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

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

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey

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.