AWPATT XVI: February 3-17 (Thoughts 248-262)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

Point 248 begins with referencing Thoughts 243 and 247, where I had advised both that you should have a public relationship, and that you shouldn't. The difference is explained below.

248 Bring those two concepts together: you want to involve other people, but you don’t want to involve them. Each is in a different sense. You want other people to be aware of the fact that you and another person are interested, and to be involved in your relationship as it actually is. Don’t push a false view of the depth of your commitment to each other on others. You then put them in the awkward position of trying to correct you and be seen as criticizing and be faced with anger and dismissive resentment, or of playing along with your charade and having to rationalize supporting something they’re not behind 100% -- or else simply ignoring and avoiding you. Foolish decisions spurn good advice, because you show that you’re unwilling to receive it. When your breakup happens, the same people who gave you happy faces and agreed that your relationship was good when you had it will express confusion and try to empathize with your self-delusion. Others will say they saw it coming, but why didn’t they warn you when you were in the midst of the relationship? Oh, because they don’t respect you, of course. They didn’t deem you deserving of truth, and cared more for how you treated them (fearing your wrath if they challenged you) than they cared about your personal health. All of that results from foolishly pretending your relationship is more serious than it is. So don’t. Take people’s help, but don’t you dare try to make them conform to your imaginary fairy tale romance when you don’t even know how to love.

249 [Going through texts]: I’ve been told by several women that I’d be a spectacular husband/romantic for some happy woman…in fact, absent that experience, I’d be far less apt to allow myself to imagine a future scenario where a young lady ‘falls for me’ – I’d be wary of hoping for it as a realistic possibility.

250 But from several closer female acquaintances and friends, whom I’ve showed a sensitive side to, I’ve heard encouraging accolades re: my potential to be a suitable partner. The fact that this comes in the context of me, intentionally or not, having revealed negative qualities is a relieving affirmation.

251 [on the subject of complimenting someone who’s in a relationship by saying something like, ‘if you weren’t already taken, I might have to propose’] – Oh I personally couldn’t bring myself to joke like that. The last thing I would want to do is have a joke that was meant to be a compliment backfire and upset someone’s marriage by making a woman have thoughts of me. I recognize that it’s a certain form of pride to deny that anyone would be tempted by me, just as it would be to assume that everyone would. It’s an attempt to be thoughtful.

252 I could see myself joking with a 20s-30s couple if I was 80….But I happen to be variably viewed as handsome or cute or sexy, at least among a portion of women, so it would be ill advised for me to say “whoah, good thing you’re married, ‘cause I was about to propose!” (though max irony for saying that to a single woman miiiiight work out)

253 I’m pretty sure that from a theological standpoint, the purpose of my having to wait a long time to ‘find true love’ is for all of this time to be spent thinking about how best to serve her, so that by the time I meet her, I’ll have grown a lot in my character and wisdom and be a far better “package deal” then than anything I’ve been up to now. I won’t be thinking about my own satisfaction, because the desire to be together doesn’t go away from dwelling on it; it needs to be turned to a productive end. So I’m not just wasting time, I’m improving our relationship here and now :)

254 “Our love to Him should begin on earth, as it shall be in Heaven, for the bride taketh not by a thousand degrees so much delight in her wedding-garment as she doth in her bridegroom; so we, in the life to come, howbeit clothed with glory as with a robe, shall not be so much affected with the glory that goeth about us, as with the Bridegroom’s joyful face and presence.” ~ Samuel Rutherford, The Loveliness of Christ

255 When I was in mid-late High School I was invested in trying to influence middle schoolers with positive ideas, and now I’m hopeful that I can encourage or give insight to younger adults, also, especially with regard to life decisions like relationships, college, etc. When they’re women, I think (and hope that) I am able to show them, metaconversationally—that is, not in the words themselves but in my attention and behavior toward them—how an older man can speak kindly to them and show an interest, even to see them as romantically desirable, without being personally involved in romantic overtures toward her; to show her that guys can be respectful of her without being totally ignorant/unaware of her femininity. I think in the sex-charged culture we’re in, that has the potential to speak volumes in itself, and hopefully give them insulation against attention from the wrong guys.

256 So in light of this, I figured I had an opportunity to speak words of encouragement to one of the younger women on crew, because it happened that she’d specifically asked me to share my opinion of her. She’s basically granted me influence, allowing me to say something that may powerfully affect her.
                So I shared that I could see from her on-the-job behavior that she didn’t have a habit of complaining, she had a thankful spirit (I added afterward that she’s verbally appreciative of others), and that she is expressive of her feelings—with words--, which makes her easier to understand and less likely to have a misunderstanding with. All of this I could learn from observing how she does her job.

257 What work also reveals is ongoing habits, such as whether someone holds grudges, and I shared that later. After the first three compliments, she smiled and thanked me. I hope I’ve given her something to think about out of all of that, and that, if she does or doesn’t get similar compliments elsewhere, at least she now has. That’s enough motivation/encouragement for me to do what I do. If I can be an influence on her for good, that’s gratifying and makes me feel like my time in minimum wage employment hasn’t been wasted.

258 I think I’m strongly motivated to take every opportunity to influence young people, and particularly women, because I know what sorts of negative influences there are out there, but have no way of knowing what positive ones they might have encountered. There’s a possibility I’m one of the few if not the only one. I see it as my duty to provide a contrast to the usual narrative. If I withhold potentially helpful or even life-changing information, then I’m essentially guilty of negligence. Not doing the right thing is just as bad as doing the wrong thing. The fact that you know better is what makes it so severe. My knowledge is one of the only things I have that can benefit many people in short order. Keeping it to myself is a reverse arrogance.

259 [commenting on the Bachelor when there was nothing on tv] I think one of the major fatal flaws, an assumption that the contestants don’t think about challenging, is that they kiss. It seems like an expected guarantee, a way they evaluate each other. But the physical intimacy creates an emotional bond that clashes with the reality that there can’t be any real commitment, and the girls break down from mixed feelings of envy and betrayal and loss. While it’d be fascinating to be on the show, if the producers would even let you refuse to kiss, even so the context seems to lend itself to people getting hurt.

260 I remember when I learned jeans had been considered risqué in the past, I didn’t understand why. I thought that it was far easier for kids to be sexually inappropriate with dresses, which “provide easier groping access” and “could hide misbehavior from observers.” Apparently the real reason was that dresses obscure butt-curves and jeans hug them a little more. The emphasis was on being revealing, not in how tight the “goods” were wrapped. But that’s how 8^th-grader me thought, based on what he knew of how other boys in that age group behaved, and from a couple of Cosmo “sexcapade” stories I’d sneakily read in the supermarket/bookstore.

261 If jeans were risqué before, then wow, good thing Levi Strauss didn’t use spandex for his material. (Imagine if it was available, and he did; since his target consumer base was men, history could’ve taken a very different turn)

262 I can’t really sympathize with people who’ve been scorned (‘sympathize’ meant as in ‘understand the feeling,’ I’m not implying I think people are ‘getting what’s coming to them’ if they’re hurt). I’ve been spurned, rejected by peers/society, but not scorned, rejected by someone I desperately wanted. I don’t think my approach to love allows for the possibility of unrequited love. If it’s unrequited, it’s not desirable, and so the attraction doesn’t build.

~ Rak Chazak

A Good Story

I want my life to be a good story. Not the most captivating one, by a long shot, but a 'good read.' Something that makes sense, where you can clearly see the bigger picture, and how the formative events at various milestones conspired to produce the outcomes that were realized later on. How a latent, nascent potential, and a long preparation for the activation of the key purpose of this life (when all's said and done) unfolded into something that believers for eternity can say, "that had the hand of God upon it" "that's something only God could do" "what an amazing God we serve that would cause this to happen!"

Even if it's something so simple and ordinary as loving my wife, raising our children well, supporting the Church, and having my reputation with the World ruined for my unashamed witness for Christ.

There have been far more ordinary saints than of the amazing sort. And they still have a role, an important, God-given place in the Master Plan. Pursuit of that is not unambitious or a denial/missing of potential or success. It's just a different form.

~ Rak Chazak

Angst over not Fitting in Among Others

As I'm going through old texts to synthesize AWPATT thoughts out of the mix, I came across an exasperated statement I shared with a friend back in October.

I think it's fitting to share this for honesty as well as to give readers a better understanding of who the person behind these posts are. I'm not just a disembodied commentator, I'm someone who lives in the same world you do and feels a lot of the same things. Maybe I can offer something in the form of a connection -- make you feel like I "get it" -- through the pathos of a lament such as this.

I don't know how to live in this world. I talk too much, or I talk too little. I can't connect with people on either end of the spectrum of my personality, or the middle road either. Flamboyant? An amusement. Quiet? Ignored, mistrusted. Erudite? Disdained and seen as arrogant. Sensitive? Emotional and weak. Disinterested? Hateful. Hard working? Rude. Slow and methodical? Sour, lazy. Casual? Flippant. Serious? Judgmental. Concerned for others? Obnoxious, nosy. Inward oriented? Selfish, unhelpful, unfriendly.

I hate being falsely judged. I have a "but-but" for everything I get criticized for, that if only my explanation were honored, the condemnations would have no foundation. But it's the full scope of people's opinions of me that are misguided. I would have to change who they are 100% to get them to treat me fairly and with respect. In other words, I can never fix it. 

I'm at the mercy of people who choose to dislike me and actually assert that I deserve it for being different from them. And this is right, because I'm in the minority?

~ Rak Chazak

But the Wise Shall Understand

I hadn't sent donations to Christian ministries before this year, simply because I hadn't had access to any significant amount of "spare" money (if you can call it that). Because of that, I hadn't ever gotten any exposure to the special efforts of charitable organizations to interact with those who rise above 'garden-variety consumer' of the goods they produce to sustain themselves. Now I have, and it's been interesting to gain that insight.

As I had mentioned here, I bought three orders of the 100-ct. bulk purchase of The Biggest Question with the intent of making their easy availability to me (I've stowed most in my car) an aid in the event of obvious tracting opportunities--can't give what you don't have, and in the absence of following up a conversation, a tangible message left behind is a way to hopefully leave a stronger impression on someone after a witnessing encounter.

This was apparently a big enough single expense to draw the attention of the team. Trish Ramos, who I can only assume donates her time to Wretched, seems to have had the responsibility of calling to thank donors at the end of 2014. I was surprised to get a voicemail that was very clearly individually sent, since I was addressed by name.

As a follow-up to the thank-you and a "please let us know if you're interested in further supporting the ministry or handing out DVDs," she sent a text with a few links n' things. At the bottom was a verse reference I didn't immediately recognize, so I was compelled to look it up.

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.Daniel 12:10

It would seem a rather obscure quote, especially when you look at its immediate context. It's in the prophecy to Daniel about the Great Tribulation. So its immediate meaning is that it concerns a distinction between the 'wise' and the 'wicked' as demonstrated (through 'trial') in that time period.

But while that is the focus of the text, that's not the limit of it. There's a cool word called perspicuity, which in Biblical theology refers to the fact that a passage can be understood on many different levels, based on your intellect and background knowledge, without there being contradiction. A child can understand that Genesis 6-8 tells that the whole earth was covered in water by a global flood that destroyed all of humanity but 8 people. Andrew Snelling can understand it, too, he just has a much more in-depth appreciation of some of its significance because of his technical aptitude. The perspicuity of Scripture is the doctrine that says that the plain truth is understandable to everyone.

At the same time, that means that, while Scripture cannot simply be twisted to mean whatever someone wants it to say, it is often the case that one single-sentence statement of truth can mean multiple things simultaneously.

Daniel 12:10 is focused primarily on the difference between the wise and wicked, so that tells me that there is a comparison between the two that is not limited to the Tribulation period but extends throughout history. Simply put, when Biblical truth is concerned, the wicked will not understand it, but the wise will. And who are the wise? Those who are purified. Who are purified? Those who are saved by grace through Christ's atoning sacrifice. Who are those? Truly converted Christians.

While I pondered this, the reason for Trish's inclusion of just that verse began to settle out in my mind. The wicked won't understand what value there is in buying some DVDs to hand out for free to people who are quite happy living their lives without being harassed by annoying Christian fundamentalists. The wise person recognizes that there's nothing on earth more valuable than the message these DVDs contain, so that it's not about the purchase itself, but what the concern says about the wise man's heart: promoting the spread of this Gospel is the most worthwhile endeavor there is to be concerned with, and his preoccupation with pursuing the amplification of that message throughout the world and in his community and in his life shows that he is wise.

The wise shall understand. I understand why Wretched's The Biggest Question project is something worth supporting. Do you have a similar depth of understanding when it comes to why you support, promote, or ignore various community projects, organizations and movements that you witness in your life?

'Something to think about.
~ Rak Chazak

Adultification IV: Student Loan Borrowing Limits

Following my learning process via Adultification II, III and the last Personal Life Update (PLU), the next thing I touched on when I called up the university financial aid office was the question of whether the loans would cover enough of the tuition and fees so that I wouldn't be on the hook for it.

So far, my loans have been all of one sort, the Stafford loan given by the US Department of Education.

When it comes to student loans, loans held by the government are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, in contrast to private loans which are, but also unlike private loans, the terms of repayment tend to be somewhat more forgiving: you won't be required to begin repayment while you are taking courses full-time, and if your loans are subsidized, they won't even accrue interest during that time. Further, if you are too poor to pay back your loans according to the standard repayment plan (like me, with the IBR plan), you can be eligible to have your loans deferred even further based on your income. Beyond this, the government wields influence and leverage in terms of offering incentives--if you go into teaching or other public-sector careers, you can have your loans deferred, decreased, or even 'forgiven' outright. And in the worst case scenario of all, if 25 years from the date repayment was supposed to start, if you haven't paid it back, your debts are cancelled. But who wants to waste 30-some-odd years of their life just waiting for debt cancellation?

There are other federal student loans, such as the Perkins loans, and I suppose there are still others. Each kind of loan has a maximum school-year disbursement amount as well as a maximum loan ceiling. For the Stafford, the loan ceiling is $31,000 for dependent students. That happens to be almost exactly how much my total debt is as of right now.

Conveniently, the FAFSA considers you an independent when you are 24 or above. The loan limit for independents is something like $20,000 more, which would easily cover 2 years of university in-state. So it turns out that having been uncertain about what to do with myself for a little over a year had its perks.

Per-year, the Stafford loans pay out $12,000 as the maximum limit. Most in-state schools where I live don't have more than $9,000/year expenses in terms of tuition and fees. So I'm covered.

After this, the question is: can I also get need-based grants, because of my income status? And will whatever I have saved up by the Fall be enough to cover course textbooks, food, gas and insurance for 2 years while I try to figure out how to live without paying rent I can't afford?

The journey continues.

~ Rak Chazak

Adultification III: Taxes and Deductions

I've figured it out a little more.

Last year, when I filed for the first time (to my understanding I hadn't been required to file previously because I'd been a full time student and made less than some threshold amount of money--though because I didn't think about it, I would essentially have been giving free money away to the government, sadly), I got every cent of income tax back, both from the federal government and my state government.

What that led to was my mistaken understanding that the standard deduction was a maximum value on the amount of money you would automatically get back in taxes from the government. Say you make $10,000 in one year, and your standard deduction is $3,000. State and federal taxes add up to about 30% altogether, so because the deduction is higher than the amount of income tax that was deducted from your W-2, you get all of it back.

That was incorrect, and I learned how it actually works, this time around.

When the online preparation software I was using didn't automatically tabulate my full amount of income tax as the refund I was supposed to be getting, I was confused and concerned that because I'd initially said I wanted to itemize deductions, that I'd messed up the software and it wasn't giving me the right numbers. It was in the process of actually going through the previewable 1040 that the software provided for me, that I understood how it was all being calculated.

Now I know that neither the 'standard deduction' nor the 'student loan interest rate deduction' are gratis cash-back maximum allowances. Instead, they are subtracted from your gross income, and then taxes are calculated based on that new number (the AGI, or Adjusted Gross Income). The difference between these taxes and the taxes you actually paid is refunded to you.

Chances are I'm still somewhat ignorant, but at least there's been progress. :)

So the reason I got all my income tax back last year wasn't because the standard deduction was higher than my income tax -- it was because the standard deduction was higher than my gross income! That meant that my AGI, the taxable income I earned, went to $0, and hence I owed no income tax.

Yeah, I didn't make a lot of money last year. That's mainly because I didn't start working until August, so I accrued a little less than a half year's wages altogether.

So if you have student loan interest to pay, just understand: it's not the case that you get every dollar of it that you pay, back. That was what I mistakenly thought for a while (something seemed off). But it will reduce the amount of your income that gets taxed, leading to a larger refund. So if you can afford to pay your loan interest, go ahead. But it's not free money you're getting back; you are still paying money, net-wise.

Hope this was helpful or entertaining, depending on where you fall on the spectrum of understanding taxes.

~ Rak Chazak

Addendum to the Honey Maid Criticism

It seems I'm certainly not the only one to notice the uptick in advertisements showing hitherto socially abnormal family structures as part of their promotions.

Answers in Genesis' research team brought two similar ads to Ken Ham's attention and he wrote a blog post about it recently:

"Secular companies are increasingly producing ads that promote or attempting to what they call “normalize” homosexual behavior and gay marriage. For example, as a part of its “Put Your Heart to Paper” campaign, Hallmark featured the story of a young lesbian couple. And Nikon featured the story and a gallery of photos of a family of three children with their gay fathers. Now, these companies are secular companies that don’t claim to start their thinking on God’s Word, so of course they will develop their companies based on their own reasoning. But what these ads show is the increasing acceptance in our culture of ideas that are completely contrary to biblical principles. They are a sign of the times we live in—times of disobedience to, and a rejection of, God’s Word!"

My comments on Honey Maid's "#thisiswholesome" campaign, where I actually had more strong* words to say against the promotion of divorce as a way to love children, to be honest, was posted here yesterday.

~ Rak Chazak

* More strong is not grammatically incorrect. "Stronger" would imply that the words themselves were of a different character. But the simple fact is that whereas I characterized both divorce and homosexuality as sins and family arrangements that hurt children in my article, I spent more time = more words on addressing divorce, because I think it's woefully overlooked as a negative force in society, and hence, it's accurate to say "more strong words." This concludes my lay grammar lesson.

Personal Life Update: 100-m Hurdling

It doesn't really seem to stop. I quite like the simplicity of not having multiple, overlapping deadlines that require attention every single day, even just to make sure I'm not falling behind on the process of working to meet them. On the other hand, continuous responsibility to keep track of "adult" stuff feels good, because you have external pressures on you that work against any lazy urges that prompt you to sleep in, or waste time eating, playing video games, wasting time on line, etc. It makes you more productive and helps secure a sense of purpose as opposed to a sense of "what did I even do today?"

I'm over a little bit of a hurdle now. I've finally accomplished a grocery-list of financially-related issues that began to appear on my radar around December-January. These include:
1. Apply to community college
2. Apply to the second bachelor's program I'm interested in
3. Pay for CC
4. Buy books for CC
5. Do taxes
6. Do FAFSA (requires step 5)
7. Check with Financial Aid to make sure I crossed my t's and dotted my i's.

And on top of that, the first round of exams, that overlapped for about a week from last Thursday to today, is now past. So I have a bit of a reprieve, now, a sense of completeness with respect to these deadlines.

The next few steps are more natural: wait for Fin-Aid information to come back to me. Go to my classes and ace the examinations as usual, and keep myself from bleeding out too fast by working double shifts on the weekends (I was fortunate enough to be granted that request; now I have undistracted time between Monday morning and Friday afternoon to focus on schoolwork, and non-stop shift employment from Friday evening through Sunday evening). This is more routine and muscle memory than frantic paper-pushing and double-triple-quadruple-checking that I'm not running late for deadlines.

The things that press on me the most are the objectives for which I'm not certain what the deadlines are. The big obvious one that's on the radar now is the final prerequisite for the course I'm gunning for. One of the classes I'm taking now is the prerequisite for that one, so if you're following along with me, that means I need to find somewhere to take the course over the summer. This is somewhat unusual and I don't know what the availability is. As of last month, no colleges around had set their summer schedules yet, so I wasn't able to make any final decisions on where to zero in, let alone apply and register. But that is something I'm hoping to revisit tomorrow and see if there have been any developments.

There are other things I'm thinking about, too, which I won't necessarily discuss on a blog. And I'm trying not to either be distracted from all this by blogging, nor put it off so much that my blog goes defunct. I had a few false starts in the past and I'm quite pleased with how this one has been shaping up. I'm working on my Dekadius workout, as well as hitting the gym 1-3 times a week so I don't lose the progress I'd been making. I'm learning where my limits are, and the shoulder presses, lunges and calf raises have turned out to be a bit more difficult than I anticipated, whereas the pushups feel almost easy, but that can all change as I keep going through this process. The primary goal is to limber up my body, and the secondary goal is to get enough base strength that I can start seriously using weights to train my underused muscles and get some positive body transformation going.

Looking for and thinking about opportunities to share my faith. It has been partly restlessness with my perceived lack of interpersonal interaction with regard to witnessing that motivates me to write on this blog; that way, even when I am doing nothing in person (I don't exactly have a very public life, for that matter), I still have the potential to have an impact for the Gospel among those who search online for the subject matter I touch on, here.

That gives me encouragement as I go along. To God be the glory!

~ Rak Chazak

Today and Yesterday's News in Pictures: Washington Post Clippings

Here's what I've taken note of over the last 24 hours. All are in some way politically controversial, because they either confirm or refute hype over some hot-button subject.


#1


Exhibit A: The reason people are going bananas over wheat gluten in numbers far and above those that actually have Celiac disease (and hence, an inflammatory response/intolerance to the protein), could be because they have irritable bowel syndrome or that they are "FODMAP-sensitive," which means that polysaccharides etc draw water into the gut in the process of being digested, causing swelling, bloating and irritation.

The problem is, with both FODMAPs and Gluten, if you don't specifically have inflammatory symptoms from eating wheat, you shouldn't give it up. Avoiding Gluten or FODMAPs is a recommendation for the ease of symptoms, and not a nutritional recommendation for everybody. You can in fact get ill from avoiding these foods too much, because you'll be starving the gut bacteria that are necessary for you to digest other foods, and then you'll just end up with bowel irritation of a different sort.

TL;DR -- don't avoid Gluten or FODMAP-rich foods unless you actually have irritation. If you don't, then you have more to lose than gain from cutting them out of your diet.

#2


Exhibit B: I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. The man was pretending all along. Now I am simply waiting for someone to say that he was pretending to be a Christian all along. Most of us are clued in on it. It's not terribly difficult, however, to fool a populace into thinking you're Christian when most of the voting constituents don't know what a Christian is.

That's a damning indictment.

Did I just make a pun?

#3


Exhibit C: Turns out, cholesterol in food might not be very strongly correlated with cholesterol in the blood. That doesn't mean cholesterol in the blood is good. In fact, that's very bad. But new research indicates that your blood cholesterol levels are not primarily affected by the amount of cholesterol you EAT. Your liver produces cholesterol itself, and the new research suggests that the amount of oils and fats you consume plays a larger role in influencing the amount of 'bad' cholesterol your liver produces. That could mean that a diet high in cholesterol, combined with vigorous exercise, would be better than a diet high in certain types of fats, like cheese products. Stay tuned.

#4


Exhibit D: How vaccines work, real life examples. Here there are three Big Pharma companies working on developing Ebola vaccines. Two of them are illustrated, showing how portions of the Ebola genome have been copied into milder viruses for insertion into infected patients. Because these genetically altered viruses don't contain the whole Ebola genome, but only portions that have to do with surface receptors, it will not cause Ebola disease, and still allow the immune system to organize a response and produce antibodies, so that when Ebola proper were to arrive, the body could fight it off without any symptoms.

All viruses replicate by using a host's cellular machinery to copy its DNA/RNA and then to produce proteins. The adaptive immune response primarily works by the White Blood Cells (WBCs) connecting with a foreign protein sequence via surface receptors. These trigger the WBC to engulf the foreign body and digest it (chop it up in little  pieces) with its lysosomes.

By putting the portion of Ebola's genome that codes for these surface receptors, or other protein sequences that WBCs can recognize, into a patient, the adaptive immune response can have plenty of time to optimize (that's an engineering term) their ability to recognize the sequences and chew them up and spit them out, preventing the disease from progressing.

All vaccines work in essentially the same way. In this case, actual live viruses that aren't life threatening are used as carrier's for pieces of Ebola's genome, so that plenty of antigens can be produced and the body's immune system can be properly exercised. If you don't trigger a strong enough response, the body's immune system is going to go with what works but also costs the least "effort," so it may still be vulnerable to the real thing. That's why live viruses make sense in these trials. Ebola is just too deadly to risk being only partially inoculated against.

For the vaccine skeptics: yes, you can get reactions from a vaccine. But because of the way a vaccine is formulated, you cannot get the actual disease. Since your immune system is being triggered, you might get symptoms resembling a fever, but a fever is never caused directly by disease, it's caused by your body's immune response as it attempts to heat the body so that a virus's proteins are denatured, making it ineffective. That means that your body is working the way it should. You should not be worried that some minor symptoms mean that you're getting infected by the disease.

It's similar to getting food poisoning. You don't get it from the food. You get it from something that has infected the food. Remove the infecting agent, and the food is nutritious and good for you. All viruses have multiple gene sequences: some for replicating itself, others that code for the protective capsid covering, and still others that produce proteins that are directly responsible for disease symptoms. When a vaccine is researched, the disease-causing sequences are cut out of the genome, so that when the genes coding for WBC-recognizable protein sequences are injected into a patient, the patient cannot get the disease, but will still be able to develop immunity without risk of symptoms.

In the utterly rare cases that someone gets minimally ill from a vaccine, it's never a form of the disease but usually an artifact of the immune response, and as such is nearly never life threatening. It is people with weak immune systems that are at risk -- but consequently, they are not able to get vaccinated. That's why kids younger than 1 have been getting Measles--they aren't old enough to get vaccinated yet, which incidentally leaves them at greater risk.

Hopefully this clears the air a bit (that was not an intentional pun. What is with me today?)


~ Rak Chazak

Honey Maid "Wholesome" Commercial: One of These Is Not Like The Other

Perhaps you've seen this new commercial on tv, the one that starts with "I didn't think I'd get divorced, but the way I look at it, there's just more of us to love the kids now."

This clip of it doesn't include the longer intro with that voiceover, but it shows the other two couples:

It's about 20 seconds.

The advertisement seems to be part of a PR attempt to court people on political grounds, practically screaming "look how progressive we are with family values!"

They highlight divorce as "wholesome"
And they highlight two men, implicitly gay and raising an infant together, as "wholesome."

And then there's an "interracial" couple.

For some reason, people have trouble with a black man and white woman, or black woman and white man, being in a relationship. I don't get it. The only thing that stands out to me is that it's unusual, because you don't see it very often--but that's just statistics. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, if you're promoting it because you want to be a rebel against tradition, then perhaps you should reexamine your motives. I personally disdain the word "interracial" as this Answers in Genesis article helps explain.

But yet, a couple of mixed ethnic background is bookended between divorce and homosexuality in an ad that calls all of them "wholesome." And because I don't come from a background of disdaining relationships between "black" and "white" people, I am really left wondering whether the interracial couple in the ad is put in there to legitimize the other two couples, or if the same-sex couple is silently added at the end, feeding a baby with a bottle and walking behind a stroller, to confront pro-SSM advocates about their own personal racial biases by revealing their hypocrisy about who can love whom.

But either way, the commercial is saddening not just because it equates a commitment between one man and one woman, with broken commitment (divorce) and an imitation of the real which falls short (SSM), but because it holds up divorce as wholesome for children.

In all honesty, when it comes to the child aspect of it, divorce is WORSE. Not only are there more divorcees with children than there are same sex couples, thereby making it a bigger issue, I daresay that the harm divorce causes is at least on the same level if not more severe than having two same sex guardians, which is only one un-ideal relationship among many.

One child grows up with two dads, and never sees an intimate example of how a man should treat a woman.
One child grows up with a mom and dad, and sees betrayal of trust, abandonment, broken commitment, emotional withdrawal, selfishness and possibly abuse, adultery, deceit and finds themselves thrown under the bus, a child sacrificed for their parents' childishness.

Which is worse? One grows up having a hard time believing in a God who would say that their two fathers' affection for each other is borne of sin. One grows up having a hard time believing in a God who would say that marriage is a picture of His love for them, when the only marriage they've known has been one in which the father had nothing like a self-sacrificial loving attitude toward their mother, or his children.

Both are hurt. Both are sins. Now, divorce is a sin that has a definite boundary to it. Once you marry someone else, going back to your first spouse would require divorcing your second, which would also be sin; so there is no guaranty that tells you you have to choose one or the other, except that commitments shouldn't be broken. But with homosexuality, the desire itself is the sin, so the continued fleshly intimacy between two people is a continual rebellion against God. In terms of which is worse to do, it would seem that SSM is more dangerous for the actual sinners.

But for those who are sinned against? The children who are wounded by their parents' sins? The greater societal problem today would seem to be divorce, which by virtue of the fact that children's beliefs about God are strongly influenced by their relationships with their father, devastates a person's ability to contemplate the Heavenly Father as a compassionate, loving being.

Neither situation should be diminished; both are serious and both harm children. I find it offensive that both of these are held up next to a perfectly normal relationship between a black woman and a white man, and propounded as being "wholesome." But the thing that offended me the most was the voiceover that said "there are more of us to love the kids," and used that to rationalize backwards that the divorce was a good thing. That shows they don't even know what love is. That's tragic.

Honey Maid does a fine example of showing just how unwholesome it is, and how insulting it is to mixed-ethnicity couples by saying that relationships that deprive children of healthy relationships with both of their biological parents are "just as good as theirs."

They're not. And using children to justify the childish desire to buck the rules and do what you feel like you want to do for yourself is a poignant reminder that we live in a society where selfishness is the norm, and that whereas everyone grows up, not everyone matures.

Should your own sexual lusts take precedence over the well being of a child?

That is the flagrant challenge that the Honey Maid commercial makes. What will you decide?

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XV: January 17-February 2 (Thoughts 231-247)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

231 It’s got to be a good sign when I can go this long without deferring to saying, “I hope she’ll be friendly.” I’ve perused enough dating profiles from time to time (mainly out of curiosity, wanting to see what’s out there) that I’ve had ample opportunity to be dismayed by the shallowness, not of desire (it’s hardly a lousy character trait to want to be around friendly people) but of the amount of thought put into what people are looking for. My anecdotal survey of sites like these turned out that the vast majority of ‘what I’m looking for’ sections, at least for women, say something like “a guy who can make me laugh,” “a guy with a beard/tattoos,” “a guy my friends will like,” “a guy who doesn’t say ‘your’ when he should say ‘you’re’,” “a guy who’s taller than me,” “a guy who can go out or stay home,” “a guy who can keep up with me.”

If you thought I was superficial when I talked about height in Thoughts #50-52, you should see some of these profiles. I was just analyzing subconscious inclinations in myself, but made no hard statement categorically excluding different heights from “wife potential.” But for many girls on dating sites, it’s serious, or at least one of the only things they put thought into. But what I notice when I see those statements is that there’s next to nothing you can learn about a person’s character based on their meeting those criteria. Some profiles will pretend that there’s more to be worked through once she’s interested already, but that just sets you up for a high rate of frustration, because your filter isn’t tuned well enough.

Yes, I want someone friendly, but in person, that’s the first thing I notice, and ultimately it’s a given, so it almost doesn’t even enter into the consideration of what sort of a woman I’m looking for. I have deeper compatibility concerns in mind than the utmost superficial things imaginable. And I’m looking for someone with a similar depth of forethought in their relationship plans. Statements like the ones I quoted show carelessness and possibly intellectual stupidity, and that’s a turnoff, so I avoid people like that, but without being disrespectful.

232 I don’t believe I mentioned being interested in a studious woman. I’ve talked about intelligence, knowledge, that she’s careful to think about things before making decisions, but not specifically about the pursuit of knowledge in itself. While someone who goes to school for the sake of schooling, and to insulate themselves from reality, is not highly appealing, someone who’s had a certain measure of achievement in terms of education will stand out. Now, pretentious Type-A’s are exhausting to be on the receiving end of, so not every personality type is made more magnetic by the increase of education. For some, it reveals abhorrent ego issues. But perhaps more important is the question of whether you can learn outside of structured academia. Someone who pursues learning on their own time is like someone who exercises regularly. They’re not content to languish with what they already have, but are honing it, to get better and better, for themselves and others. That is the root attitude that will benefit any relationship. Because someone who thinks they can improve is someone who isn’t likely to think that they’ve “already arrived,” and thus is less apt to be arrogant. It’s not a guarantee, as I mentioned, but a woman who is reading and learning on her own time is more interesting to me because of what it implies about her character.

233 Noses! Do you like ‘em big or small? It’s one of those things that I don’t typically notice, like prescription eyeglasses, but when I do, it’s temporarily amazing, as I look around and compare others’ to appreciate the variety. I don’t think I like flattened or broad noses very much, but I’ve been intrigued by noticing that a diversity in relative size can still be attractive to me. I remember reading somewhere, where Song of Solomon was being referenced, that large noses were considered appealing in Hebrew culture (Song makes a big deal out of the Shulamite woman’s nose in one section). It’s funny, considering that from ancient Egyptian images of Hebrews to modern day stereotypes, Jews are characterized as having big noses. This is in the back of my mind every time I notice an attractive woman who has a noticeably larger than average nose. I suppose I don’t mind them if they have an isosceles shape, have no bumps on the ridge, and aren’t over-bulbous or over-pointy. Longer better than shorter. Thinner rather than thicker. It’s not usually that I think about what shape of someone’s nose might be more attractive, but I suppose it’s one of the subconscious impulses in your mind, like head shape, eye spacing, etc, that work together to give you the instant reflex of “that’s good looking,” or “that’s kinda odd,” even if you can’t quite put your finger on what makes that person different from others. Maybe it’s the nose.

234 That thought came from noticing a very friendly woman’s nose in one of my prerequisite courses I’m taking. I’m diverting to talk about light subjects before beginning an excursus on “how to approach dating when dating isn’t the focus/goal/objective.” In each of my classes, there are 5 or less males, making the ratio something like 1:6 or 1:5 men to women in each respective course. This is a little odd. I realize the field might be less interesting to men, but the vast difference could have more to do with a simple, unemphasized detail that I’ve been noticing in trend reports for higher education. There’s less and less men, percentage-wise, in higher ed courses, the higher you go. Amazingly, the focus of grants and government projects is still on getting more women to go to school, but the tables have already turned. It’s something like a 40-60% split in the makeup of men and women who attain baccalaureate degrees in this country (unless perhaps it was Master’s). What are the possible consequences of this? Statistics show that more boys are born than girls, so it’s not explained by population. There is a huge chunk of males missing from classrooms. What are the possible reasons, or consequences? Who knows? No one’s funneling resources to investigate; it’s as if men don’t matter. Oh, I’m not bitter. It’s just as easy to take the alternate view, that “women need the help, men don’t.” But I refuse to take either one. It’s just a fact that no one is obligated to help me, so whether they do or don’t, the responsibility is still on the individual to pursue educational success. But I can’t help but wonder if, given the dramatically high gender disproportion in these classes, it might be within a course or within the field itself that I meet my future wife, just looking at it from a statistical possibility perspective. There’s scarcely anywhere else I could interact personally with so many women close to my age, except for bars/clubs/concerts or church-related youth events. For a middle ground in terms of the chance of meeting a wholesome virtuous lady, the classroom is not a terrible place to be.

235 Addendum to Thoughts #22 & 199. What are the chances that I’ll end up with a younger woman? As recently as a year or two ago, I would defiantly have refused the notion that I wouldn’t marry someone within a half year of my age. But that’s idealism, and the realistic outcome might be different. Should I refuse someone who’s perfect in every other way but happens to be 5 years my junior (if I’m 28 and she’s 23, for example)? The older I get, the more likely this becomes, because the margin of what’s appropriate expands with age. Up to now, if I had entered a relationship with someone 2 years younger, they’d have been 21 or less. But now, 2 years younger is 23, which is not quite so young as to have a high likelihood of being immature or naïve. Since I probably won’t seriously look for a spouse until age 27-28, anticipating a solid career by that time, the idea that I’d get to know someone now who’s 22, and maintain a friendship until then, when she’d be 25, is not very far-fetched.

I think the reason I’m resistant and cautious to contemplating a relationship with someone 5-7 years younger, other than the difference in life experience, is that for most of my life up to now, such an age difference would have been monumental and clearly inappropriate: 18 and 13 year olds? 22 and 15 year olds? Eeugh. But people who are 33 and 25 routinely marry, and the brute age difference is even wider there. But they are in the same age group. Adults. Because people mature irrespective of their biological age, it could be that a marriage to a 23 year old, at age 28, would be wiser than to a 27 year old who is far more foolish. Just letting the thought hit me as actually concerning me, and not just as a distant hypothetical, is a source of amazement to consider.

The really weird thing about it is pondering where such a person would be now. If I married a 23 year old at age 29, then by the time I met her and became engaged, we’d have been 22 and 28, meaning that there’s a possibility that a woman like that would just now be graduating high school, or a freshman or sophomore in college. In other words, I’d have no hope of meeting her now, anyway. Our life trajectories don't intersect at this time. So it may be several years before I’m engaged, not only because I’m waiting to get a career and stable income, and not only because I want to be careful to find the right person, but even because, if the ‘playing field’ is too devoid of suitable candidates my age, my future wife COULD BE, because of our age difference, not even here yet. Not arrived on scene. Somewhere else entirely.

What a mind-boggling thought.

236 Taking those last two thoughts together, there’s a real possibility that I might either meet someone in church or at university, while taking courses to get where I want to get. And they might be significantly younger. Respect for them would demand that I don’t make their life more difficult by ‘jumping the gun,’ and inadvertently pressuring them to commit long before the opportunity for engagement arises. But if they turned out to be fond of me, and for those years did not enter a relationship with another young man, then that would be gratifying. I can see myself like Boaz (paraphrasing), “you’ve shown me more kindness than before, because you could have had any younger man you wanted, but did not.” (Ruth 3:10) It’s equally likely that I can’t find anyone there, either, however, and may nevertheless resort to a dating site later on, but only God knows. I have the opportunity to wonder now, that I may marvel later.

How to Approach Dating when Dating isn’t the Focus, Goal, or Objective

AWPATT XIV: December 22-January 16 (Thoughts 205-230)

The A-Z Compilation (#1) : 7,000 word excursus on what sort of qualities I would desire for my wife to have. 

If you're young, you may read something you've never heard of before, so I encourage you to take a look.

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughs: Hub

Here is the start of the list, and the rest of the AWPATT will be found after the jump break.

205 I want a woman who is assertive. Without forcing her way, she needs to be able to express her mind and take a confident stand on everything she believes. A woman whose opinions I can never find out, or which are prone to change at any moment, is not a woman I can trust.

206 I want a woman who is bold. Who will not withdraw in fear or shame or uncertainty but will passionately hold fast to what she knows is right. She ought to be impervious to mere disagreement, however strong. This foreshadows her faithfulness as a spouse.

207 I want a woman who is compassionate. She ought to care about others – this is not only very feminine, but an important human trait, and as a Christian she should have a well-developed sense of empathy. It should be tempered with truth and not given to the wrong people, or emotionally, but decisively.

208 I want a woman who is discerning. A woman who can’t tell “right from almost right” is like a door that is always open. A woman with poor judgment or capacity to spot lies is dreadfully unreliable, and I will flee from her.

209 I want a woman who is elegant. That mystery quality that is difficult to define. Most people would probably use the term “graceful,” but I prefer to limit my use of that word to the strictly Biblical meaning. There’s a certain combination of clothing, physical beauty, confidence and character that goes into my attributing it to someone. Someone for whom it seems effortless to be convivial, restrained, cheerful, relaxed, mutually engaged, thoughtful and kind, rather than for whom it is an exhausting role-play.

210 I want a woman who is faithful. This contains the concept of loyalty in commitment, as well as the importance of believing what is true and right, and not just believing something strongly. “Can two walk together unless they are in agreement?” Amos 3:3. Believing the same will enable us to do that. And this is the second main purpose of this blog – to allow her to evaluate that.

211 I want a woman who is graceful. Grace, Biblically, is “giving something good a) that is not deserved, or b) unconditionally.” The two go hand in hand. Suppose you have trouble comprehending the first meaning, because you believe your beloved deserves good things from you. If they deserve it, consider nevertheless that you do not love them because they deserve it, but as a matter of fact unto itself. And consider further that they deserve love because God says that’s how they ought to be treated, not because they have an innate character quality or deed to their name that empowers them to require such treatment from others. For if there is good in them, where does it come from but God, after all? So you treat them well based not on them but on God, who never changes. This means that you act in love toward them whether or not you think they deserve it, because it’s not based on their performance but the character of God. This love is unconditional.

This is grace. I will treat you this way. And it’s an absolute requirement for me that my fiancée understands and lives this truth out.

Applying grace to your view of how you should be treated leads to the understanding that you have two options:

1) believe you deserve to be treated in _____ way

2) believe you don’t deserve anything in and of yourself

There are consequences based on two outcomes:

1) you “get what you deserve”

2) you don’t

In the 1^st case, if you ‘get what you deserve,’ you might be grateful, but you were expecting it anyway. If you don’t get it, on the other hand, you become bitter, and resentful at being mistreated. In the 2^nd case, you have shelved your expectations, because you don’t believe you deserve (are entitled to) anything. Then, everything good you receive makes you incredibly joyful and thankful, as if taken by pleasant surprise, because it’s a special and wonderful thing each and every time something good happens.

Which would you rather have?

Choose grace.

Text Treatise: Thinking Big, Space Fantasies, and Groping for Infinity

Try to keep up :)

--------------------------------------

I've tried to create super-hyper-operators**(see attribution at bottom of article)** to express numbers so large that they're meaningless in this universe, even as expressions of mass, information, energy, power, time, probability, volume etc. 

The  idea is  twofold: 1) to help me fantasize more scientifically accurately aabout imaginary alternate universes and 2) to help me appreciate how big infinity really is.  

You know that 10^10 is 1 with 10 zeroes after it. 10^10,000 would be 1 with 10,000 zeroes after it. 10^100 is known as a Googol. 10^10^100 is 1 with a Googol of zeroes after it, known as a Googolplex. In comparison, 10^10,000 is 10^10^4, so a googolplex would be 10^10^96 times greater. That's assuming that you add the second exponent if you multiply, I'm not sure if you would have to exponentify the numerator to multiply the exponent so as to add the second exponent. Which just shows you even more, how massive the number is.  

But then I tried inventing a new system for showing even larger numbers. 

The next thing I tried to do was create a symbol to represent the next level of hyper operation. I used an up arrow but the keypad doesn't have that. 10x10=10^2. 10x10x10=10^3, and so on, we all know. 10^10=10,000,000,000. 10^10^10= 10^10,000,000,000. A massive number. 1 followed by ten billion zeroes. In contrast, a googol is 1 followed by 100 zeroes. But 1 followed by 10^10 zeroes is still nothing compared to 1 followed by 10^100 zeroes, which is a googolplex. 

Now, 10^10=10>2. 10^10^10 = 10>3. 10^10^10^10 = 10>4.  10>2^2 is a googol (10^100, 10^10^2) and 10>3^2 is a googolplex (10^10^100, 10^10^10^2)

So my next big numeral to invent was 10>100 (or 10>(10^2), not to be confused with 10>10^2. The latter would have 10 "^"s with the 11th position being a ^2; the former would have 100 "^s" -- I'm doing my best to stay consistent with established mathematical symbolism). 

If I wrote 10>10>10 that would not be 10>1 followed by 10 zeroes (10>(10^10) would be that), it would be 10>10 raised to the tenth power successively 10 times, or 10 to the googolplex to the googolplex to the googolplex. MASSIVE, MASSIVE NUMBERS.   And then I pretended that I could comprehend the size of a universe where the average planet was 10>100 km in radius, supposed that I couldn't go any higher, and went to bed mentally exhausted. 

Personal Life Update: Admission Applications

Details are omitted for reasonable reasons.

I'm halfway through the application and enrollment processes at two higher education institutions: one a community college and the other a university. Until this fall, I didn't have a clear conception of what specific career goals I wished to aim toward, and was wary of making decisions without the requisite information to make them well. But now, I have a notion of what to do with my degree, and consequently, know what I need to do to get from here to there. First I learned about accreditation agencies that can certify you for a specific career position, and then I found different accredited programs around where I live. I picked two institutions for their relative convenience in terms of location to me, and am intending to conclude the bulk of the remaining prerequisite courses at the community college, while applying to be wait-listed in the mean-time at the university, for the Fall 2015 program.

Now it's a waiting game of two sorts: waiting to be admitted, and then waiting to see if I make it into the actual courses that I'll be wait-listed for. Being on the wait list is not a death sentence, it usually is as good as getting into the course itself, because a fair number of people are often bound to drop the course or fail to meet criteria and be removed administratively, opening up slots for you. So I'm fairly confident in getting the prereq's out of the way. This will make me higher ranked for the 2-year program I'm applying to, so that when they run numbers before the Summer, and then again before the Fall, I'll likely move up and have a much better shot at securing a position. The other thing to "wait" for is the question of financial aid. I'm almost guaranteed to get loans like the ones I already hold, but finding need-based grants and scholarships would be nice.

The specifics of the outcome belong to the Almighty. But I learned this wisdom from a speaker at one of the few Cru meetings I attended one semester: that (using a Biblical example, he asserted) stepping out in faith is the mark of obediently waiting on God. Faith is not total resignation and waiting for God to do everything. Faith is knowing what is in accordance with the will of God, seeking to do it, and praying for Him to lead you to the right conclusion. Whether God answers your prayer or not, you still act in faith. By trying to accomplish something, you give Him the divine prerogative He deserves, to decide the outcome. But if you refuse to try to accomplish something, such that it is impossible, then you are not being faithful and waiting, you are essentially trying to control the outcome by limiting yourself to the option of failure. "You do not receive because you do not ask." (James 4:2) Faithfulness involves both asking God for help, and striving to be obedient whatever the outcome. It is not one or the other; it is not doing nothing, and waiting for God to move, and it is not trying to do things in your own power, for God.

If I don't apply, I can't be accepted. Only by applying, can I have the option of either being accepted or denied entry into a course/program. So which one of these confers more glory to God? The one where He can bless your obedience or the one where He'd have to perform miracles to alter the nature of reality just to give you the good things He desires?

I feel good, because I know that it's wise to improve my marketability as a suitable employee for the particular field I have in mind. I also know that a good work ethic and personal responsibility is pleasing to God. And I know that whatever the outcome, it's solely in His control, because I made sure to pray beforehand, that whatever I pursue would be the path that He intends, and that I do nothing from the strength of my own flesh but by His Spirit.

Stepping out in obedient faith. Now it will be exciting to see what God will do with it.

~ Rak Chazak

Infinite Regress or Circular Reasoning. Take Your Pick.

There are two problematic logical conundrums that most people try to avoid, and which in most cases you can refer to in criticizing an opponent’s theories. If you can show that their reasoning leads to an infinite regress, or incorporates circular logic, you can trounce their arguments and come away victorious.

An infinite regress is a problem in logic for this reason. A logical proof goes like this:

1. If this conditional statement is true, then the conclusion follows.

2. This premise states that the conditional above is true.

3. This conclusion says that the conclusion in # 1 follows from points 1 and 2.

It has a beginning and an end. But an infinite regress goes like this.

1 If the infinitely distant premise is true, then the conclusion follows from premise 1.

2. Premise 1 depends on premise 2

3. Premise 2 depends on premise 3

4. Premise 3 depends on premise 4

5. Premise 4 depends on premise 5

6. Premise 5 depends on premise 6

7. Premise 6 depends on premise 7

….

Starting to see the problem? If the nth premise as n approaches infinity must be true for the conclusion to be reached, then the conclusion can never be reached, because you can never count to infinity.

In other words, an infinite regress renders a logical proof invalid because the proof is incomplete. It can never be finished. It’s the same as saying this.

1. If A then B

2. If B then C

3. ?

or like this,

1. If A then B

2. it is not known if A

3. therefore, it is not known if B.

It hasn’t been formulated in such a way that the conclusion can be determined. Each of the two above examples are not infinite regresses themselves, but they are what an infinite regress amounts to. A collection of premises with no connection to a conclusion. A series of unknowns and hypotheticals that renders the conclusion unascertainable.

That’s why an infinite regress is logically wrong. Because once you have it, you can prove nothing that depends on the conclusion of the infinitely regressive logical proof. As in the above examples, if you have any other proofs that use as a premise the fact that B is true, none of those proofs can be known to be true, because B can’t be known to be true.

Proof 1:

1. If there is an infinite regress, B can not be known to be true.

2. There is an infinite regress.

3. Be cannot be known to be true.

(this is, ironically, a modus ponens logical proof, and not itself an infinite regress. Fun!)

Proof 2:

1. If B then C

2. B cannot be known to be true

3. C cannot be known to be true.

AND SO ON. Why am I harping on this? What is the issue?

If someone’s worldview depends on a premise that is the conclusion of a proof that contains an infinite regress, then everything they believe is illogical. What? Crazy, right? That’s not to say what they believe may not be true—it may. But they would have no way of knowing, because they could never prove it. So everything they believe is logically suspect. It could all be false, and whatever they believe to be true and false, no matter how logical the individual proofs for those beliefs may be, is ultimately grounded in uncertainty—feet firmly planted in mid-air.

And now, to make this real:

So Many Technical Terms for What I Thought Was Simple Belief

A lot of views I hold now were nascent before 2010 or assumed based on what I may have read or been taught but don’t remember learning. What amazes me is that within the essential core doctrines of Christianity, there is immense variety of views on all sorts of concepts one might initially consider mundane, or at least, certainly not a source of conflict. You’d be wrong, at least on the level that people don’t hold different opinions on them. And what impresses me is that every independent view has a technical name for it! This post is meant both as a reflection on nuances of Biblical Christianity that I believe, and to educate readers as to the existence of the diverse views out there. Listed is not an exhaustive explanation of everything that can be believed, but the alternatives that I find most reasonable, to the extent that I do, and short descriptions.

Dispensationalism – the belief that there are distinct periods of time ("dispensations") in human history where God has interacted with humanity in different contexts than at other times.

Pre-millennialism – the belief that Jesus Christ will physically return to earth to reign from Jerusalem for a long period of time, most likely a literal 1000 years, before finally ushering in the beginning of eternity

Zionism – the belief that God intends to one day rule the world from Jerusalem in person, as He once did from a distance, with the inhabitants of and agents of rulership of His kingdom being ethnically Jewish believers. Party to this fulfillment is the likelihood, but not necessity, of Jews to be regathered to Israel. The present state of modern Israel should not be seen as a perfect fulfillment of zionist prophecies, but as representing a partial fulfillment, or as setting the stage for a future fulfillment. 

Dispensational pre-millennialism – the belief that there will be a distinction between the Church, Tribulation saints, and Israel in the Millennium, that the Church and Tribulation saints constitute glorified (sinless) believers from before and during the Great Tribulation, and that Israel constitutes Jewish (and, not yet glorified, therefore sinful) believers in Christ at that time.

Dispensationalism and dispensational premillennialism contrasts in particular with “Replacement Theology,” which holds that the promises given to Israel in the OT are now active for the Church and Christians, in the NT after Christ’s crucifixion. This does not make sense, Biblically, but there is a valid point that in soteriological terms (having to do with salvation), there has never been a distinction between Israel and the Church. Paul writes in Romans 9-11 that “all Israel is not Israel,” to indicate that it was not Jewishness that saved anyone, but faith in God, and this is true both for saved OT Jews and saved NT Christians. This is emphasized in

Covenant Theology, which I also agree with to the extent that it emphasizes that there is no discontinuity in God’s plan of salvation over time. It has always been Law and Grace. Believing Jews and Christians are in the same spiritual class. This is certainly true. Where it’s possible to go wrong in dispensationalism is to get the notion that God changes His mind or treats different people differently, and where it’s possible to go wrong in covenant theology is to get the notion that there’s no difference between Israel’s role in God’s plan and the Church’s role in God’s plan. Hence why I seem to find these two beliefs characterized as being in conflict, but I find aspects of each, as I have read and understood them, that are theologically sound.

Pre-tribulation rapture – the belief that all living (and dead) Church Age believers will be removed from planet earth prior to the final 7-year period of premillennial history during which God has determined to set aside to “judge the nations,” and both chastise those who will come to faith in that time, and to pour out His wrath on those who will not. It is identified as “the time of Jacob’s Trouble,” indicating that the emphasis is on God’s relationship with Israel, and further there is a promise to the Church that “we are not appointed to wrath,” and the Tribulation is referred to in Revelation as “the great day of God’s wrath,” – consequently, there is a theological basis for believing that the Church is not present, beyond the common prooftexts about the rapture itself.

Baptism by immersion – the belief that John the Baptist’s baptism of submerging the whole person under water is the best model to use. The alternative is “sprinkling,” where water is poured or splashed on someone’s forehead. Each refers to different things. I did some research to understand why conservative Presbyterians and Lutherans prefer the sprinkling method, and it turns out they view it as symbolic of the Holy Spirit’s anointing (pouring oil over someone’s forehead was a common OT symbol used to indicate that God had chosen someone to be a prophet or king), so that mode of baptism is meant to symbolize the fact that the Holy Spirit comes to indwell new believers. Baptists generally prefer immersion, because they view it as symbolic of dying to self/sin and ‘being buried with Him, and raised to walk in newness of life.’ The Biblical phrase is “what is buried is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.” It is meant to symbolize the spiritual truth of salvation and glorification (two separate events) simultaneously, (with emphasis on the first), as being a spiritual death to the old way, and new life in Jesus Christ. I believe that the symbolism of death and resurrection, of putting to death the old man and putting on the new Man (JC), is more Biblically consistent and symbolically appropriate.

Believer’s baptism – since baptism symbolizes a conscious choice to surrender in faith to God, it is most appropriate for adults who have been counseled in depth as to the significance of the ceremony. It simply doesn’t make sense to baptize babies, for two reasons: 1) they aren’t mentally capable of belief, and 2) the act of baptizing them does not impart a special measure of God’s grace to them, and with that understanding, that it is merely symbolic and an act of obedience, and not a mystical transfer of power, there is no motivation for baptizing anyone who’s not mature enough to comprehend what it means.

Open communion – the alternative to this is that church leaders are put in a position of pointing out individuals that they believe are disqualified and not permitted to participate. This puts them in a position of judging the content of a person’s heart, which is not in their power nor prerogative. What is better is that communion is available to anybody (save openly professing nonbelievers, one could imagine), and that it is emphasized that one should willingly choose not to participate if they have unreconciled conflict with another person, or unconfessed sin, etc, because of the seriousness and the real danger of incurring God’s judgment on you, in some way, because of faithlessness or irreverence. But from a human perspective, communion should be offered to anyone who’ll take it.

 That communion is symbolic. It isn’t mystical. Like baptism, it is a public demonstration of faith and a way to encourage and edify the Church by your obedience. It does nothing beyond that to increase your standing with God, or improve your spiritual growth, or give you victory over sin, etc. Other views are that “God is present” in the sacrament in some way that is more significant than His normal everyday presence at all other times in a believer’s life or in Church activities. I forget which of the two, Luther and Zwingli, who held this, but all I remember is that they held two differing views on it. Other names for communion are “the Lord’s supper” and “the eucharist.” I avoid the latter term because of its association with heretical wings of the Episcopalian church and the Greek orthodox and Roman catholic churches. In the RCC, the view of the eucharist is the antibiblical belief called “transubstantiation,” which supposes that the bread and wine literally become Jesus’ physical body, so that participants commit cannibalism in the belief that this is spiritually, mysteriously holy. The Bible says that Christ was “crucified once for all,” but Catholic doctrine says that the eucharist perpetuates Jesus’ sacrifice every time it is performed, and so it is in direct violation with the Scriptures.

Calvinism – this is the one view that I did not think I held, and it took me a long time to reason to an acceptance of it, after the misleading introduction to it that I had in 9^th grade world history. As it turns out, the common characterization of Calvinism given by anybody who’s not a Calvinist tends to describe what Charles Spurgeon termed “Antinomianism” (‘against the Law’), which is the belief that it doesn’t matter how poorly you behave, because if you’re predestined you’re good to go, you’ve got a carte blanche to sin because you’re already going to heaven. Turns out, that’s not Calvinism.

Under the category of Calvinism falls all of that which is called Reformed doctrine. “The doctrines of Grace.”

The five solas – sola scriptura, solo Christos, sola fide, sola gratia, soli deo Gloria

TULIP – total depravity of man, unconditional election of believers, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints

Fundamental to Calvinism is the doctrine that separates Protestantism (the healthy parts, churches which have not slid into heresy) from all other beliefs, both pseudochristian and pagan: the doctrine that salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, and not by the works of the believer. In other words, no one can earn their way into heaven. No one can be a good person. No one can be righteous. No one can save themselves, nor does Jesus need their participation in order to save them. Anything contrary to this is not only contrary to Calvinism, but contrary to the Scriptures and contrary to the very core of the Gospel message. In other words, anything in disagreement with this is damning doctrine. And because it’s so solidly Biblical, that is why I eventually found myself in agreement with what I had been educated to think was stupid for a half a decade.

 Cessationism – the belief that the supernatural gifts of healing and predictive prophecy, as well as speaking in and interpreting different languages without having conscious comprehension thereof, have a) totally and utterly ceased because their purpose was specifically for the early Church and there is no point to them now – “we have a more sure word of prophecy (the Bible)”, or b) cessationism lite – that the gifts are in operation in rare cases where new people groups are being evangelized by missionaries where the Gospel has never been heard in their language, and no one knows their language so as to preach it to them.

In both of these cases, however, it is held that whatever the Holy Spirit does in the world today that is supernatural, the sign gifts, as they are called, are not given to people today as they were in Acts, where they were essentially superpowers that could be exercised at the believers’ discretion in the same way as you would flex a muscle, but instead are very specifically ordained for a limited purpose and then do not remain.

In most cases, cessationists still agree that “spiritual gifts” exist and should be pursued, but they are more appropriately comprehended as God-given wisdom or personality qualities that can be developed like any other skill (encouragement, teaching, preaching, discernment, charity), and not as flip-of-a-switch occurrences where a person suddenly begins speaking incomprehensibly in a congregation where everybody knows English. Much more could be said, but this is the basic framework.

Complementarianism – in contrast to egalitarianism. The former holds that husbands and wives have different, but complementary roles, and the latter holds that they perform exactly the same roles as each other with no differences. Complementarianism further holds that the church leaders identified as biskopae in the Greek (called pastors, elders, bishops, ministers, etc) are roles that are to  be held by married men, only. The church leaders identified as diakonae (pardon any misspellings, I don’t know Greek endings), or deacons, can be both men and women, since there are examples of them in the NT. The two classes of Church servants perform markedly different roles. Much has been said on the subject of why women should not be allowed to hold positions of spiritual authority over men, but the one thing that is undeniable is that the Bible clearly teaches this, and that there is no room for confusion over the fact that complementarianism is the Biblical view.

Sublapsarianism – I hadn’t realized that there were different views on the order of events of God’s decision making process in planning history from eternity past, but there are. To my best knowledge, infralapsarianism says that God determined to allow the Fall, then determined to save some of the fallen, then provided Jesus Christ as the substitute. Sublapsarianism says the God determined to allow the Fall, then provided Jesus Christ as the substitute for sinners, then chose which of the fallen to save through this atonement. (I could have these two switched by accident—check GotQuestions to be sure). And Supralapsarianism says that God determined who should be saved, then determined to accomplish salvation through Jesus Christ, and lastly created humans and allowed the Fall. I can think of at least one other order of events, namely that God determined first of all to demonstrate His love for sinners by dying in their place, then determined to create humanity, and then chose those He wished to save. I personally prefer putting Christ at the very beginning, because even though God is eternal, it’s logically coherent to note that the Son was self-existent prior to any consideration of the creation of humanity. So the desire to demonstrate unmerited favor must have been there “before” the decision to create beings who would fail to merit this favor, so that they could be loved unconditionally, to God’s glory. What to call this? Archae-lapsarianism?

At any rate, this is included to show just how much nitty-gritty-ness exists in Christian theology, not because which of the three (or four, if you like my alternative) you choose is of severe doctrinal significance. Lapsarianism has yet to become an issue that divides denominations or leads to religious persecution, to my knowledge. And every one of them is a Biblically supportable view, and hence, it is the epitome of a non-essential doctrine.

Monergism – the belief that God saves sinners. He alone gets the credit. He needs no help. Synergism is the belief that God and sinners work together to achieve the salvation of the sinner. In other words, this makes salvation impossible without the participation of the sinner. This makes salvation dependent on the sinner, and in other words, makes God dependent on man’s choices. God hardly gets the credit for whom He saves, this way. The truth is that “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” and it has nothing to do with how they respond. God will never save someone who responds by refusing to be saved. It’s a logically impossible state of affairs. So God will always succeed in saving whom He will, and He alone gets the credit for it.

Young-earth creationism – the belief that based on the Bible’s genealogies and lack of evidence of gaps in the storyline, that the age of the earth from Adam to Christ must be roughly 4,000 years, and consequently, the state of the natural world and universe must be explainable from a framework that deals faithfully with the Biblical account of how God created the world, and, key to much of it, the Noachian Deluge. The evidence that confirms a recent creation is pretty astounding, but the most solid proofs thereof are Biblical, and it is these that are and ought to be the most convincing supports for this view, to anyone who has a high view of Scripture.

Fundamentalist – believer in the inerrancy of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture (sola scriptura). A doctrinal conservative. The belief that Christianity cannot be put on the back burner in favor of politics or other secular concerns, but must be the central thing that guides a person’s behavior.

“Literalist” – there’s no theological term I know of that describes how one should read scripture, but the scholarly method is called “the historical-grammatical method,” which is a multisyllabic way of saying that you read Scripture plainly, and interpret it in the way that it is intended to be interpreted. There is a term called “exegesis” which means to read out from the text, in contrast to ‘eisegesis,’ which means to take outside ideas and ‘read into’ the text. Literalism is a misleading worldly term that is often used condescendingly. The simple truth is that good Biblical interpretation takes literal passages literally, poetic passages poetically, parabolic passages parabolically, prescriptive passages prescriptively, historical passages historically, and prophetic passages prophetically. Every part of the Bible isn’t literal. But you read it the way it was intended to be read by the writer (the “historical-grammatical” angle), and you will be “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

That's it, for a compilation of epithets and descriptive titles that fly around inside and outside of soundly theological circles, that can help you gain a better understanding of how reasonably, or else wonky, someone's beliefs about the Bible happen to be. 

~ Rak Chazak