So I want to win a raffle from Classroom Friendly school supplies because they have the best pencil sharpeners ever. It is hand cranked which makes it quiet and also students won't use them just for the thrill of of the power sharpener. Plus it makes the pencils really sharp without breaking the lead.
The only weakness is that they are made in China instead of the USA.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Monday, September 12, 2011
Patriarchy and King's Kids
Wikipedia defines patriarchy as such:
The standing definition seems to imply (without directly saying of course) that the purpose of a patriarchy is to serve the desires of men if a man's role in a patriarchy were limited to sitting around having grapes plopped in his mouth by beautiful women. History of course has never allowed any society to be run this way and the few households that ran this was were not sustainable. And whatever criticism can be laid at the feet of patriarchy it must be acknowledged that it does have the ability to sustain itself across generations.
What is missing in the modern discussion of patriarchy is that the role of the patriarch is to serve his dependents NOT to be served by them. His role is provider and protector. He worked in the fields, fought in wars and built the city walls, that was his job.
Of course many will still be glad that patriarchy is greatly diminished in Western Society. And I have never solved the struggle between egalitarian and patriarchical models for myself and my family BUT if we are to reject patriarchy, let us reject it for what it is rather a straw man.
Which leads me to my reaction of the Prosperity Gospel argument that God provides material wealth to those he loves just as a good father provides material needs to his children.
The problem with Prosperity Gospel which is most difficult is that it does have a Biblical basis. to listen to the Christian critics one would think that those who teach to Prosperity Gospel basically throw the Bible out the window and make the whole thing up for their own interest. The Bible has a ton to say about God providing for the needs of His people, Old and New Testament. However the Prosperity Gospel defenders make the same mistake of the critics of patriarchy: they assume that the purpose of wealth and power is for those who have it simply to enjoy to it without regard to responsibility to others.
To be sure one aspect of wealth is gain your desires. But that is only one part of it and by itself lacks meaning leading to despair. Those who celebrate the Prosperity Gospel state, with great faith, that they are the King's Kids... and that IS how Christians should see themselves. But imagine a good King who had a child who took all of the gifts and privileges of royalty and squandered them on pleasure and vanity and self interest. Wouldn't that King be grieved and ashamed of their child? Wouldn't the good King want their child to serve the Kingdom?
This is especially troubling of metaphor if you continue the metaphor and say the Kingdom is in a state of emergency and many of the King's Kids have been kidnapped and lost (like Disney's Tangled). What an outrage if a prince and princess were delighting themselves with balls and tourneys while their royal brothers and sisters were in enemy hands!
So I agree those of us who trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been adopted into the family of God and can expect help and provision from our Heavenly Father. We truly are King's Kids but the Kingdom requires responsibility and not privilege.
Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.On the whole I have no problem with this clinical definition EXCEPT for the part about privilege. I would replace that word with "responsibility."
The standing definition seems to imply (without directly saying of course) that the purpose of a patriarchy is to serve the desires of men if a man's role in a patriarchy were limited to sitting around having grapes plopped in his mouth by beautiful women. History of course has never allowed any society to be run this way and the few households that ran this was were not sustainable. And whatever criticism can be laid at the feet of patriarchy it must be acknowledged that it does have the ability to sustain itself across generations.
What is missing in the modern discussion of patriarchy is that the role of the patriarch is to serve his dependents NOT to be served by them. His role is provider and protector. He worked in the fields, fought in wars and built the city walls, that was his job.
Of course many will still be glad that patriarchy is greatly diminished in Western Society. And I have never solved the struggle between egalitarian and patriarchical models for myself and my family BUT if we are to reject patriarchy, let us reject it for what it is rather a straw man.
Which leads me to my reaction of the Prosperity Gospel argument that God provides material wealth to those he loves just as a good father provides material needs to his children.
The problem with Prosperity Gospel which is most difficult is that it does have a Biblical basis. to listen to the Christian critics one would think that those who teach to Prosperity Gospel basically throw the Bible out the window and make the whole thing up for their own interest. The Bible has a ton to say about God providing for the needs of His people, Old and New Testament. However the Prosperity Gospel defenders make the same mistake of the critics of patriarchy: they assume that the purpose of wealth and power is for those who have it simply to enjoy to it without regard to responsibility to others.
To be sure one aspect of wealth is gain your desires. But that is only one part of it and by itself lacks meaning leading to despair. Those who celebrate the Prosperity Gospel state, with great faith, that they are the King's Kids... and that IS how Christians should see themselves. But imagine a good King who had a child who took all of the gifts and privileges of royalty and squandered them on pleasure and vanity and self interest. Wouldn't that King be grieved and ashamed of their child? Wouldn't the good King want their child to serve the Kingdom?
This is especially troubling of metaphor if you continue the metaphor and say the Kingdom is in a state of emergency and many of the King's Kids have been kidnapped and lost (like Disney's Tangled). What an outrage if a prince and princess were delighting themselves with balls and tourneys while their royal brothers and sisters were in enemy hands!
So I agree those of us who trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been adopted into the family of God and can expect help and provision from our Heavenly Father. We truly are King's Kids but the Kingdom requires responsibility and not privilege.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Least Privileged Position
In philosophy club, Chris brought up the classic Platonic distinction in art between composer, performer and audience. He noted that much of the philosophy of art deals with deciding which position is the most privileged. Of course, all of them are necessary but I responded with irony "I don't know which is most privileged but most certainly the creator is the least privileged!" There was some agreement there and Mike shared how of all the song he has written it was the one he spent the least time and energy on that received the most praise. I have heard enough singer song writers say something along the same lines.
But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"
The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.
But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"
The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Psalm 119:1-8
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible; it is one super super long Psalm (poem/song) with the first letter of each stanza being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (or so I am told). The unifying theme is God's Law.
The Law is a prickly subject (as this Psalm explores). The problem is that humans have some kind of nature (born that way and what not) and the Law often times requires that those who follow the Law deny their natural desires. That means there is a constant tension between what any person wants and what the Law expects.
This difference gets highlighted in the various issues of sexuality quite often but it applies across the board of behavior. Just like a person has a natural desire to do all kind of things with their genitals so too does a person have a natural desire to do all kinds of things with that gun or with their money or their words.
The Psalmist does not deny this conflict (contrary to popular belief the Bible rarely hides from the difficult questions) but rather makes it the central theme. But the perspective will a little unusual to modern ears because it assumes that the Law is good and human desire (though normal) is not good when it contradicts the Law.
In particular I like Psalm 119 better than other Psalms because the speaker laments his own sinfulness rather than cursing the sinfulness of others:
Verses 5-8 make a dramatic shift and suddenly the Psalmist is transformed from the Pharisee in the temple thanking God for making him into such a good person into the tax collector in the temple afraid to look up but just asking for mercy.
Freud would not be surprised by this transition from high ethical standards to anguish and guilt but I think many in our society would be. All too often morality is seen and used as a weapon against non-believers and those who do not meet up with a person's definition of what is good are shown wrath. This is commonly understood happening in a religious context but covers almost any standard of human behavior: are you a good parent, are you punk, what kind of wine do you drink etc. These standards are most often used to judge other people and less commonly (though not unheard of) used to judge one' own self. And not surprising when we judge ourselves we often tend to be a lot more understanding.
This self inflicted judgment is the next step in maturity because when a standard is used against one's the standard has been judged to be good in-its self. I have never heard of someone really getting down on them self for not being goth enough (after high school any way) but the standard that people use to terrorize themselves is used because it is believed to be actually Good, more worthy than ourselves.
Though Freud would disagree with me (along with many others) the belief that we are not Good is the first step towards the possibility of an ethical life. Now how the Bible would describe the rest of the steps is a topic for another book of the Bible.
The Law is a prickly subject (as this Psalm explores). The problem is that humans have some kind of nature (born that way and what not) and the Law often times requires that those who follow the Law deny their natural desires. That means there is a constant tension between what any person wants and what the Law expects.
This difference gets highlighted in the various issues of sexuality quite often but it applies across the board of behavior. Just like a person has a natural desire to do all kind of things with their genitals so too does a person have a natural desire to do all kinds of things with that gun or with their money or their words.
The Psalmist does not deny this conflict (contrary to popular belief the Bible rarely hides from the difficult questions) but rather makes it the central theme. But the perspective will a little unusual to modern ears because it assumes that the Law is good and human desire (though normal) is not good when it contradicts the Law.
In particular I like Psalm 119 better than other Psalms because the speaker laments his own sinfulness rather than cursing the sinfulness of others:
1. Blessed are the undefiled in the way,Verses 1-4 seem sort of standard advice: You will be happy if.... Now my secular friends and I might have different ways to fill in that blank but from a structural stand point most advice starts the same way: "You will be happy if...." These verses give a little more detail saying not just to walk in the way of the Lord but to do so with a whole heart and with diligence. So half-way obeying is not going to cut it.
Who walk in the law of the Lord!
2. Blessed are those who keep His testimonies,
Who seek Him with a whole heart!
3. They also do no iniquity;
They walk in his ways.
4. You have commanded us
To keep Your precepts diligently.
5. Oh, that my ways were directed
To keep Your statutes!
6. Then I would not be ashamed
When I look into Your commandments.
7. I will praise You with uprightness of heart,
When I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes;
Oh, do not forsake me utterly!
Verses 5-8 make a dramatic shift and suddenly the Psalmist is transformed from the Pharisee in the temple thanking God for making him into such a good person into the tax collector in the temple afraid to look up but just asking for mercy.
Freud would not be surprised by this transition from high ethical standards to anguish and guilt but I think many in our society would be. All too often morality is seen and used as a weapon against non-believers and those who do not meet up with a person's definition of what is good are shown wrath. This is commonly understood happening in a religious context but covers almost any standard of human behavior: are you a good parent, are you punk, what kind of wine do you drink etc. These standards are most often used to judge other people and less commonly (though not unheard of) used to judge one' own self. And not surprising when we judge ourselves we often tend to be a lot more understanding.
This self inflicted judgment is the next step in maturity because when a standard is used against one's the standard has been judged to be good in-its self. I have never heard of someone really getting down on them self for not being goth enough (after high school any way) but the standard that people use to terrorize themselves is used because it is believed to be actually Good, more worthy than ourselves.
Though Freud would disagree with me (along with many others) the belief that we are not Good is the first step towards the possibility of an ethical life. Now how the Bible would describe the rest of the steps is a topic for another book of the Bible.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Gay Stereotyping
Not long ago one of my younger friends posted some shock rocker thing on Facebook and commented that she thought they were gay because of the way they dress and look but their songs are about doing stuff to girls.
I kind of jumped the gun telling her to not be ignorant and that sexual orientation has nothing to do with fashion, or masculinity/femininity. She deleted my comment. I was a bit short with her and she knows me as a Christian. I assume the thinks means I voted for Prop 8 (true) and hate gay people (not true). So that is probably why she doesn't care what I think of her stereotyping gay people.
I am used to being ignored for being argumentative on Facebook so I didn't take it to heart... but I often post a quote "The casualties in the war of ideas are people." And while I pretty much don't care about government politics and how the money is divided up (up to a point) I do care what people think of gay people... especially people who want to supportive of them... because the consequences of these actions cut to the heart of who people are. Unlike Prop 8 this actually matters.
Now the LGTQ community is not going to be giving me any medals for enlightened thought any time soon. We have pretty serious disagreements about sexuality but one this point we are on the same page: Homosexuality has nothing to do with outward appearance. There are plenty of people living up the stereotypes but this is only a fashion statement. I assume this fashion statement is socially constructed as a kind of solidarity with a community which will not reject the person for their sexuality. A person can mimic some stereotype, just like an actor, but the tone of voice, length of hair or choice of occupation has nothing to do with how people have sex.
I guess one of the reasons I care so much is because I had to go through it. I was a pretty gentle little boy in a family with five pretty masculine older brothers. They weren't that bad but there were times where I was made to feel that since I wasn't as tough or athletic as my brothers there was something wrong with me. That wrongness was expressed through the word "gay." Now this was before I even knew what sex was, let alone homosexuality. There result was a lot of pain and confusion.
Now I am not super worried about this girl spending the rest her life assuming every gentle man prefers sex with men and every female mechanic prefers sex with women. Most likely in the next couple of years she will move away from Fremont to San Fransisco (or the equivalent) and meet people in the lgqt community not from Fremont. She'll meet "normal" looking, outrageously masculine, feminine and utterly bizarre people... some of whom prefer sex with their own gender or multiple genders. After a little while in Babylon she'll know better but I still don't want her to put people in boxes till then.
I kind of jumped the gun telling her to not be ignorant and that sexual orientation has nothing to do with fashion, or masculinity/femininity. She deleted my comment. I was a bit short with her and she knows me as a Christian. I assume the thinks means I voted for Prop 8 (true) and hate gay people (not true). So that is probably why she doesn't care what I think of her stereotyping gay people.
I am used to being ignored for being argumentative on Facebook so I didn't take it to heart... but I often post a quote "The casualties in the war of ideas are people." And while I pretty much don't care about government politics and how the money is divided up (up to a point) I do care what people think of gay people... especially people who want to supportive of them... because the consequences of these actions cut to the heart of who people are. Unlike Prop 8 this actually matters.
Now the LGTQ community is not going to be giving me any medals for enlightened thought any time soon. We have pretty serious disagreements about sexuality but one this point we are on the same page: Homosexuality has nothing to do with outward appearance. There are plenty of people living up the stereotypes but this is only a fashion statement. I assume this fashion statement is socially constructed as a kind of solidarity with a community which will not reject the person for their sexuality. A person can mimic some stereotype, just like an actor, but the tone of voice, length of hair or choice of occupation has nothing to do with how people have sex.
I guess one of the reasons I care so much is because I had to go through it. I was a pretty gentle little boy in a family with five pretty masculine older brothers. They weren't that bad but there were times where I was made to feel that since I wasn't as tough or athletic as my brothers there was something wrong with me. That wrongness was expressed through the word "gay." Now this was before I even knew what sex was, let alone homosexuality. There result was a lot of pain and confusion.
Now I am not super worried about this girl spending the rest her life assuming every gentle man prefers sex with men and every female mechanic prefers sex with women. Most likely in the next couple of years she will move away from Fremont to San Fransisco (or the equivalent) and meet people in the lgqt community not from Fremont. She'll meet "normal" looking, outrageously masculine, feminine and utterly bizarre people... some of whom prefer sex with their own gender or multiple genders. After a little while in Babylon she'll know better but I still don't want her to put people in boxes till then.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Singleness
A preface to this blog is my short story "Sensible People." If you haven't read it (shame on you) here is the link:
http://newspiritezk3626.blogspot.com/2010/07/sensible-people-final-draft-before.html
It will be referenced in this blog.
For those who don't know "Sensible People" was largely inspired by my first real attempt at a relationship since becoming a Christian (and pretty much since high school). The original title was "The Short and Unsuccessful Courtship of a Bitch Named 'Michelle'" which is an AWESOME title. But since I still went to church with Michelle and was reading the story at our Regen art show I felt that would have been inappropriately combative. Michelle was in no way bitchy and even though the original inspiration of the story was our short and unsuccessful relationship the story took a life of its own and "Sensible People" is the correct title.
So every now and then at Bible study during prayer requests I will ask for prayer about singleness. Most of my Christian life so far can be called contently single. I would joke that being single is my spiritual gift and I am think in many ways I could serve as an example of how to be godly in singleness (and humility). But over the last few years this contentment has changed to a need for intimacy, partnership and relationship. So we bring up our needs in prayer.
Now when asking for prayer from friends who know you pretty well you will not only receive prayer but also well meant advice. I try to bite my lip when I feel compelled to fix people's prayer needs rather than lift it up to God (like requested). I can not tell you how successful I am at simply hearing prayer requests and then praying about it without telling people who to avoid needing that prayer request. Ask someone else how I do with that.
Jesse has no qualms about giving advice with his prayers. But that's fine, Jesse knows me pretty well, has a decent head on his shoulders and will actually pray after giving the advice. His advice to me is something like "Stop dating the same kind of girl."
I have thought long about that advice since I am not sure what "the same kind of girl" he is talking about. I mean, what did Michelle and Jennifer have in common aside from going out with me for a short time and being committed Christian?
And then I thought about Pam... I never dated Pam. She was older than my mom and I never knew her when she wasn't terminally ill with cancer (of which she has since died).
I was very fortunate to know Pam at a time and place in her life when there was no pretense or boundaries. I was her weekly ride to chemotherapy and she talked about whatever she wanted to talk about and I listened. I don't think it is possible to be as open as she was in so short of a time without cancer.
One time waiting in the doctor's office she talked about a time she was asked out by a guy from her church. It was years and years earlier, long before she had dealt with cancer. She said how she asked around a little bit and everyone said he was a stand up guy so she agreed. He took her to a concert of some kind and they were having a good time. But then he ordered a glass of wine and she said it was like strike one, two and three right there. Now it wasn't that she had come from a background of alcohol abuse or anything but she immediately decided she wouldn't see him again.
That pretty much sums up the few relationships I've been in. Michelle's break up makes more sense since I made a lot of rookie mistakes but that is after years of perspective, but at the time my reaction to it (like Jennifer and other even shorter and more unsuccessful attempts) is consistently confusion.
So I think I have discovered aside from an insistence on faith in Christ and a tendency to like book smarts I would say my type is: women who are not ready for a relationship.
I certainly did not think of Michelle like a dog hit by a car on the side of the road going out with her, Jennifer either. But there is something very similar in how I approached girls I am attracted to and how I tried to care for that dog (whose name I never learned). There is a slow and steady movement, a patience and careful intention. To be sure there is all kind of baggage too, I mean I would never go out with a girl like the famous Liz (my first love, who broke my heart and went out with my twin brother).
But every relationship I have attempted in the last decade has been in some ways an approach towards a girl who I sensed in some ways was very hurt. There is always this hope that if I am careful enough and gentle enough and patient enough we can meet at a point in time where she can trust again.
So far no dice... and I did ask out a girl who was totally not my type... but she thought I was inviting her to coffee so I could lecture her about something. When I made myself more clear she gracefully begged off.
And the end of Pam's story about the the guy striking out for drinking a glass of wine she said "And a while ago I was at a concert and had a glass of wine myself, so I guess I've grown."
http://newspiritezk3626.blogspot.com/2010/07/sensible-people-final-draft-before.html
It will be referenced in this blog.
For those who don't know "Sensible People" was largely inspired by my first real attempt at a relationship since becoming a Christian (and pretty much since high school). The original title was "The Short and Unsuccessful Courtship of a Bitch Named 'Michelle'" which is an AWESOME title. But since I still went to church with Michelle and was reading the story at our Regen art show I felt that would have been inappropriately combative. Michelle was in no way bitchy and even though the original inspiration of the story was our short and unsuccessful relationship the story took a life of its own and "Sensible People" is the correct title.
So every now and then at Bible study during prayer requests I will ask for prayer about singleness. Most of my Christian life so far can be called contently single. I would joke that being single is my spiritual gift and I am think in many ways I could serve as an example of how to be godly in singleness (and humility). But over the last few years this contentment has changed to a need for intimacy, partnership and relationship. So we bring up our needs in prayer.
Now when asking for prayer from friends who know you pretty well you will not only receive prayer but also well meant advice. I try to bite my lip when I feel compelled to fix people's prayer needs rather than lift it up to God (like requested). I can not tell you how successful I am at simply hearing prayer requests and then praying about it without telling people who to avoid needing that prayer request. Ask someone else how I do with that.
Jesse has no qualms about giving advice with his prayers. But that's fine, Jesse knows me pretty well, has a decent head on his shoulders and will actually pray after giving the advice. His advice to me is something like "Stop dating the same kind of girl."
I have thought long about that advice since I am not sure what "the same kind of girl" he is talking about. I mean, what did Michelle and Jennifer have in common aside from going out with me for a short time and being committed Christian?
And then I thought about Pam... I never dated Pam. She was older than my mom and I never knew her when she wasn't terminally ill with cancer (of which she has since died).
I was very fortunate to know Pam at a time and place in her life when there was no pretense or boundaries. I was her weekly ride to chemotherapy and she talked about whatever she wanted to talk about and I listened. I don't think it is possible to be as open as she was in so short of a time without cancer.
One time waiting in the doctor's office she talked about a time she was asked out by a guy from her church. It was years and years earlier, long before she had dealt with cancer. She said how she asked around a little bit and everyone said he was a stand up guy so she agreed. He took her to a concert of some kind and they were having a good time. But then he ordered a glass of wine and she said it was like strike one, two and three right there. Now it wasn't that she had come from a background of alcohol abuse or anything but she immediately decided she wouldn't see him again.
That pretty much sums up the few relationships I've been in. Michelle's break up makes more sense since I made a lot of rookie mistakes but that is after years of perspective, but at the time my reaction to it (like Jennifer and other even shorter and more unsuccessful attempts) is consistently confusion.
So I think I have discovered aside from an insistence on faith in Christ and a tendency to like book smarts I would say my type is: women who are not ready for a relationship.
I certainly did not think of Michelle like a dog hit by a car on the side of the road going out with her, Jennifer either. But there is something very similar in how I approached girls I am attracted to and how I tried to care for that dog (whose name I never learned). There is a slow and steady movement, a patience and careful intention. To be sure there is all kind of baggage too, I mean I would never go out with a girl like the famous Liz (my first love, who broke my heart and went out with my twin brother).
But every relationship I have attempted in the last decade has been in some ways an approach towards a girl who I sensed in some ways was very hurt. There is always this hope that if I am careful enough and gentle enough and patient enough we can meet at a point in time where she can trust again.
So far no dice... and I did ask out a girl who was totally not my type... but she thought I was inviting her to coffee so I could lecture her about something. When I made myself more clear she gracefully begged off.
And the end of Pam's story about the the guy striking out for drinking a glass of wine she said "And a while ago I was at a concert and had a glass of wine myself, so I guess I've grown."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)