Subjective Experience vs. Materialistic Determinism

What if everything in the universe obeyed strict mathematical laws, and nothing -- not even personal volition, not even subatomic phenomena -- allowed for random chance?

Chance, here defined, is actual uncertainty about an event, such that if you knew the location, velocity, energy level and exact dimensions of every particle in the universe, and modeled reality in a hypothetical supercomputer, that you would not be able to predict the future with accuracy.

Materialistic determinism requires that if you somehow knew everything there was to know about this exact instance in the present, then you could know everything about the future and even the past, simply by mathematical modeling of the pieces that make up the universe. Their obedience to physical laws guarantees that you can know exactly how they will interact, with no randomness, leaving nothing to chance.

Generally, when we say that something is random, or a result of chance, it means that we can't predict it with the models we have and the knowledge of the universe that we possess. This is randomness from a human perspective. But real randomness -- absolute randomness -- does it exist?

Let's suppose it does not, and engage in a thought experiment.

***   **   **   ***        ***   **   **   ***        ***   **   **   ***

Bayes' Theorem

I ran across something that I wanted to share, some time ago. I figured I'd read it and write a handy little summary if I could, but I'm distracted by the need to commute and so I don't have the time to attempt to reacquaint myself with probability statistics. I do nevertheless find the field interesting and it has useful connections with the field I'm going into, so it'll be valuable to dust off my STAT book one of these days.

Bayes' Theorem is explained somewhat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

It is a mathematical method for assessing the likelihood of one event based on the probability of a related phenomenon. As it turns out, a professor once wrote an analysis of the statistical likelihood of the Resurrection based on the prevalence of eyewitness evidence. As of this post, this link to it was still active: http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/depoe-bayesian-analysis-resurrection.pdf

I'll leave it at that, because I can't assess it very much nor give the holistic explanation I like to do, without further review of statistics. My thought process is logical but not mathematical. My visual-abstract reasoning needs to put in more effort to convert the numerical representations into "brain language." In essence, I'm translating mathematics into words and images in the process of learning it. But I may one day return and give more capable explanation of this interesting topic.

But suffice it to say: based on the number of direct eye witnesses to the event, as demonstrated by the recorded history, we can be perfectly statistically persuaded that the Resurrection took place. With the strength of mathematical analysis behind our conviction.

~ Rak Chazak

Poem: Do Us Part

This is best understood in light of the insights I shared in The Extrapolation Principle, and Intimacy in Heaven.

Do Us Part

You and me
indefinitely
not forever but together,
that's how it's meant to be.
True love will stick
but knows its place
our human bonds will yield before
eternity's embrace.
Another's love
is lovely, sure
but even though it's the best thing we know
I promise you there's more.
Keep in mind
symbols are signs
and marriage is a symbol
of a grander still design.
Ecstasy
we just can't foresee
how much better, in heaven
our love and joy will be.
Let us not
be easily caught
by believing that receiving
earthly joy is the best thing we've got.
Lift your eyes
eternity is out of sight
in more ways than one, we face a ton
of surprises when we arrive.
Our intimacy
will surpass physicality
this poem will end, but I and my friend
will love better than we ever dreamed...
indefinitely.

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."

~ Rak Chazak

PS background: the "You and me indefinitely" was initially inspired by a rejection of the Francis Chan book "You and me forever," which is ostensibly a book about how to make the most of Christian marriage. I might suggest to Mr. Chan and wife that telling the truth about the place of marriage in the context of God's divine plan would be a good place to start.

PPS something "indefinite" is something that doesn't have a defined limit (or a known one, from human perspective), yet which nevertheless is not practically infinite in extent. Our lives in eternity will go on forever, but the amount of time we've spent there will always be a finite number, even if it's 10^100^100^100^100 years and beyond. In a similar vein, human life and marriage has a distinct beginning and therefore the time from the beginning to the present is always definite -- but the time from the present to the unknown future ending (when "death do us part") is uncertain from our point of view of not knowing the future, and so the word 'indefinite' rather than 'forever' is better to describe something that has no foreseeable ending, like a committed earthly marriage. 

What's the Social Gospel? (case study: United Methodist Church)

It's not the Gospel, for one.

It is the reduction of "Christianity" to an outward faith devoid of almost anything Christian, let alone Biblical, except for the occasional references to a God or Christ in an attempt to infuse their agendas with strength. In that sense, it's no different from any worldly religion invented by greedy men to pursue their agendas with a "god says you must."

The United Methodist Church is running an ad campaign called 'rethink church.' It, and the site they redirect you to, is a perfect example of the social gospel.

See here:
http://rethinkchurch.org/learn-about-united-methodists
http://rethinkchurch.org/beliefs-into-action

On the second link, you'll see a dozen or so 'social justice campaigns,' and notice that nowhere in all of it is there anything hinting that people's eternal destiny is a concern, or even in mind.

Clicking the link to "spirituality," out of curiosity, I find this:

They briefly mention "anxiety, sadness, anger, shortcomings, guilt, shame" but don't connect it to sin and certainly don't tell about the remedy for sin, or how God sees sin or what He did for sinners. Nope. Instead they say that their goal is to 'find ways to connect with God' and find 'spiritual self expression.' 

We don't assume everyone's connection to God looks the same. Or should! We're reaching out to share God's love by meeting people where they are, and sharing our hearts in the process.

We welcome dialogue. We're respecting other people's beliefs and opinions about God, while maintaining our own practices and Wesleyan perspective.

We don't think church should just be for a certain kind of person. We think it's important for every person to have a place where they can express their spirituality.

The only thing they get right anywhere on this entire site is the tidbit that Church is not a building, it's a gathering of believers. But since the UMC doesn't identify what a believer is, their definition of church becomes functionally meaningless.

The Social Gospel denies and ignores sin and presumes to address physical difficulties, like hunger, housing, income, deforestation, etc as the greatest human ills and their sole focus.

It fails to save anybody. It accomplishes nothing more than making many people feel a little more comfortable on their economy-class flight to hell.

Further reading: http://www.gotquestions.org/social-gospel.html

~ Rak Chazak

Personal Life Update: Timing is Everything

I got a big envelope in the mail today.

It was from my student loan servicer. It was dated two weeks ago, and it warned me that they'd need documentation within the next two weeks to renew my Income-Based Repayment Plan. Hey, thanks for that notice! ;D

As it turned out, I had already sent documentation, so this made me a bit worried. I'd sent it quite a while ago, so hopefully it hadn't been lost or intercepted on the way. I called the number. After putting in my information, the electronic voice said that my renewal request had been received -- four days after the slow-moving envelope was sent -- and approved.

Problem solved.

Most stress can be prevented or resolved, it truly seems, simply by second-guessing what you think.

~ Rak Chazak

Review: Fury

It fits easily on the (imaginary) shelf of war-movies I'd like to have as reference for future teenagers to help them understand the severe reality of a world in conflict beyond our present scope of peaceful experience. The only difference between this and other movies I've seen is that you see a lot of the inside of a tank.

As usual, my reviews are almost always plot-spoilers by default.

Fury

Could also have been called: Crouching King Tiger, Hidden Panzerwagen

 "That's an SS officer. You kill every one of them you can."

Synopsis: A green-as-grass private gets tapped as a replacement to be the front-gunner in a tank with hardened soldiers, and becomes the only survivor of a one-against-hundreds standoff against an SS platoon.

There's not much to say, so I'll start with basics:

* no sexual nudity. However, numerous references to sexuality and implicit intercourse, mostly confined to a few scenes in particular after a town had been liberated from the Nazis
* of course, there's cursing. Less of it than in Gone Girl, for comparison (Gone Girl was far more profane than most war movies I've seen).
** A younger child might not pick up on the sexuality. But a younger child shouldn't be watching it for the sake of the gruesome deaths depicted, unless (my opinion) he's already been exposed to it through school or other children or the secular media. The longer you can keep them innocent, the better. Pre teens/early teens are probably the most appropriate age (given the culture we're in) to begin showing war movies to.
* there's a few psychologically intense aggressive scenes. Brad Pitt's character forces the rookie to execute a German soldier, and Jon Bernthal's character slaps the rookie around right after the Nazis bomb the town they were in.

That last part is pretty much the main thing I want to highlight. All other aspects of the movie are interesting in the sense of warfare tactics and getting a broader concept of the dynamics of a prolonged invasion. But the middle of the movie was a bit confusing, initially. Almost like a detour.

Brad Pitt and the rookie go visit with a woman and her cousin (who he sees through a window) and the film devotes many minutes to a real-time portrayal of the tension when they first arrive, to Pitt washing himself, and to setting the table and eating. The rest of the tank crew comes in and act upset that they were left out, and misbehave in various 'passive'-aggressive ways. Michael Peña's character tells a story about how it took them three days to bury the dead and shoot horses amid flies on a battlefield earlier in the war. Jon Bernthal's character tells the rookie he should "share" the girl he met, which Pitt replies to by threatening to break his teeth. Bernthal then spits on the girl's food. Much of the cinematography shows awkward silences. Nevertheless, it was clearly intended to show that the rookie and the girl made friends, and had a bit of pleasantness and hope amid the war, to be uplifted by.

And then as soon as they walk outside, artillery or rockets impact the town and the girl is buried, clearly dead, in the rubble of her building. Rookie loses it, screaming and punching Bernthal's character who almost selflessly, in a strange way, instigates him to punch him in the face, and then grabs him tight and shouts in his ear, "that's WAR!"

While it likely wasn't Pitt's character's expectation that they would die, his choices and Bernthal's seemed to conspire to make the rookie suffer loss so that he would become battle-hardened like they, and finally want to kill Germans.

That seemed to be the purpose for the uncomfortably long dinner scene. As setting the backdrop for, and helping the audience empathize with, the rookie's loss so that they would understand his anger, and so that they would understand the hatred/will to fight that drove the tank crew to risk their lives to kill their enemies so that others would have the chance to live.

Viscerally feeling disgust and anger over the evil things others do is one way war movies (and to some extent action movies, but usually less confrontationally) do to help you get into the mindset and understand that an action is justified, or at least rational. Fury did this effectively, on a very personal scale.

~ Rak Chazak

PS As an afterthought, this was the only example I've seen in years of a secular movie making a distinction between going to church and being saved. It's right there in the dialogue when "Bible," Shia LaBeouf's character, first meets the rookie. It might surprise you to see it on the screen. If it turned out that it didn't do superbly at the box office, then I would suspect the open religious language between the characters to be the most likely culprit. In this society, no one wants to see people quote Bible verses as if it's a reliable document. They want to see bad guys misquote Scripture so they can hate them better, they don't want them to use Isaiah to comfort each other before a battle in which they would likely die. That's my suspicion.

Review: The Hunger Games, Mockingjay Part 1

I caught the last half of the first Hunger Games movie as a flatmate was watching it on Netflix one day, in my last year of college (first go-round). When the second film, Catching Fire, came out, I included it in a multiple-movie review I posted here. I realized that it was serving as an introduction to propaganda and deception to young people who may not have ever read Orwell's Animal Farm or 1984, let alone studied the politics of Communism in school. The last century of American -- and World -- history is a black hole for many people, seeing as the public education system goes up to the Great Depression and stops there.

That's why these films interest me, and I've been curious to see what sort of messages they're sending, subtly or overtly, to their fans.

The Hunger Games III: Mockingjay Part One

Could have been called: 1984, by Sun Tzu

POLI 201: Propaganda in Warfare

Synopsis: An unwilling hero learns how to fight with words rather than bow and arrow.

Observation One:

The dystopia is far more openly acknowledged now than in the first two movies. You had to look a little closer to catch hints that the characters were "on to" the fact that they lived in a tyrannical serfdom run by a centralized autocratic police state. It should have been obvious that something was wrong, and felt uncomfortable, but if you're not thinking about what you're seeing, you can miss it. Not so much in this movie. The rebellion is openly talked about and you see vivid examples of atrocities committed by the Capitol.

This is good. For the less conscious viewers, even if they're just floating along with the narrative, they should get something out of it. The Capitol's actions will come as more or less of a surprise based on your relative youth and experience or knowledge of totalitarianism, in fiction or reality. Naivete is best dealt with through shock. The film does a fair job at delivering on that.

Observation Two:

You don't get to control your heroes. Once you choose them, don't expect them to follow your script.

There is a scene where District 13(?)'s leadership is attempting to film a propaganda video with Katniss, the main character. They give her a script to speak and it comes out awkwardly wooden, with no heart to it. Woody Harrelson's character stands up and explains that he thinks the moments that made everyone love Katniss in the past were unscripted, when she did what was natural to her. So their solution to generating an Agitprop clip was to send Katniss to an actual conflict area. Subsequent to witnessing an atrocious act by the Capitol, she passionately delivers one of the most memorable dialogue sequences in the film.

It's true in politics, it's true in war, it's true in everyday life. And it's nowhere more true than in the case of putting your faith in Christ. No matter what foolish people may try to do, or other foolish people might accuse Christians of doing, no one gets to tell God what to do. No one can put Him in a box, or give Him a script to follow. Once you decide to stop trying to be God for yourself, you've let go of your chance to run the show. Now it's your turn to follow the leader. And the leader might not do things you expect or want them to do. The leader might require things of you that make you uncomfortable. That is the nature of following a hero.

This means that (lesson one) you need to be very careful who you select for yourselves as your heroes and leaders.

When you give someone power and influence, (speaking of humans here) you can't take it back easily. They can do lots of good or lots of bad in the mean time. And as for God, whom you don't give power, but merely submit to -- when you give your life over to Him, you don't get "takebacks." Your life is set to change dramatically and it might surprise or upset you, but you need to acknowledge that you don't have control, and stop resisting. You made your decision, and now you must follow through, so follow your Leader.

Observation Three:

The final observation is simply a reflection on the fact that the police force/military in The Hunger Games is composed of soldiers in white armor called "peacekeepers." Their primary function seems to be beating, executing, and shooting people in the back. For those who haven't read 1984, it's reminiscent of "Newspeak," where the government of Oceania attempted to manipulate and redefine the English language to limit how people were able to think or speak about things. Calling soldier-hitmen "peacekeepers" is an attempt to force every reference to them to imply that they are good, helpful, useful, important, and not at all a negative force. Talking about them in a way that suggests they are evil requires extra effort. But for the people who are aware of the truth, every reference to a word like "peacekeeper" is carried on a wave of sarcasm, and thereby undergoes still further alterations of meaning.

When words are used in a certain way extensively, then by way of gaining that association as their primary meaning, they lose their secondary (or even what used to be their primary) definitions. In the end, other words must be used to refer to something with the same intention that the now altered word originally conveyed.

Gay used to mean happy, lighthearted. No one uses it to mean that anymore.
Awesome used to mean terrible, frightening, and yes, awe-inducing. But most don't use it that way anymore.
Likewise, terrible used to mean causing fear, not necessarily something bad. You could describe yourself as terrible if you wanted to present yourself as an imposing figure.
The justice system is the place where people go to seek justice. But it doesn't always dispense it -- so there's a sense in which one could refer to it in sarcastic tones.
Girlfriend -- a friend who's a girl, right? No, now it almost always connotes a sexual partner.
Politically charged terms, like 'free market,' 'social security,' 'birth control,' 'husband and wife,' 'peace treaty,' etc all contain examples that someone could well argue do not represent what the word implies.

Something to think about. How are words changing, and why?

~ Rak Chazak

Review: The Hobbit, Battle of the Five Armies

I will try my hardest to keep my posts short, if only so that I can post them before I run out of time (a guy's got to sleep, you know). I have three short points to make.

The Hobbit III: Battle of the Five Armies

Could have been called: Big Ideas As Displayed By Little People

Aesop's Fables meets World of Warcraft

 Synopsis: A self-obsessed Dwarf king and self-righteous Elven king almost completely lose sight of everything that's really important in life.

Observation One:

Thorin Oakenshield gets struck with what's figuratively referred to by the old dwarf as "Dragon Sickness," which is apparently a literary device of JRR Tolkien's to represent hubris (greed borne of pride). He becomes obsessed with his own greatness and riches, and begins to see everyone around him as an enemy, a threat. He singlemindedly pursues the 'heart of the mountain,' ignoring the welfare of needy refugees and foolishly attempting to fight off an army of Elves with only 13 people (is that term applicable to dwarves? I'm not that into the lore).

It serves, through Bilbo and Dwalin's perception of him, as a poignant (and almost awkwardly lengthy, in terms of screen time) reflection of how people around us -- or ourselves -- can become self-destructively prideful in pursuit of greatness, glory, power, autonomy -- whatever you see the Heart of the Mountain as representing.

But the best part was the way Thorin recovers. Many other movies have done poorly with portraying a character who's fallen into a ditch, typically showing a spontaneous and total conversion upon the sudden realization of a one-liner that another character conveniently spoke to them at just the right moment. Reality is nothing like that. What the Hobbit did better was to show the character's transformation as taking place within his own mind. Ultimately, other people can only support you, but repentance is something that happens on an individual level. Thorin is walking in the hall of the castle and multiple thoughts are shown going through his head. The cinematography represents the collective weight of these as guiding him to a realization and awareness of what he's done wrong, and as he feels sincere remorse over it, he is shown seeing himself sinking into a pit. The best thing the director did was to, without any dialogue, have Thorin grab his crown in disgust and throw it down.

That is the root truth. Repentance and restoration comes from dethroning ourselves as the kings of our own lives. Thorin Oakenshield fancied himself a great king now that he had a crown, but Dwalin said that "you have always been my king," and that now he had become something shameful. When Thorin's life had been about a greater purpose than himself (reclaiming his people's heritage), he had been a lightning rod for his friends to rally in support of. But when he thought that because he wore a crown, that he now had authority, and his purpose became to seek his own ends, then his friends were grieved.

The symbolism is apparent; we become restored as heirs to the kingdom when we cease trying to be king and put others before ourselves. At the end, Thorin sacrificed his life to fight the enemy, laying it down for the sake of his friends. That's not to equate the character with a Christ-figure. Tolkien, catholic though he was, differed from C S Lewis's more overt Christian themes and in his own stories attempted to bury them more deeply in the narrative. Being willing to give ourselves for others is a theme consistent with Biblical Christianity, without needing to pigeon-hole the characters in LOTR or the Hobbit as representing Jesus or Satan.

Observation Two:

When Thorin lies dying, he calls Bilbo his true friend. In context, Bilbo had found the heart of the mountain and hidden it from Thorin, and then sneaked out of the castle and given it to Thorin's arch rival, the Elf lord Thranduil. Bilbo's hope had been that when Thranduil would offer it to Thorin, the latter would be willing to give aid to the refugees and return the treasures belonging to Thranduil in return for that which he wanted so badly.

As it turns out, Thorin refused, showing that pride is always stronger than greed. The desire to have things is really an outgrowth of the desire to have power, which is an expression of the desire to be in charge, make the rules, be your own King... Only somebody who's willing to step off the throne can be reasoned with.

At the end, Thorin gratefully acknowledged Bilbo's trustworthy friendship. He had not been a 'yes man,' doing what would make Thorin happy, or doing what would evade his wrath. He had been willing to risk his hatred, or even death, to do the right thing. Whereas I suspect neither Tolkien nor Peter Jackson had this intent in mind, I saw this as easily representative of the fact that telling someone the truth -- i.e. the Gospel when they don't want to hear it -- is always the right thing to do, and if they are later converted, they will be grateful that you did the hard thing and stood against them and were not willing to compromise.

Observation Three:

The dynamic between elves and dwarves has served in the Lord of the Rings series to provide commentary on how people from different social classes, cultures or "races" could initially have animosity toward each other but eventually come to see each other as friends and respect each other despite coming from or going to very different places.

The fact of elves being functionally immortal (living tens of thousands of years if not prematurely killed in battle) made for interesting analysis of some things Thranduil said with respect to Kili and Tauriel's budding romance. At one point in particular, he told her it wouldn't be worth it for her to go after him to save him, because since he was mortal, he would die anyway, indicating that he thought her efforts were futile. A similar dialogue occurs regarding Galadriel and Aragorn in the LOTR movies. "They are mortal."

Again, it's not a perfect analogy, and I'm not trying to construct one. What I have been doing here has been to use themes in the movies to stimulate contemplation of similar themes in the nonfiction world. In this case, the comparison of dwarves, elves and men on the basis of mortality and disposition makes me think of the differences between the Gentiles, Jews and the Saints as described by Romans 9-11. In reality there is overlap. More similar to the movie, in reality we all interact, even though we note differences between each other.

Elves (saints) and humans (gentiles, incl. professing believers) are superficially similar, whereas dwarves (Jews) are obviously different from both, as well as withdrawn, stubborn and consumed with yearning for the return of their long-ago glories. Men and dwarves are both quite capable of forming romances with Elves, but because only the Elves are immortal, romances with non-elves are guaranteed to result in a long separation, and the knowledge of their mortality induces heartbreak even before their death occurs. Thranduil (compare to a Christian who has no compassion for the Lost) rightly discourages Tauriel from pursuing romance with a dwarf ("a house divided against itself cannot stand"), but he does it with no love in his voice. At the end of the film, it seems as if he has a bit of a wake-up call, a hint of temporal redemption for himself, when Tauriel says "why does it (love--or the loss of a loved one) hurt so much?" and he replies, "because it was real." Perhaps the lesson here is that even if a lifelong love -- marriage -- cannot be, that does not mean that those who are promised immortality should not love or show love to strangers, those who are outside their earthly or heavenly society.

If you as a Christian watch the movies again, and put yourself in the shoes of the often snotty and self-righteous, self-concerned Elves ("the elves are for the elves," to borrow from a twist on a C S Lewis' Narnia line) and imagine the dialogue between elves and dwarves, or elves and men, to be as dialogue between a saved Christian and unsaved of various stripes, then it might be uniquely convicting for you, or at least very thoughtful, in ways you may or may not have already perceived.

That's the thought I leave you with.

~ Rak Chazak

Review: Gone Girl and The Imitation Game

I'm initiating a blogging blitz. I have a dozen+ subjects that have stacked up over the month or two past, and if I don't get them out of my system, it'll be too distant to write about. That sadly happened with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which is still in the back of my mind but I never got the chance to write anything for. So the next several posts will be short, or so I shall attempt.

Gone Girl

Could have also been called, "How to Frame Your Husband for Murder and Get Away With It."

Synopsis: A cautionary tale against marrying a psychopath.

Verbatim from my notes:
"Other than being original from the standpoint of plot, there was really nothing to take away from it that would make it worth seeing, especially for the Christian. The nicest thing I can say for it is that it very effectively serves as a cautionary tale against marrying someone you don't know, or having extramarital sex. And for the aspiring murderous female psychopaths, it will come across as a documentary on "how to stage your own murder and get someone else to take the blame."

More worrying is perhaps the instructions on how to fake evidence for rape. Just another in the list of hundreds of reasons why the Biblical model for relationships is superior.

At the bottom line, you'll have many young women concluding "she was justified, he deserved it," in much the same disturbing way that I've heard people try to sympathize with the fictional character Saw in the horror franchise of the same name. Why do they rationalize this? Because they sympathize with the main character, and therefore don't want to see their actions as wrong, or because they can't comprehend how "good" people could experience such suffering. They fail to realize the truth, that not only does everybody deserve far worse than that, because none of us are remotely good, and at the same time, none of us deserve to be treated that way by our fellow human beings, because all of us are image bearers of God and therefore deserve to be treated with dignity by others, no matter how despicable we happen to be. There! A Christian comparison.

Conclusion: Do not watch, on account of unnecessary (and gratuitous) sex and cursing
---

The Imitation Game

I have very little to say about this, save that for once there was a film without female nudity, though it does deal with sexuality -- however it's done maturely, perhaps influenced by the time period it seeks to portray, and likely wouldn't be comprehended by young children. There are references to sexual relationships but not in a graphic or vulgar way, so -- unless you're British -- there shouldn't be anything to overtly offend the senses.

Aside from the unnecessary plot holes/additions, as mentioned here, it was well done. Probably one of the safer award-nominees to allow yourself to watch.

I have little to add that wouldn't be a plot spoiler, and since the movie's worth watching for how the producers dealt with the subjects I have in mind, I will leave it here and not go into more depth.

~ Rak Chazak

The Texas Floods: Awe Reprise

I was "minded by the sight I saw" on the news concerning the Texas flooding, to recall a portion of the poem Awe that I wrote late in 2013.

Therecordlive.com

If nature so strikes awe in men

That they revere it, even when

It proves itself an unfit king,

Then what of Him who made all things?

Should not the God of nature too

Strike awe in hearts of men like you?

And unlike nature, God does not

Consider us a ‘pale blue dot’

It’s true He wants you to feel small

When you are deep in nature’s thrall

It’s so that you’ll depend on Him

Since power comes not from within.

~ Rak Chazak

Further Reading:
I Won't Say the Words "Mother Nature."

Poem: We Are the Judges

This is my first attempt at a non-rhyming poem. Not having any formal education regarding poetic structure or styles, I've attempted a little bit of antithetical parallelism.


A queer thing is afoot in America.

We no longer individually judge,
but we collectively heap condemnation.

We abhor the death penalty for murderers,
but transgressors must never be allowed to forget their past sins.

American forgiveness is expressed as legal clemency for felonies
but losing your job over your personal opinion.

The Court of Public Opinion is an unfair tribunal,
where the judges are unelected and their verdicts abide by no law.

There is no statute of limitations,
because restraint is one thing Americans do not have.

We eat, sleep, drink, speak, buy, keep, and excuse ourselves in excess,
and we admit to knowing it's wrong when we criticize others for the same.

Everything must be done to our liking,
because we like ourselves most.

When someone does something bad,
we contrast them to ourselves.

That way, everyone different from us is wrong,
but we never are.

If someone should tell us that our standard is not correct,
we say that judging others is wrong, and judge them as being wrong.

In these days, there is no king;
everyone does what is right in his own eyes.



~ Rak Chazak

PS The Bible verse cited in the final stanza is repeated frequently in the book of the Judges, for example Judges 17:6 . But rather than refer to want of gubernatorial jurisprudence, I am indicating the lack of God's lordship in the hearts of the people in this country. Far fewer follow His precepts -- whether believer, nominal professing believer, or unbeliever alike -- than did in the past, and their actions and opinions are unruly, not being in submission to the Judge of the universe. I'm not talking about lawbreakers, here, I'm talking about those who attempt to pursue or impose punishment on others. Romans 1 describes the unregenerate as unmerciful and unforgiving. Can anyone deny that this is an apt description of our popular culture?

Despite not following God's law, our countrymen insist that there are rules that must be followed, and in so doing fulfill Romans 2:14 -- they "are a law unto themselves," revealing the knowledge, in their conscience, that certain things are right and wrong. But because they do not submit to the revelation of Scripture, their conclusions about what those things are, and what a suitable remedy is for them, is way out of wack. They do what is right in their own eyes because they do not honor the King. 

Did God Die For Everyone Who Ever Lived, or Just Some?

If some people are in hell, and you believe that Christ died for everyone,
* then Christ died for those in hell. Then His sacrifice was insufficient to save them.
* then God is unjust, committing double jeopardy, because a person's sins are judged once at the cross, and then again in hell.

If no people are in hell,
* then you reject what the Bible clearly teaches, and have asserted the Universalism heresy.

Your only logical choice is to believe that
* Jesus died for all the sins of some people.
* Those not included in the category of "those He died for" are they who populate hell.

Christianity. The thinking faith.

~ Rak Chazak

Personal Life Update: Flying Colors

Last night as I drove home from work, "Fireflies" by Owl City became my life, for the space of about 5 minutes. 

I remember reading somewhere that Adam had a certain summer night in mind when he wrote it -- whether he was on vacation or if this was in Minnesota, I'm uncertain of, but using the context of his early music's many references to various states that he'd like to visit but never had ("Hello Seattle," "Alaska," "West Coast Friendship" etc), I suspect it was in his home state that he witnessed a swarm of fireflies one night, in the tens of thousands, somewhere in the country.

I run across fireflies on any given summer evening out by the road next to the field opposite my house. But I'd never before seen so many in one place that they resembled elaborate winter holiday decorations. Their rhythmic lighting resulted in what appeared to be waves of strobe lights undulating out from the trees on one side of the road, into the field opposite and back and forth in ways that made it look like the lights were on wires and carrying electric current.

It was really quite spectacular. If you focused on a single light source at once, you could tell that it was a bug, either stationary or slowly flying over the farm field looking for a mate. But when you scanned across the whole landscape, the simplicity of the mating call scaled upward into a much more complex, grander view that provokes you to marvel at how the simple things of earth that God has created can come together in spectacular arrangements so that the big picture of everything is so amazing that the only thing you can do is stand amazed, and give God glory.

It's reminiscent of this:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." Hebrews 11:3

And in a similar way, the small things make up big things. I've always been fascinated by how the macroscopic, microscopic and telescopic views of the world hang together. Ultimately, the bigger stuff has to be explained, in some way, by the smaller stuff. Economics and politics has to be explained by individual human interactions. Culture shifts have to be explained by psychology. Physiology has to be explained by cell theory. Computers have to be explained by electricity and mechanics. And on it goes. Being able to bridge the divisions between fields of study, in one's mind, does wonders for how one is able to understand the world, and marvel at the interconnected nature of reality. Perhaps that's why I'm in the field I'm in. Biology is the connection between chemistry and physiology. History is the connection between how things happened in the past, and why they are the way they are now. Philosophy is the connection between absolute revealed truth and sincere human questioning.

Rightly understood and pursued, of course.

I hope I'll have the opportunity to see a lightshow like that again, maybe with my bride.

Flying colors today doesn't only refer to the lightning bugs I stopped to stare at, but also to the fact that I checked my spring semester grades today and made straight As. And the journey continues!

~ Rak Chazak

Mini-Treatise: Emotions and How to Relate to Them

I find it helpful to see my emotions as something that happens to me, not "me." They are useful because:
* they are like indicator lights in a car, diagnostic tools that help you figure out what's right or wrong
* they sometimes give false readings, so you've got to use your brain to know when to ignore them or get them fixed
* sometimes they're not diagnostic at all, but rewarding. They make you feel good or bad, to reinforce doing/not doing a certain behavior you engaged in.

They are never your destiny. They don't tell you what you have to do--they have to be interpreted. You don't have to feel the way your emotions make you feel. You can uncouple your mind's participation in them by consciously choosing not to dwell on them. Engage in an activity that biochemically alters your physiology so that the emotions you're dealing with change. An easy example is if a guy is sexually aroused, a way to destroy that is to engage in vigorous exercise. It kills any feelings like that and clears the mind. It does the same with hunger, for that matter. If you're up late at night and feel depressed, go to sleep! It'll get your circadian rhythm back on track, and stressful build-up gets dealt with unconsciously while you sleep. Distracting your body by interrupting a natural process (or returning to one, if your emotions are due to biological instability) can keep certain moods at bay for a while so that you can make progress without their influence.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT Teaser: Seeing A Woman Cry Breaks My Heart (Why?)

Oddly, nearly every image on Google Image Search was of a single tear running down a cheek. 'Could be a side effect of American culture discouraging open displays of anguish, contrary to other cultures (compare television reports of grieving mothers/fathers from the homeland with, say, the Middle East or India). The below image is a good example of what I'm referring to in the AWPATT thought below. Someone visibly disturbed.

source: smosh.com

355 The image of a crying woman breaks my heart. I think faces are designed to become unattractive when contorted in wailing. The disruption of a beautiful face into a reddened, convoluted mess of scowls, shut/bloodshot eyes and change from openness to withdrawal indicates in a very alarming manner that something is terribly wrong. It nevertheless attracts attention. I think that males, though we tend to break things, have a paradoxical inner desire to want to fix things. When someone’s crying, I want to stop it. Not because it’s annoying, but because it grieves me that I’m not in such distress and they are, and my mind races wondering how I might be able to help relieve the agony the person is experiencing. Can you share your own happiness? Can you unlock it in the other person? Cause a change of perspective that resolves the problem that triggered the crying? Can you give comfort that assuages a person’s emotions and makes them feel good? A crying woman, like few other things, makes a man feel hopeless and worthless, because he desperately wants her to be happy and fulfilled, but perceives that he is helpless to do anything about the issue. I don’t suppose that I or any other man thinks that we/I have some superhero power to solve strangers’ problems. Rather, I think it’s a collective sense of guilt over the fact that we can’t rescue you with a snap of our fingers that makes us feel rotten. From a Christian theological perspective, it’s very true that even if I didn’t directly cause your pain, I nevertheless bear guilt for the fact that the world is broken by sin and some aspect of this brokenness/fallenness is what caused you hurt. A partaker in the sins of Adam, the world is rotten and the world makes women cry, in part because I’m a sinner. So my emotional response to a crying woman is rooted in something true—I am at fault, even if in a very obscure, distant way. Thankfully, Christ bore my sins on the Cross, and gives me hope because I know that for all the brokenness in the world today, I’m destined to live with Him in a restored perfect world one day. If I could convey this contentment and hopefulness to a young woman in pain, it would give me such gratitude to have played a small part in lifting her up from where she’s fallen. If man is the glory of God, and Christ demonstrated the perfect man’s life when He walked the earth in the flesh, then isn’t it the truth that men are at the core, imbued with a God-given desire to be a hero? It might take a different form in every man, but at base we want to fix the world or save the world or save just one person from something bad in the world, and I believe this is placed in us for His glory. Why do crying women break my heart? Because they touch on two truths at once: I, as a man, and a sinner, am the reason for why they hurt; and I, as a man, in the image of God, am instilled with an unrelenting passion to want to rescue the weak and helpless. (lest you interpret this as sexist, it’s a temporary statement. Someone devastated by anguish is both in a weak and helpless state, whether man or woman). May I not try to “fix her problems” by human cleverness, but use the Gospel to extend to her the means of rescue by which I also was rescued. I can’t stop your tears, but God can.

~ Rak Chazak

Something to think about, regarding whether people are born with sexual preferences

I figured I'd tag on to my previous post and look up other candidates a little.

At this point, there's not much people are saying publicly to define their positions on issues, likely because they're not strongly motivated to do so. In that context, there was a somewhat vague response that Marco Rubio gave to a same-sex marriage question:

I also don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with. source

That can be taken in at least two different directions. On the one hand, it could reveal sympathy for the SSM cause, while on the other hand, it could indicate compassion and a rejection of the contemporary popular belief in the naturalist fallacy, that "what is some way by nature, is therefore morally right."

The question of what Rubio meant is answered by whether he believes in the naturalist fallacy or not.

Here is an example of someone making the same observation, but being much more explicit in their presentation:

So, was Rubio just being a politician, or was he hinting at a more nuanced understanding of the issue, where just because someone's desires are fixed, it doesn't mean that pursuing them is appropriate? Time will tell.

~ Rak Chazak

PS according to Wikipedia, there's a distinction in technical terminology between "naturalist fallacy" and "appeal to nature," the latter of which is what I was referencing here. Colloquially, I think it's nevertheless suitable and doesn't require editing the article.

The Winnowing Field: Why Not To Vote for -- John Kasich

I imagine public service ministries like Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council, etc, are likely offering their own endorsements and non-endorsements of candidates for the upcoming election. But it can't hurt to put more analysis out there.

If you're looking for a theologically sound candidate, one with a Biblically Christian platform, you can find any number of reasons to reject the various contenders for the nomination. What is most likely is that the final decision of whom to vote for will come down to a choice for the "better" candidate, not the one you'd actually want in office.

This series will identify various reasons to be wary of candidates based on their irrationality, hypocrisy, inconsistency, disingenuousness, etc, as they come up.

As the primaries come closer, I'll collate the information and give you an argument for which candidates are "least worst," out of the pack.

Today's unBiblical posturer:

John Kasich

With one fell swoop, he showed himself to reject God's authority on the subjects of both homosexuality and marriage roles. This makes sense, because it's evident that his acceptance of homosexual marriage -- to the contrary of his insincerely expressed opposition -- is a result of the fact that he rejects God's design for marriage at its core. He defers his decision about what is right and wrong -- stuff that will affect his decision-making as a political figure -- to his wife. 

When asked if he would attend a same-sex wedding — Kasich is opposed to gay and lesbian nuptials — he said his friend just invited him to one and he and his wife are planning to go.
"I went home and I said to my wife, 'my friend's getting married. What do you think? You wanna go?' She goes, 'Oh, I'm absolutely going.' I called him today and said, 'Hey, just let me know what time it is,'"  source: CNN

Cowardly.

At least he's consistent. If he won't shoulder his responsibility as a husband, what makes you think his opinion about homosexual marriage would be Biblically influenced? Liberals, take note: this man does not actually oppose same-sex marriage for any concrete reason. I predict that he publicly pretends to be opposed, in an attempt to deceive Republican primary voters into supporting him, but, like Obama, he will "evolve" on the issue once in office, to be a strong supporter of it. 

His views are not Biblical. They are political, based on what he thinks will best manipulate public opinion. He doesn't even decide his own policy opinions himself, but asks his wife to tell him what he should believe. You wouldn't be voting for John Kasich on the ballot, you'd be voting for his wife, and her running mate, public opinion.

Verdict: not the best candidate for the theologically sound Christian voter.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XVII: February 18-April 15 (Thoughts 263-320)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

Not vulgar, but addresses sexual subjects. Recommended
for those of 'dating age' and older.

"What About the Innocent People Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?"

"What about the innocent man in Africa who's never heard the Gospel?"

If you don't want to watch the video, *spoiler alert*, the answer's after the jump:

Brief Review of Interstellar

I grabbed the first Redbox movie in a long while and watched it earlier this week.

Interstellar is a film that thrives on making the special effects scientifically accurate -- there's no sound in space, waves are caused by the gravity of a nearby spacial body, mechanical equipment can tolerate lots of stress and collision damage but depressurization catastrophically tears it apart, the sensation of gravity in space must be generated by angular rotation, areas of high gravity play havoc with our straight-line perception of the surrounding space, bigger black holes are better black holes because they won't spaghettify you, the relativity of time is significant when spending time near high gravity ("every hour on the surface is 7 years back on earth" / "this little maneuver will cost us 51 years!"), etc.

The film also leans heavily on the human drama, with success. By that I mean that unlike many sci-fi epics, it doesn't feel forced, or added-on as an afterthought to please the crowd, but that it holds a central role without being uncomfortable or distracting from the plot. Indeed, the human drama is what drives the plot: resource scarcity on earth is what drives Matt McConaughey's father character to take a risk in order to make a better life for his children.

PROs:

• no sexuality. Not even kissing between the main characters, except one shot in the end between Jessica Chastain and Topher Grace, intended as humor and not depicted sensually
• no grotesque violence. The violence in the film is realistic and restrained, hardly characterizing the film but punctuating it at key moments to emphasize the heightened tension, if you somehow missed Hans Zimmer's mood-setting organ music.
• very little hint of any political punditry underwriting the plot -- considering that the director is Christoper Nolan, whose Batman movies have had such great success, I suspect, because of their distinct tendency to avoid promoting Hollywood Liberalism, it makes sense; I think, whatever his personal views are, that he's got a keen sense for the sort of messages that turn off or turn on a broad American audience.
• the closest thing to it is a government-issued textbook a public school teacher describes to McConaughey's character, as being 'corrected,' to show that the moon-landing was faked in order to bankrupt the Russians by making them waste resources on an imaginary space race. This is a very limited dialogue, and it leaves no one a glaringly obvious hint as to whether the censorship is supposed to be more consistent with a Republican or Democrat ideology.
• As for the setting, there is a hint that there was a global conflict some years or decades earlier, and that as a side-effect, it damaged global crops to the point that society reverted to become primarily automated, mechanized subsistence farming-based. It's implied that it's several decades if not a century or two in the future, but not too far, because historical events like the Dust Bowl and moon landing are referenced. The film avoids making statements that could be interpreted as overtly 'peacenik' or environmentalist, and thus succeeds at being a cautionary tale that's vague enough for anyone to import their own ideas into, as to what could be done to stop it. However, the line about "repeating the excess/wastefulness of the 20th century" is something that viewers might variably agree with or find just cause to label the teacher character as representative of their political opponents.
• The science is accurate. Assumptions are made about things that we don't know enough about, such as the nature of wormholes and black holes, and a few other things (mentioned below), but nothing that we know from physics is controverted. This makes it a better film than most, for an authenticity-hound like myself.
• Robots work the way they're supposed to.
• It promotes selfless sacrifice of oneself for others, and condemns the premeditated dismissive 'sacrifice' of some others for the sake of other others.
• It highlights the bonds of family and by cutting and scoring, present loving relationships as being one of if not the strongest driver to persevere in the face of difficulty.
• True to its departure from other space movies, and in part because it's more like Apollo 13 than Aliens, it doesn't start with 20 cast members and slowly kill them off until there's two left. The deaths are fewer and therefore more significant in terms of moving the plot, or providing closure on a subplot.

CONs:

"But God Killed Millions of People" = "But the Police Officer Was Speeding"

It struck me as I was passed on the other side of the road by a police officer stopping someone for speeding.

It's law -- police officers are allowed to "violate" various laws that apply to regular motorists/civilians if they do so in the pursuit of bringing a civilian to justice for violating a law.

Here's a synopsis from Wikipedia:

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372) that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."

In other words, a police officer is allowed to speed (and even drive in a manner that would be reckless if he wasn't pursuing a fleeing suspect) in order to apprehend a suspect.

There might be other laws or cases that are even more relevant. But suffice it to say, it's recognized by human government that agents of law enforcement are immune to prosecution for the violation of certain laws, that arise inadvertently out of the execution of their law enforcement powers.

God killed millions of people -- this is a common objection by unbelievers, on the basis of this supposedly being a cause for moral outrage. "Such a God is not worthy of worship because He makes excuses for Himself and commits murder etc."

Such an objection is wrong for so many reasons.
1. There is no basis for moral outrage if you reject God's authority, because He's the only valid foundation for morality. Without an absolute moral law, all assertions about morality are merely preferences.
2. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. God is justice, and everything He does is justified. Ergo, it is logically impossible for God to murder, because every time God kills someone, it is justified.
3. Everyone who ever dies was killed by God, including those who die of old age, miscarriage, 'natural causes,' etc -- people who are almost always ignored in favor of manufacturing offense at the fact that a vanishingly small minority of people have died in violent circumstances. The person who projects this offense fails to realize that God is the giver and taker of ALL life, and everyone who ever dies is taken in death by the Lord's hand. The reason we die is because we are made mortal by the sin of Adam, which we all participate in.

And on top of all that,

4. God's justice is completely consistent even with contemporary notions of common/civil law that recognizes that authorities are not subject to all of the laws they enforce. FBI and police officers are not subject to concerns about theft (commandeering/impounding a vehicle), murder (killing a violent armed subject), property damage (liability), etc. God is subject to even less.

Why? Because most of God's Law has to do with our relation to each other, and our relation to Him. He can never violate those because He's not a mere man. And for those laws that are based in His nature, He never violates -- divorce is based on God's commitment to those He saves, and God will never abandon His saints. Murder is based in the destruction of God's image -- God cannot be destroyed, so He can't violate that. Theft is taking something that isn't yours, but everything belongs to God, so He can't violate that. Same thing with lust and greed--desiring something that doesn't belong to you. Quite simply, when you boil down every law of morality that apply to humans, they don't limit God's actions toward us. God's behavior toward Himself is the only limitation, and it's based in Himself, not imposed from without.

Bottom line: the moral outrage against "God killing people in Noah's flood," or "God telling the Israelites to kill the Canaanites," or "God killing the Egyptian firstborns" -- is manufactured, baseless outrage rooted in an unquestioned false assumption about the nature of God's relationship with His creation. He is not subject to our rules. We are subject to His.

If this is the kind of argument you make: Know your place.

~ Rak Chazak