Random Musings and Intentional Contemplations

We've Moved!

2008-12-30T18:09:00.002-05:00

Check out our new blog, Religion and Morality.

We'll be highlighting all the latest news from the frontlines of the culture war. Hope to see you there!

Link to ACT Pics I

2007-05-18T00:22:00.000-04:00

C:\Documents and Settings\Chris Schandevel\My Documents\My Pictures\ACT Prep Ashton

Technology & (vs?) Morality

2007-02-26T02:54:00.000-05:00

Bzzz. Bzzz. Bzzz. Bzzz. Bzzz. Bzzz. Bzzz.

All eyes in the classroom dart to the shy girl in the back row, as she hastily snatches her cell phone off of her desk, having forgotten that "silent" mode isn't really all that silent in reality.

Look up the phrase "disruptive technology" in the dictionary, and you're sure to see a photo of a cell phone. (Ironically, my cell phone is ringing as I type this, I'll be right back...)

Alright, sorry, that was my girlfriend saying "Goodnight." Anyway, I'd like to take a couple moments to address a few things about the cell phone as a disruptive technology.

First of all: How are cell phones changing the status quo?

From my experience, the cell phone has a lot in common with most emerging technologies. In high school and now into college, kids have always been looking for new ways to determine who's "cool" and who's "not." Owning a cellphone, and a cool one at that, says a lot about a kid's cool level. However, in a day and age where kids as young as second grade are getting there own cell phones, the coolness has to go beyond just the ownership of the technology.

This is where cell phones differ from technologies that seem to be more purely materialistic, such as clothing, cars, ipods, etc. Cell phones define who you are in different terms than these others. Specifically, cell phones define a person by 1) How many people he knows and 2) How busy he is.

I must admit, I have many phone numbers in my phone which I will never use, and never even really intended to use when I put them in there (most of them from first semester, freshman year). This is a sad example of my trying to fit in with what I thought was the status quo. That in order to be like everybody else I had to know a lot of people and have a lot of phone numbers. Not only that, I thought I had to receive a lot of calls, while making a lot of calls, too.

This focus on knowing a lot of people, but just well enough to have their phone numbers (even if you never call them) is changing society dramatically, at least here on campus. I can't begin to count the number of surface friendships I have with people on campus, many of whom, I'm sorry to say, I know only for the sheer selfish pride of knowing lots of people. Honestly, I could probably count on one hand the number of close, genuine relationships I have with other students here at Harding. (OK, maybe two hands and a few toes, but that's still not a lot)

It appears to me that cell phones are changing the way we approach relationships.

Secondly, cell phones make us believe that, in order to fit in with society, we have to be constantly on the go.

Gone are the days where, if you didn't plan something at least two weeks in advance, no one you invited would be able to show up. Today, you can call up ten people and in about eight minutes time be piled in a minivan with them on your way to see a movie.

Gone are the days where assignments that involved contacting people you couldn't actually communicate with in person were allowed days to complete. Today, such assignments are often only allotted a few hours. Thus, the average American is expected to do ten times as much work and make that much more progress than someone living before the age of the cell phone and instant accessability.

Today, we try to appear busy, even if we're not, because we've developed the idea that busy=important. Thus, we are constantly on the run, even when we don't have to be. And, though the cell phone allows us to do more in less time, we now expext so much more of ourselves as a result, that we end up feeling like we are under more pressure to perform quickly than ever before. This only leads to stress, StReSs, and MORE STRESS!!!

Is all of this good? That's a question that each of us needs to ask ourselves.

Do I believe that cell phones are inherently immoral? Of course not. There are a lot of good uses for cell phones. But what about technics whose sole purpose flies in the fact of all moral systems. An example brought up in class is the radar detctor, the sole purpose of which is to break the law. Another example might be pornography, even worse: child pornography, the sole purpose of which is evil and illegal (at least in the case of child porn in the U.S., and groups like the ACLU would like to see that changed, but that's beside the point...)

The argument made in class is that these things are not inherently immoral in and of themselves. According to proponents of this point of view, while the intentions of making such a technic may be purely evil, and while the sole purpose of such a technic may be immoral, this does not make the tecnic inherently immoral by itself when removed from it's intended purposes.

However, I disagree with this point of view completely. I believe that such reasoning is inherently flawed. Here's why:

What is "evil" anyway? Now, I understand that there are many different definitions for this word, depending upon whom you ask. However, none of these responses hold the answer I'm looking for.

"Evil" is acually nothing more than a man-made grouping of man-made letters with man-made sounds that operate within a larger context of a man-made language we call English.

Thus, completely removed from the intentions of the its makers, and completely removed from its humanly determined function, the word "evil" is absolutely meaningless, and thus can be applied to nothing at all, including radar detectors and child pornography.

However, those who want to determine whether or not these things are "evil" in and of themselves are using the word "evil" in the context of its man-made intended function: to represent that which is morally wrong. Thus, it only makes sense that, in discussing that which is in question, the thing (be it a radar detector, child pornography, or whatever) should be considered and defined within and by the context of its man-made intended function. Hence, if a thing's function is found to be evil, it must be considered evil as well since, just like with the word "evil" itself, a thing's intended purpose cannot be separated from the thing itself, or else the question fails to make any sense in the first place.

There, if that doesn't settle it, I don't know what will.

Finally, let's spend a few moments talking about sex, and then we'll call it a night (at least I'll call it a night. I don't know what time of day you'll be reading it, though, by the time you get this far, your day may very well have turned into night...sorry).

The question asks how one might go about arguing from a natural law ethicist's point of view that sexual abstinence before marriage and faithful monogamy after marriage are morally right, since these practices would seem to inhibit the propagation of the species rather than promoting it.

The easy answer to this question lies in a false assumption made by anyone who sees a conflict between abstinence and monogamy and propagation of the species. This assumption is that "propagation of species" = number of conceptions. If this were the case, one would be hard-pressed to prove that the two do not indeed conflict each other. However, "propagation of species" involves life beyond conception.

If thousands of babies are conceived, but all of them are being killed during pregnancy (that sounds vaguely familiar...hmm...), no one would call that "propagation of species."

Thus, in order to make such an argument, one would only need to prove that babies conceived out of wedlock are at greater risk for being aborted, greater risk for falling into poverty, greater risk for dropping out of school, and greater risk for having health problems at birth or later in life (all of which, I believe, have been proven).

A supporting argument would be proof that engaging in such activity (sex outside of wedlock) puts one at greater risk of contracting life-threatening diseases (which it does). This would also seriously deter "propogation of species."

A simple answer for a simple question. And now I must go to bed. If you disagree with me, please let me know. Comments make life more interesting.

Ditto's are great as well.

Goodnight!

Foster Brothers are the Coolest

2007-02-22T15:58:00.000-05:00

If you wanna see a VIDEO of the cutest kid in the world
performing life-threatening stunts that will
BLOW YOUR MIND, click on the pic to the right.
His name is Jacob and he's the next Tiger Woods.

Out with the Old...

2007-02-21T01:04:00.000-05:00

A few posts back I wrote about the "rights" that are continually being pushed through our courts through groups like the ACLU and its allies.

As these "rights" are being created on an almost daily basis, many of our true rights (those actually in the Constitution) are being seriously threatened.

Specifically, the ACLU and its allies are on the verge of turning our freedom of religion into a freedom from religion.

Watch this video and ask yourself, "What is this nation coming to?" And, "What can I do make a difference?"

Cross-Country Banquet

2007-02-18T05:18:00.000-05:00

Just a few pics of Vicky and I at the Cross-Country banquet last night, along with a few of her teammates and good friends (no, I don't run for Harding; I run for Vicky, but only when she makes me).

CRA Falcons - 24, Delaplain Indians - 20

2007-02-18T04:45:00.000-05:00

Here are a few pics I took yesterday at my brother's basketball game. His team won 24-20. It was their first win on the season. Dustin led the team with 11 points. It was a pretty exciting game, proving once and for all that fifth grade basketball (or any level, for that matter) beats NBA ball any day.

Endowed by Whom?

2007-02-16T03:11:00.000-05:00

Rights.

In America today we have all sorts of "rights" that haven't always been around. We have the right to sodomize, the right to abort, the right to defame, the right to produce and distribute porn, the right to cohabitate, the right to no fault divorce, and on, and on...

And if groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (their motto: "Defending the self-created "rights" of the minority at the expense of the God-given rights of the majority.") have their way, we'll soon have many other "rights," such as the right of homosexuals to marry each other (they already have the right to marry like everybody else, just not members of the same sex ...sounds like equality to me), the right to sell and distribute child porn (yes, the ACLU has openly defended this practice in a court of law), and the right to euthanize (if you want my sources, feel free to ask and I'll provide them...or you could just go to the ACLU's website...unless, that is, it's blocked by websense...maybe it should be...)

Anyway, all that ranting and raving to ask the following:

"Where did all of these "rights" come from anyway?"

Well, unfortanately, the majority of these and other so-called "rights" have come to us not through the words of the Constitution; nor have they come to us through the legislative process. Instead, most of these "rights" have come into existence or are on the brink of doing so through the courts, in which a handful of unelected far-left liberals in robes consistently rewrite laws that have stood for centuries and create "rights" out of thin air (or better yet, "emanations from penumbras").

But where should our rights come from?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-- U.S. Declaration of Independence

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
-- JFK

This is a concept that has been long forgotten in America today. Can you imagine what this country would look like if we actually believed these words. Our forefathers could...they lived it.

Some might argue that God gives us the "right to choose." While this is true, this doesn't tell the full story. Organizations like the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign do not simply advocate the "right to choose." No, they contintually advocate the "right to choose without fear of consequences." "Pro-choice" implies "anti-responsibility."

Did our Creator ever guarentee us such "rights."

The answer is a resounding, "NO."

Is anyone listening?

Science in a Perfect World

2007-02-05T00:00:00.000-05:00

And with that, it begins again.

Another week, another blog. This time, we're talking about science.

I've gotta admit to you up front, though. I've had a massive stomachache all day, and I'm still in a bit of pain as I sit here typing at my desk.

Speaking of pain, I've got some bad news for all those sciencie people out there: SCIENCE AIN'T PERFECT!!! (Sorry, I probably just offended all of the englishy people out there, too...all that leaves are the jocks and the cheerleaders...)

This past week we talked a lot about science and its advantages and disadvantages. Part of our discussion involved the presuppositions that make science work, but that can also prove to be quite dangerous if they are ignored.

In my mind, the biggest presupposition of science is that one can study the world in a vacuum. In a perfect world, a scientist would be able to conduct an experiment including exactly one control group and exactly one experimental group, between which exists exactly one variable. Thus, upon conducting his experiment and examining the results, the scientist would be able to prove that any differences between the two groups at the end of the experiment resulted solely from the variable which he induced upon the experimental group. And thus, without a doubt, we would "know" something.

However, THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD.

Unfortunately, we live in world that has been marred by the imperfection of man since Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden apple...(or whatever kind of fruit it was...for all we know it could have been a forbidden watermelon...)

Anyway, because of their sin and the fact that, despite what the snake told Eve, we are still a long ways away from having absolute knowledge, it is impossible for us to really "know" anything. This is due mainly to the fact that everything that happens in this world is the result of many, many, many variables, all acting at the same time, thus making it impossible for us to perfectly isolate any one variable in an experiment, white lab coat or no white lab coat.

Another presupposition of science is that deductive reasoning is a good way to arrive at knowledge. In doing deductive reasoning, a general statement that is agreed to be true is applied to more specific circumstances to prove that, based upon the general principle, something else is true. For example, since "gravity causes objects in the earth's atmosphere to fall to earth at an ever increasing velocity" it can be deduced that, if a penny is dropped off of the Empire State Building, and another penny is dropped off of the top of the Benson, the penny dropped off of the Empire State Building will be traveling at a higher velocity when it hits the ground.

However, where do such general principles come from? Do they not come from years of watching and studying objects fall to the earth at ever increasing velocities, thus causing us to induce that such a principle exists. So doesn't all deductive reasoning come from principles that have been induced. And, considering the fact that nothing can be proven absolutely through induction because it is impossible to test every possibility, would this not also prove that nothing can be proven by deduction either, as it is a product of induction. (Alright, I imagine you've already seen through me. By my own argument, I can't really prove anything. But it's something to think about nonetheless)

That being said, wouldn't you say that science owes us something??? Like, perhaps an apology. I mean, look at all the stupid diets Americans have gone on over the years based on the "findings" of so-called "scientists." (Who could forget the imfamous "pet food only" diet? The horror!!!) And that's just one of the many examples of science messing us up.

Honestly, I wouldn't have any problem with science or scientists if they would just be honest with us, and if ordinary people on the street would stop drooling over every new "finding" or "incredible discovery." I'll bet that if you walked down the street passing out fliers telling people that "studies show licking your head causes increased hair growth," before you could get two blocks you'd run into flocks of bald guys, half with their heads bowed and half with their tongues out, manically licking each other silly.

In my opinion, science should just own up to the fact that it is not the key to absolute knowledge, and that, as long as this world is imperfect (populated by people), it never will be such a key.

Now, at this point you're probably thinking, "What's this guy's problem?" And I bet you're probably wondering if some scientist killed my dog when I was a little kid in a tragic experiment with electricity (I knew we should never have named him Sparky!). Fortunately for me, my dog wasn't involved in any science experiments. (Ufortunately for dog lovers everywhere, Sparky wasn't my dog.) Anyway, I think I need to make myself a bit more clear.

I have no problem with science or scientists (in fact, my girlfriend is getting her degree in physical science..."Hi, Vicky!"). My point is not to prove or even suggest that science is in some way "fundamentally flawed." (Like how smooth my transitions are? Oops, so much for that! OK, continue....) I am simply trying to point out that science is limited, like everything and everyone else on this planet.

I have a feeling that many who believe strongly in the absolute authority of the scientific community (many of whom probably make up that very community) will probably read this and (who am I kidding...my blog has a total of like 3 readers), well, if they were to read it, they might think that I'm attempting to say that science is in some way hindered by its limitations (which, I'll admit, would seem to be implicit within the definition of the word "limitation").

On the contrary, I believe that accepting and openly admitting the limitations of science actually frees science to impact society in a bigger and better way than ever before. If we continue to profess that science operates within a perfect world, and that its conclusions contain absolute knowledge, we force science to prove itself "absolutely" at least by its own standards (faulty as they may actually be). However, if we are able to accept that science does have limitations, we'll soon realize that its principles, hypotheses, and "conclusions" are still applicable to the real world, flawed as they may at times be. Thus, even those scientific theories that have not yet been "proven" in the eyes of scientists, can still be applied by ordinary people, as long as we ordinary people also accept the limitations of science and don't stake too much on scientific "absolutes."

You see, if everyone, scientists and Average Joe's alike, were just honest with each other, and perhaps a bit less gullible, we'd spend a whole lot less time arguing about what's been proven and what hasn't been proven, and who's responsible for all the people who got sick by going on the "pet food only" diet, and a lot more time seeking to gain a better, albeit far from perfect, understanding of the world around us, and the mystery of where we came from...

Though, to Christians like me...that's no mystery...

Goin' to the Polls

2007-01-29T01:28:00.000-05:00

Alright, it's official...first semester of senior year of high school was a LONG time ago.

That point has been brought home rather brutally over the course of the past week. The reason being that it's been that long since I last took a math class of any sort...and, boy, have I gotten rusty!

I never really got into math much in high school. I always got the grades I wanted, but math still frustrated me to no end. I remember spending hours doing a single problem in trig, flipping to the back of the book to check my answer, and then realizing that, sure enough, I'd managed to figure out what fifty billion other people had figured out before me. Yip - ee...

Plus, I always heard the line, "We're never gonna use this stuff in real life..." And, eager for excuses to drop my pre-cal, pick up wimpy journalism instead, and be done with math for the rest of my life (or so I thought), I bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker. (Strange, I hate fishing, too...oh, well).

Well, after taking only two weeks of this course, I've already realized how wrong I was in a number of ways. First of all, new stuff can be discovered in math...who knew? The stuff we talked about in class with Pascal's triangles was pretty intriguing, and I bet whoever that one guy was who figured out that one geometric figure must've been pretty pumped. And, the cool thing was, no one could flip to the back of some textbook and show him it'd already be done. On top of that, maybe someday people will be flipping to the back of their textbooks to check their answers and they'll find themselves staring straight at that one guy's geometric figure. Sweet, huh?! (I think they oughta name it after him...that way, people will remember his name forever and won't have to resort to calling him "that one guy.")

Anyway, on top of that, in our readings we've actually read about ways in which math, even the weirdest and most complex, actually applies to the physical world around us. And, oftentimes, the math is worked out long before we realize its realworld application!

A sweet example of this (though still simplistic enough for me to understand) is the example given in Morris Kline's book "Mathematics and the Physical World." At one point, Kline proves how, by using mathematics, one can easily calculate abstract and otherwise unworkable distances, and prove something not provable by common sense alone.

Kline explains how, in order to calculate the circumference of a fence intended to encircle a garden while remaining one foot away from the outskirts of the garden at all times, one would first multiply 2 times the radius of the garden and then multiply that figure by pi. Then, in order to get the circumference of the fence, one would multiply 2 times the radius (in feet) of the garden plus 1 foot, and then multiply that figure by pi. If you compared the answers, you'd realize that the fence is 2ה longer in circumference than the circumference of the garden.

What's interesting, Kline points out, is that if you were to build a roadway around the entire circumference of the earth that was to be elavated one foot above the earth's surface, using the same formula with the appropriate measurements, you would realize that the distance of the roadway would be only 2ה longer than the circumference of the earth! Without actually doing the math, few people would ever imagine that the difference between these two distances would be the same as the difference between the garden and the fence. But, sure enough, math has a purpose after all!

Haha, well, now that I've adequately humbled myself in the math department, I'd like to skip down towards the bottom of the questions Dr. Pick gave us to answer and take a shot at those that interest me most. Namely, the questions about polls (thus the title of this post).

First, Dr. Pick asked if we place too much value on statistics. Well, it's funny that he asks, because I just read about a recent study that found that 72.3% of Americans place too much value on statistics, while 27.5% of Americans don't place enough value on statistics, and the other .2% of Americans stated that polls are "evil" and refused to respond without consulting a lawyer.

Haha, I obviously made those numbers up, which shouldn't surprise you, seeing as how 82.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

However, even if you were able to spot the falsity (is that a word?) in my stats, post those numbers on some official looking website and put a bunch of strange symbols with them and then add a bunch of dorky sounding names at the end (i.e. Kenneth L. Gwendelswitzer III), and I'll bet you could fool a lot of people.

It is my opinion that we as Americans put way too much stock in statistics. I believe that this comes from our desire to have knowledge. This desire is so great that we are eager to trust those who claim to have authority (i.e. scientists, pollsters, politicians, news pundits, Hollywood "intellectuals," etc.) in any given area. Who can forget the instantly classic 2000 presidential elections in which half of America turned off their television sets and went to bed after listening to the exit polls declaring Al Gore our next President, only to wake up the next morning and discover that, "By, Golly, Bush won!" Of course, the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual tallies were beyond comprehension for Democrats around the country, leading to a whole lot of quarreling and legal battles, and even a number of public lynchings of a bunch of guys named Chad...(I never understood that part of it). Anyway, we eventually got it straightened out, but there are still a lot of unhappy people out there who think Gore won. After all, statistics never fail, right?!

This leads me to my (actually Dr. Pick's) second (actually his eighth) question: "Can we truly trust any information or theories that are based on statistics?"

My answer: of course we can. For example, I would wager that if on Monday afternoon, Dr. Pick were to poll the class as to how many of us students would like to skip class for the day and go out and get ice cream, the vast majority of us would probably raise our hands in assent. Based upon such statistics, he could then feel confident that taking the class for ice cream would be a popular decision (unless, for some strange reason, our class happens to consist primarily of lactose-intolerant vegans who also pride themselves in never missing a day of class in their entire lives...you never know).

However, things get trickier when it comes to national polls involving politics, or crash safety statistics of the latest vehicle models. I believe that such information can be used to our benefit, but that we must be cautious in doing so. My best word of advice in determining how much stock to put in stats is this: "Check for consistency."

And, no, this doesn't mean perform the same poll over and over again to see if you always get the same results. And, no, this doesn't mean to ask the same questions, the same ways, every time. What it does mean is this. The more consistent the conclusions/info/theories about a particular poll or research are with the actual findings, the more you should trust those conclusions/info/theories.

For example, in order to be as consistent as possible, a poll that asks people about their grocery sack preference--paper or plastic--should not conclude, "Most people like paper bags better than plastic bags."

If accuracy is of the greatest importance, a proper conclusion would be something like, "When called by telephone in the middle of the afternoon while it was raining outside on the 26th of April, 2006, and asked the question, 'Which do you prefer, paper or plastic?' by an automated voice showing little to no emotion whatsoever, Jack Johnson, Jim Stewart, Sally Sue Sanders, Kelly Whitcliff, Bess Bowers, Pat Dedog, Nile River, Betty Crocker, Jeff Jefferies, Jane Doe, etc., etc., responded by an 11,086 to 9957 margin with an answer that includes the word "paper," as opposed to the word "plastic," while 3679 of the aforementioned individuals responded with an answer including the phrase "stop calling me!!!!" before hanging up.

See, now there's a poll I could trust. If only pollsters and statisticians were all completely unbiased indivduals whose only goal in life is to amass information and present it to the general public. However, these people, like the vast majority of people you'll meet in this world (sorry, I don't have any stats to back that one up) usually have agendas and biases of there own, whether they admit it or even realize it or not. Thus, it is imperative that we examine their theories and conclusions carefully to make sure that they match up well with their actual findings. The more proof of this we can find, the better we should feel about trusting their conclusions, and vice versa.

Finally, "Are leadership and 'following the polls' the same thing?"

Now, I know that Dr. Pick instructed us not to give any one word answers. But, when you essentially ask the question "are leading and following the same thing?" it's incredibly tempting.

We've already discussed how dangerous it can be to trust polls and statistics. How anyone could argue that following the polls has anything to do with leadership is beyond me. Even in a world of perfect polls and perfect people, I wouldn't call following the polls leadership. Leadership involves making decisions on behalf of people who put their trust in you to do for them what they have not the capacity to do for themselves, regardless of what they think they need or don't need/want or don't want. Leadership involves carefully weighing all the available options, considering opinions on all sides of the issue at hand, determining whom you think you can trust and whom you should not, making a decision and accepting responsibility for its consequences, whether they be positive or negative.

Not to bring politics into this or anything, but, to me, leadership involves doing what you think is best for your country, even if it means entering into a war in Iraq that will kill your approval ratings and cause many of the very people you represent to practically scream for your assassination while demanding captured terrorists be provided lawyers for their defense. I believe if President Bush was a 'follow the polls' kind of leader, he would have resigned a long time ago... (by the way, the comment about not bringing politics into this was supposed to be sarcasm...in case you missed it)

Granted, the President has made plenty of mistakes over there, and, I'll bet he'll even make a few more before it's all over with. Fortunately for him, a new poll just came out saying that he's not the only one who makes mistakes...

Go figure.

Accepting the Bondage of My Mind and Awaiting the Coming Pardon--Part I

2007-01-22T04:23:00.000-05:00

Cool title, huh?

It better be; I spent almost half an hour thinking it up, and now I don't feel much like writing anymore.

Oh, well, sleep can wait. And I would hate to whet your cerebral appetite and tehn leave you standing there with the drool dripping down from yoru brain like that. (I know, gross mental image. Sorry, I just thought it was a cool analogy.)

So, I believe I can sum up the first week of class pretty well by quoting a passage written by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans:

"For in my inner being i delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
--Romans 7:22-24 (NIV)

Did you catch it? That was, in my opinion, the entire week in a nutshell right there. While Paul's context may have been different, his message describes our own situation today perfectly: our minds have been enslaved by our bodies!

Just as the desire of Paul's mind to do good (vs. 21) was overcome by the "law of sin" at work in his body, so we who desire to have absolute knowledge are inherently constrained by the limitations of these shells in which we reside while here on earth.

Accepting the Bondage of My Mind and Awaiting the Coming Pardon--Part II

2007-01-22T01:41:00.000-05:00

Simply put, in our struggle to comprehend an absolute reality (if such a thing even exists), we are forced to construct our perception of such a reality in our minds through the use of the five senses of our bodies with which we perceive all that we perceive we perceive in the world around us.

Allow me to attempt to clarify my point with an illustration. As a Christian, I believe that after this life is over my soul will go to live with my Father in a place that I read about in my Bible called heaven. My body, on the other hand, will remain in the ground until it turns to dust. But, without a physical body and the use of its five senses to perceive what heaven is like, how can I know what to expect? What if man's being created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) means that God chose to bestow upon us a mere five of the millions of senses that exist in His absolute reality? Wow, can you even begin to imagine the countless possibilities that would open up?

Of course, you can't, nor can I. We're both human; and our five senses are all we've got to work with down here. But just the thought of such a place gives me chills.

The other part of this is a bit less encouraging. If this (or something similar to it which human-tongues cannot even begin to describe) turns out to be the true reality that we are all searching so desperately for, we might as well just give it up right now!

"Give up the quest for knowledge?" you ask. "Surely, this is some evil ploy to diminish the value and importance of receiving a college education."

Don't worry, I am attempting to do nothing of the sort. I would only argue that attaining absolute knowledge here in this life is out of the question. I can say that I know two things absolutely: 1) There is a God and 2) I am not Him. Still, these statements are made on faith, and seeking to prove them absolutely would be like seeking to become God myself, thus attempting to violate statement 2 (though, unlikely to succeed).

However, I am far from being discouraged by the realization of the limits of my mind placed upon it by the body in which it dwells. I still seek out the truth daily because I believe that it exists and I believe that God has granted us access to it (albeit limited at this time by these fleshly bodies) through His Word and through His Son.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
--II Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
--John 14:6 (NIV)

With this faith in both the Word of God and the Son of God to guide me to the truth and a better understanding of that absolute reality which is God Himself, I can humbly accept this bondage of my mind here in this body, all the while eagerly awaiting the pardon that my soul has been promised. Thus, despite the "wretched man that I am," I, like Paul, can rejoice in He who has bridged the gap between this reality here on earth, and the perfect and absolute reality to come through dwelling in the very presence of God...forever.

"Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
--Romans 7:25a (NIV)

I'm a Rookie

2007-01-19T00:48:00.000-05:00

lkj;asfdasdlkjafsdlkj;dsfa

Sorry, about that...not really sure what happened. Rookie mistake, I'm sure.

Have you ever thought about how many times in life you've been a rookie? You know: "first-timer," "amateur," "neophyte." Any of those sound like you? (And no, I do not have an annoyingly large vocabulary, I simply take advantage of sites like Thesaurus.com in order to give off the appearance of sagacity...yeah, that word wasn't mine either).

Well, back to the point. The reason I bring up such a question is that, in typing this post, I once again find myself in an all too familiar yet ever unfamiliar position...rookiedom.

I've been a rookie before many times. The first thing to come to mind of course is sports. Hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball, football, golf (oh, wait...this is the "sports" category...I'll have to edit that one out later...), cricket, tennis, ping-pong, volleyball...you name it, I've played it. And in order to play a sport or do anything in this life, there has to be a first time.

Some would say that there's a first time for everything. I disagree. For me, there will never be a first time for fire-breathing, a first time for labor pains, a first time for belly-button piercing, or a first time for cannabilism. There are just some things that I never plan to try in this life (nor, Lord willing, in the life to come...especially the fire-breathing).

Though for everything that I do decide to try for the first time, there's always that feeling of uncertainty and nervousness about not knowing what's in store. "What am I getting myself into?" "Am I about to make a fool of myself?" "Is this going to leave a mark?" And on, and on.

However, these thoughts are also usually accompanied by eager anticipation of what the Lord may have in store. "How is this going to change my life for the better?" "Am I going to find something new and exciting that I enjoy and excel at?" "What might I be about to learn and discover?"

These are just a few of my musings and contemplations as I begin my first ever attempt at a blog (these and that nagging voice in my head that keeps trying to convince me that sleep is not actually an obstacle meant to be overcome). I really have no idea what thoughts and ideas will end up being included in my posts, or if they'll even be any good.

I suppose that, in writing this blog, I am somewhat at the mercy of my professor (this blog being one small step for a class...) and even moreso at the mercy of the always unpredictable musings of my inner being (...and one giant leap for my mind!). But whatever ends up coming out of these slower-than-convenient fingers of mine, you can be sure that it will come straight from the bottom of my heart and right off the top of my head (actually, I'll probably put a lot of thought into the things I decide to write, I usually do. I just couldn't resist using that nice poetic contrast there. I hope you'll forgive me).

And now for some more homework! (And, maybe some music to drown out that annoying voice in my head...)