular God. Polytheists worship a pantheon of gods. I consider myself a monotheist because I worship God the Father...but I don't believed in the Trinity, and I believe that God the Father has a son. To some this may be confusing, but let me make this clear. If God is our father then we are his children. And what do children do? They grow up to become like their parents.

Add it up.

When God gives us commandments, says some things are right and some things are wrong, He is telling the truth. And though we may think his rules are limiting, they are in fact the rules that make us grow into healthy 'adults'. God has also given us the freedom to choose this for ourselves. Most of the bad in the world in self-inflicted. Most of the evil is self-created. Like a child having a temper tantrum breaks their own toys. Think about it. God may be asking us to eat the spiritual equivalent to brussel sprouts, which we may hate - but it is intended to do us a world of good. We are not the sum of our genes. Our genes are merely a starting point. And though physically we may have advantages and disadvantages, these are given to us to learn from, grow from, and (hopefully) use to help others.

The nature of God dictates the nature of what the purpose of our life is. If God is some weird thing that is a complete mystery to man, man can feel distant, abused, and be manipulated, as this God doesn't really have any personal affinity to man except as a special project. If the 'gods' are just as mad passionate and uncontrollable as the Greek gods were, then mankind can get away with emulating the same behavior. But if God is our father, then He is personally attached to us and concerned about our health and progress. If God is our father, He is also someone to be emulate as He is the example of what we need to be.

Proof that God is our Father is all over, actually. It is almost innate into human thinking to emulate the Divine. For example we say things like "Cleanliness is next to godliness." Why should we care if it wasn't important to emulate the divine?
"To err is human to forgive, divine."--which implies that we ought to forgive. Thus we ought to emulate the divine.

And why?

It impresses upon us the possibility of achieving divinity.

So why does a chunk of Christendom think this is a bad thing?

I don't know. I don't get it. It is like Nelson Mandela said:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

 Just saying....

Why the Idea of the Trinity Bugs Me

I think anyone who has followed my post already has seen hints of the God I believe in. I've said it enough. God is not just our Creator, He is our father. And not just our father, a good father.

I take the Bible a little more literally that most mainstream Christians. I have read it cover to cover at least 3 times now. And I don't just read it like one of those thick old revered books - I study it as I would one of my college textbooks. I have written notes in it. I have highlighted favorite passages. I have bent the corners of pages that I thought were significant, and I have marked parts that I did not understand and had to look up in a dictionary. I think in a later blog I'll explore my feelings about the Bible as a sacred document, as a useful document, and as a document that has been messed up by people seeking power... but currently I'd like to focus on the information about God that I have gleaned from it.
 
First off, I really don't think the Bible actually supports the Trinitarian POV on God.



from Wikipedia

To make this clear, I think I ought to make plain what the Trinitarian POV is first. According to Wikipedia (for the briefest definition) the Trinity 'defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.'

My Lutheran friend defined it this way: "Three in one, one in three without body, parts, or passions."

St. Patrick explained it with several examples.

(I like insider POVs. They're fun.)

Ok, so that's the Trinity.
The thing is, what I don't like about the Trinitarian God is that... well, I'll say it...he is so WEIRD.
You can't relate to Him at all.

No body?
No parts?
No passions?
Three people in one?

He is absolutely NOTHING like me.

At least Zeus got passionate, made mistakes even. And he was still a god. And all the gods of the other faiths got married. Women existed in their pantheons. Hera. Isis. Frigg. Brigid. Certainly you can see why the pagans resisted conversion to this weirdo foreign god whom their Roman conquerors tried to impose on them.

Now some people like the belief of the Trinity because to them it shows how you know He is God rather than a made-up story. (This logic is odd because it insists that all polytheistic gods are false and only the belief in a monotheistic god is true. What facts do they have to prove that? [I mean, real solid scientific, tangible facts.] Uh...none really. The only way monotheists prove monotheism is correct is by going to their own books of scripture. Problem with that is that the polytheists [and atheists] will ask "How do we know your book of scripture isn't just a load of tripe?" To be fair, we have to acknowledge that belief in monotheism is in fact a matter of faith (just like St. Patrick explained about the Trinity above). And monotheists believe what they believe not on empirical evidence, but on faith. It must also be said that their argument against polytheism is really an argument that: "My God is the True God." Which to polytheists comes across as, "My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy." POV, remember.)

So, getting off a tangent, a lot of questions come up when I think about the Trinity.

Even though in Genesis it says we are created in God's image, the doctrine of the Trinity (according to my Lutheran friend) says He doesn't have a body. Now, I paint and make things. I am quite sure the word image really does mean what He looks like. In Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy (see my earlier blogs) this was the grounding for why he could explain God exists by definition. Because if he didn't have a body (like a triangle) you could basically 'define' him into existence. I have noticed that a lot of Trinitarians work hard to explain away this one detail, insisting God has no body. But if you really read the Bible (and not skimmed it or only read select passages) you'd know it talks about God's face, hands, feet, and mouth. It also mentions the resurrected Christ having a body his apostles could touch. Why resurrect into a body only to throw it off? What was the point of the Resurrection then, if not to keep what you lost? And further to enable others to regain their bodies as well? Job himself talked about the Resurrection way before Jesus Christ was even born. Job 19:26. "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

Why do Trinitarian Christians get so feverishly adamant that God has no body then, if it is obviously in the Bible that he does? During the Medieval Era there was an incredible warping of doctrine that basically said that the human body (the flesh) was naturally sinful and therefore corrupt. Since then there has been a residual desire of many Christian sects to separate anything corporeal from that of the spiritual.

More kindly, I think the Trinitarians used the doctrine of the Trinity to explain why He is three persons and yet one person all at the same time. No body - no worries about explaining how one is three and yet one at the same time.

But why do they say God has no passions? Throughout the Bible it says that God is Love, is jealous, gets angry, forgives, delights, is pleased, and rests. (you do realize I'm only giving brief examples and not then entire collection of them?)

But anyway, most of the time such are explained away as symbolic or metaphorical. But Jesus wept. Is he not God, according to the Trinity?

Ok, set all this aside. I think the thing about the Trinity that bothers me the most is that they take away the reason we call God Father. Trinitarians say it is figurative. I say it is literal. I believe with my whole heart that God is our Father, and all that it implies. Jesus Christ himself advocated this. He said as recorded in John 10:34 (quoting Psalm 82:6) "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" And Paul, well known for the statement in Romans 8:16 and 17: "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him."

They say this is figurative. They say it is by adoption. Actually, Paul does say we are adopted in verse 15 of that same chapter. But I keep wondering...adopted by God the Father, or his Son Jesus Christ?

Years ago when I was a missionary in Russia I would listen to the locals share what they believed the same time I shared what I believed. Once a Russian woman told me about why the Russian Orthodox Church had so many icons of saints and apostles and why they even prayed to the saints and apostles rather than directly to God. She said that God was too scary. That if you prayed to your favorite saint then maybe that saint (or the Virgin Mary since she was his mother) could intercede with God on your behalf. But that was the job of Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible.

You see, I take the Bible literally. To me, God the Father is the one true God (monotheism). But I also believe God sent is Son to redeem us from the fall. (Something Jesus tells about in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and all over the New Testament). And his Son did all that God commanded him to do. Thus, becoming like God the Father. So when Christ said (John 14:9), "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Does that really mean, "Dude, we are the same guy!" or does it mean, "I'm doing what my father does, so if he came down here, he'd just do the same thing."? Because he does talk about the Father is in him and he is in the Father. Should I take that literally also?

The fun thing about scriptures is that you should also take them in context. Keep reading the passage. Read the entire discourse (If politicians, actors, and other people are brutally taken out of context, don't think for a minute that the Son of God would be exempt from such abuse. He was already crucified after all). He talks a great deal about service and doing the will of his Father. If they were the same guy, wouldn't he just cut to the chase and say he was? He also constantly mentioned the Holy Spirit as one that comes and goes. He even says that he will not always be with them.

There is so much evidence they are three separate people it makes me want to scream sometimes. For example: John 15:26 - "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"

Ok, if the Trinity were the truth and I am totally wrong then let's make this scripture make sense. Exchange the word ME. MYSELF, and  I (since the doctrine of the Trinity says they are all the same dude) to mean God, and see if it makes any sense.

"But when [I] come, whom I will send unto you from [ME], even the [ME] , which proceedeth from [ME], [I] shall testify of me"

Uh...No offense. But the Trinitarian God sounds really egotistical. And from a god who says he is meek and lowly of heart, that's just... well... really.... It is why I don't believe in the Trinity.

Another reason the Trinitarian God bugs me is the motivation for why He does what He does.

Since the Trinitarian God is so different from me, not my literal Father in Heaven, but a distant Creator without body, parts, or passions what reason could He possibly care about me? (The answer to life the universe and everything might as well be 42 with that kind of god.)  And what reason would I want to revere something so strange? Are we his toys? Pawns? Playthings? Collectables? A hobby? Is eternity and Heaven really that boring?

The God I believe in is our Father. And his motivation is the motivation of all good fathers. He loves us.
More later.

The Nature of God Part IV: Why the Big Bang Theory is Actually Naive

Naïve? Really?
Scientists often accuse religious people of being naïve...so I had to try it out. Sorry.

Naïve is defined as: having or showing a lack of experience or knowledge : innocent or simple by Merriam-Webster. I'll stick to the definition that means...way too simple.

The Big Bang Theory in short claims that our universe sprang into existence as a singularity and has been expanding from there. This is only one scientific theory about the beginnings of the universe, by the way. It is just the most popular one right now. (other theories). The reason I think this is too simple is that I am the kind of person that makes things.

"Huh? What does this have to do with the Big Bang being true or not?" You may ask.

Point of view. Mine.

As someone who creates and doesn't just analyze and study, I have a unique perspective on life. People who study and take, but never create do not understand how nonsensical it is to ponder the idea of things spontaneously generating elements, let alone creating life.

Let me put it another way. A lot of Big Bang lovers see everything as particles which, through billions and billions (thanks to Carl Sagan) of years came together to form matter (atoms) then molecules, then life. To them, they are evolutionary inevitabilities of mathematical probability. That is to say, it may have taken forever, but if you play all the variables eventually the right result will turn out.

Now, I will tell you why this is total nonsense.

I call this the Theory of the Cake. Why? Cake is supposed to be easy, right? Have you ever baked a cake? It isn't rocket science. You need several (preexisting) ingredients. Usually it is flour, sugar, eggs, oil, milk or water, a leavening agent such as baking power, and a flavoring. Each element contributes to its form, texture, taste, and durability. Too much flour makes a dry, heavy cake. Too much oil, and it does not rise as well. Too much sugar makes the cake liquidy and flat. The wrong combination in general makes a lousy cake. The temperature in which to cook the cake, the pan which the cake is cooked in (from material, to size and shape), the utensils used and duration in which it is mixed...even the order in which the ingredients are added affects the outcome of the cake. All these variables are important in making a good cake. A rocket scientist might even screw this one up if he does not follow the directions correctly. So, maybe if we provided him a box mix? All you add is oil, eggs and water/milk - right?

Now, be honest. Have you ever met someone who screwed even a box cake up? I have. I have seen people ignore the directions and make lousy cakes from a simple mix.

So, here is the experiment:
What are the chances (and be honest) if I took all the preexisting elements required for making a cake, from the materials to the tools, left them in a room day after a day... how long would it take for the cake to spontaneously form? Statistically?
I'd say, no chance.
What if I randomly tossed them into the oven, day after day, randomly selecting the temperature?
The chances for awesome cake then? Certainly with that little interference the chances would rise? Right?
Uh, probably not.
How about I take the insides of the eggs out of the shells, and the mix out of its box and put all of the stuff into a pan? Higher chances?
Maybe.
But let's be honest here. Making something as simple, yet awesome, as a cake (from preexisting ingredients) takes a baker.

even with a creator...some cakes don't turn out

This is why I believe in a Creator.

I think creating molecules takes a lot more effort and talent than me baking a cake - and I can make a pretty tasty cake. Angel food... and that one is a little harder to make. So here is the theory - if a cake cannot be created spontaneously with preexisting materials, then how in the world can things just spontaneously spring into existence, neatly fit into complicated order and continue towards a living thing without any help or guidance or intervention? To me that is like spontaneous combustion. Fascinating imagery, but not really practical.

I believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics. Matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It just moves around. Two... I believe the universe is a lot larger than we can possibly comprehend. And third, I don't actually believe in Creation Ex Nihilo. This flies in the face of the First Law of Thermodynamics...and I think also an over-simplification the Biblical Creation. The reason I say this is because I. Am. A. Creator.

I make things.

And I don't make things out of nothing.

I need materials in which to make things. A potter has clay. An painter has paint and canvass. A seamstress has cloth and thread. And yes, a baker has flour, sugar, milk/water, eggs, oil, and flavoring.

Don't believe me?
Here are some things I make.

charcoal still life on paper

6" dolls made from fabric, clay, fibers and imagination

These kinds of things take skill.
Tools.
Training.
Experience.
Imagination.
And Time, Time, Time.







They require the ability to observe.
They also require lots of patience if they don't work out the first time.

Are they precious to me?
Yes. I worked hard on them.
Are they everything to me?
Uh...I care about them, but they aren't my life.

Life-sized purple minion made from Mad Science

Now, to show my POV on our Creator, which will be the next topic in the next blog....

I've made all these. Put all my time and talent into them. And if my house burned down, taking them to ashes forever, yes, I'd be very upset.

But if I had child in that fire also, my own flesh and blood, which would I save? The creations of my hands or the purest, most personal creation of my life?

I think the answer to this one is obvious. But let's take it a step further. Would I send my own flesh and blood to die for the creations of my hands?

I believe in the Christian God who gave his only Son for us didn't do it because we are really cool creations that he has labored to make - but that we really are his children.

Now, let's take the question further. Would a parent send a trusted child to rescue his other children? I'd say the answer is YES.

Think on that.

The Nature of God Part II, Second Edition.... The Nature of Proof

I would like to submit that proof of the existence of God is all around us. But it is often missed due to lack of ability to perceive rather than due to lack of evidence.

What do I mean by that? Let me explain. When most atheists say they will not believe in anything they cannot see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or feel... they are telling the complete truth. Their experience is limited to the 5 organic senses. They believe in nothing else and allow for no other kinds of senses. I think this is an incredibly limited point of view. First of all we know the 5 senses can be fooled. Ever go to a magic show? Ever see Criss Angel's shows? He's really good (And he constantly tells people it is just a trick). Setting this aside, the human 5 senses are very different from the senses of a honeybee who can see colors in ranges that are beyond ours, or an eagle who can see much farther, or a wolf who can hear higher pitches. And what about colorblind people? How can they be sure that everyone isn't lying to them that there is a red and a green - that they really aren't the same color? (We could call it the Santa Claus conspiracy). Let me take it a step further. For ages people were unable to see microbes before microscopes were invented. Without the development of certain machinery we were unable to detect any colors within light beyond human sight. And without the invention of the radio no one would have been able to send, capture, and hear what was on the airwaves as human ears just can't do that. So, let me ask, if they could not be detected earlier, did they lack existence? Because we could not see germs did that mean they really were evil spirits? (which is what people thought they were)

This is the proverbial "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?" Do things still exist without an observer? Or more plainly, "Am I the center of the universe? And do things lack existence if I am unable to perceive them?"

Uh, you see how self-centered this thinking is. I think it can be safely said that that there are things that exist beyond the regular 5 senses that we are unable to detect.

I like this film, Kate and Leopold. It displays this kind of disbelief. It is a sci-fi romance, so if you don't like sci-fi, tough cookies. One clip with Liev Schreiber that illustrates this concept.



So, you can only see what you are able. And there may be those more able than you to perceive an event or phenomenon. I like to think of this this way...we may all be created equal. But we aren't all created the same.

Ok, so....maybe there are other senses beyond the 5 organic senses that we are unaware of.

Is there ESP?

I don't know. I don't have it.

But have you ever had a moment where you have a strong feeling to bring an extra sandwich to work, or to turn off something that you don't normally turn off, or to get something in your car checked that you had not been thinking about at all? Or have you ever shared a dream with someone - as in you had the same dream that they had almost down to the last detail? Or have you ever heard a voice or been given a strength to do something important, and it saved yours or someone else's life? I have. And I don't think this is ESP. I am not psychic. At. All. But a large majority of human beings have had these little quiet, sacred moments that they instinctively hold secret until they find out someone else had a similar experience...or that they were with someone they knew they could trust not to mock them. Because incredibly loud atheists say these are delusions, hallucinations, or mental illness. But I will submit that this is another human sense - non-biological - that some people call a gut feeling or Intuition, and others call the whisperings of the Spirit. This is a sense discounted by many atheists, therefore not used by many atheists (Not ALL, as I don't know all atheists, now do I?).

Intuition isn't logical. However, it is very human and part of who we are. It is also a sense that can be used or ignored. Like an artist who develops the ability to see details in a painting; like a musician who can pick out notes and name them; like a chef who can detect distinct flavors in their creations; like a masseuse who can pick out particular knots in the muscles under his fingers; like the aroma therapist who can tell the distinct smells of certain oils and what they can do for you...this other sense can be trained and honed. It can also be lost. People go blind, deaf, lose all sense of taste, smell, and feeling. And there are plenty of people who survive on nothing but cold facts. It is a flat life without the 5 physical senses. Those who do not know the other spiritual sense live a life a shade darker than that of those who have and use it. And they don't comprehend it. Like the dogs who refuse to believe in rainbows (re-watch film clip above if you don't get this).

Ok, what if our ability to sense is also limited to our Point of View? For example, I once read this great novella from 1884 called Flatland (funky digital film version) which talks about dimensions and perception. It was an allegory (from a 1884 POV, so ladies he describes women as dangerous. Take that as you will) about our existence and the existence of other dimensions. In it, A Square (the protagonist) ends up meeting a three-dimensional being (A Sphere from Spaceland) along with a one-dimensional being (Lineland)  and a zero-dimensional being (Pointland). He can only perceive of the sphere in his limited 2-D view...a line with grades of shading. But he is taken out of his POV to see Spaceland for what it really is. During his journey he comes to the conclusion that there are in fact infinite dimensions. That is to say, if a point is mathematically no dimension at all, a line is the first dimension, a square is in the second dimension, a cube in the third dimension, then (he asks) what is the next dimension? Some scientists have said it is Spacetime (which Liev Schreiber's character in the above clip can see but others can't). But others say it is a tesseract. (A tool of another sci-fi novel called A Wrinkle in Time). Ok. Then what is the 5th dimension? The 6th? 7th? 8th. Etc. I've noticed while researching this that particle physicists are particularly fascinated with attempting to create models for additional dimensions. However, they do not discuss what kind of beings may exist within them except (possibly) as part a joke - such as the mice from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Let me put it plainly. In the religious sense, we use the term Eternal Beings. Think about it.

Here's another cheezy video, same story. Great concept.



Quantum Physics in general causes a lot of questions and philosophies... including that our observation influences existence, something we can get into at another date.

Ok, here is one more.
What you focus on is what you observe. You may have perfect vision, great hearing, amazing other  senses, but if you are not really looking proof that God exists, but looking to disprove - that is all you will see. From my first blog, #44 in the list, "People choose what they see and believe."
Don't believe me?

Let's try a test.



How'd you do? Be honest.

Here is another one we used to do as a kid. It is usually told orally. You might recognize it.

You are the bus driver. Three kids get on the bus at the first stop. At the next stop 2 more kids get on. At the third stop one gets off and four get on. At the fourth stop three get on and two get off. At the fifth stop, three get off and two get on. What is the color of the bus driver's eyes?

Remember that one? The first time you encountered it, how easy was it to answer the question. Really. Be honest. You were searching for the trick now. You didn't want to be embarrassed that you got distracted by something else. There are a lot of mind-bending games out there. Where you focus determines what you remember and what you see. Human beings are often distracted by what is flashy, loud, and material. God isn't that kind of guy. If you aren't looking for it, you could easily miss it.

So with all this before us... Let's add it up. Shall we?

1. The 5 senses are limited as well as easily fooled.
2. There is a possibility for other ways to sense the universe.
3. Our dimensional POV is physically limited to this dimension.
4. Our focus truly determines what we observe.

Thus, can it be safely concluded that people can easily miss evidence of God that could be all around us? I think so. If you are ignoring your spiritual sense, using only a 3-D POV, and focusing on anything but God, you're gonna miss him.

Lastly, I think the evidence of God's existence is so everywhere that we simply take it for granted ... like a newborn takes for granted that there will always be food, someone to keep them warm, clean, and dry. Its POV puts itself at the center of the universe. A good parent would care for its offspring, wouldn't she/he? A bad parent would abandon, neglect, beat, and even kill their offspring. Look around yourself. The world is still here.
Good thing God is good, right?

Now you can go back to # 3. ...

AAAGh! I lost my second post!!!

Ok, I accidentally deleted my second post, so I am going to try to recreate it from memory. Wish me luck.

The Nature of God Part III - Prooooooove It

Ok, how can anyone possibly prove it was God that created everything and not the Big Bang?
First off, none of us (as far as we know) were there when Big Beginning happened. Not like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where they have a Restaurant at the End of the Universe. And if we were, we have no memory of it. We certainly had no recording devices (that survived at least). So honestly all we have is extrapolation, lots of different creation myths from lots of different religious traditions (a collection of oral traditions and records made by prophets, scribes, philosophers, and random people with writing implements that were able to preserve a story they say is true), and scientific theories we can either believe or not believe.

Now there are those people who believe ardently in their 5 senses that swear that all the religious traditions are bunk. They cite Science as the reason they are all bunk. They say "leading scientists proved this," and "leading scientists say that." The first problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that scientists are just human beings who have studied methods and theories that they believe will reveal facts. They are not even sure there is such a thing as truth. Just facts. They may have great mathematical minds, but in the end if their perception is only with mathematics, that is all they will see. Second problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that leading scientists are often proving previous leading scientists wrong. It is their favorite hobby, really. The third problem is that no one really PROVED anything. How could they? You can calculate, theorize, extrapolate, but in the end you are doing it from a room many many many many many many many many many many many many years removed from the event. And as with many unsolved mysteries, time changes everything.

One ardent scientist once said to me that theories are 99.9% proven true. I think that was just a random number put out to make himself feel better. I mean, I took this class in child development once where we talked about the effectiveness of certain birth control methods, including one that was 99% effective when used properly. Now, here's the thing. I also know a certain man who used condoms regularly and used them properly. And he sired about 6 kids while using this method of birth control (since he did not believe in abortion). You may argue "Maybe he didn't really know how to use them?" or "Why didn't he choose another method of birth control?" As a matter of fact, when the condoms just weren't doing the trick, he went and got a vasectomy... Twice. Both times they corrected themselves. Finally the lady involved ended it with a hysterectomy. Statistically, those birth control methods should have worked for the man. 99%, you know. To me this is proof that if God wants a kid born, it is going to be born. You can argue against it if you want. Fact is a lot of people just throw out statistical numbers without any real support. My stats here are hearsay. I won't pretend they aren't. But so is the one about all theories being 99.9% true. Theories are always under scrutiny.

So, what theories have been proven untrue by other scientists?
Here's a Wikipedia site about that.
One by the Discovery Channel.
One on YouTube.


From the Science Channel.
Another site
I apologize if some of the things on their lists are repeats.
Here is even an academic site that debates which theories ought to be retired. Insider POV.
I left out all the pro-biblical arguments... because it is already clear they object to many accepted. scientific theories.

Ok, that aside, what if a leading scientists found things that proved their precious theories wrong? Their careers would be at stake. Their reputations at risk. Their validity as scientists in danger. They are only human, after all. Not saints. And certainly not gods.

Now, I believe that a true scientist would accept they had made an error. A true scientist would truly examine EVERYTHING. Including himself. But (and pay attention) there are a lot of scientists that HATE criticism of their theories. Their theories are their 'children' so-to-speak. They won't even listen to other possibilities...especially the possibilities that they could be wrong.

And what about findings that are ignored or set aside as unexplainable?
I'll make a list:
The Bluefish Caves
Lots of the findings in South America.
Another site full of unsolved archaeology.
And another about out of place artifacts.
And another.
And one that may freak you out.

Now, you might say, "Why did you switch from astronomy to archaeology?"

Simple. Astronomy is about those things far off, and therefore easy to make up stuff about. You can't touch the sun, and we can only estimate at a distance its strength as we would all burn up and die if we physically tried to go there. But Archaeology has physical, tangible evidence that those 5-sense thinkers cannot refute is in fact real.

Now, what they think of the  evidence, I don't know. Some of them would like to believe that aliens made them... (which our dear scientist Stephen Hawking is terrified of, by the way). But personally I think human beings made it all and like with most History, the knowledge was forgotten, lost, or distorted by the 'winners' of wars who rewrote history to their liking (according to Winston Churchill, it is written by the victors). Let me put it this way...I mourn the loss of the Library of Alexandria. So much knowledge, so much history is gone. So many civilizations have been lost.

Here is the thing. The arrogance of humankind really bothers me. Each generation almost always goes around assuming it is better than the previous generation, more advanced. Science right now is the new world religion, touting that we are at the peak of evolution. But, uh, archaeology proves that nations rise and nations fall. There is tons of proof of that. And information, knowledge, and history is constantly being distorted and lost. Don't believe me? Ever hear of the Dark Ages? Ever hear of North Korea? (One of their propaganda videos). Cambodia? I could list more, but for the sake of time, I'm putting it up to you to look it up.

So...do I really trust science?

I trust science like I trust a hammer. As long as I don't smash my finger with it, I'm fine with it. It is a tool. Not a thing to be valued more than my own sense.

Now you may be saying..."You didn't prove anything!!!!"

Uh, actually I was just showing that science is unreliable as a source of truth. Useful, yes, But unreliable.

Now, you want me to prove something than cannot be proven? Is that what you are asking?

I'll tell you what. Next blog I'll do something more familiar, I will compare belief and theories. You see, I have a theory. I call it the theory of the cake. It is how I explain why I think the Big Bang Theory is all nonsense. Mathematically.
Until next time.

Nature of God part I

I've decided that this is the topic that must be explored in several parts. Number one, because so many people disagree on the nature and existence of God to begin with. And two, because I also have a point of view which I believe to be valid and therefore must be defended.

Ok, so let's start at the beginning. Is there a God?

Many will debate that there isn't one. Their proof is rather simple, but I really don't think it is well thought out. Some atheists say there is no God because if there was one he would give proof. This is a bold assumption about the nature of God and for that matter, the nature of proof that he exists.

I had this one boss who used to say (and pardon my French, but this is how she said it), "It is dangerous to assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME."

What does that mean? Well, assuming is a risky venture because no one knows everything and you are going to get a lot of things wrong.

Ok, so why did I say that the statement "if God were real he would prove it" is an assumption? First off, it assumes that if God exists then he would perform a certain action. That action being proving to others that he exists.

So I ask.... why would he? What is assumed about the nature of God that says he would go around proving His existence? Renee Descartes once tried to prove the existence of the Christian God through his Meditations on First Philosophy. If you don't know who Descartes is, he is the one who coined the phrase "I think therefore I am." I once took a philosophy course where we had to prove where his philosophy fell down in his Meditations. With every course in logic and philosophy you learn that along the way the thinker starts to make assumptions and that is where their philosophy falls apart. Descartes philosophy fell apart in several places, but the one that bothered me the most was his assumption that God was as immaterial as a definition of a triangle. God is not a triangle. A triangle is a mathematic concept which can be represented through imagery but is not anything close to a Supreme Being. Triangles have not created worlds... or human beings. Basically, he argued that God existed by definition.

Uh, problem... there are many gods in the pantheon of the world. Many different definitions. Choose one, any one. And let's examine the nature of that god. I'll pick Zeus. Philanderer, liar, even rapist. He zaps people with lightening, punishes people on whims, and even ate one of his wives who was pregnant with Athena at the time. Does he exist by definition?

Now one might argue "Yeah...I see what you are saying. But he was a myth."

For the record, a myth is merely something people once believed to be true - often sacred things. And scarier, some myths have been proven to be real - such as the Trojan War. Atheists believe that the Christian God is a myth. For the record.

My point is, if you are going to try to disprove there is a God you can't start with an assumption about the nature of a god... especially one you don't even think exists. I mean, some gods in some pantheons just mind their own business. You could be as insignificant as an ant is to a homeowner for most gods.

But what about proving there is a God? I think it is better to say that you would have to prove that your god is the real God, and that he (or she as some insist) really exists. You would have to set up your own test of proof as per the nature of each god, from the Trinitarian POV to the non-Trinitarian POV to the polytheistic POV of whichever faith you follow. Don't believe me? There are a lot of definitions of God out there.

But let's look at the atheist argument about the non-existence of God again. They are assuming the Christian God in this case. And further, they are assuming they understand the nature of the Christian God , who is a self-declared loving God... (as well as vengeful and jealous if you read the Old Testament). Many argue: if God existed there would not be so much suffering. If God existed he would show himself. If God existed he would not have let this (whichever) tragedy happen.

First off, let's list the assumptions about the nature of this God here.
1. God's job is to prevent suffering.
Really? Where does it say in the Christian scriptural cannon that God prevents all suffering from happening? Here is a fact: most religions spend their time explaining why there is suffering, as suffering is an unpleasant fact of life. Let me emphasize that last part. FACT OF LIFE. Be happy you feel pain. It is an alert system that prevents you from damaging your body beyond repair. And as for emotional pain, it teaches compassion... which may be God's plan all along. Further, usually the Christian God says it is our job to alleviate suffering, not so much his.

2. God has to prove himself to us.
Uh. No. If anyone has read any scriptural cannon of most faiths it has always been the believer who has to prove his/herself to God. Not the other way around. God does not have to prove anything. He is, by definition of being a god, the superior being. Period. People who demand a god to prove themselves are like little brats aching for Zeus lightening-bolt action time. Potential grease-spots on pavement. And as for the Christian God, be happy His nature is to ignore stupid challenges like these.

3. God is here to end all tragedies.
Here is the thing, POV matters a lot in this case. Like a child who just lost his soccer game, or a favorite toy, it is tragic and sad - but not the end of the world. Further, it may be in fact good for the child to lose that one thing. You might say, "What?! Are you crazy? How can a tragedy be good? People died? An opportunity was lost!" or whatever. From our limited view of life and the events, it is tragic. But if God is eternal, and if his POV is over the vast expanse from eternity to eternity as most Christians do claim, then wouldn't you think that he can see how significant an event may be for a) your personal growth and b) letting go of things not important at all. We fixate on tragedies like kids fixate on cartoon characters sometimes. We forget that there is more to life than this life. It is called having an eternal perspective. It is hard for us in the here and now.

And for those who only believe that this is the only life they have got, yeah...it is scary.

The list can go on. But let's stop for now. Let it suffice that you cannot disprove that there is God by arguing that God would behave in a way you would want if he were real. That's like saying your mother only loves you when she is giving you want you want (on demand, by the way). Things are...whether you like the way they are or not.

Next time, I'll discuss more the nature of proof that God has that he exists...that is totally missed by those who don't want to believe in him.

My Rights, Existentialism, and Truth

"I have the right!"
This is what a lot of people say to justify doing things they want to do, damn the consequences.

So... I keep wondering how true that is. What rights do we really as human beings have? Why? And what declared rights are total B.S.? And why?
I think to establish rights we ought to eliminate all the constructs. A construct is "an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements considered to be subjective and is not based on empirical evidence" according to Google. Basically, they are subjective ideas and not real things. So what constructs do we have?

Culture, for one. Cultures vary all around the world. Culture dictates what you eat, how you sleep, what is polite to say, what you should wear, what is lucky or unlucky, and a whole slew of what is 'correct' and 'incorrect'. Some people believe that right and wrong are also dictates of culture. There may be behaviors considered repulsive to one society and ok in another. Some cultures not only condone polygamy, but it is ingrained in their society as correct behavior. Others are famous for eating dog (which is considered horrible to those cultures that love fido and fifi). Others condone cannibalism. It begs the question, is there any absolute truth, or is it all just a whim of culture?

According to existentialism, everything is subjective. That is to say, there is no real truth--only Point of View. That also means there is no right or wrong. Lots of people like this philosophy because it makes it easy to commit behaviors that most societies see as wrong - such as having prolific amounts of sex, cheating, lying, or thinking of 'me' first. But let's take this to the extreme. There are other behaviors that have people screaming in horror - such as rape, pedophilia, incest, and murder. If there truly is no right or wrong then these behaviors would be A-Okay.

So are there absolute truths? Is this why we scream in horror at the behaviors above? Do we really have unalienable rights that should not be violated by others? Or is this really a dog-eat-dog, every-human-for-his/herself kind of existence?

Let's first explore the consequences to the answers of the question: "Are there absolute truths?" If yes, then right and wrong has a foundation on which to stand. If no, then the existentialists have it right and we are all basically stuck with the life we have ended up in and are left to claw our way around life as best as we can. Personally, the appeal of the first is that there is hope for the human race. The appeal to the second is a rather selfish free-for-all kind of life, which doesn't really appeal to me at all.

So, to answer the question: Are there absolute truths? I look at math. I look at sports. I look at baking cakes. I look at life and how things work.

Here are the facts: I know that if I do certain things in a certain way I will get the end result I am aiming for. I'm rather methodical. I know certain methods when making something work better than other methods. But if everything really were subjective, then wouldn't a person think that how one does a thing would not matter at all?

You might argue, there are many ways to bake a cake. And I'd reply--which kind of cake? For example, I've made angel food cakes. They are different from Bundt cakes in content and preparation, even though they both have holes in the center. And if you want a good angel food cake you really have to follow the directions explicitly. If you don't you follow the instructions, you get bad cake. Also, if playing basketball, there is only one way to score points - getting the ball into the hoop. You don't get points for doing anything else, no matter how cool it may be. Likewise, with soccer, it does not matter how cool your footwork is - if you do not get the ball into the goal you do not win the game. Period. And no matter how much you may insist that 2 + 3 = 23 the real answer is 5. Want to test that? Try building a house with this kind of mathematics. It is total nonsense. Try doubling a cake recipe with this nonsense mathematics. Try building a fusion bomb with this nonsense mathematics... watch the world go *BOOM*.

So, it is fair to say that there are absolutes in the world that are not subjective but are in fact real. Does this mean everything is real? No. Not any more than 2+3=23. It means that there is truth and there is error. There are facts, and there is fiction. And yes, a lie cannot exist if there is no truth.

Now, since this is the case, since there are absolutes in the world (and I am not going to explore all of them - the blog is too small a venue), then we have to ask if some of those absolutes are unalienable rights. They are called Natural Rights by Wikipedia.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America established their view of unalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. John Locke phrased it as "life, liberty and property." It is interesting to note that Jefferson had changed it. I'm guessing he had a different view on the subject.

This is what I think. Everyone has the right to life. I believe that once you are conceived, you have the right to progress in your growth until natural death takes you. To me, this means no one has the right to end another human being's life...unless you are defending your own right to live (that's self-defense, in case you were wondering).

Second, I think everyone has the right to make their own future. That is opportunity. It is connected with the first, but basically, I think no one should be hindered in educating his or herself, or in seeking fair work, and in choosing their path. The world we live in likes to put us into molds and shape us into their forms. But I think there are many who feel squashed by these and are aching to break out. Freedom to choose your own path to me is liberty.

Third, I think everyone has the right to space. That is, everyone should be allowed to control their own personal space. To me, having a sanctuary from the assaults of opinions, physical demands, and on my property (which I have worked hard for) ought to be protected. I think without the personal sanctuary of space people break.

I also think people have the right to an opinion, even if it disagrees with mine. And further, that I have the right to disagree with them as well. I think I'll call it right to be an individual. The right to think for myself.

All other rights, I've decided, are surplus.

Now, you may think..."Huh? What about right to property? You did bring that up."

Ok, I think people have the right to keep lawfully acquired and owned property. But no one has the right to take property from others and say they have a right to it because everyone has a right to property. That, my friends, is theft.

See people get confused when they think about rights when they are really thinking on the philosophy: "The world owes me a living" (film source) Source for the film.

No one owes you anything that you do not work for. No one is born deserving anything beyond the freedom to be and the freedom to act. But even those freedoms end when you violate someone else's freedom to be and to act. Your freedom to act is your freedom to choose what you do with your life.

Now,  you are probably thinking, what about people born rich and people born poor and starving? Shouldn't something be done? My answer is yes. Something should be done... as long as it does not mess with the freedom to be or the freedom to act. That is to say... force is not allowed. If you want to solve the extreme situation between the poor and the rich, to feed the homeless and to care for those who are suffering, I suggest three things:

If you have - give.
If you know - teach.
If you need help to accomplish more - ask for it from like-minded people.

I know. Maybe too simple. But the real cause for suffering really is selfishness on both sides. You cannot take what you did not earn. You cannot demand and force others to do as you want them to do. Instead, you lead the way. You share what you know, and call to those who may be sympathetic for help. And for those who don't help...well, they just haven't quite understood yet that life really isn't about rights and getting what you want anyway. It is about making the best out of whatever it is you have been given so everything around you is better because of your existence. It is about growing to your highest potential, to your best self. Like the angel food cake...there are instructions... if we look for them.

Paradigm

The word does not look like how it is spelled. I'm a little dyslexic, so whenever I read complex weird words, I sometimes mix up the letters and add sounds that aren't there. So I used to read the word paradigm like pad-a-grim and not pair-a-dime. It confused me like the word pachyderm. The word might as well be an elephant, you know. Big and awkward.

The funny thing about this word is I had never heard of it until my father insisted I read 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. I thought the book was a dry read, like Who Moved My Cheese. I know they are intended to be instructive, but the abstract concepts in both books are not the kinds of things one reads once. They must be taken in bites and studied over the course of time.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I am sure everyone in the world has a mindset. A paradigm is, according to Wikipedia, "a distinct concept or thought pattern". The first time I heard the word used in a 'real life' conversation was while watching Sahara. Trailer. One of the characters (Al) mentions to the other (Dirk) that quite possibly he needs to change his decision making paradigm.

Now, one of the things I learned while living in other countries and studying foreign languages is that language is wrapped in culture. And not just culture, but a way of thinking. A paradigm. Some words are just not translatable. For example, there is this Mandarin word guan xi. The closest English word to it is slang--brownnosing. But it does not mean exactly that either. It describes an intrinsic social relationship in Chinese culture between people whom you desperately need relations with in order to survive.

Ok... so again, why bring this up?

Religion is a mindset. It isn't just a set of beliefs. It is how a person thinks. This is why people use the word Conversion when they talk about a person changing religions. It requires change. And not a simple change like you change socks. It is like chemical conversion. Or, as one leader in my church put it, like a cucumber becoming a pickle. I know, funky analogy, but hear it out. For a pickle to be preserved so it does not rot it has to undergo saturation in a solution of vinegar, certain spices, and salt for a duration of time (here's a real recipe, I'm over-simplifying for time purposes). Cucumbers will rot without this process. Likewise, if one truly becomes converted to a religion, it is not the same as simply declaring you like this new faith now. A true convert of any faith saturates themselves in the doctrines, practices, and mindset of the religion. There is a change of behavior.  By the way, this is why I don't believe in death-bed repentance. To me, true conversion is more than just saying you have accepted something. It involves a change of character along with a change of lifestyle.

This is my paradigm.

Here's one more thing to think about. I once heard someone say, "A person convinced against his will is still of the same mind." I don't recall who said it, but it is paraphrased from something Dale Carnegie said in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People--a great read by the way, and not as cheesy as the title sounds (he was the Stephen R. Covey of his time era).

Anyway, a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still... yeah, I think that is closer to what he had said....anyway, think about it. No one really wins an argument. What you get at the end are two angry people still of the same mind. So this blog is not to argue for anything. It is, however, to show my paradigm. Which is why I won't respond to comments.

Something else I learned growing up is that people tend to bring to an event (or conversation or reading or movie...what-have-you) a mindset. So often what a person gets out of a conversation or a movie or an event is really what they brought to it. I work with this guy who is pretty narrow-minded about a lot of things. He hates all foreigners, gays, democrats, Muslims, Jews, and a number of actors who have in one way or another offended him. He gripes a lot. He isn't conservative in the religious sense, though. His mannerisms and practices in his personal life are rather loose. He thinks porn is an ok thing, and he swears nearly every ten words. Set all this aside, and he is a nice guy. He's helpful. He is thoughtful when it comes to others. And he works hard. But if I were to share with him any of my feelings on the subject of religion, or how I like people of other countries he'd shut down the conversation. My experience just does not fit in his mindset.

Here's another example. There's this movie reviewer who almost always gives bad reviews to films I love. Also, the films he tends to rate high are the films I never want to see. It took me a bit to realize that this reviewer was rating on his taste rather than quality or viewer enjoyment. In fact, I found it helpful to check out films he gave bad reviews to because I knew it was likely I'd love them. So, in a way, after understanding his paradigm, I could negotiate around it to find what it was that I wanted.

Ok, a third example. A lot of people who see themselves as open-minded tend to be actually really closed-minded when it comes to religion and 'traditional' modesty. There is this knee-jerk response of revulsion, in fact. The truth is, when anyone quickly rejects something without listening to all the reasons for that particular idea/belief/behavior it is a sign of a set view on 'how things ought to be'. I think whenever we simply decide "things must be this way" without listening (really listening) to the other point of view or being open to the possibility of being wrong or at least mildly mistaken, we are not open-minded at all. We are set in a paradigm.

So, paradigm. Be aware that you all have one.

Pet Sins

Whenever people think of sins, the think of the Seven Deadly Sins such as pride, wrath, gluttony, lust, envy, etc... But the word sin in the Bible was translated from the word hamartia that originally meant 'missing the mark'--such as in archery. This meant that anything that was not taking us to where we ought to go was in fact a sin. Imagine basketball. The only way to score a point is to get the basketball through the hoop. No points if you don't make it in. So basically, there is only one way to gain points and win, and plenty to miss or lose. I think this is why the path towards God in the Bible was always defined as the 'strait (note the spelling) and narrow' way. This implies that there are many ways to sin, and only a select few ways towards God.

Of course a lot of people hate this idea. No one likes being told what to do--or in this case, what you can't do. Yet again, if you take things from God's POV (like a parent trying to raise a child right so they end up being decent, productive, and civil human beings), this 'strait and narrow' path makes a whole lot of sense. A parent says, "Don't put your hand on the hot stove." "Don't put that fork in the wall socket." To a 2-year-old, they have no clue what the consequences will be if they disobey. Only that they were told 'no' and they are mad about it. A parent may say, "Don't eat all that candy." or "It is bedtime." Again, a kid will get mad because the candy is sweet and currently they aren't tired. But the parent knows the child will get sick and the child really needs to get rest or the kid will be cranky the next day. Or if the parent says, "Share your toys" and "Don't hit" and "You can't just take that, you have to pay for it", often all the child is hearing is you can't have your way. But the parent is trying to teach that child that the world is not just about him or her...but everyone equally respected. Like children, human beings often have a hard time thinking beyond themselves. Our POV is limited to what we know about the universe. God may give a seemingly arbitrary commandment that we might hate--but it may in fact be beneficial to our future to keep it. I think of that Princess Bride quote "Life is pain. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something."

Let's do one more. A parent might say, "I know reading is hard, but it is important that you keep at it." Or, "Yes, I know it is boring, but you promised to do it. And you must keep your promises."
Often the things God asks of us are inconvenient, and even painful. But that does not mean they are not good for us.

OK. So what does this have to do with Pet Sins?
Well, for starters, I don't know one perfect person alive on planet earth--including, if not especially me. We all have pet sins. Kind of like kids who pick their noses and eat it. It's gross, not good for us, but obviously something keeps tempting them to do it (one kid told me the snot tasted sweet and salty. Ugh). Now, I am a big believer in free will. The devil cannot make you do anything you don't choose to do yourself... at least initially. Addiction starts out by you choosing to give your free will away to a temporary pleasure. Luckily, there are ways to reclaim that free will again through addiction recovery programs and (yes) God.

So, what pet sins do some of us indulge in? I'll do me as an example. If I were guilty of any of the seven deadly sins, I'd say occasionally I am gluttonous. I eat stuff I ought not, just for the taste. I eat more than I ought on those occasions. I know I struggle with pride. I know I can be extremely judgmental at times. And I know I can be selfish. But I think I am most guilty of wrath (this is why I remember those three better than the others, by the way). Like Mark Twain, once I've lost my temper, you can't find it with a dog. Or, in the case of the Incredible Hulk, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

Funnily enough, Twain also said one ought to admit to your sins, so you can commit more of them.
He makes me laugh...

Anyway, these aren't really pet sins, though. Pet sins are sins we keep because we don't want them to be considered sins. These are the sins we excuse as being "merely human nature" or, "That's the way I am" or "they are not as bad as such-an-such a thing". We might even say "You have to die of something" to explain an extremely dangerous habit when clearly we could live to 114 and not die of anything except being tired and old. Pet sins are those sins we enjoy and don't quite want to give up. But in the back of our heads we do have this nagging voice that says they really aren't good for us. Like eating our boogers. Our pet sins also embarrass us. They are the things we might not want to openly admit to doing. In many ways, our pet sins are more dangerous than the Seven Deadly Sins, because these are the hardest to give up.

What boogers are you eating?