Smart people aren't happy, well it seems that's what we're to believe. Rich people aren't happy, funny people are generally tragically sad, Howie Mandell? I was listening to Howie on the radio a couple of months ago and wanted to cry because his life is so decimated. The other place people aren't happy is bars. I have been to many said establishments over my tenure as a non-minor, and with the exclusion of,  in some places, the common warmth one finds with a friend, bars are cold, sad places, again there are exceptions, I'm speaking of the general local bar... just give it a try drive into a random town on a tuesday night and tell me how happy the people are?

Sad is an indicator.

I was thinking about wilted trees, in the heat of summer, they don't look appealing, they look tired and sick.  I was thinking about the evidence of happiness as evidence to the right kind of life. Even in the most secular sense, the neo-marxist is pursuing happiness through his ideology, not necessarily cement-block housing. Wall street protesting believing that if they, or "the people" had more money they would be happy.

I had a dream last night where someone said, I just get hung up on the technicalities of the faith and it shuts down the whole thing. I responded, "the older I get the more I recognize the wonder and fulfillment of the simple elements and am drawn away from the complexities of the faith."

The nice grandma in the little church who is happy, is evidence that she is doing something right. Not just morally right but right according to her very nature and the way she was ultimately designed. It's funny, she is kind of like a tree planted by streams in living water that yields it's fruit in season, who's leaf does not wither in the fever heat of summer.

We live in the fever heat and should so expect the world to be wilted or rather conducive to wilting. We point to lots of factors, like rulers and religion, collateral people and coercive pressures or whatever.

I am thinking about a friend that doesn't love Jesus any more, and thinking about our last conversation, his soul as a hedonistic disaster, rabidly seeking pleasure to make him happy. I remember not too long ago when he was happy, pursuing the things of God. Aquinas said one of the ways we know 'God's way' and 'law' is good, is because it makes us happy. The great lie of the enemy is that God's way makes us sad and is really a ***shabby rip-off of real life. enter snake stage left.

But I guess that's only for old ladies.

I've been reading about Critical Legal Theory in my jurisprudence (philosophy of law) class; I love the material in this class and find myself mentally clapping upon the class fodder... well more than contracts class anyway.

Recently, in class, I read a quote by Paul Butler from a '95 Yale law review article; he stated, "The fullness of time allows us to judge..." Then he went into his current judgments of past cases, based upon his current enlightened state by the supposed manifestation of a new and wonderful theory; the theory was an offspring of Critical Legal Theory. That may sound boring, it really isn't; but my point is not about either critical race or any other legal theory but rather about the foundational belief that we are as a culture could discover a more perfect way to live.

The word "progressive" impresses upon our minds a kind of journey to "the Good" or at least "the Better." Most Neo-Marxists would tell you that we are progressing to a new and better system of governance, or non-governance that will free us to be our good and wonderful selves, freed from the chains of oppressive, dust-dry, lifeless, morality. In contrast, the problem with being a "Conservative" is it, as  Chesterton says, forces us into a stagnancy; a kind of hat tipping to current social ailments.

I think the answer is neither to be morally progressive nor morally conservative but morally regressive. There was this one guy who lived a couple of millennia ago who had some really great ideas. Really, if we were morally regressive, that is regressing chronologically to the standard that Christ laid out for us, or regressing internally to the law written on our hearts, given solidification and direction by God's Word; we would be doing the right kind of regressing.

I heard a technocrat* scientist on TV the other day saying they found a place in the Brain that fired a certain way when people saw pictures of a babies. In contrast when people saw ugly people their brains fired in a different way. They induced, by regional firing, people think Baby's are cute. From that premise they said, "Our brains recognize cuteness so... we can take care of Babies! we see babies as cute and want to take care of them."
I was like holy craaaaaaaaaaapppp......... They've Discovered cuteness!!! Yeaaaaa!!! Honey... Get in here..... they've discovered Babies are cute!!!! Finally, Cuteness is scientifically validated, we can now know it's real and it's morally ok to think babies are cute, get Leon out of the closet! Wooooo-hoooooooooooooooo!

Our moral behavior is not validated or invalidated by Science nor is it validated or invalidated by, as Professor Butler believes, the "fulness of time." Morality is based upon God's standard and although the technocrats rage against it and the progressives plot a vain thing, the God-Man who came for a visit still is the representation of that unchanging standard.

*Technocrat: The moral ruling class whose ideological validation comes not from a "religious" system of belief but from technological validation and or scientific discovery. (this is my first time trying to actually define this term; this is an approximation)

Psalm 2

 ¹ Why do the nations conspire^[a]
   and the peoples plot in vain?
² The kings of the earth rise up
   and the rulers band together
   against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
³ “Let us break their chains
   and throw off their shackles.”  ⁴ The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
   the Lord scoffs at them.

I talked to a friend this week who gave me some great advise. See, I'm a little competitive, so if I can't be the best I tend to want to give up on the whole processes, whatever process that happens to be. One time my older brother and I were playing a video game and I lost, (a total freak accident) he wrenched the controller from my hand and said "my turn." I could smell the static in the air and had no choice but to, like lightning, batter his face with my fist... And so I did... And then I ran. Sometimes rather than loose in competition it feels better to throw the match. Using my story as an illustrative point, I can think of lots of redeemable characteristics of the soul that could potentially be developed into something worthy of expression but there is a pressure to give up unless it is "the best" or I "win."


There are clear Biblical statements prohibiting such intentions of the heart. Jesus said if you want to become great be a servant and he may have said something about not punching people in the face. There is also an element of good biblical competition; Paul said he runs the race to win the prize. Paul also talks about training and not beating your fists at nothing.


So I am competitive, did I mention that? But something I  get excited about is confrontation with someone huge, mammoth, nay even gargantuan. I recognize that I will likely loose, but there is a feeling of redemption in merely rising to the challenge. I wonder if that's how King David felt? "Man this Giant is about to crush me but I'm going to try and plunge one of these rocks into his skull as he's running toward me, and if I die everyone will think I'm awesome." I would think that.


So one of the pressures is to be the best or leave the game, let's say that's an inappropriate pressure but the other pressure is good; I want to do the best I can and try to kill this thing, I probably can't but I'll take a crazy, consistent, aggressive swing and hope that God backs me up. Here's hoping-

I met a guy today finishing up his doctoral dissertation in the field of psychology. He is studying how brain trauma is correlative to addictive behavior (Mike Tyson?). It was a fun short discussion I'm glad I didn't say anything too obnoxious as I later found out he (the future doc) had major brain trauma. But the conversation reminded me of a dialogue of sorts I had with myself (If you can call that a dialogue).

It went something like this.
(me) I'm sad. 
(other me) Why? 
(me) I think it's the chemicals. 
(other me) Do tell. 
(me) Well I think I have a chemical imbalance of some kind, I need some other chemicals to help the-out of balance chemicals re assert there prominence in the appropriate loab or hemisphere or what have you.  
(other me) Huh? 
(me) You get it? It's like... I get sad but now I know why. The chemicals! 
(other me) Uhhh yea but...
(me) No wait, it's real I saw it on a commercial. There was this lady who was sad and then she took a pill and was less sad. There was even some authoritative jargon. Man I feel so much better knowing why!.
(other me) I'm still confused.
(me) Well other than the side affects it's simple. It's kinda like this, Why did the chicken cross the road?  
(other me) I don't like where this is going. 
(me) Because of the chemicals!  
(other me) Yeah I know there are chemicals but what about the chickens desire? What about the chickens world-view? What about the natural law guiding the chicken? What about the chickens family or friends... or actions the chicken did or did not commit? What about the possibilites on the other side of the road, the possible wonder and majesty upon discovery of a new land? What aout how God designed the chicken or the triune mechanics of Body, Soul and chicken spirit* thrusting the chicken across the pavement? What about causation? What about...
(me)....Bro it's a chicken. 


That's the short version of the conversation. But I was thinking about a more rudimentary understanding of sadness. For Example: You got sad because X or we know about sadness because of the corporeal manifestation of tears and correlating muscle contraction in a specified formation... frowny face. How silly would be this so called discovery of sadness? But accordingly we have a sense of knowledge based upon a biochemical manifestation that is  properly scribed and cited in our prevailing medical journals. And hence have a feeling of superiority or control.

The soul whether manifested by skin and bones or chemical overtones will never be as simple as a logging of it's fleshly imprint. We wouldn't want it to be. We are not globs of flesh we are majestically designed and eternally significant. We will not be tricked by the technocrats of our day into thinking we are a box of bumbling atoms. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Note: I understand that some people (many of my friends included) take anti-depressants. And I'm all for medical breakthrough and medicine helping in the healing process.  This is not a tirade against drugs  but rather a recognition of our brokeness and the need for redemption in all areas of our lives conscience and sub-conscience. Let's not just suppress the cough if we have lung cancer, let's get healed. PS I don't think there's such a thing as a chicken spirit.* 


Note 2: The chain of questioning can be never ending in regard to causation unless you allow by faith a stopping point. For example, Why do we get sad? Because of a chemical reaction. Why is that chemical manifestation present? Because of our genetic framework. Why is our genetic framework like that? Well... I think we needed it for pack preservation during our evolutionary status? Well why did that stick around but we lost wings? Well it's instinctual. But I thought instinctual elements were done automatically like birds flying south? Are you saying volitional decision making ability and instinct are the same? Yea. So Canadian Geese can just decide one day they don't want to fly south? Um I think we've lost track. We have lost track because we take questions of our nature to the logical end of design or origins because we are asking questions not just about features but the reason those features are and why they're there or better yet who put them there. And at the end of that chain is a faith statement by the Athiest and Christian. 

Over the summer I read Benjamin Wiker's, 10 books every conservative must read. Although a trilogy, he considered the Lord of the rings to be classified as a book. He masterfully analyzed Tolkien's disdain for cities and love of the country as illustrated by the Shire versus Mordor. The Shire as we remember is a land of peace; citizens are connected to the earth and have a love of their land. Mordor in contrast was a black and twisted land where the orcs lived by the fuel of mere pleasure (the likely hood of eating a hobbit) and pain (hopefully not getting consumed by the all seeing eye).

I have been thinking, why do we like certain places and which are our favorite places? Tonight I couldn't sleep and as usual my mind was drifting into the land of strange Ideas. I thought about making a new aquaintence with someone from Arizona (which I did while waiting for the Shuttle). I thought about making fun of Arizona and then I thought to gain friendship points I should rather mock New Mexico. Most of us, at least those of us who live closely bordering another state often times think of the foreign state as inferior, and all of us think that way of New Jersey.

But why? What makes Washington so vastly different from Oregon? There are somewhat arbitrary State boundaries, but the land scape in many cases is quite similar. So do we love that there are slightly more of a kind of tree?

So if it's not the landscape is it the state legislative system? Or Tax code? Is it certain businesses and corporations that we prefer (either local or international)? Is it the way the pavement curves around a mountain as compared to a tunnel that might go through a mountain?

I agree with Wiker. We love a place because we love ... People. We love our family so we love our land and so we love our city and so we love or region etc. There is a very egocentric mordorian ethic that we would love a place for the egocentric-hedonistic benefits it provides us rather than
for a love of people.

Even the love for America is not manifested by a flag but by a person. The mordorian ethic is that we follow a leader for our benefit. But the Love ethic says we love our land for someone else rather than ourselves.

RANTdom topical thoughts for future elucidation.

Maybe in our world of technocracy we would be able to love our family without being connected to the same land?

Maybe we don't love our home land because we are frustrated with the people that inhabit it.
Maybe we think they have a lack of vision or the people have become complacent and have shunned creativity, exploration and progression. Well in that case your land needs you more than ever. I wonder if the creative leaders often leave out of frustration but then enter a larger system where there creativity smothered by hedonism rather than using thier God given ability to produce substantive change. When I say creative leaders I am not limiting this to painters, although they may be included but more specifically leaders who have creative, positive progressive ideas. (In or society conservatism and progressivism are not in tandem, but for the purposes of this discussion I am referring to any kind of positive change.)

There is also an element of loving a people for thier collective beliefs, because those beliefs are consistent with my own. But that should be secondary to the primary attachment of ones family and neighbor. And when do other inconsistent beliefs outweigh shared beliefs in love of people calculation?

Finally, the love of the Land of Israel is another element in this discussion; loving a place because it is God's landing strip? Or anyplace that illicits a specific memory of a previous (or future) occasion. Jacob anointed a rock in the dessert and called it Bethel meaning the House of God.... i'm done

I was thinking tonight about the biblical prohibitions of certain actions, i.e. inappropriate sexual activity, killing, lying etc. Our modern train of thought asks why are certain of these actions wrong (especially the sexual ones)?

The answer, or one of the answers is God likes certain physical actions and disproves of other actions. Jesus challenges us to love our neighbor as our self but not in a non-lucid sense but through specific actions like forgiving, supporting, helping. So there are clearly actions that God likes us doing well then there would be actions he would not like us doing. Since God is specific in the actions we take he likes, he would certianly be specific in actions he doesn't like.

Take sexuality as an example. 1 corinthians 7 ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

So... Husbands and wives should have sex and have it often together in the bounds of marriage. Ok so there is a great example of a bit of fun Godly legislation so if God has specified actions, "bounds" on sexuality there should also be restrictive ones, as we are all aware of in the cases of adultary, sodomy and fornication.

God requires us to do very specific actions & to love and shuns very specific actions because they are not love-

There was something amazing about the Casey Anthony Case that wrapped up this last month and when something amazing happens I try to think about it. One of the facets that surprised me was the national attention given to this crime. The other, what came to be, as most of us believe even more shocking, the verdict.

Here are some questions I asked myself:
Why is this so upsetting?
Am I simply ignorant of judicial process?
When will someone shoot her on the street? (not that I think they should by the way)
Finally and most potently why do we (most of the people I am in relationship with) think she was guilty.

The answers to these questions led me to Materialism and our national denial of the soul. Let me explain;

100 years ago and for most of the history of time before the 20th cenctury there have been systems of government in, family, social, economic and certainly personal senses. In these systems whether making declarations about a verdict (judgement call) in 18th century England or making a vital personal decision circa 2BC, we as a people have depended on intuition. My definition of Intuition will be: Soul Knowledge, something I know or believe deeply regardless of a direct, laid out, logical process to affirm my beliefs.

Many of us believed by intuition the defendant in this case was (and is?) guilty. Our intuition tells us Mom's don't loose there daughters minutes let alone weeks and weeks without calling the Police, freaking out, breaking down, etc. Our intuition tells us something is wrong and immediately points guilt at the Mother.

Why does our intuition tell us that? Because we have had experience with Mothers our whole lives, we have had experience with children and relatives and relational causality and Most Importantly!!!! We have had experience with our own sins and the process of lying and trying to cover them up. We know how humans work better than anyone because we are fully human. Our intuition has been formed from a lifetime of real, valid experiences.

To Materialism!
So Materialism is the belief in exactly that, the material. Whatever is physical and touchable is real and valuable and whatever is not is of less value. So love, intuition, emotion, loyalty are all devalued at the expense of the, "real" the "scientific." Materialism says DNA evidence and fingerprinting are what solve cases and anything less is speculation. Essentially, since your intuition or perception might possibly be faulty you should throw it out for something perfect, hard, Sure... you guessed it Science. Science, something that is always right, we know they don't ever make mistakes because of those other worldly white lab coats.

So intuition and judgement are out and only DNA evidence is in? If that's the case and it seems to be more and more the case why is there a jury at all? We could just run our courts by computer process? I think some would be in favor of that, to give our power over to a machine rather than possibly send an innocent man to jail.

Funny thing about sending an innocent man to jail is our nation used to believe that there was something after this life and God would justify them. But if there's no God and No afterlife fear hinder makes justice impotent.

ANywayz my main point was that Intuition represents the soul and the denial of intuition shows the swing to an even more mechanistic society. Sounded better in my head <;)

Words Can't Describe




Nuff Said

I was laying in bed after being awakened by my kids and I found my self after a few minutes in Dream Think. Dream think is the state of mind in which you are not dreaming yet but getting close, your thoughts are on auto-pilot being led away from the newest rays of the morning sun (if of course it's morning and the suns out). I was imagining being questioned by Larry King. I Imagined it would go something like this.

(LK) Good to have you on the show today David.
(Me) Thank you Mr. King
(LK) My Father was Mr King call me Larry.
(Me) Not to be offensive but could that be considered false intimacy? By taking away formality you offer me some cheapened and certainly false form of closeness. Is there a difference if I call you Mr. or Buddy? I think there is. Isn't there a linguistic purpose assisting us in establishing relational boundaries and roles? Why Do I not call the President, "Baracky?" Because I recognize something about his position, I have and am granting a level of due honor as the King of my natural country. GK Chesterton said the beauty of Democracy takes the man who doesn't believe he has the capability to lead and forces that man to vote so he does so with fear and trepidation.
What a strange and opposite system the President smokes cigarettes and has rappers, "chill" in the white house to lower himself not in humility but in some Machiavellian sense, a false sense of connecting. Formality supports boundaries put in place to strengthen the humble, and recall humility in the strong. You don't call me, "Mr" because I force it upon you but because I in a cultural sense am a singular individual with gifts and beliefs that can strengthen you when your weak and speak wisdom into situations that are dismal. But I also am Mr. because I understand in the personal historical sense my limited capacity in your life. Now we don't call friends by their last names because we need them for more than that we need them to be historically loyal not just a righteous passerby. We bestow upon friends more intimate access to our, lives. Jesus said to the disciples, not when he first met but three years later, "now I call you frineds." We're quick to call people friends but slow to actually befriend. So Sir if you wouldn't mind I'd like to stick with Mr. King
(LK) Uh.... Let's go to commercial.

I've been trying to read more. I usually have three or four books going at a time. I'm sure I would get through them quicker if I just worked on one at a time. My mind is a little sporadic and I get bored quickly (lack of mental discipline). I finally finished my favorite book of all time. It took me time to get through not because of it's length but because of it's depth. I decided I 'd like to share my favorite books list. This will likely change over the course of the next few years. Here it is in it's current Glory.

1. (the Bible)
This doesn't really count as a book and shouldn't be on this list. The Bible is phenomenal on three levels. 1; face value, the reading is generally wonderful and uncomfortable, 2; it is clear 3; it is multi-dimensional.

2. Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton
This is a book of paradoxes. And it teaches one to think in paradox. I think Jesus is paradoxical. Orthodoxy is the most profound piece of philosophical literature I have ever read. It's heavy and light, funny and tragic, brilliant and dumb. Please read it.

3. Suprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis
This is the story of Lews' life, how he found faith. Personal narratives are wonderful and this book is deeply personal. This is not a common top tenner of the Lewis books. When I read this book I was swept to a few different locations standing beside (or in) Lewis.

4. 1984 By George Orwell
Tragic political commentary in narrative.

5. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Amazing writing style.


Next bunch I like. In no particular order.

How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill

Catfish and Mandala By Andrew X Pham,

She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall by Misty Bernall

Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrympl

God Spoke Tibetan: The Epic Story of the Men Who Gave the Bible to Tibet by Allan Maberly

Of Mice an Men by John Steinbeck

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey

The Man who was Thursday GK Chesterton

I've seen lions at the zoo before. They are a kind of scary-fun conglomerate. Lion's at the zoo, as they are caged, are much more fun than scary and there business is specifically to be our entertainment. A couple of years ago I was in Africa. I was specifically in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. We were out on Safari sitting on the roof of a bumpy van. We rounded a corner and beheld jewels of the savanna, a lioness and her two cubs. Our bus driver was a little nutty and decided drive the bus within 15 feet of the mother lion. I remember seeing the lioness bear her fangs and make a guttural sound, this was more on the side of scary and less on the side of fun. The lioness was 15 feet from our van and we were sitting on top of the van like 5 meat-cicles waiting to be devoured. I thought I might be able to kick the lioness in the face if she jumped up here for a meal. I also thought I might be able to kick one of my team-mates off the top and avoid being chomped on myself. Thankfully the lioness was not in the eating mood.

There is an instinctual urge for survival. In response to my last post that instinctual urge for survival is not the same as a fear of death. Again an atheist would say religion is created to medicate the instinctual fear of death. This is untrue.

My instincts only alert my fear sensors when I have first learned that I should be afraid of something. The pack-herd element of my desire is not overwhelming. Herd animals have instinct because they lack the cognitive ability to make complex decision. To argue on evolutionary grounds (which would be like fencing on a Lilly-pad), we do not have the same need for herd thought as we have a more highly developed level of cognition. While a migratory bird might fly away at the sound of a rattler, my child may be drawn to that sound, especially if he likes rattles. He has not been taught to fear snakes and having no instinctual fear he is therefore not afraid of snakes. We fear death without ever being told what it is, for none of us know exactly what it is.

I have natural, biological desires. I have the desire to eat. But if I go without food I am not scared of missing the process of eating. I have the desire for water. But after going without water I am not afraid of not drinking, I am afraid of dying. Here there is something to be said for having a natural desire to be alive. In an evolutionary sense (back on the pad) we as creatures would need a desire to live to function at all. This is where we diverge. A desire to live is not the same as fear of death. I could have a strong desire for a basketball, it may even be so strong that I will run onto a court and wrestle to the ground a basketball player and viciously bite his hand until he releases the ball and I walk off with it. It would be in an evolutionary sense better for me to have no fear of death rather a unbelievably strong drive or urging to live.

My point is this. Humanity has a fear of death. Our fear of death is irrational. Our fear of death does not come from herd instinct. Our fear of death as cited in the previous blog, does not primarily come from the fear of the unknown.

One time I thought I had poison Ivy. I went to the doctor and said hey doc can you give me something for this poison ivy? He said, that's not poison Ivy it's shingles. I was at once relieved and frustrated. Relieved because I knew what it was and frustrated that it was so severe. The doctor continued to tell me how long it could be around and why it was painful and why it was in such a specific pattern. From my perspective the anomaly was clarified and although it remained potent I could rightly, in my mind put it into it's proper category.

The concept of death is often like that for many people. They can recognize it and may even falsely diagnose it, there is a Hebrew's 9 (it is granted one time to live then the judgment) feeling about the patch on our souls. The stripe remains in obscurity until someone who knows what it is can accurately describe it. When it is described we can reckon with it, unless we think we know more than the Doctor (in our day many of us do).

In our Christianity we are able to be healed of shingles and one could declare, O death where is your sting, O grave where is your victory. The judgment becomes a judgment of righteousness.
We are with the writer of Psalm one, standing before a righteous judgment where we are rewarded and not condemned.

In my last post I told a story about going to the hospital. On that fated day I had the worst stomach pain I could ever remember. Perhaps the worst pain I had ever felt. I remember lying in the emergency room singing the song, I was sure I would die, "that mountain's burning in the sky... to the heart of Heaven." A Jason Upton song referring to Zion the holy city in the sky, were I would soon be. The doctor came in and told me about a bug that had been going around that was essentially the stomach flu but attached to it was stomach pain. The doctor then said I was either about to die or had the pain tolerance of a seven year old girl, unfortunately the latter was true.

The atheists response to my mindset in the hospital room would be this; you were afraid of death and because of your fear of the unknown, you applied religion as a kind of fear salve. But as a rule; are we as human's really afraid of the unknown? Let's take outer space as an example. Cold dark possible alien infested outer space is certainly the unknown but we do not have fear of it. Rather we have people who would line up by the thousands and hundreds of thousands to explore it. If I had never been to Chuck E Cheese and my Grandparents said we are going somewhere you have never been. My initial response is not fear but excitement. The excitement of discovery, even if there is a giant rat-man waiting me there.

The atheists great response to religion is that religion is primarily for old lady's afraid of death. But why should they or anyone naturally be afraid of death. The closest experience we have to death is sleep. And sleep is a thing we love, some of us love it too much.

Too say religion is a salve for the fear of the unknown is not only irrational but illogical. It reminds me of the Shackleton ad, Shackleton was going to the north pole in a time when it had not been traversed. The greatest line is, "safe return doubtful," Yet thousands of men signed up for the adventure. We as humans recognize in death not fear of the unknown but rather fear of the known.

I've been thinking about the god of science in our culture recently. Our culture has placed science as the standard of truth and even morality. The more I think about this it has led me to one conclusion with two premises. The conclusion is this; Science gives us no moral standard. The premises are that science gives us only two things: 1 longevity and 2 speed.

Science gives us longevity. In a developed culture we understand certain aspects of biology and this understanding creates longevity. We as a people live longer in a very practical sense. Our average age has gone up. We also have food and other products that can be sustained for a longer period of time with out breaking down.

Science gives us speed. A hundred years ago I could have sent a letter to a friend in Germany and would months later receive a reply. Now, in our current social stratus I can recieve and instantaneous reply. But not only my communicative needs but many other needs can be met at a far greater speed. Many instances come to mind but overwhelmingly our diverse desires for please can be met at a far greater rate.

Yes science meets needs practically but it gives us no morality. Science merely enhances the speed by which our morality is equated. This is not a benefit in a moral sense but rather a danger. In the scheme of morality if I have bad morality that is enacted faster I will then have faster brake down in a societal- social - and familial structure. If I live in a pre-sodomite nation technology will only increase the speed of which the desire for the average man to debase himself comes to pass.

I am reminded of Matthew 16, what good is it for a man to gain the world but loose his soul. It seems that the quickening of our corporal needs being met has been a trade off for our cultural soul. We have as a culture traded the world for our literal souls. We no longer believe in a fixed morality or a fixed soul as a part of a material body but rather a material body that has immediate needs met with a strong disbelief for the eternal soul. This concept is easily reckoned by the illustration if a man has all his physical needs met he is no longer thinking about death. We recognize that every man thinks about the eternal on his death bed. A society that consistently pushes death away also pushes away the need or the compulsion to recon with death, God, and his own eternal soul.

Whenever (the few times rather) I go to the hospital for a physical ailment I am quite certain it may be my last few hours on earth. I remember being in college under such circumstances. My immediate response was to sing my favorite hymns (modern hymns) as I would (so I thought) be meeting my maker. Alas I survived but the impression is significant. If we have an eternal perspective we live with eternity in our pragmatic lives. I think that is why there is talk in the new testament about Jesus eminent return. Not so we stand with our eyes fixed on the clouds but rather that we walk and act with our hearts in view of eternity.

Maybe microwaves aint so great-

It was the spring of 2005 my last term at Portland State. I was sitting in a Sr. project class (I had in a previous criminal justice class wooed this same professor by playing a crime and punishment lullaby in front of the class). This days topic was not our usual culminated learning experience, rather the subject was about men who rape and murder women and children. I remember the professor asking the class to raise their hands in response to the question, "who would ever forgive them?" He was trying to make a point, whatever he was saying wasn't significant enough to remember. My solitary appendage in the air, frustrated the illustration. He looked at me and said, something like, "I know Christians are supposed to forgive but there's a difference." And then he continued with his deflated illustration. I thought it odd that with 50 or so people in that room not one other person raised their hand with mine to forgive. I'm reminded of a Sufjan Stevens song John Wayne Gacy Jr.

I love how magnificent and tragic our faith is. I am compelled to release the most putrid sinner, it really was one of Jesus' prominent points. If you do not forgive your brother then your Father in heaven will not forgive you. Often men and especially tough guys have a hard time with this aspect of Christianity because they feel the sinner deserves the highest level of disdain. Which is partially right, the act does deserve intense guttural hatred. But the human (not deservingly) by grace is applied forgiveness and even dare I say love. The Christian is not called just to forgive the sexual deviant murderer but to love him. Forgiveness is so large it's scary. So where's the paradox.

The paradox is here that we are called to hate sin so much that we cast those in sin out of our midst, 1 cor 5. , that when our own members walk in rebellion we call them witches 1 sam 15 and when Christians start turning others away from Christ and toward themselves we Damn them to hell Gal 1. That is not a faith full of weak edges, pulling punches. It is violent and vicious.

We are often times heavy on forgiveness and light on sin or heavy on sin and light on forgiveness, examples clearly abound in both of these categories. But we were never called to be lukewarm either in our kisses or our cursing. We are to despise drunkenness for we are royalty but hug the homeless man with stale vomit in his hair. The unrepentant woman in our midst we must label the proverbial whore who wipes her mouth and says I've done nothing wrong but the next day we must go to the red light district and offer a prostitute a way of escape.

Our strength is not in having a right arm we work out all the time and a left that gets used in case of emergency. Our strength is our symmetry our balance, but not soft balance, raging, blazing balance otherwise known as paradox.

We just met our son Solomon today. He is wonderful. Seven pounds, fourteen ounces, and twenty-one inches long. The experience of childbirth is profound and certainly sacred. The fragility of his and his mothers life combined with the corporal urging, the earth like groanings of his delivery are breathtaking. It reminds me of the scripture that says creation longs and groans for the revealing of the sons of God. Solomon is here and we are so elated to be in this moment with him.

During the labor process I thought about how often times angels herald the coming of new baby's. Abraham, John the Baptist, and of the hosts of Angels at the birth of our savior. I felt like there was an angel in the room with us. It was like I would look in a place in the room and I could see the outline of a large being and then I would look again and it was as if the outline was in a different part of the room. When I say outline I mean a faith outline. Which is the best way I can describe it. Well after hours of intense, hypnotic, contractions and about twenty minutes of pushing, unto us a child was born and unto us a son was given and the gov't shall be upon his shoulders... All that to say it was an amazing experience.


As I have been sitting here next to my beautiful wife and new baby I came across a profoundly disturbing story that can be read here. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-nu-prof-apology-20110305,0,6838703.story?track=rss

The short story is about a par-for-course psychology professor from Northwestern University in Chicago who allows a live-sex demonstration in his class. The fashion of the demonstration was so graphic I'm not sure how to detail it, so I wont. But it got me thinking. The professor was quoted as saying, there is nothing wrong with doing that (having a live sex show at school) and even those who don't like it wont tell me why it's wrong.

After reading the article my head was spinning. I thought, "Well of course you don't think it's wrong." Because acoording to your humanistic-mechanism, atheist, ego-ology; nothing can be wrong unless it hurts someone and that pain is against there will. That is the limit to our colleges (and the devil's) moral system. It is do unto others outside of the bounds of biblical morality. So if my friend wants me to chop his arms off, why not? He wants me to and I would enjoy doing that?

One of the dangers of this kind of thought is; There is nothing sacred. Why do I not want you to get screwed like an animal in front of a hundred people? Because I believe that sexuality is a sacred gift and not on the same level as chewing a piece of gum. Why Do I not want you to cut your arm off, because I believe that the body is a gift, a beautiful sacred gift that should be cherished and taken care of, it is valuable and not just a mass of cells accidentally joined together. I love the song, "you and me baby aint nothin but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel." It was a big hit when I was getting out of high school. A funny joke right? No it was rather a prophetic declaration over my generation and it seems to have foreseen what was inevitable.

Rant: I don't understand why learning about biology takes away the beauty of a thing. All of a sudden because we know there's a chemical fireworks show during the birth of a baby it becomes base or common? Because we know how flowers are pollinated does that destroy the delicacy of the flower? Science has given us nothing but longevity and the ability to meet our carnal needs (desires) sooner. It has given us no morality, it has given us nothing sacred, it has allowed us to spend out money for more years at casino's and given us R.V.'s to drive around while we're old and alone, oh yea and we can take a pill so we can get more sex even at eighty. Science / Learning has been the God of our culture and what a cold cruel bastard-child it is.

Why do we need the sacred? Because of Solomon. Because his birth is important, weighty, a thing to be cherished remembered and enjoyed. Because one day he'll leave the house and he and I will go on a drive and talk about life... that will be sacred. One day he'll get married that will be sacred and one day not to far from now I'll be a grandfather and he'll be having a baby, that will be sacred...

Recently I wrote a letter to someone who is planning on majoring in philosophy. I was not trying to discourage this course of study instead I was trying to clarify the path. I thought this letter was somewhat insightful so here it is with a brief addendum.

"I was a Philosophy Major at Portland State and will begin studying law in the fall of this year. I graduated in 2005 and thus have had time to clear or rather solidify my thoughts before taking the next step of law school. As you may well know Philosophy is one of the best majors to take if going into law school, you should certainly take formal logic and really focus mastering formal logic. The rest of the biographical, topical and survey courses serve the purpose of honing ones ability to ingest and analyze complex thought.

Philosophy can also be dangerous. As the Proverbs states bad company corrupts good morals. It does not say unintelligent company... We often think of bad company as wharf-rat, scoundrels who rejected their mothers greens and flunked out of the 6th grade. While those kinds of individuals might easily sway a interlocutor of their own cast, they are not the ones that pose the greatest threat to the modern man (especially the modern Christian man).

The great threat comes from intellectual bad company. This threat is far greater because the foundation of their belief is hatred for God, hatred for Morality and ultimately Self Hatred. These moral scoundrels are far more insidious. They often have gray hair and wear bow-ties, which gives them a grandfatherly aura. The canter of their speech can be mesmerizing, as a parent might tell a child a story. At unexpected moments during these warm feelings, one is taken up above humanity to see all of the failings and misconstrued beliefs of their own kind. If you're, "wise enough" there are new and better ways to believe and hidden in this secret society those ways can, "enhance" (replace) the ways you had previously thought. Over time you feel closer (in belief system) to professors than to pastors and have more affiliations (politically, fiscally, whatever) with faculty than one's own family.

The final and most staggering danger, a dark balm. While one's morals are being corrupted, knowledge is puffing them up, creating graveyard monoliths. Arches Calculated in their thought processes, polished to the proper sheen by the scientific method, but inside full of dead Men's bones. That is the real danger. The exultation of knowledge thus seems a fair trade for moral relativism.

What I have discovered outside of philosophy class is that the world is full and beautiful... and the things that are most potent are not written in text books or discovered in laboratories. They are rather the real, beyond clear and distinct, loves, fears and Dreams of Men.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John One is my favorite chapter in the Bible, it majestically recounts creation and the center piece of the creation Jesus, not that he was created but rather creating. At the end of the day while the painting is beautiful the joining of the painter and the muse are of much greater mystery and majesty. The painter is multi-faceted, infinitely more powerful than the painting although the painting has it's own special unique and innate value. Jesus is of course is that painter and on this day I am interested in him being full of two seemingly opposing forces.

Tension may not actually be the best descriptor of what I am trying to convey but other words have a hidden element of tension, even the scales of justice have a tension in their balance. Truth's are twisted and done away with when tension is forsaken and humanity rests upon it's own rationality rather than faith.

Our ability to be pure rational creature's without faith leads to morbidity and madness (see Orthodoxy by Chesterton). In the same way when we take a truth created to be in tension and destroy it's balance we create jails of tyranny. For example I am a Truth Loving Christian, Grace may only be applied after repentance (as according to the law). This kind of thinking creates monolithic structures of legality that are void of love and mercy. On the other hand I could be a pinned out on mercy and not allow for truth and justice and stand by as my home is ransacked and my wife and children enslaved while the whole time graciously sitting on my couch, "turning the other cheek."

Jesus came full of Grace and truth, there is no contradiction in him he is full of both. Where have we set the weight of belief on the scales of thought in our lives; Armenianism V Calvanism, Equality V Roles, Grace V Truth?

Websters 1828 Definition of Tension has a chordal element to it. It says the greater the tension the more acute the sound.
In the Gospels the Disciples were with Jesus in one accord, in acts 1 the disciples were together in one accord. There is an element of tension in our accordance. Tension does not guarantee weakness by rather utility. As we know if the string is not wound it makes no sound and cannot be in accord with the other strings, if a string is wound too tightly the same effect takes place (it is broken and produces no sound).

The tension of thought may often times be logically irreconcilable but that is where faith is applied. And faith is far more powerful than mere intellectual ascent.