So one cool part of house sitting for Gramps is that I can keep up with Season 3 of Dexter on On-Demand.
I was introduced to the show by Jonathon. I liked it but I think that Jonathon and I have very much different interpretations of the show based upon our lives. I see the whole serial-killer thing as less than secondary the main thrust of the show and why it is successful is because the character Dexter is going through the kinds of things that are completely normal for a guy: compartmentalization, trust issues, the emotions of women. Jonathon seems to focus on the alienation that Dexter feels as if it were something particular to a small set of special people: serial killers and other moody loners.
I don't think there is any way to convince him that aside from killing people Dexter is a completely normal person and the way he processes emotion is common place. But oh well.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
25 things
Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.
(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)
1. I was not tagged to do this by anyone
2. I'm doing this instead of prepare for tonight's Bible Study
3. I am very arrogant and prideful and vain and am happy when people recognize this.
4. I get cold pretty easily and consider it horrible.
5. I keep the feet heater on in my car even in hot weather... I guess you could say I have a permanent case of cold feet.
6. I have only had one kissing girlfriend in my life and wish I hadn't had that many.
7. I do not consider myself shy.
8. I do consider myself judgmental.
9. I have coffee with my grandfather every Sunday morning.
10. I respect the idea of dogs more than cats but like/dislike animals on an individual basis.
11. I believe I am great with children.
12. I refuse to lose any argument with a child.
13. I freely admit to a child when I was wrong.
14. I defer to a child's parent authority regardless of what I think about their parenting abilities.
15. I do not like to cook for myself or others.
16. I probably eat very poorly.
17. I have never had more than five hundred dollars of credit card debt.
18. I am listening to the soundtrack to "Edward Scissorhands" right now.
19. I hate it when a text has a word underlined because of spelling errors. I especially hate it when it is a word that I am going to keep... like "scissorhands."
20. My sister is pregnant and when people ask me when she is due I can only shrug and guess something like three months.
21. I voted for President Obama and President Bush.
22. I wonder when Obama will no longer be underlined as a misspelled word.
23. I respect Jemuel more than anyone I have ever met... but do not want to be more like him!
24. I do not believe Jemuel will ever cease to be considered a misspelled word.
25. I will not tag anybody with this list.
(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)
1. I was not tagged to do this by anyone
2. I'm doing this instead of prepare for tonight's Bible Study
3. I am very arrogant and prideful and vain and am happy when people recognize this.
4. I get cold pretty easily and consider it horrible.
5. I keep the feet heater on in my car even in hot weather... I guess you could say I have a permanent case of cold feet.
6. I have only had one kissing girlfriend in my life and wish I hadn't had that many.
7. I do not consider myself shy.
8. I do consider myself judgmental.
9. I have coffee with my grandfather every Sunday morning.
10. I respect the idea of dogs more than cats but like/dislike animals on an individual basis.
11. I believe I am great with children.
12. I refuse to lose any argument with a child.
13. I freely admit to a child when I was wrong.
14. I defer to a child's parent authority regardless of what I think about their parenting abilities.
15. I do not like to cook for myself or others.
16. I probably eat very poorly.
17. I have never had more than five hundred dollars of credit card debt.
18. I am listening to the soundtrack to "Edward Scissorhands" right now.
19. I hate it when a text has a word underlined because of spelling errors. I especially hate it when it is a word that I am going to keep... like "scissorhands."
20. My sister is pregnant and when people ask me when she is due I can only shrug and guess something like three months.
21. I voted for President Obama and President Bush.
22. I wonder when Obama will no longer be underlined as a misspelled word.
23. I respect Jemuel more than anyone I have ever met... but do not want to be more like him!
24. I do not believe Jemuel will ever cease to be considered a misspelled word.
25. I will not tag anybody with this list.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pres. Obama on Defense
President Obama has posted his position on all the big issues. In the following weeks I'm going to comment on his position. Check it out for yourself at www.whitehouse.gov but watch out my porn blocker won't let me go to www.whitehouse.com who knows what that means! who knows what that means.
Disclaimer I am very much a layman when it comes to military issues. I have values but not a whole lot of knowledge about the nuts and bolts of how it works. Here is what the President says:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.
Invest in a 21st Century Military
meh... aside from funding what is the military asking for?
Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:
I would support an increase of military population but are we talking about accountants/cooks/janitors/bureacrats necessary for the militray to function or actual fighting soliders.
Leadership from the Top:
I am in support of this.
Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:
sounds nice
Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century
Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:
okay
Review Weapons Programs:
I guess this is a nice way of saying that we will not be continuing n the Star Wars proggram.
Preserve Global Reach in the Air:
The Air Force gets the first nod. Meh, I'd give it to the fighting soliders which exist in all of the branches of the military.
Maintain Power Projection at Sea:
second nod to the navy.
National Missile Defense:
yeah they are cutting down missile defense
Ensure Freedom of Space:
yeah they are cutting star wars too
Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:
cool
Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves
Equip, Support, and Modernize the National Guard and Reserves: "They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..." that seems huge to me and will ruffle a lot of feathers but I think will help maintain our local military population.
Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:
meh, I am sure someone in the field understands this better than me.
Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
If this is a means to split the military into fighting troops and support personel (with different classification and benefits) I support it.
Restore Our Alliances
Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:
that's nice... we'll see how it goes.
Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:
"win hearts and minds in the process"
okay sounds cool.
Reform Contracting
Create Transparency for Military Contractors:
meh
Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:
I've heard that no-bid contracting is bad... that is about it.
Disclaimer I am very much a layman when it comes to military issues. I have values but not a whole lot of knowledge about the nuts and bolts of how it works. Here is what the President says:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.
Invest in a 21st Century Military
meh... aside from funding what is the military asking for?
Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:
I would support an increase of military population but are we talking about accountants/cooks/janitors/bureacrats necessary for the militray to function or actual fighting soliders.
Leadership from the Top:
I am in support of this.
Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:
sounds nice
Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century
Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:
okay
Review Weapons Programs:
I guess this is a nice way of saying that we will not be continuing n the Star Wars proggram.
Preserve Global Reach in the Air:
The Air Force gets the first nod. Meh, I'd give it to the fighting soliders which exist in all of the branches of the military.
Maintain Power Projection at Sea:
second nod to the navy.
National Missile Defense:
yeah they are cutting down missile defense
Ensure Freedom of Space:
yeah they are cutting star wars too
Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:
cool
Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves
Equip, Support, and Modernize the National Guard and Reserves: "They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..." that seems huge to me and will ruffle a lot of feathers but I think will help maintain our local military population.
Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:
meh, I am sure someone in the field understands this better than me.
Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
If this is a means to split the military into fighting troops and support personel (with different classification and benefits) I support it.
Restore Our Alliances
Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:
that's nice... we'll see how it goes.
Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:
"win hearts and minds in the process"
okay sounds cool.
Reform Contracting
Create Transparency for Military Contractors:
meh
Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:
I've heard that no-bid contracting is bad... that is about it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
President Obama on Civil Rights
President Obama has posted his position on all the big issues. In the following weeks I'm going to comment on his position. Check it out for yourself at www.whitehouse.gov but watch out my porn blocker won't let me go to www.whitehouse.com who knows what that means!
CIVIL RIGHTS
President Barack Obama has spent much of his career fighting to strengthen civil rights as a civil rights attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator, and now as President. Whether promoting economic opportunity, working to improve our nation's education and health system, or protecting the right to vote, President Obama has been a powerful advocate for our civil rights.
* Combat Employment Discrimination:
I am in favor.
* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor with reservations.
* End Deceptive Voting Practices:
I am strongly in favor.
* End Racial Profiling:
I am strongly in favor though I recognize this will make law enforcement more difficult. But better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent be punished. If you disagree I suggest you volunteer to be the innocent who is punished.
* Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support:
I strongly support.
* Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
I left the text on this one because the title does not suggest the text.
I am in favor, though believe that the classification of sentencing belongs to the judicial and legislative branch. The executive branch enforces the law; it does not write it.
* Expand Use of Drug Courts:
I am strongly in favor.
Support for the LGBT Community
* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor though with reservations.
* Fight Workplace Discrimination:
I am in favor.
* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples:
I am neutral.
* Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:
I am not in favor with this position but without great interest.
* Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
I am not an expert on the specifics of this law but in general believe that this issue ought to be deferred to military personnel rather than civilian politicians.
Therefore I oppose this issue.
* Expand Adoption Rights:
Breaking with social conservatives I oppose a ban on gay adoption. We are all sinners and there is no reason that this one particular sin ought the be given extra weight in determining worthiness to parent. I wouldn't oppose allowing it to carry some weight but to be an absolute bar is unmerited.
Therefore I am in favor.
* Promote AIDS Prevention:
* Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS:
In the last ten years this issue seems to be less and less a LGBT issue, but of course I support government action to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.
CIVIL RIGHTS
President Barack Obama has spent much of his career fighting to strengthen civil rights as a civil rights attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator, and now as President. Whether promoting economic opportunity, working to improve our nation's education and health system, or protecting the right to vote, President Obama has been a powerful advocate for our civil rights.
* Combat Employment Discrimination:
I am in favor.
* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor with reservations.
* End Deceptive Voting Practices:
I am strongly in favor.
* End Racial Profiling:
I am strongly in favor though I recognize this will make law enforcement more difficult. But better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent be punished. If you disagree I suggest you volunteer to be the innocent who is punished.
* Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support:
I strongly support.
* Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
I left the text on this one because the title does not suggest the text.
I am in favor, though believe that the classification of sentencing belongs to the judicial and legislative branch. The executive branch enforces the law; it does not write it.
* Expand Use of Drug Courts:
I am strongly in favor.
Support for the LGBT Community
* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor though with reservations.
* Fight Workplace Discrimination:
I am in favor.
* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples:
I am neutral.
* Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:
I am not in favor with this position but without great interest.
* Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
I am not an expert on the specifics of this law but in general believe that this issue ought to be deferred to military personnel rather than civilian politicians.
Therefore I oppose this issue.
* Expand Adoption Rights:
Breaking with social conservatives I oppose a ban on gay adoption. We are all sinners and there is no reason that this one particular sin ought the be given extra weight in determining worthiness to parent. I wouldn't oppose allowing it to carry some weight but to be an absolute bar is unmerited.
Therefore I am in favor.
* Promote AIDS Prevention:
* Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS:
In the last ten years this issue seems to be less and less a LGBT issue, but of course I support government action to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.
On the Internet Again
I love getting my responses on the internet! This was posted on ESPN.com from the AFC West mail bag asking if the Chiefs should fire Edwards:
Michael Gardner from Fremont, CA: As a Raiders fan I am fortunate to have a good friend who is a Chiefs fan. Seeing Edwards performance from his perspective I see enough positives to wish my team had that much light at the end of the tunnel... and I have seen enough negatives to know he wouldn't have lasted this long in Oakland. It seems a good rule of thumb to ask "What would Al Davis do?" and then do the opposite. Of course, that puts me in a contradiction because Al Davis would have fired Al Davis a long time ago
Michael Gardner from Fremont, CA: As a Raiders fan I am fortunate to have a good friend who is a Chiefs fan. Seeing Edwards performance from his perspective I see enough positives to wish my team had that much light at the end of the tunnel... and I have seen enough negatives to know he wouldn't have lasted this long in Oakland. It seems a good rule of thumb to ask "What would Al Davis do?" and then do the opposite. Of course, that puts me in a contradiction because Al Davis would have fired Al Davis a long time ago
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dan Savage, Rick Warren Debate
I wrote:
In your response to "Faithful Obama Girl" you refer to Rick Warren as a "gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot." I found this confusing. I can understand that he represents a political/social faction which has an agenda opposed to your own. I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine how any criticism of a gay lifestyle takes a sinister aura when it has a religious basis. However, is it accurate to describe Warren this way? Certainly, he does speak against the gay lifestyle, but would you say that anyone who does this is a hateful bigot? Is there a difference between the beliefs of Rick Warren and those of Fred Phelps?
I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps. I would disagree but differentiate between that description and the one you gave.
A Biblical Christian
In your response to "Faithful Obama Girl" you refer to Rick Warren as a "gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot." I found this confusing. I can understand that he represents a political/social faction which has an agenda opposed to your own. I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine how any criticism of a gay lifestyle takes a sinister aura when it has a religious basis. However, is it accurate to describe Warren this way? Certainly, he does speak against the gay lifestyle, but would you say that anyone who does this is a hateful bigot? Is there a difference between the beliefs of Rick Warren and those of Fred Phelps?
I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps. I would disagree but differentiate between that description and the one you gave.
A Biblical Christian
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
President Obama
In the past my normal response to the election of a new President has been blase. To a certain degree that is still I feel; however the peaceful transition of power is an amazing event in any nation and I believe that it only occurs with the blessing of the Lord, God Almighty.
As a Christian I hope the best from our new President and will continue to support our nation through this new era, as pleases God. Until Jesus returns and reigns on earth it is the duty of all people to work to live in peace with their government because He gave the government the authority it has. So I will be continue to pray for the leaders of my nation, giving the correct respect, paying my taxes and obeying laws.
I voted for President Obama, though without great enthusiasm. But as an actively engaged citizen am fully prepared help our new president lead our nation towards righteousness as is pleasing to our lord Jesus Christ.
p.s. I also look forward to the day "Obama" does not show itself as a misspelled word by my spell check.
As a Christian I hope the best from our new President and will continue to support our nation through this new era, as pleases God. Until Jesus returns and reigns on earth it is the duty of all people to work to live in peace with their government because He gave the government the authority it has. So I will be continue to pray for the leaders of my nation, giving the correct respect, paying my taxes and obeying laws.
I voted for President Obama, though without great enthusiasm. But as an actively engaged citizen am fully prepared help our new president lead our nation towards righteousness as is pleasing to our lord Jesus Christ.
p.s. I also look forward to the day "Obama" does not show itself as a misspelled word by my spell check.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Calvinism Continued
So I am currently at chapter 12 of "The Basic Ideas of Calvinism 6th ed." and find myself not just agreeing with Calvinism but enjoying their style. It is pretty rare for a text book to get points for style but all that really means is that sometimes the author will say things I have also said.
For example concerning the chapter "The Best Form of Government" that author says "The best guarantee of the workability of a government lies not in its form (monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) but in the moral and spiritual fiber of its people. With good people almost any kind of government will work. With absolutely depraved people no type will work." I've long defended that view and enjoy hearing someone else say it.
As for the controversial beliefs of Calvinism I will comment. But in my own tip of the hat to Calvinist methods am not commenting on the truth of the doctrine but upon its Biblical-ness:
Foundational Principle: So the basis of Calvinism is declared to be the sovereignty of God. In the text all denominations are ascribed a basis that is more like a prejudice or special emphasis. For example Baptist might emphasis conversion, Pentecostals the Holy Spirit, Roman Catholics the unity/catholicity of the but Calvinist believe that the most important Christian principle is the truth that God is in complete absolute control of everything and that nothing is out of His control.
I can imagine the dangers of each of these position. The Baptist who says "Don't worry about me I accepted Christ years ago." The Pentecostal who feels the Holy Spirit wants them to have sex with their girlfriend. The Roman Catholic who obeys a Papal decree despite its obvious ungodliness. The Calvinist who refuses charity to the oppressed because it must be God's will. But like with form of government these denominations are great if they are practiced by faithful Christians and without value if they are populated with faithless hypocrites.
If I were to present what I believe is the foundational, most important first principle of the Bible it would not be the sovereignty of God, but the identity of God. Sovereignty is a part of the identity of God, so is salvation, Spirit and unity of believers but the foundation of God is "I AM." It is not God's sovereignty that is first but God Himself.
For example concerning the chapter "The Best Form of Government" that author says "The best guarantee of the workability of a government lies not in its form (monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) but in the moral and spiritual fiber of its people. With good people almost any kind of government will work. With absolutely depraved people no type will work." I've long defended that view and enjoy hearing someone else say it.
As for the controversial beliefs of Calvinism I will comment. But in my own tip of the hat to Calvinist methods am not commenting on the truth of the doctrine but upon its Biblical-ness:
Foundational Principle: So the basis of Calvinism is declared to be the sovereignty of God. In the text all denominations are ascribed a basis that is more like a prejudice or special emphasis. For example Baptist might emphasis conversion, Pentecostals the Holy Spirit, Roman Catholics the unity/catholicity of the but Calvinist believe that the most important Christian principle is the truth that God is in complete absolute control of everything and that nothing is out of His control.
I can imagine the dangers of each of these position. The Baptist who says "Don't worry about me I accepted Christ years ago." The Pentecostal who feels the Holy Spirit wants them to have sex with their girlfriend. The Roman Catholic who obeys a Papal decree despite its obvious ungodliness. The Calvinist who refuses charity to the oppressed because it must be God's will. But like with form of government these denominations are great if they are practiced by faithful Christians and without value if they are populated with faithless hypocrites.
If I were to present what I believe is the foundational, most important first principle of the Bible it would not be the sovereignty of God, but the identity of God. Sovereignty is a part of the identity of God, so is salvation, Spirit and unity of believers but the foundation of God is "I AM." It is not God's sovereignty that is first but God Himself.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Working Out
So I've started working out. :(
I think Kirstin's reaction to this pretty much summarizes how I think of lifting weights. She said "What's that about?"
I have long valued the idea of regular exercise but have recognized that my main motivation for working out would be to look sexy for hot chicks. I have always lived this sort of double life between being vain and having contempt for vanity. In general though I have stayed away from this because I wouldn't trust myself if hot chicks were throwing themselves at me.
So with my motivations so murky I never exercised.
But recently Nate started working out. I've never worried about other people's motivations. He asked me if I wanted to start exercising too. I said yes because I do need to exercise if I am going to live past fifty and also it is just something to do with the guys. If the guys are getting together to jump off of bridges I would totally be doing that too.
It is a fact that in no way shape or form could I imagine working out by myself. I mean, it's hard! But with a group of friends, it is just what you're doing. So three days a week I work out with Jesse, Nate and Adam Richman.
It is a huge encouragement love fest. It is all "you can do it" "come on, come on" and "yeah, good job." It's high on positive affirmation and low on the pretense and posturing I often associate with stereotypical physical activities.
Jesse and Nate are currently on vacation in Peru (praying for your safety and Spirit guys!). So it is just Adam and myself. It is pretty cool making a new friend.
I think Kirstin's reaction to this pretty much summarizes how I think of lifting weights. She said "What's that about?"
I have long valued the idea of regular exercise but have recognized that my main motivation for working out would be to look sexy for hot chicks. I have always lived this sort of double life between being vain and having contempt for vanity. In general though I have stayed away from this because I wouldn't trust myself if hot chicks were throwing themselves at me.
So with my motivations so murky I never exercised.
But recently Nate started working out. I've never worried about other people's motivations. He asked me if I wanted to start exercising too. I said yes because I do need to exercise if I am going to live past fifty and also it is just something to do with the guys. If the guys are getting together to jump off of bridges I would totally be doing that too.
It is a fact that in no way shape or form could I imagine working out by myself. I mean, it's hard! But with a group of friends, it is just what you're doing. So three days a week I work out with Jesse, Nate and Adam Richman.
It is a huge encouragement love fest. It is all "you can do it" "come on, come on" and "yeah, good job." It's high on positive affirmation and low on the pretense and posturing I often associate with stereotypical physical activities.
Jesse and Nate are currently on vacation in Peru (praying for your safety and Spirit guys!). So it is just Adam and myself. It is pretty cool making a new friend.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
True Story about the Nature of Superheroes
So Jacob (nephew age 5) is ALL about Spiderman. He wants to be Spiderman when he grows up. After seeing Spiderman 3 he decides for certain he wants to be red Spiderman (the good guy). That's encouraging. Spiderman 3 got a lot of flack from comic hipsters for its black and white moralistic themes, but it has been useful in talking to Jacob about the nature of forgiveness and strength.
But one day he proclaims "I am red Spiderman! Issac is black Spiderman! Let's fight!" Issac (nephew age 3) loves to fight too, but I say "No way Jose! Isaac is not a bad guy. He can't be black Spiderman."
"Well then who is he?" Jacob asks.
"Uh... Issac will be Batman." I say.
"Okay, I am red Spiderman. Issac is Batman. Let's fight!" And so it goes. :-)
But a while later Jacob asks me "Well who are you, Uncle Michael?"
I think for a minute, then stand up strait and strong saying, "I am Superman!"
"Okay," Jacob says, "Let's fight."
...
Next week I take the boys to Crossroads and afterwards am giving Nate a ride to work. Nate is wearing a Superman shirt; Jacob sees this and confronts me with dread seriousness.
"You aren't Superman!" he says with accusation. "He is!"
Well this will not stand. Monday I actually pay full price for a piece of non-work related clothing and buy a Superman shirt. I wear it next Sunday but on the way I find out that Isaac has fallen out a window! I rush to the hospital worried sick and when I see him in the hospital bed it is only worse. His face is a cut up and he is doped up and I am tearing up just thinking about it.
I gently take his hand filled with pain. He looks up at me with wonder in his eyes and says "Superman?"
We smile in spite ourselves and I says "Yes, it's Superman."
Then his eyes squint dangerously and he half says and half growls "I'm Batman!"
I knew he was okay.
But one day he proclaims "I am red Spiderman! Issac is black Spiderman! Let's fight!" Issac (nephew age 3) loves to fight too, but I say "No way Jose! Isaac is not a bad guy. He can't be black Spiderman."
"Well then who is he?" Jacob asks.
"Uh... Issac will be Batman." I say.
"Okay, I am red Spiderman. Issac is Batman. Let's fight!" And so it goes. :-)
But a while later Jacob asks me "Well who are you, Uncle Michael?"
I think for a minute, then stand up strait and strong saying, "I am Superman!"
"Okay," Jacob says, "Let's fight."
...
Next week I take the boys to Crossroads and afterwards am giving Nate a ride to work. Nate is wearing a Superman shirt; Jacob sees this and confronts me with dread seriousness.
"You aren't Superman!" he says with accusation. "He is!"
Well this will not stand. Monday I actually pay full price for a piece of non-work related clothing and buy a Superman shirt. I wear it next Sunday but on the way I find out that Isaac has fallen out a window! I rush to the hospital worried sick and when I see him in the hospital bed it is only worse. His face is a cut up and he is doped up and I am tearing up just thinking about it.
I gently take his hand filled with pain. He looks up at me with wonder in his eyes and says "Superman?"
We smile in spite ourselves and I says "Yes, it's Superman."
Then his eyes squint dangerously and he half says and half growls "I'm Batman!"
I knew he was okay.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
"The Basic Ideas of Calvinism- ch.2 The Place of the Bible"
"If God is the all controlling thought in the [Christian] system [as opposed to God and some other equally important principle], it is natural then that the [Christian] will want to see all things as God wants him to see them and aim to carry out God's will in all things. From this fact one can readily infer what place the Bible will occupy in the system and the life of the [Christian]. He will make God's Word the canon, which means the rule, for his life. It will be the rule of faith (which guides his intellect) and practice (which determines his daily duty)."
I replaced the word "Calvinist" with "Christian" as seen in the brackets. Up to this point in the book I have yet to encounter any position which I do not consider the definition of what it means to be a Christian.
I interjected the line "as opposed to God and some other equally important principle" because I have encountered plenty of people who are supportive of Christianity as far as it supports their co-principle. So a Republican or Communist might quote from the Bible but is not troubled by parts of the Bible which do not support their view. It is my belief that the contemporary danger within the church is not paganism or outright rejection of God but a half-allegience where God is tolerated as opposed to obeyed.
Feeling good
In "Amelie" they sort of mock that Amelie's parents enjoy emptying something cleaning the inside and then putting everything back in again. I cleaned my car yesterday and feel GREAT about it. I think that pretty much describes what I disliked about "Amelie."
Of course, that is easy for me because I am perfectly secure with that I am not living a banal life.
My response to the positive feeling of a clean car has been to play a lot less video games and to write more letters.
But in addition to cleaning my car I have also started exercising with some of the guys and have gotten back into personal Bible study time. I am not particularly interested in the casuality of it all, but I started the exercise first.
Of course, that is easy for me because I am perfectly secure with that I am not living a banal life.
My response to the positive feeling of a clean car has been to play a lot less video games and to write more letters.
But in addition to cleaning my car I have also started exercising with some of the guys and have gotten back into personal Bible study time. I am not particularly interested in the casuality of it all, but I started the exercise first.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Depraved Nature of Man
I am reading an introduction to the tenants of Calvinism.
I like the way the book approaches the issue. It is a text book that I found but starts by wanting to establish the fundamental principle of Calvinism. The idea of Pre-destination and the depraved nature of man are the most controversial Calvinist ideas but it makes sense that they are not the key, fundamental be-all end-all of any system of thought.
The author establishes that "the sovereignty of God" as the central theme of Calvinism in the same way that the catholicity of the church is the central theme of the Roman Catholic church or salvation through grace is central to Lutheranism. But that is not what I'm writing about.
What I disagree about is the statement "the Bible maintains that man is totally depraved." It is not that I am a huge defender of the mankind and am dead set against the idea that we are depraved... it is that through my reading of the Bible I could not say that it says that man is "totally depraved."
Perhaps the statement is poorly made by Calvinist or maybe it means something other than the common use of the word. The common use of the word, in my best understanding, is that to be "totally depraved" is to be completely without any boundaries or conscience at all, to be a maniac and fully without any virtue at all, worthy of nothing except destruction.
Where Calvinism and I agree is that the Bible presents a picture in which each man is on a path that either leads to perfection with God, through Jesus Christ or else is on a path that leads to total depravity. Everyone is sort of good and sort of bad but if extended towards eternity we are progressing/digressing towards one state of the other. If that is what Calvinism states then we agree... but they state it poorly... they state it incorrectly.
But if my understanding of what it means to be "totally depraved" is correct then the Bible does not present or teach that people are currently depraved. It also does not present or teach that only Christians or Jews are the only kind of people who have virtue. For example Jesus makes a point about some virtue that his contemporaries posessed and he said "Even pagans do this." This would suggest that not all pagans are eating their children.
How I would state the issue in a way I believe best describes what the Bible says over all is that without divine intervention all men are on a path that will lead to complete depravity and that our best efforts are insufficient to solve this. If I interpret the Calvinist tenant that way I have yet to encounter any problem with their theology (so far... I'm like on chapter 2)
I like the way the book approaches the issue. It is a text book that I found but starts by wanting to establish the fundamental principle of Calvinism. The idea of Pre-destination and the depraved nature of man are the most controversial Calvinist ideas but it makes sense that they are not the key, fundamental be-all end-all of any system of thought.
The author establishes that "the sovereignty of God" as the central theme of Calvinism in the same way that the catholicity of the church is the central theme of the Roman Catholic church or salvation through grace is central to Lutheranism. But that is not what I'm writing about.
What I disagree about is the statement "the Bible maintains that man is totally depraved." It is not that I am a huge defender of the mankind and am dead set against the idea that we are depraved... it is that through my reading of the Bible I could not say that it says that man is "totally depraved."
Perhaps the statement is poorly made by Calvinist or maybe it means something other than the common use of the word. The common use of the word, in my best understanding, is that to be "totally depraved" is to be completely without any boundaries or conscience at all, to be a maniac and fully without any virtue at all, worthy of nothing except destruction.
Where Calvinism and I agree is that the Bible presents a picture in which each man is on a path that either leads to perfection with God, through Jesus Christ or else is on a path that leads to total depravity. Everyone is sort of good and sort of bad but if extended towards eternity we are progressing/digressing towards one state of the other. If that is what Calvinism states then we agree... but they state it poorly... they state it incorrectly.
But if my understanding of what it means to be "totally depraved" is correct then the Bible does not present or teach that people are currently depraved. It also does not present or teach that only Christians or Jews are the only kind of people who have virtue. For example Jesus makes a point about some virtue that his contemporaries posessed and he said "Even pagans do this." This would suggest that not all pagans are eating their children.
How I would state the issue in a way I believe best describes what the Bible says over all is that without divine intervention all men are on a path that will lead to complete depravity and that our best efforts are insufficient to solve this. If I interpret the Calvinist tenant that way I have yet to encounter any problem with their theology (so far... I'm like on chapter 2)
MacBeth
Jemuel is starting a tradition of giving experiences for Christmas intead of stuff. He started by taking Bev to the Nutcracker but found out that ballet actually doesn't do much for Bev. Maybe she is rooting for the mice.
This year he took her to the circus and me to see a local production of MacBeth.
It was excellent. I was already a big fan of the play but this was about as well done as you could imagine it could be done on a stage of that size.
Excellent points:
In Shake plays one of the difficulties is that the characters will sometimes talk to the audience tell you what they are thinking. It is sometimes kind of awkward in modern times because it seems kind of out of place. To solve this the directors would darken all the lights except for a spot light on the character's face and then put on tense sounds/music. It worked really really well.
The guys who played MacBeth was able to master the shades of a noble who needs to impress the other nobles, the wishy washy husband, the tormented warrior and the kick ass fighter. That is a wide range. Some of the times I was completely taken in by the charms of a fighting man and at other times thinking "you bastard!"
The music/sound overall was well crafted and only added to the atmosphere, never taking away. It was interesting and yet also natural feeling.
Weak point:
Not so much a weak point but I had some issues with Lady MacBeth. She was portrayed as fun and frisky instead of the scheming and dominating. I always thought of her as one of the most evil baddies in Shake but this lady Macbeth was almost a victim.
Also not super weak but costumes were only so-so. They weren't horrible but didn't add a whole lot. Sometimes suits sometimes clean and ironed biker clothes. Meh.
But still over all I'd give the play a A- and recomend anyone interesting in spending 25 bucks to do it... unless you hate Shake.
This year he took her to the circus and me to see a local production of MacBeth.
It was excellent. I was already a big fan of the play but this was about as well done as you could imagine it could be done on a stage of that size.
Excellent points:
In Shake plays one of the difficulties is that the characters will sometimes talk to the audience tell you what they are thinking. It is sometimes kind of awkward in modern times because it seems kind of out of place. To solve this the directors would darken all the lights except for a spot light on the character's face and then put on tense sounds/music. It worked really really well.
The guys who played MacBeth was able to master the shades of a noble who needs to impress the other nobles, the wishy washy husband, the tormented warrior and the kick ass fighter. That is a wide range. Some of the times I was completely taken in by the charms of a fighting man and at other times thinking "you bastard!"
The music/sound overall was well crafted and only added to the atmosphere, never taking away. It was interesting and yet also natural feeling.
Weak point:
Not so much a weak point but I had some issues with Lady MacBeth. She was portrayed as fun and frisky instead of the scheming and dominating. I always thought of her as one of the most evil baddies in Shake but this lady Macbeth was almost a victim.
Also not super weak but costumes were only so-so. They weren't horrible but didn't add a whole lot. Sometimes suits sometimes clean and ironed biker clothes. Meh.
But still over all I'd give the play a A- and recomend anyone interesting in spending 25 bucks to do it... unless you hate Shake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)