Boxes Aren't All That Interesting Unless You Turn Them Into Rocket Ships.

Today I just realized that I am generally not that much interested in the truth, but I am interested in philosophy. People wonder: How can a person interested in philosophy not be interested in truth? Because there is no such thing as "truth". Propositions are certainly true, partially true, or false. "Truth claims" are either true or false, but there is a distinction between "truth" and "things that are true". By this I am simply admitting that there are limits to human knowledge. We all agree that we can't know everything, at least I think we all agree with that. So the obvious question is, if we can't know everything, how can we know that what we know we know. My good friend Josh would tell me that no one believes you can know everything with 100% certainty, but that there are degrees of probability of a truth claim's being true, depending on a few categorical tests. But even if we can know 99% of everything how could we know that the knowledge of that 1% we don't know wouldn't revolutionize all that we know. It gets stupid, and trust me. It could get stupider. That's why I am not that much interested in truth. I mean that I am not too interested in whether an unclear truth claim can be demonstrated in be in fact true. Truthfully, I am not sure what this even means. It's not that I don't think that truth exists. I just don't think it can be easily contained within a system.As long as one realized that a box is not the toy, and that multiple boxes can contain the toy, I can be a part of interesting conversation. What I am essentially saying is that I am not much interested in boxes as I am in toys.

Observations

With a blog as broad as mine, there's a million things to talk about. And I just can't bring myself to hone in the subject matter. So, today's observations: I saw a man almost fall off of the sidewalk directly on to my friends van while we were in it. I thought; If that would've happened, it wouldn't have been the first time in history would it? I have never heard of such a thing, but it seems like something that should happen more than it gets reported.
The second observation was the face of a dude I saw who was waiting for his leashed dog to stop pooping so they could move one down the sidewalk. The face is universal, but can only appear in this specific situation. Call it the "I have no job, but my girlfriend does and she is at work so I am dog sitting and standing outside in 15 degree weather in front of everyone looking up at the sky praying for the pooping to stop" look.

what if?

What if everyone I knew read this at the same time, what would they think? If I compiled all of their thoughts and turned into one word, I am sure that that one word would be... afro.

Post 101

This is my monumental 101st post ever, so I thought that I would just talk about the time I went to a Philadelphia Eagles football game in Philadelphia, when they were playing the Cleveland Browns, my team, who was starting, former National Championship loser, Ken Dorsey, who got sacked 7 times and picked off 4, in a Browns 40-13 loss to the Eagles. I was wearing my Browns hat somewhat glad they were losing enduring the berating taunts of my Philly friends, and the two facing of my so called friend Dennis, who, although a fan of the Eagles hated divisional rivals, the New York Giants, was rooting for Brian Westbrook because Westbrook was on his Fantasy Football team, but I think he was just rooting for them because he was afraid that not doing so meant death,and perhaps he was right, for we were in the family section, and some drunk lady was carried away by 10 men, most of them Philadelphia Police, it took at least 20 minutes to get her out of the stadium, and it was good entertainment during a game which the only other entertaining part was the introductions, where Philly fans yelled "sucks" after every Browns player was announced. Eagles fans are the worst. In fact Philly fans are the worst. It's unbelievable. Happy 101st.

Weathering the Conversation

Randy Travis has a song with a line that goes like this:
"I'm gonna love you forever"
"Forever and ever amen"
"As long as old men sit and talk about the weather"
"As long as old women sit and talk about old men"
In my estimation, the women have a much more interesting topic of conversation. Unfortunately for men if we don't have a gun or a ball in our hand, we are forced to talk about the weather. But while on one hand, this seems a rather dry conversation, the phenomenon that produces this sort of meaningless talk, is wet with potentially interesting conversation topics. We end up talking about a shared experience. It's the first thing that we men want to talk about. Without waiting to analyze the conversation's potential interest factor, we blurt out a comment about the weather knowing that that's one thing the other participant has experienced. You have to give it to us males, all of us terrified by intimacy, with comments like, "Nice day today, huh?", we are trying to connect with people, and not just our toys. By the way, its real cold today.

Something I Like More Than Coffee

Coffee on a snow day in my PJ's reading with Rachel, with a partly sunny sky, listening to whatever I am in the mood for, maybe smoking a pipe, depends on how cold it is, while Leon watches on. Leon is the name of Rachel's Christmas Tree. Rachel is my girlfriend.

Coffee

As they say, I am a coffee snob. However,I take slight offense at the term snob. If by "snob" they mean that I look down on other people for drinking crappy coffee, then I am not a snob. If by snob, they mean that I enjoy great coffee and they're irrationally intimidated by that fact, then yes I am a snob. Some people are picky about certain things. I think that being a connoisseur of something makes life a little more interesting. There's nothing wrong with that. I do apologize for being a bit cheeky about it, up to this point. I hope I didn't offend anybody. Like I said I was being sorta funny, but I always tend to appreciate people who appreciate finer things. I suppose that it can come off as snobbish, but I think that most people who enjoy certain things, such as coffee, do not intend to give that impression. For most people the motivation is just to be into something nice. I don't hate Folgers. I do not hope it fails as a business. I hope it succeeds as a business. But its not good coffee. It's just not. If you think it is, okay. I can admit that taste in coffee is somewhat subjective, though not completely. Dirt never tastes good. That's objective.
But here's what I am asking. I am asking for the right to opine about what I think is good and bad coffee. And I ask that I not be accused of thinking I'm better than those who drink lesser coffees. How could I think that in this situation? I give you the courtesy to opine about whatever thing you want to as well. I give you the courtesy of letting you openly share your opinion. Let me share mine. After all, its just coffee.

On the Bus on the Road

So I got on the bus today, and as I am putting my money in the machinamathing, I hear this meek voice from behind. "Hey Pasta". (That's "pastor". Someone was not calling me "pasta". The lady had an accent)I recognized my friend instantly even though she had only attended Steamtown Church twice. I couldn't remember her name at the time, but I remember her. She is the "tambourine lady". She distracted me from concentrating on finding a place to sit, and instead of immediately finding a seat, I stopped, for just a second to greet her, and in that second the bus driver accelerated. So did I, and straight towards the back of the bus with my back facing the back, and my backpack flailing. Nobody laughed out loud. Humorously, I made a slow trek back to a seat at the front of the bus with the "tambourine lady" seated directly across from me. She had a million questions. And she uttered them at rapid fire, seemingly without a breath, and before I got to answer them, another passenger was ready to get on the bus who really needed help. We'll call him "Joe", the tambourine lady "TL". Joe has a hard time walking and is debilitated by some sort of muscular disease. I moved from my front row seat and he sat down. TL helped him with his fare. The "conversation" I was entertaining with TL picked up right where it left off, and then "Joe", interrupted as if there were no conversation, as if he was initiating the conversation.
"Are there any churches on "Luzerne Sreet"? I don't know exactly what TL thought that she heard him say but she replied
"You're looking for a Mormon Church"?
My thoughts at this question were full of stereotypes and thus more inside laughter since it was quite clear, at least to me, that my African-American friend Joe was not looking for that kind of church, nor did he say anything resembling the word "mormon". In fact he was visibly confused by the question. He politely responded.
"No, any church on Luzerne Street."
"Oh, I tought you said "latter day saints" (instead of "Luzerne Street")
"No, Luzerne Street"
"Oh, well isn' dis jus' divine appointment. 'Dis man here is a pasta". Joe turned to me and said,
"Oh what kind of church is it?"
"Non-denominational" I said.
"Non-denominational" Joe repeated.
TL said, "It's at the hotel across from the Dunkin Donuts downtown."
"Oh, I just moved here" said Joe
"Oh, well have Pasta here give you da number. Dere church runs a van route. Dey'll pick you up. 10 o'clock. Sunday morning."
Joe looked at me happily, "Yeah?"
I wasn't sure we did have a van route so I said, "Well, you live in West Side right?"
"Yeah" he said. "Right where I got on".
"Well, that's right on my way."
We exchanged numbers and I told him to call me Sunday, to pick him up for church, and TL cried.
"I was going to get on da 12:35 bus, but something told me to get on da 12:55, and now I know why. Her voice lowered and she said, "Divine appointment".
Then Joe said, "Yeah me too! Something told me to get on this bus" and TL cried.
"God is so good to us" she said to herself and everybody else.
"Amen" said Joe.
I said nothing. By now it was time for me to get off. We exchanged cordial goodbyes. I told Joe to call me. TL said, "God bless you pasta". I said thanks and exited with the following thoughts.
I wondered what the bus driver was thinking the whole time as he remained completely silent. I wondered if he thought I was too young to be a pastor or if he wondered why a pastor was riding the bus. I wondered if he thought the lady was crazy. I wondered if he enjoyed listening to the conversation, if his heart was warmed or if he thought it was a joke. I wondered if he thought the conversation was silly, or sad, or if it caused him to be angry, or stricken with grief.
I was glad to meet Joe but I didn't think to much about him.
I thought about how TL was so touched by this happening. And then I thought about how impressed I was by this happening. It's a good story, right? But why? Because it has irony, and coincidence. It has a plot which is plausible, but rare and unlikely. But is this all that makes a story good? How much of a good story has to do with how the story is told? I think it has a lot to do with it, although the raw material of irony is necessary for any good story, whether its there or supplied. I also believe that good storytellers have an ability to pick out from thin air an irony and run with it. And the best writers can take something that has no inherent dramatic quality,and infuse it with that dramatic quality, that ironic element that makes it worth listening to.
But I also thought about how a cynical person would interpret our little situation on the bus. That person might not consider it anything at all. It might not enter his mind that this happening is worth a retelling, whereas I believe that good storytellers see stories everywhere.
I then related this thought to religion. For surely the agnostic would not be nearly as affected by the situation as TL? He might discern the irony of the situation, in which a pastor gets on a bus at the same time that as a disabled young man looking for a church, but it would certainly seem impossible to him that it was divine appointment. What then would it be to him, a coincidence? I'm sure that it would, and a not too amazing coincidence either, since the agnostic man would already place no value on church or spirituality. He might ask the reasonable question: "What are the chances that a pastor would get on the bus at the same time as another man looking for a church, and that they would talk about it?" I don't know? And the thing is that there probably is a mathematical way to figure out what the odds are. And my bet would be that most of the happenings that happen to us throughout our day, have astronomical odds of happening, even though most of them we are not blown away by. Most of them we do not call "divine appointments". TL considered today's happening a divine appointment because it related to something very dear to her, and was indeed a rare kind of occurrence in her personal life. But she actually had no good reason to think that it was a divine appointment. But the more appalling truth is that in making the statement she is either right or she is wrong. For either every occurrence is a divine appointment and therefore all events are equally impressive, or no occurrences are divine appointments, and that point many of them can be measured according to the likelihood of the happening, although it is extremely doubtful that every happening as a calculable probability. I believe in the first of those two, for various reasons, that have come up and will come up in the succeeding posts. And I am trying to get to place in my life where this brand of fatalism that I've adopted makes me a God-fearer and not a cynic. That is I want to perpetually amazed, like TL at God's providential way of working in history, or never amazed. The true skeptic, the agnostic, cannot accept my brand of fatalism, for it would force him to be amazed at the providence of God in the Holocaust, or the personal tragedies that have appeared in his life. I would be willing to admit that my brand of fatalism appears to accept a God who actually rather sadistic, no who possesses the worst form of sadism, that is divine. But I might also add that divine providence, by virtue that it is divine, is not calculable, and therefore, not to be interpreted, only accepted.
But if I actually look at the world this way, wouldn't I be in a safer place, both spiritually, and intellectually if I were an agnostic? Yes. But it wouldn't be more reasonable. For to be an agnostic I must be open to the possibility that none of the happenings of the world have an original initiator. I must essentially deny "cause and effect". Without "cause and effect", how can I explain anything, especially as a skeptic, or a scientist? A person who denies cause and effect is not an agnostic, but neither are they a historical Christian. A person who denies cause and effect must simply believe that he or she is nothing, that all things are actually no-thing. He must essentially deny reality as we know it. I think it's better to admit that you're confused. And so am I? Unless of course, you tell me a story. Then I can make sense of situation.
But you say: "What if it's not true?"
What? The situation? How could a situation not be true unless it didn't happen?
"What if the way you interpreted it was untrue?"
How do I know that?

Maybe it will help to tell you how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as a story worth telling. I am trying to get to the place in my life, where I see the raw material of God's genius providence in everything, enough, that it's all worth telling. How is this an untrue interpretation? Does it belong in the true/untrue category at all? Or does it belong in some other category? I contend that it does. I also contend that the fundamentalists inability to see an epistemological category that's not propositional is the reason why they can't understand the emerging generation. But trust me, I wholeheartedly believe in the Apostles Creed. I believe it the same way that all evangelicals do, and I would use all the words the same way that all evangelicals would. The difference between my worldview and the worldview of my evangelical brethren? I can admit and articulate my confusion, and go on believing what I believe, since confusion about how the system works together, doesn't change what I think about the system's conclusions. It's like I'm going to Philadelphia and I'm on I-81, and the entire time I am wondering if taking 476 would've been easier, and I'm spending my entire trip doing calculations, and probability problems, factoring in stops, and traffic, ne'er trusting Google. But eventually I arrive at Philadelphia. And you took 476 because that's what Google told you. And you don't make calculations, you get there one half hour before me. I'm not saying all roads lead to God. I'm saying, just because the road's different, doesn't mean the destinations different. If I tell you, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully God and fully man, that God is the creator of everything, that He exist in three persons, distinct and co-equal in power and essence. That Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins, and rose again." Can you care about the road that led me to that knowledge?
Jesus did say that He is THE way THE truth and THE life. I suppose that what I would say to that. Jesus is the way I have found to the Father. I guess I'm not talking about that road, but the road I took to Jesus. For me I just believed. I still do.

Facebook

It's ironic.
Facebook is what they call a networking site. In large parts it is just that, and when its used that way its a beautiful thing. Facebook is also a good place to find lost friends of the past. But what I have found to be the main use of facebook is self-aggrandizing, and self promotion. People write about "themselves", their favorite songs, movies, and books. They write notes, and make witty and/or interesting statuses. Think about how easy it is to make yourself look at least 6 times cooler than you really are on facebook. The presentation of oneself that is put on facebook, may be the grossest exaggeration of that human being in the history of the world. Most of my friends are flawed, dirty, humans; regular people. But on facebook, I'm actually proud they're my friends! I am not exempt from the propensity to promote yours truly on facebook. It's too easy. It's ironic. It's sadly ironic. Because the point of facebook is to network and meet people, and make things happen in our world. But chances are the person you see on facebook is a cooler version of the actual person, and therefore not really the person. Therefore you may have 2,000 "friends" and none of their pages represent them truly. Of course, we never befriend people we don't already know, so this eases the phoniness a bit. But the irony remains. Facebook sadly has not lived up to it's potential. We can curb this trend though, by simply refusing to view facebook as an opportunity to push #1, but by seeing it as an opportunity to make a global impact in some sort of creative/positive way.
I don't know. It's still going to be difficult to not have the coolest statuses. I actually use facebook for this as much as anything myself. And you have to admit friends, I have a way with words.

Peace on Thanksgiving

Are you the only politically liberal person in your family? Did you just spend your thanksgiving enduring an endless amount of Barack jokes? Are you the only political conservative in your family, and spent your thanksgiving enduring the "greedy white man" comments uttered by rich white people? Are you the only Roman Catholic, the only animal rights activist refusing to eat the Turkey your aunt slaved over, the only Protestant, the only agnostic, the only Christian, the only football fan, the only non-football fan? And yet you would never say to these people who are so different than you what you say about their kind to your friends. For instance you may think that "all Republicans need to taken outside and shot!"; except for Grandpa right? Sometimes, these differences divide families, but more often than not the differences themselves are the result of deep wounding. And usually in healthy relationships, the differences don't divide the relationship. Hmm...? I wonder if the family members who get along are compromisers? I wonder if they are peacemakers? More thoughts later.

Commercialism

The problem that a lot of people have with liking the more popular music is that it is too commercialized. It seems that eventually everybody's favorite band breaks up or sells out. It is a common indie theme to talk of the dilemma between having an art and having a career and how it doesn't seem that you can have both. A lot of times when a band signs on to a major label, it means that they going for a wider audience and so they broaden their music's "appeal" which usually means that they become a little more shallow, or bubble gum than they were before. Many people claim to be angered that their band has now sold out, or gone commercial, but what they don't seem to acknowledge is that they've always been commercial. Isn't just selling your music commercial? You may be legitimately upset that they've changed their style to reach a bigger audience, but you can't say that that automatically makes the new music bad, or imply that they were never commercial. The issue is that you want to see someone's "genuine" art, not the music they make to impress others. I can get that, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. There is excellent popular music and terrible independent music. Independent music tends to produce more genuine artists, with a more genuine fan base. But independent does not automatically equal quality.
Also, commercialism is not one of those things that you can be wishy-washy with. It's sort of a black and white thing. If you buy anything, that's advertised for the purpose of making money off of you cannot complain about commercialism. Perhaps capitalism and commercialism is stealing our souls and replacing it with a need for materials. But maybe its not. Economics is a consequence of the fall of Adam, and any system set up is a system based on the knowledge of the potential of sin. Every economic system is a system of distrust, a failsafe, a check on society. Therefore if an economic system is right in its assumptions, that at least enough people can't be trusted, then it will compromised. Ideally, capitalism seeks to provide good for everyone by providing work for everyone, but this also makes a way for exploiters to take advantage of it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. If the issue here is authenticity, let's agree to be up front about what we're selling, and actually sell something that's worth having, not for greed's sake, but for simply making a living. Let's sell good music, because we believe its beneficial to hear, not because we want to make more money than we need. Because some are greedy, let us not dismiss an entire economic system. For authenticity is not derived from a any system, but from honesty within the system. Let no one hate.

Musical taste is subjective. (A rant)

I'd rather be the shallow clueless adorer of pop, than the self-righteous snobbish follower of wherever the underground is these days. In fact I assume that to someone or some society out there I am a lame sheep following that rest of the "indie" herd, and that these people whoever they are have no such label. Perhaps they are the real independents. I could live my life clamoring through old record stores to find the diamonds in the rough, to always like the band that nobody's ever heard of, or I can like what I like come what criticism, and nose raising may. I could realize that I am not taking my cd's with me when I die and that God will not love me more for watching foreign films and hate me more for owning everything Death Cab ever did. It's all relative anyway; the whole scene thing. Some of you are saying "Death Cab?", and I am saying to you. "They're better than whatever Taylor Swift crap you're listening to", then tomorrow some kid who is cooler than me will show me some CD put out by some electronica punk country band from Russia called "I can see Sarah Palin from my Bathroom", who only sing in 2nd century Latin, and I'll say I've never heard of them, and they suck. And this kid will inevitably say to me "They're better than whatever Death Cab crap you're listening to. "Shall I at this point be ashamed of Death Cab?" No. If I don't know where this indie enlightenment ends, I am content to end it here.
By the way I am convinced that snobbery goes both ways. People should be allowed to like what they like without people with inferiority complex's making them feel guilty. But really, some of you perpetuate the snob image, because you actually think of yourself as better if you have "better taste" in music, or wine, or coffee, or anything. Just get over it please. Everyone like what you like and demand that Taylor Swift propaganda stops being pushed on the increasing herd complex of our youth. If you like bad music, you like bad music. But don't act like you know its good. For there's always someone out there who will say about your favorite band what you say about somebody else's favorite band. You know what; musical taste is subjective. Sorry. It is. I am really not as angry as I sound in that last part. I intended this to be satirical and funny. So... please get that vibe.

Lies

Sometimes I say things and those things are lies. I do not intend this to be so when I make the original statement. I do mean what I say. I did mean to write about God and art, but upon writing about it I discovered that I didn't know what I was talking about. It was vomitous mass of the worse kind; a disjointed tirade that is not even funny, nor true. I am sorry. Shall I cease to assume that my mere opinions matter that much? I am glad they seem to matter to you. Thank you for allowing me to rant and to rant again.

Briefly, art is 1) a creation or 2)the denotation of the enterprise of creation. If the thing was not there before person A put it there then the now existent thing, abstract or concrete, is art. God is the original artist. Therefore, whenever one endeavors to create a work of art one endeavors to copy God. There is no shame in this provided that the artist realizes that his art is a copy. But most artists today don't seem to realize this. The pinnacle of modern art seems to be originality, coupled with aesthetic beauty. This combination we call creativity, a term that we consider, curiously enough, unquestionably virtuous. Creative people in our culture are sought after, praised, adored, financially compensated and sometimes exploited. And creative people exist everywhere. They obviously exist in the world of music, art, fashion, theater, and writing. But creative people are sought after in the worlds of business and athletics too. Creativity is a hot commodity. But as it pertains to artists i.e. painters, sculptors, writers, etc. , the cancer of egotism has somehow invaded the scene. Today's artist seems to be as protective of his art as he is his own soul, because his art is indeed his own soul, and perhaps this is the major problem. Perhaps another related problem is our modern perception of art as being a personal expression. I will try to show here what the problem is and why it's a problem, why proper art is an expression, that lays no claim to originality, or the personal and how this view of art will effect how it is used in the church.
A work of art isn't necessarily a personal expression. It certainly may be, but may easily not be. I may take a block of wood, carve into the shape of a swan, go show my friend my creation, and he may ask: "What are you trying to say by this swan?" and I might legitimately say. "It is a swan?" It may not be a personal expression of anything. But most of the time, art that is meaningful is expressive, and what it expresses is of great importance. Today, art often expresses the artist's feeling. It may sound insensitive to say that this is shallow, but think of a public speaker who means to say something profound to a group of eager students. And then he gets up, and says, "I am happy". I am assuming that art ought to communicate beyond mere expression, but some seem to think that there's merit in the mere expression, and the that the follow-up question: Why are you happy? is not only meaningless but almost contemptible. Any expression has meaning as an expression, but that something has meaning does not demand it be said. It is not fair to assume that your audience ought to be as engaged as you the artist are with you're feelings. It's very simply and yes crudely, whiny. This is not to say that art that is subjective or self-analytical is not worth our attention. Surely, human feelings can be portrayed in such a way that they have universal appeal, at least enough to be discussed. And surely every person has a right to express their feelings however they want, but it does not follow that I have to consider every expression worth expressing. What I want to see from an artist is more than just an expression, but an expression expressed in a technically artful, original, beautiful, and profound way. Is this subjective? Of course, but it's art.

Oops

One post in between. Sorry. I am a liar. Jack Kerouac is a fascinating person, a legend, an impossibly brilliant handler of words, a romantic in its most complete sense, the voice of a generation, a major literary influence, a genius, and a merely average novelist. Jack writing the way that he writes about what he writes, his novels are only about traveling the country and being really stupid. But what gives the novels substance and value is not the plot, but the meaning that Kerouac seems to give to every thought, instance, moment, emotion and happening. I said he is a novelist. I am not so sure he ever really told a story, ever had a legitimate plot. But by virtue that Jack wrote it, its more than worth the read

Hang In There (Stay Tuned)

I like this loaded statement because it is loaded. Regard this as teaser and read my next post. Coming soon. "A multi-parter" on art and God. It is not as big as it sounds. Dum da dum dum.

Faith Like a Child

When I was a kid, I was selfish, and to make it worse, entitled. It's one thing to always want to get your way, but its worse when you believe you always deserve it. And then the worse kind of entitlement complex is the kind in which one is not aware of his entitlement complex, because that one is of course always entitled. And these are our children. Not only our children, but all children. Children learn quickly within the first months of their existence, that if they cry they will get what they want. It's funny to think that it may take a lifetime to beat out of them what we conditioned in them within the first few months of their life. As parents, we (we being human beings, not me and you, for I am not a parent, and this is not about parenting)spend 18 years (or more)unspoiling the child. Of course, the diaper must be changed, naps must be taken, food distributed, and of course babies have no other way to communicate to us their helplessness except to cry, but it does not take a way from the fact that babies learn to get what they want by crying and usually they get it, and once they're old enough we then have to deprogram of this. What a strange inconsistency this must seem to be to the toddler, who has heretofore, always been supplied his basic needs by employing the tool of crying, now he gets scolded for doing so, and is suddenly made to "go potty" on his own. We allow our kids to be selfish because they're helpless and clearly we have no choice, but we mistake the helplessness for innocence and the crying for polite requests instead of calling it (the crying) what it is; selfishness. Almost all kids struggle to share their toys, learn the word "mine" very quickly, and spend most of their first 3 years thinking the world revolves around them. And if we do nothing to discourage this behavior, they grow up to be entitled, winey, selfish adults. I always laugh when people talk about children as if they are saints. If kids were saints, you wouldn't need recess ladies, paddles, or bubble baths. When I was a child, I got kicked out of class my first day of Kindergarten for publicly making fun of another kid who peed his pants. In fourth grade, my first day at a new school, I was kicked out of class for laughing at a kid name Morgan. He was a boy. He had what I thought was a girl's name. You get the picture. These were not the worst things I ever did. The other things I did might put my pastoral position on the line if I mentioned them. The thing is, I wasn't the worst kid either. Some of you with children are thinking; "Yeah, tell me about it".
But children however have two redeeming qualities. They are worth emulating. These are the qualities of sincerity and faith. When a child says something, he means it. If he lies, its because he going to get in trouble. But if he tells you that you look ugly, its because you do. And if you tell a kid that the sky is pink, that elephants fly but only on Tuesday, and that the Cleveland Browns are going to win the Super Bowl she will without question believe you. So when Jesus takes a child and puts him on his knee, and tells the disciples that in order to receive the kingdom of God they must become "like one of these" He is obviously not telling them to be good. He is telling them to believe God, without doubting, the way that children believe everything their parents tell them. No matter how ridiculous something may seem to a skeptical adult, a child will never fail to believe it. No matter how ridiculous the thing is that God is asking us to do seems, the kind of person who will receive the kingdom of God is the kind of person who doesn't even give a thought to the ridiculous nature of the thing. In fact the thing is never ridiculous because in the mind of a "child" God would never ask us to do something ridiculous. If God says "I am for you", a child thinks, "He is for me".
Also, a child always means what they say. In may be inappropriate, but it is always sincere, without pretense or any impulse to manipulate. Sarcasm is not a vehicle employed by a child. Wittiness is not a virtue.
In conclusion, children are not innocent, but they are sincere, and they have tremendous faith. Therefore when Jesus tell us and His disciples that we must become like a child in order to inherit the Kingdom of God, he is not telling us to be innocent, but to be sincere, to mean what we say and to have tremendous faith.

Vomiting an Opinion on the State of a Once Glorious Enterprise.

Pre- Garth Brooks country (including Garth) is good music. The first "crossover" artist is Hank Williams Sr. who is today considered to be country, and if you listen to his music today, it is unmistakeably country, at least to our millenial ears. But back then, it was pop, and it was really good. Popular music has no doubt advanced in creativity, but the simple country/rock rhythms and bluesy moans of ole' Hank Sr. are magical and legendary. He is the father of modern country music for sure, and arguably a pioneer of rock n' roll. After Hank came Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, David Allen Coe, Merle Haggard, Charlie Pride, Conway Twitty, Loretta Lynn, George Jones, Tammy Wynette, Randy Travis, Kenny Rogers, Dolly Parton,Swight Yoakum,George Straight, Chris Ledou, and other legends who could write music. Among the last country stars to be worthy of listening are Alan Jackson, Garth Brooks, and maybe a few others. I don't know when Country music started being horrible, maybe it was a gradual slide, but I was forced to listen to it on the radio yesterday, and it was terrible. It was all annoying melodies, uninspired chords, and the subject matter was either sentimental bull from an artist whose last single was about badonkadonks, (what is that?), or it was about cliche' country matters like loving America, hating the Northeast, or checking for ticks, or something equally as disgusting or degrading to women. Women who dig rednecks are rednecks, and being from the country, enjoying a simple kind of life is okay, but being a disgusting beer drinking, tobacco chewing, redneck who thinks it romantic to take your girl frog giggin', and make love in the bed of your truck, or in your algae ridden pond, or tick ridden forest, or on the jukebox in the "honkey tonk" is not okay, never has been, and never will be, and if you're joking, it's still not funny, because I know people who do that kind of stuff, and they are not happy nor are they proud to be rednecks until they hear these guys, glorifying their lives. Its the same thing that gangsta rap does for gangs. It's just not okay, mostly because its not true. I also knew a kid in the crips. He was a servant to the destructive system. The gang life is nothing to glorify, and and neither is the trailer trash lifestyle. In fact most lifestyles are not anything to glorify. Let's be honest about life, not make excuses for its shortcomings. And it really just isn't good music anymore. I don't have the time or energy to go into all that, but listen to Hank, or Johnny, and then listen to Taylor Swift, especially live, and you'll understand immediately my point.
I realize I sound like an angry jerk. When I was in undergrad my English Comp professor called writings like these "vomitous mass" I admit that's what this is. It's also pretentious, pompous, angry, and true. Enjoy.

High School

I find it difficult to be nostalgic about High School. I'm not bitter. I wasn't the loser kid, but I was definitely not the cool kid, not even close. Besides, all the kids who got made fun of the most in my school have turned out to be the most successful. Nerds really do rule the world. (Admit it jocko). Anyways, it just wasn't a great time for me. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good. Not that I didn't like my friends, I did, and I do, but are they really my friends anymore. I guess once a friend always a friend, but... you all know what I'm saying.
I'm really into my friends right now, and have no way of knowing if I'll still be really into them in ten years. I know I will be into at least one. I don't know, I just feel like every person I haven't talked to in years and didn't even talk to in high school, wants to be my facebook friend. This is really strange to me. I guess going to the same High School qualifies for a friendship. To those who were the guys I hung out with in High School. I am gladly your friend on facebook. I'm mainly talking about those who I never ever talked to. Weird phenomenon.

The False Dichotomy of Reality or (What I Thought About Today)

Today is Monday. I spent the hours of 7am-9am in staff meeting. (For Steamtown Church) Then I went home and prayed for two hours. It was refreshing. I read the story of the fall of Jerusalem in the book of Jeremiah and it was moving. Then I continued my singing (yes I sing to myself) and praying through the Psalms. The Psalms are divided into several books. Right now I am going through Book One. Most of the Psalms are written by David, King of Israel. And the Psalms are composed in such way as to function collectively. Each Psalms plays off the themes of the preceding Psalms. It's like a huge concept album, the individual psalms functioning like songs in an album, but also with a holistic form. It's quite the spiritual experience.
I got on the bus when I was finished with my spiritual exercise. All that I experienced was negativity and complaining. This attitude pervades the social atmosphere of Scranton, where I reside, a town which I love, a town which I serve in the name of redemption. The contrast was stark between my past spiritual exercise and this 10 minute bus ride. By the time I got off the bus, nearly all of the positivity was sucked out of me. All this to say that an atmosphere is a powerful thing.
I find that human beings are embarrassingly susceptible to becoming their culture. Loaded statement I know, but think about how hard it is to "be yourself" (whatever that means.) In fact some people are so inundated into the culture or subculture they find themselves in that they do not know and cannot know their identity outside of the culture. However, I am not so sure that letting culture define us is so wrong. I am not even sure that's its possible to know yourself outside of the culture. Is there really a person in there, who is pure and untouched by experiences, or people, or worldview? Really I mean, who is the real you? And what makes you think that you are at any point, not the real you? If you do not know who you really are, at what point do you know when you're being real? Is the real me, the one who thinks life is great and God is good , or is the real me the one who thinks life stinks and God doesn't care. I suppose it depends on whether I'm at home or on a bus. Of course the real me doesn't depend on my context. The thing is there is no such thing as the fake me, just the real me, who is always whatever I am. In certain situations, the right attitude is difficult to maintain, but never impossible. I could be at home with a crappy attitude, and on that bus with an understanding that God is in control.
But at atmosphere is powerful. If one does not understand this, that one is susceptible to thinking however they feel is however it is. The key is not figuring out the real you, but what the "real" person would do in your situation. I will explain later. Keep it real.

Idealism and Realism

I am an idealist. To me that means that I try to make my life fit my values. A realist is somebody who tries make their values fit their life. Those of you reading this who are idealists are saying: "Yeah so?" those of you are realists are saying the same thing. If you're a realist, if you're consistent you're also immoral. If you have a moral base, you are inconsistent. We idealists, may be depressed all the time being discontent with how things are, knowing the way that they should be. But at least we're not in denial.
This is a rant.

Salvation and Suffering Part Two

The idea that I am about to write about has been written about well in many books. One of the more popular books being "Jesus Wants to Save Christians" by Rob Bell. This is the idea that throughout the Bible and Judeo-Christian history the people of God have been persecuted and rescued from persecution on such a regular basis that one can reasonably believe that persecution is a distinctive of being "the people of God"as well as a major theme of the Bible. From Egypt to Babylon; Persia to Rome; the Crusades to the Holocaust, to the present day persecutions of almost epidemic proportions, the "people of God" have suffered at the hands of the unjust. Indeed the symbol of our faith is the innocent Jesus, blessing His persecutors. Jesus' type is David who wrote a seemingly unending amount of Psalms asking God to deliver Him from his enemies. The Bible begins to come alive and really make sense when we put ourselves in the place of a persecuted people. With the lens of persecution on, books like
1 Peter, Philippians, 2 Timothy, James, and Revelation become surprisingly clear. Persecution is the world that the Biblical writers lived in. It's the framework from which Jewish people understand who they are. They see themselves as the persecuted people of God, awaiting their deliverer, Messiah. Paul, James, Peter and John were of course Jewish people operating in a Jewish framework. And we are part of the Jewish heritage. I assert that, given everything I have written so far, that we would be seriously lacking in our understanding of our faith, if we are lacking in our understanding of persecution, not only cognitively, but also experientially. Persecution is to the people of God what the Big Mac is to McDonald's. The New Testament is essentially the Apostles trying to understand and explain their Jewish religion in light of Jesus' being the crucified and Resurrected Messiah. Considering that suffering and persecution was the standard of their lives, (they all were martyred, with the possible exception of John) a suffering Messiah was perfectly in line with their experience. The New Testament is a rearticulation of the Jewish faith in light of Jesus' Messiahship, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return.
We claim that in Jesus we are the people of God, the church. I don't know if the Bible teaches that persecution is a prerequisite for Christianity. I would doubt that because faith is the first prerequisite on our part. But if we find ourselves avoiding persecution at all costs, it is reasonable to check our faith. If we are in the world so much that we are actually of the world, the world will not hate us, and we will have no way to identify with our leader. (Jesus) The people of God have always been a threat to society, not in a violent or manipulative way, but society is threatened by a group of people committed to justice, righteousness, and Jesus. True dialogue must begin on what this looks like. For we cannot force persecution. As Peter says our suffering is not godly suffering if it is not "as a Christian". In other words, there is basic suffering that everyone experiences, and then there is persecution that comes from the hands of the same unjust opposition that crucified our Savior. We're not looking for it, or avoiding it. One is simply left to wonder: If I never suffer persecution, am I really a Christian? Am I really one of the people of God?

Salvation and Suffering Part One

When the prophet Jeremiah was sitting in a rotten well because his peers threw him down there for being a dissenter, disturber of the peace, menace, hater of Judah, enemy of the Jews, hater of God, (all of which he wasn't) he must have wondered if he was crazy to believe God when He said to Jeremiah,
"And I will declare my judgments against them, for all their evil in forsaking me. They have made offerings to other gods and worshiped the works of their own hands. But you dress yourself for work; arise and say to them everything that I command you before them. And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests, and the people of the land. They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the LORD, to delver you."
Perhaps Jeremiah wondered what God meant when he said "They will fight against you, if being thrown down a well was merely "fighting" as opposed to "prevailing". When your sitting at the bottom of a well, there because your peers put you there, it feels like anything but victory. It feels like the opposite of "they shall not prevail against you."
Perhaps when Abraham was told by God to sacrifice the same child that God had promised him would be the progenitor of Abraham's eternal line, Old Abe wondered if the voices that told him to "leave your Father's house and go to a land that I will show you" were really the voices in his head. Maybe he thought God had just gone sadistic.
We know that Job, upon losing everything, (literally everything but his life), in one day didn't curse God, but he sure had a lot of questions.
Surely Elijah wondered how God could throw down fire from heaven and consume an alter of water, but be unable to keep the wicked queen from coming after him.
John the Baptist, while sitting in prison, wondered, "Did I baptize the wrong guy?"
And Jesus, perhaps he was just simply quoting Scripture in lieu of the prophetic tradition, when He cried "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", though sinless, one wonders; did Jesus not have a ready answer to his question?
It's a good thing that with these cases we get the end of the story. For Abraham was stopped from sacrificing Isaac. Job was given a family again, with even greater wealth than he had possessed before. The queen was eventually killed, and Elijah was kept safe. John the Baptist, got an answer from Jesus. We can assume he believed Him. And Jesus, this may be of most importance, rose again.
But what about Jeremiah? When did God come through on his promise to Jeremiah? Remember God had said, "they will fight against you but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you" How was this promise fulfilled? Well, as the story goes, after years of listening to Jeremiah spout off judgment as God's mouthpiece, and mocking, ignoring, and punishing, him, Jeremiah's prophecy of the takeover of Jerusalem came true, and these people were put in captivity in Babylon. And the thing is, had it not come true, Jeremiah would've been stoned according to Deuteronomy 18. That's what you did to false prophets. But Jeremiah's deliverance, was not as tangible as Abraham's, Job's, or Jesus'. John's deliverance was graver than Jeremiah's even. John lost his head. But Jeremiah was left in Jerusalem, with all the others that the Babylonian conquerors considered useless; the old, the sick, and the handicapped. It's quite sad. But its quite remarkable as well. Jeremiah faithfully preached the message of judgment and repentance for his whole life in obedience to God's Word, without having any repentance occur, and on top of that received an onslaught of beatings, mockings, and imprisonment, only to end up a refugee in his own country. God certainly kept his promise. They did not prevail against Jeremiah. But was Jeremiah better for it? If he were a false prophet, he would've been stoned. If he were no prophet, he would still be a refugee. But one word both describes Jeremiah and vindicates his potentially pointless life: example. Jeremiah is for all time an example of what unwavering obedience looks like. And all these people were in a predicament as bad as Jeremiahs. But Jeremiah had one thing on them. He was right. Never again could Jeremiah be accused of being a dissenter, or an enemy of God. In fact, no one could ever doubt that Jeremiah knew God. Could there be a better distinction to have? Vindication came. It came in God's time, and in God's way; like it always does.
When you read the Bible, you begin to see that it is essentially the story of a wretched, and rejected people being saved by their one, unique God, in ways that only God could think of. Over and over again God comes to rescue his people in unique ways. He uses unlikely heroes, parts rivers and seas, makes the earth stop spinning. etc. It culminates in his arrival on the earth in the first century as a human being. Where God Himself becomes the unlikely savior of the world, in the form of a Jewish carpenter who grew up in a small hick town. And they rejected Him. Imagine, when God came to His chosen people, they said, "Please go away."! It figures.(This is not a condemnation of Jewish people c.f. "There is none righteous, no not one"Let's face it, none of us would have got the Messiah we wanted) And now He is the example. And His vindication was indeed, very unexpected, (but He said He was the Son of God didn't He?) He rose again!
"What shall we say to these things? If God is for us who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died -- more than that, who was raised -- who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING KILLED ALL THE DAY LONG; WE ARE REGARDED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED. No in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure than neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:31-39
God solution to suffering, to the conquering of pain, has never been to eliminate it, but to persevere through it. He did not even spare His own Son. Even God endures pain. The victory is not that pain is never a part of our lives, the victory is in faith. If we believe God. We shall receive the unexpected vindication, a reward which is intangibly greater than had we never suffered. "God is for us" does not mean that pain is minimal. If anything "we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered" But Paul says that we are more than conquerors. And that at the end of faith, us and the love of God are inseparable. God is doing a weird thing in your life. May you trust Him that He is for you, and that your salvation is sure and better than you can imagine.

Read

Read my post that I will put up on Friday. Read it and read it good. If it is not sweet, and you happen to see me this weekend. Slap me hard, for that will be the last time that I let you. But go ahead slap me good.

Northern LIght

I go to Northern Light every day now. I don't have internet at my house anymore. That place is my office. Actually, I am there right now. This might as well be Twitter.

On the Market

To what shall you give your soul? Who or what is worthy of it? And at what price shall it be given? If you say you are in control of your own soul, what will send you into despair? Find what it is that you cannot part with, and you have found something that has at least a part of you. Is it, or are they a worthy owner? How many worthy owners are there? And let's just say that there's just one (worthy owner). How would that effect your life? If there's more than one worthy owner, how do you know that it is worthy? Are you worthy? Can you be trusted with your soul? If there is only one worthy owner, than it matters if you're an atheist, because if you're not than anything less than all of you to God is a divided soul, also known as idolatry. Can this describe the human condition? We're all just a bunch of misplaced souls, divided, and lost in our idolatry? Where is salvation? And how shall my soul be one, and owned by God? The Calvinist says: "By God's decision". The Pelagian says: "By my decision" The American says: "I second Pelagius". The Catholic says: "What Augustine said" The atheist says:"Irrelevant, I am not lost" I could go on and on declaring what I think people would say in response to the question. As for me. I have what I think is an answer, but I'd rather try and keep in step with the mood of this post, and stick with the question. What do you think?

God

God, it doesn't seem to me should be someone, or something we should talk about with any sort of casualness. That sentiment was violated by the sentence, and continues to be violated as I write. I resent the way we talk about God, as writers, and the way that modern evangelicals talk about him. It seems that a lot of us have lost a true sense of awe or reverence. Sadly, this is the beginning of wisdom. How frivolous it is to talk about life without fear, awe, reverence of God. It may even be destructive. Just some thought I had.

Sometimes

   Sometimes things really are too good to be true. Sometimes you plan out an entire day of leisure; just reading and drinking coffee. And it turns out neither to be enlightening or fun, just makes you feel lazy and empty. It serves, however as a neat little metaphor for life. It's not when our dreams are fulfilled that we experience true joy, or when our plans are executed, but when a good thing unexpected happens, and it doesn't matter how "big" the thing that happens it is, it just matters that for that moment your life is something other than you thought it was, and you can no longer accept the notion that life is drudging routine, because something out of routine just happened. But you cannot sit around and make these events happen, nor can you plan for them, or manipulate events to ensure their happening. The only thing to do is to hope, plan, drudge through your routine, notice when it is broken, and then tell God about it. 

Too Good

They say that some things in life are just "too good to be true". Like a modestly dressed beauty queen, who likes foreign films, smoking pipes and reading Kierkegaard on a bench on the square. She is inevitably insane.
Nothing in life is as ideal as it seems in our wonderfully hopeful little imaginations. I suppose that perhaps the offset to all of that is that maybe death is not as bad it seems. Maybe dying is like getting a shot; way worse in our imaginations then in reality, before and after the shot. But then again, maybe not.
Anyway, I find it fascinating how we are led away from despair by our imaginations, nothing ever happens the way we plan it, or want it, or expect it, but we go on living as if our next plan will work, as if our next hope will be fulfilled. I find no reason to discourage this, this it seems that the alternative is soul suicide. But the remedy for soul suicide is not denial, but true belief, not wishful thinking, or resignation, cynicism, stoicism, or physical suicide, but true belief, belief that transcends human categories, and transforms both subject and object. I believe this.

Billie Jean

"Billie Jean is at my door"
"She's just a girl who says that I am the one"
"But the kid is not my son"

Anything here not look right? I thought that these were the lyrics to the Michael Jackson hit "BIllie Jean" As it turns out, not only is Michael not the child's father, Billie Jean is not his lover, nor is she at his door. I believe that Billie Jean is not at Michael's door. As for the rest of Michael's claims, I believe "Billie Jean", whose name has been changed to protect the innocent.

Leisure

I've been busy lately. I've been happy lately. Perhaps my busyness is just a distraction and so my lack of depression is mistaken for happiness. I do not think so. Even my leisure time is happy. Happiness is strangely addictive. I never thought I would like it. What I mean is that I hope I don't get so addicted to happiness that I continue this busy lifestyle to the detriment of real thought about life. But time to think about life is a luxury. Compared to what the masses of human beings are doing, it is truly a luxury to obsess and be depressed over existential questions, or the meaning of life while such questions answer themselves when every day's a battle to get meal. Plus, something I have discovered on this foray into busyness is that I very often feel an acute sense of accomplishment, something which rarely happened in my life of leisure. The real quandary here is my busy life is happier and therefore it feels more meaningful, but my life of leisure, a.k.a. my life of reading and talking to people, seemed more substantial, yet depressing, still more authentic. Do you, readers of this blog feel my pain? Identify? Have no idea what I'm talking about?

Scranton

Scranton, Pennsylvania is my home. Just saying the sentence makes me chuckle. Because, you know, Scranton is kind of a ridiculous town, with many frustrating quirks, which can be charming depending on how you look at it. One example is the overhead thingermabob hanging over Lackawanna Avenue, seemingly connecting the Steamtown Mall to some business that I am told used to be awesome, but now is a vacant dingy struggling indie band practice room. If you thought that Brooklyn had an overabundance of pizza joints, you are wrong. I went to Brooklyn a few months ago and walked around for an hour, or as my friend would say "minutes and minutes....and minutes", and did not find a pizza place not named "Papa John's". In Scranton, there is no such thing as "Papa Johns". It has been replaced by "Ellen Kay's Diner" which this morning gave me the biggest egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel I have ever seen, approximately 1,000,000 and a half nanometers in diameter. In Scranton, there has to be the most pizza joints per capita of any place anywhere, ever. Literally there is a pizza place on average on every other block, sometimes three on one block. And one of every two pizza joints in Scranton sport the famous "Old Forge Style Pizza", named after a quaint little town just south of Scranton apparently full of cheap Italian (not that Italians are cheap)restaurant owners who one day came upon the revelation that American cheese was much cheaper than mozzerella, and then packaged it as a "style". American cheese on pizza is like Budweiser on an open wound. It will do the job, but it shouldn't. In Scranton there are many, many pizza places.
In Scranton, everyone is in the mafia, whether they know it or not.
In Scranton, in the early weeks of July, you can find numerous little "legitimate" fireworks stands on the side of the road, and then you can hear them shooting into the summer evening every night of your life until November. You are then free to spend your evenings in peace until January, when fireworks warm the cool New Year's sky. And then you will have three months, but that's it, because the local Yankees start in April, and they win every game so fireworks happen all the time and often happen pre-game and even if they lose, because we the mafia have paid way too much for them to go to waste.
If it sounds like I am complaining, it is because I am. But that puts me right into the spirit of this city which I inexplicably love, and am irrevocably attached to, like an annoying girlfriend you keep around for the drama and free meals a la mozzerella cheese.

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Faith

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Faith

Coffee: the poor man's delicacy.

Coffee is the prudent man's problem. For everyone else, it's either a delicacy, or a morning pick me up. For me, it's a delicate problem, especially when its a late evening pick up.

Faith

Faith is a way of knowing. This is not a definition. But I believe that this statement is true. Some thing's cannot be known through any material faculties we may possess as human beings. An example being our faculty for conceptual thinking, abstract thinking, as well as sense reception. Some things enter our conscience only by revelation. And though it may appear to be a rational thought, it may not fit within any rational schema that we've adopted, not to say that it cannot be rationalized, but at what risk?
Rationalizing a thought that's realm of knowing is faith is like eating soup with fork. It's not a tool incapable of performing the task, but is highly inadequate. Perhaps there are things that we can't understand by neither by the senses, nor any other material faculty. What's scary is that we seem to have the propensity as people to make ourselves believe that an explanation is true as long is its logical. And even though we all freely admit that logical does not equal true, we never entertain the idea that illogical does sometime mean true. Of course as I have left that statement, it is not true. But that's because we've eliminated a third category. Something that is illogical cannot be true. But something that is not logical may not be illogical, it may be something that logic cannot contain. This does not necessarily mean that this knowledge is inaccessible, it means simply that logic is not the door to that knowledge. I would say that faith is. Faith is response to revelation. Revelation is pre-logical, or "alogical", God reserves the right to blow up our categories, which if we're honest, is what the whole realm of logic is, a human, thus finite category. How else do we explain the righteousness of Abraham in sacrificing his son, God sacrificing his son, election? God asks Abraham to do something that if any of us asked our friends to do, they would cease to be our friend. He treats his own son in a matter that would get us as parents put away for life, but yet he is righteous. We cannot believe this using human reason. We can rationalize it, justify it, but even after all this we cannot escape the simple fact that God sanctioned the brutal death of his own son, and demanded the blood of the son of promise from Abraham.
Maybe our ability to reason falls short,. Maybe it's not that God is irrational, maybe the problem is our finiteness, but if we're so unable to know everything, how do we know what we can know? I assert that we can know all there is to know, but not all things through our material faculties. We must also appeal to faith, which may at times conflict what our reason,instincts, or faculties tell us, and when this happens... Faith wins, and if you're wrong, well if you have faith this is obviously an impossibility, but what is faith without the risk?

So I am not doing better. If any of you are reading this, please if you know me, when you see me, say "Matt, do better!". And if you do not know me feel free to post a comment. I am a lazy bum. Until next time...

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Why Did They Write?

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Why Did They Write?

Doing Better

I must do better. I want to start being more serious about this than I have been. I love writing. I want people to read my writing. I think that people enjoy reading it. But there are too many stupid, silly errors. And I don't write enough.   So expect to see stuff everyday. I am pretentious enough to think that you care about what I have to say about anything, because I can think about anything, and as such I will write about anything. Some days however, I can think of nothing blog worthy. No matter, I will write. I will proofread, and you my audience will read. 

Why Did They Write?

I got a letter in the mail the other day from my sister.  I thought: "Why can't she just call me?" I usually think this when I get letters. I sometimes think this when I get text messages, but that depends on the nature of the text. I also sometimes think this when I get messages on facebook. Sometimes I get a call from somebody who lives a few blocks from me, and they want to talk or visit, and I think; "Why not just come over?" But all of this is jabber because my real question is: "Why read a book when you got film?" And why write a novel? Ever. One reason may because books are better since they leave room for the imagination of the reader, and in film you're stuck with the vision of the director. But, before film, did novelists write to stir the imagination, or did they write because they had something to say? To a large degree, it's both. And the novels I am thinking of are the classics, and not just novels perhaps but all classic literature from Homer to Fight Club.  My roommate started me thinking on this train, and I must say that it's quite the train to be aboard.  I assume that film's emergence as a story telling art form is partly due to the technological age, and that film will continue to expand, both artistically, and commercially as long as technological expansion continues. But something that I think goes along with all that is that film is uniquely suitable for the modern person's visual sensibilities. In other words, what novels used to artistically accomplish, film now does. We were talking about imagination before, and we view broad imaginings as being a good thing, but when reading a "classic" it seems that the author was either not trying to get you to imagine anything concretely, or that he wanted to describe it so thoroughly that little was left to the imagination. An author is trying to say something.  Whether that something is specific or open to interpretation. Whether it is abstract or concrete. No matter what the medium is, how creative he or she may be in the medium, whether it is poetry, theatre, novel, short story, philosophy, or some kind of non-fiction the author wants you to hear him, see him, and understand something, even if he wants you to be a part of the interpretation, the author wants the reader to interpret. He writes to communicate. It seems obvious because it is. But I am just wondering, with the emergence of film, and the endless amount of options one has with film artistically, could not one communicate a story, more effectively in a film than with a novel? Is it possible that storytelling as writing is obsolete? Will film do to the novel tradition what writing did to the oral tradition? In other words, why write me a story, when you can show me one? 

Transformers

These movies are terrible. I see three possible appeals. 1) Megan Fox 2) Shia Labeouf 3) Action and special effects. As far as a plot or meaning is concerned, it is so unnecessary for this movie to have one that they don't and the only thing that makes this movie not worse than terrible is the fact they don't try to have a plot. They're smart enough to know when a plot will kill their profit. And viewers are stupid enough to be dooped.  Call me arrogant, bitter, and self-righteous but transformers is truly the worst thing in all of film ever. Please do not go to the theater a second time. 

The National

I don't do this very often. I think because I'm not a musician and therefore feel less the authority on the subject. But I just want to say that the band The National is flawless. They're original without being weird, or shirking their influences. Their singer insists on singing every song with a deep baritone. Their song structure is quietly epic, but some songs are just pretty. Their lyrics are emotional, but substantial, and aesthetically pleasing. They hit your heart more than your head, but without the self-pity of emo,  or the bubblegum of pop. I went to see them in May in Philadelphia, and I cried. Some of you always cry at concerts. I never do. So... I can't find a flaw.  Their drummer looks just like John Lennon and is ridiculously good. And frontman Matt Berdinger can sing even when completely drunk, which may just be a part of the act. Any band that can make you long to be in your late twenties and disillusioned is with the musical expertise of The National is worth buying every album of. It might take a while for them to get used to, but once they grow on you, you cannot get them off, but you won't try to get them off.  And you just cannot get sick of them. I am finished.

Who goes to heaven?

What kind of person goes to heaven? This question is misleading. It assumes that people go to heaven.  Heaven is simply a reference to space. When God created the heavens and the earth, he created earth and not earth or space. So people never go to heaven. They go to hell, but they do not go to "heaven".  The Bible says that those who overcome inherit the new heaven and the new earth, particularly the new Jerusalem.  That is they live on the new earth. They take view of a new heaven from with the new Jerusalem. It may be that they do not go anywhere. So what we really want to know is not "what kind of person goes to heaven?" but "What kind of person inherits the new earth?" Again the Bibles says those who overcome. What does this mean? I propose that those who overcome are those whose faith means something. They have a faith that is impenetrable, indestructible, and unshakeable in the face of persecution, doubts, and pure temptation to sin.  They have the faith to accept their justification in Christ, while realizing what their commitment to him requires, and having the fortitude to go through with it, so that they can see themselves overcome; their own sin, and the the whole old order of the world.  

The Bible also lists a group of people who do not inherit the new earth. It says that these people are the cowards, the the murderers, the sexually immoral, the liars, the astrologers, the idolaters. But people who have been cowardly go to heaven. but cowards do not go to heaven. People who have murdered, lied, committed sexual immorality, dabbled in the other world, put something or someone before God go to heaven, but not people who can't believe they can be forgiven. People who are decidedly murderers, who think the acts define them, liars, sexual deviants, astrologers, idolaters, people who find it much easier to keep their identity then believe they've been justified by Christ, these  people whose pride forces them to reject grace. They go to hell. 

Thoughts on Michael Jackson

This does seem to be what everyone is talking about. I've been avoiding press media for days now. I am just not that fascinated by Michael Jackson. Is there some intrigue? Of course. Is there a substantial amount? Undoubtedly. Does it warrant a good amount of press? I believe it does. But personally, I don't need it 24/7. But I assume everyone has a thought on it so... here is mine. Michael Jackson is the consummate talented, iconic, anti-hero.  Ironically, if Michael made any significant influence in our world, it has escaped me for the present. Michael certainly made an impression, but an influence? His main influence was in the arena of his dancing which was often proverbially "sick".  I believe many emulate his dancing, and his ability to hold a crowd, put on a show, his ability to be an icon is unsurpassed. But his music... good... but shallow; hollow. Followers... none any would respect or take seriously. 

Michael Jackson is to pop music what the President is to world politics, what Michael Jordan is to sports, what the Beatles are to Rock and Roll, what Shakespeare is to literature, what Oprah is to talk television, and dare I say what Jesus is to western religion. Absolutely at the top and completely transcendent. But politics are politics, and sports are sports. Rock n Roll is Rock n Roll. Literature is literature. Talk television is talk television. Religion is religion.  And pop music is pop music. And when Michael Jackson transcended pop music, he blew up into a dimension that was really "out of this world". 

For me his legacy was a sad one. Do any of us believe that Michael was happy? Did anyone ever try to reach out to him? For all of his global fame he always seemed out of sorts, unhappy, confused and lonely. We perpetually felt this tense feeling of reverence for his deserved stardom and disgust for his behavior as a father and in some cases as a man in general. He was acquitted of sexual abuse charges, and I am no judging him. If he says he didn't do it, he didn't do it. But I can't help but wonder, what happened in this man's life, that made embody a sense of awe and disgust wrapped into the same figure? 

Will I miss Michael Jackson? No. Here's why: 1) I didn't know him 2) I am very comfortable in life without his music. I was a kid when he was big. 3) I really didn't enjoy seeing him in the tabloids. It made me sad.  To me Michael Jackson's life was a Wildean drama. It was tragic, but worth all of this media coverage. When I die, I don't care how many people know or care, but that people at my funeral can say that I made a meaningful difference in their life.  I am sure that Michael made plenty of difference in his personal life. I just never got to see it. God bless Michael Jackson. 

Faith and Cynicism

  Here's a quote. (paraphrased) "I'm tired of people who want everything to be fair. The rich get everything they want first. It's the way it is, the way it always has been, and the way it always will be, so get over it, get off the couch and stop complaining".  Here's another one.  "Everybody manipulates and uses people to get ahead. That's just life".  Here another one. "Well if that's life then life is bunch of crap" I may attach a name to the last quote. It's yours truly, Matt Miller. Cynicism is easy. To be a cynic you don't have to analyze, you only have to observe. To the cynical people who made the first two quotes, the phrase, "things should be like...(fill in the blank) is meaningless.  It is no matter to them how things should be, we must accept "reality" which is things as they now are, and in my estimation, regardless of whether they are right. Now I agree that life is not fair, but just because it is not does not mean that it ought not to be. If justice or fairness is overrated, then why does everyone get angry when they're cut off on the freeway, or ripped off by an auto mechanic. There certainly is "a way things ought to be" which certainly assumes that some things are not how they ought to be. But this may not very well be the issue. Perhaps the issue for cynics is not whether things ought to be a certain way, but rather if anything could be done about it. Shall I propose that something has been done about it? Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and rose from the grave to give us hope for new life. This does necessarily mean automatic newness of life in this life, so the person who is not cynical about the "ought" but about the "can" is still justified in his cynicism, but for the person whose cynicism stretches beyond practicality, into the doubting of "oughts" themselves, the resurrection, (unless he rejects it, which he inevitably will), squashes his cynicism. What hope is there for the doubter of "oughts"? Indeed for the doubter of "cans" there is hope. We merely need to demonstrate that it can happen. I believe in a new world. I believe a new world is coming. I believe it is our job to incarnate the new world's reality as best as we can now, so that they may have faith and be saved from the discouraging, lifeless, and disparaging life of doubting the "oughts". Will this lifestyle have its price? Sure, if we're wrong, we ought to end up at the bottom of the barrel? But if we're right, and I know we are, we ought to end up on top.  

Jesus said "The first shall be last and the last shall be first" Can you believe it? Faith trumps cynicism. 

Do Gooder

  Life is simple. Eat your vegetables. Say your prayers. Go to church. Obey your elders. Don't lie or fib. Work hard. Be responsible. Don't drink and drive. Be polite. Don't take vengeance. Unless you want a balanced diet, or you're at work, or you get sick, or your authority sanctions infanticide, or your wife asks you if she looks fat in that dress, or you've been working all day, or its not your fault,  or you just had one, or they were rude first, or they had it coming. We wax eloquent on the ideals, and we become even more sophisticated with the rationalities, but we all know a good person when we see one, and most of us can't or won't be him or her. That means most of us are hypocrites. If you can't live up to your own ideal, it doesn't mean you're wrong to have an opinion, it means you're wrong to be satisfied with your stagnancy. Ideas are necessary. Discussion is preferred. But ideas without action are meaningless and time is of the essence. The simple pleasures of life are not only procured by philosophizing but by the realization of those philosophies, unless the philosophy is to realize that there is no realization.  And this philosophy has its perks, and also its dire consequences.  

Think about it. A person who does good without a reason is still satisfied by the good deed, for doing good makes one feel good, especially when done with the right motives. So how much thinking does it take to do good? Maybe there are complicated "goods" out there and philosophy is necessary for attaining them, but doesn't it seem more reasonable that philosophizing is an excuse for negligence. Can philosophizing make negligence a virtue by calling it prudence? Surely most goods are understood intuitively, and it is our crafty flesh that works against us, seeping its way into our minds and making rationales out of apathy, or just being ugly malfeasance. We must know what's right. Is it really the situation that makes it so difficult? Have we exaggerated the circumstances?  Are we just too cynical? Did we expect to much? I say to all of these: sometimes. But there is always an opportunity to be proactive about being a blessing, doing good. We ought to take every opportunity we can without being irresponsible.

Reality TV

  Anyone think that reality tv is reality? Okay good. Because if you did I was going to have to do something drastic.  Wait is there anyone who thinks that the show "The Hills" is reality? (And don't get philosophical on me) It's not. I am not arguing with you.  Arguing with someone who thinks that "The Hills" is reality television is like arguing with someone who thinks that their dog talks to them. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but you're weird. And besides, its not. Watch the show, its obvious. Okay, when reality television hit the major networks with shows like Survivor or Amazing Race, it was cool, because it was like an original game show. But now it's out of hand, with shows making up scenarios in which they can exploit people left and right.  Up and down. Diagonal and diagonal. Perpendicular. I feel like there is gotta be a reality show out there about teaching ex convicts how to crochet, or to see how long it takes the winner of this year's spelling bee and miley cyrus to breakup. We'll tape the drama. One rule: Miley has to kiss Gerald at least 9 times a day. They'll break up at the end of the year and Gerald will be a celebrity until his tweets become really boring. (How long will people care about the origin of words like tarbuloticandrosisobamaistheantichrist?) The origin is fundamental evangelical and french in case you were wondering. 

   Anyway. Nobody take any of this personally. I have a post coming up in which I seriously critique our culture and entertainment. For now this is pretty funny right? No offense to my good friend Shirley, teenage girls, tweeters, fans of any particular reality television show, the President Obama, or fundamental evangelicals. All of you are my friends. (except Obama. I don't know him)

Twitter

I was planning on writing this as part of my "review" of twitter:  Twitter is the epitome of this generation's woeful and overinflated sense of self-importance. But at this moment I do not feel quite as strong or bitter. While I don't necessarily feel that twitter is definitely "the epitome", it can certainly be an indicator and a heightener of this generation's de facto "overinflated sense of self-importance".  It doesn't have to be, but it can be.  Two things bother me about twitter when used wrongly. 1) Why do people care what famous people are doing at any given moment? 2)Why do you think people care enough about what you are doing to have a twitter? If you say its not about that, its about networking, then how is it more useful than facebook? If you say that with twitter you don't have all these applications to deal with, you really don't have to deal with them on facebook either.  I am sure I am missing something, so if somebody can tell me what that is, I want to hear it before I start feeling like a grumpy old man who wants to hang on to his familiar facebook, but it seems that twitter is used because its good for networking (so is facebook), and you can see what people are up to any time, and they can see what you're up to. Really? You can't just call someone? Well, sure you can't call Ashton Kutcher. (Did I spell that right?) But if you don't know someone well enough to call them, why do you care what they are doing? "They're cute" is not an answer. "They're funny" is not an answer" I suppose twitter is a good way to see what shows and stuff are playing. And it's these kinds of things that got me thinking today that twitter isn't all that bad. And my problem isn't with twitter. It's with the abuses of it that are the same kinds of things with myspace and facebook. I like to use it for networking, advertising, keeping in touch with people, but for some people these networking sites are hobbies. Less time on these sites just for being social, and more time going to the ice cream shop for being social, might help to curb that infamous sense of isolation that this adolescent generation struggles with. And beyond  just networking sites. Do we have to have conversations via text messages. I understand if you can't talk. But I've literally watched people have a texting conversation with a person who lives 5 miles away! Are you kidding me? Put down the xbox controller, the netflix, the ps937, the laptop, the text messaging machine with the inexplicable numbers on it, and go to a barbecue. Please. (I feel old)

Epilogue: Overcoming boredom

   I'm tired of old things becoming uncool by virtue that they are old. I do not believe that "fashionable" means "thou shalt pursue" Of course,  the more "unpursuable" a thing is the hipper it is. I cannot help but be miserable about the cliche urge that calls us as a culture to be open minded. Adding to that misery is the fact that the reason for my misery is not accredited to my "traditionalism", for I am not a traditionalist, but now open-mindedness has become cliche, and I need something more fashionable, like narrow-mindedness.  Surely we have come to a point where this conversation will have to end due to its blatant frivolity. 

  However, I am not sure this isn't a problem unique to our age. Perhaps there was once a day, when people never entertained a the modern notion of "tradition".  It is a searing, but applicable question: "Can one be poor and bored?" or "Can one be religious and bored?" "Does boredom only exist with a culture of leisure?" And is the modern suburban more wretched than the medieval peasant serf? You've heard the statistic: The United States and Europe lead the world in deaths by suicide. If you were starving, would you kill yourself, or would a greater tragedy have to befall you such as a broken relationship? Affluence, power, and the American Dream simply do not produce satisfied customers. Musician and lyricist Jon Foreman once wrote: "There's gotta be something more, than what I'm living for"

   What does the second paragraph have to do with the first. I'd like to suggest that our search for the fashionable is made possible by our culture's affluence, which has produced a form of restlessness. We are a restless culture, satisfied only with the next big thing.  This culture needs a chill pill, or maybe Ritalin, or maybe not.  I'd also like to suggest that in our culture, entertainment is overrated, and work is underrated. Technology is taken for granted, nature, and our souls are lost for it. Meals are an afterthought, thus poverty is ignored.  Time is money, thus people are objectified. Privacy is paramount, community is cultish. The world of entertainment, technology, food, busyness, (not the same thing as work), and privacy is in opposition to the world of hard work, familiarity with raw nature, feeding the hungry, and loving people in community.  There's only two ways I know of that this second world is possible. Prayer, and action. 

 Any thoughts?

A World Without Sides

  To see both sides of an issue is not conducive to taking a side. This is bad when there is a side to take.  But what if there are no sides? What if there are? It is clear that there are differing opinions.

   There are several routes that one can take with this.  One can deny that sides exist and that such things as opposing opinions are illusory. That if we can somehow transcend this deficient sense of dichotomy that our culture is wrapped up in, then there will be peace. Essentially, conflict exists because people believe the lie of dichotomy. If this were true,  then those of us who do not view the world this way must deny that we disagree with those who do. Route #1 is a gentle way of telling someone that you know what they think, and that they should just agree with you. 

  Another route is accept the sides, but deny the ability of discernment. In other words, "my side may be the right side, but I cannot really prove it".  Anything one might use to prove can be cast off as subjective knowledge. In this scenario, it is not that objectivity does not exist, it is that objective knowledge is illusory.  One knows that one's view is true because one just knows it. Sides are taken, proofs are proven irrelevant. One might suggest that the proof is in the result. But then how may one discern that a result is good or true? Does this not put us back where we started?  Route #2 is an elegant way of saying, "I believe it because I do, and I need no other reason?" To this I ask; "If someone believed that the sun was smaller than the earth,  you would tell them it was not, and no reason would be given? They must accept you opinion on the basis that you are you, despite the obvious observation that the sun is smaller than the earth. And if you did say something about depth perception, why? 

   Another route is to take it for granted that sides exist, and to believe that the rightness of a particular side can be known and can be demonstrated.  Most on this route are not so optimistic to think that all that can be known can be demonstrated. But most likely, they do believe that all things have a reason and a justification. But what if they don't? How could you ever demonstrate that all things do? (have a reason and justification). And if you did, isn't this either circular, or infinite. Either way there is no foundation, for neither circle nor infinite space are upheld by anything. If there is no foundation, what then becomes of reasons and justifications? 

  I don't believe that people fall neatly into these categories or routes. I believe that we all have some part of us in all of them and different points in our life, and sometimes we have more of us in a particular category than at other times. It would not seem a worthwhile debate in this country to jostle between what the best beverage is. We all assume that taste is subjective, and that nobody really cares what your favorite beverage is. But person taking route #1 would say that there's no such thing as best, only what you think is best. Person on route #2 would say that there is such a thing as a "best" beverage, but there's no way of knowing it. Person on route three would say that would say that there is such a thing as a best beverage and that they can prove it. 

  I think that on this issue that most of us would take route #1. But most of us would not consistently take this route. In fact we would not take any route consistently for if we did  we would eventually run into the traps set by all of them. Most of us take a side while switching routes. But have we not created a route #4 which is the route that encompasses all routes depending on the issue? But how shall we decide which route we will take? Why does the above scenario require most of us to take route #1? But aren't these just the questions posed by a person decidedly on route #3? And if these questions do not matter, than aren't we on routes #2 and #3? It seems to be a conundrum. 

 Philosophers have been endowed with the particular skill of rhetoric coupled with excellence in abstract thinking. A philosopher can make sense of nonsense, even if what he says is still nonsense. And a philosopher is not so easily steered by skilled rhetoric and can tell when another philosopher is spewing sophisticated nonsense. The business of truth is not easy.  And what makes this even more difficult is that we haven't even talked about routes from the eastern part of the world, that may have completely foreign frame of references. But here is one thing that's true. Philosophy is the luxury of the overfed. The bare necessities of life cannot be denied. The will to survive despite suffering is strong in the human being. And although every philosopher may debate how one knows what he knows, the hungry man knows that he must eat, and sleep, and have shelter, and that is what he knows. And the just man knows that he is his brother's keeper. May I suggest that we will not be judged according to our rabbinical or academic prowess? We will not be judged according to our skill for rhetoric or excellence in abstract thinking. We will not be judged on our ability to discern between good and evil. And when God created the dust man (Adam) and his helpmate (Eve) he gave them no ability to discern between the two, and because of this they had rest.  But they wanted this ability and they took it, and it turned out that it was not so obvious to their son Cain that he should be his brother's keeper. The grass is always greener on the other side. But in a world without sides the grass is always green. The reality is that we do not live in a world without sides, but we live in a messy world of lots of different sides, with gates propping up everywhere regardless of angle or necessity. But we believe in a world without sides, where our responsibility to keep our brothers' is taken for granted. As Christians we seek to live in this world of gates and sides and give our brothers hope by showing them that there is another world. "Repent for the kingdom of God is near" The kingdom of God is a place where justice is taken for granted. It is coming. Let us be ready.

Do you ever feel alone in a crowded room? Despite the fact that this is a terribly cliche question, and an awful line in a "Jack's Mannequin" song, its true. In fact it is the tagline of the modern western world. It is not okay to be lonely. If lonliness were good, procreation would not be advisable; they would've have never been such a person as Eve. Humans exist in interdependance. But this does not mean that we all have to be friends. I used to think that. It does mean that that mores formed within our group of friends, need always to be examined in light of the mores of different groups, and dropped if need be, or preached harder if necessary. We are effected by and do effect people who don't even know us, with whom we have no relations. Our actions are all meaningful and impactful. If you must feel alone, be assured that it is only a feeling. It is not the truth. Random rant. Perhaps useless. Peace all.

Restlessness

  LIfe is a basically restless thing. Its a series of unexamined letdowns and over romanticized hopes, or unexamined consequences, and over romanticized fears, but it is rarely what it seems. We have all experienced good times and bad times, only to come out of the bad times entering the good times amazed that we could have such a gloomy perspective on life, only to come out of the good times entering the bad time amazed that we ever thought life was so good. We may even do this same kind of juggling in our opinions of ourselves. And perhaps the problem with us is that we think of ourselves way to often, perhaps the basic cause of our restlessness. 

 Still, it has yet to be examined whether or not life ought to be restless, if there is anything we can do about it. If we cannot do anything about it, there is no sense worrying about it, there is much sense in contentedness in restlessness. Certainly this is contradictory. Therefore there must be something that we can do, or somebody can do for us to make us content. The question is asked: Can there be restlessness in a person without self-conscience? If a person were unaware of themselves as a distinguishable self, could they be restless? Assuming this kind of person has desires, what kind of desires would they have? And ah, perhaps it is, no, indubitably, it is desires from whence springs restlessness, so that it would not matter whether or not the person has self-conscience, he would still be restless since there is no reason to think that he would not have desires apart from self-conscience. His desires would simply be desires for others, and therefore he might have hope, he might have fear, he might have joy, he might have sorrow, but all of these outside of himself. Does he now truly live? 

  It is the recognition that restlessness is a product of desire that the Stoics resolved to think that desire was overrated, if not needless. But perhaps the idea that desire is dissolvable in a human being is an overestimation. Could not one propose that indeed, the distinctive quality of humanity is found in its ability to desire? 

  It has been long assumed that animals operate on instinct and not on desire, only what appears to be desire to creatures like us who operate on desire. Whence is the distinction between man and beast? Psychological research has demonstrated that at least to some degree human beings operate on instinct. Is the soul just a product of unparalleled intellect? The key to the question is found in the human sense of right and wrong. Even human beings who participate in war find it to be a necessary evil. But some members of the animal kingdom, have zero qualms about killing their own race in the name of survival. Animals care nothing about marital faithfulness, which partly explains why they are no such things as ceremonies in the animal kingdom, not to mention illiteracy. Thievery is an everyday errand for many animals. Why are some things wrong? Could it be that thousands of years of human civilization was built on an unscientific, ignorant, artificial morality? If this sounds preposterous, it may be because it is. It is safer to believe that a sense of morality is derivative of an innate sense of the an ideal than to believe that the ideal is the problem. What arbitrary code do wrong acts or thoughts break?  The code is not arbitrary. It is instilled. 

  Persons made in the image of God have desires for the world, and as such can be disappointed when they are not fulfilled, and joyous when they are, fearful that they will not, hopeful that they will. But persons confused about what right and wrong is are restless. Persons who have taken a bite from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, have chosen to doubt the innate sense, and have created in their own image the concept of an ideal. That is not to say that the ideal is not ideal. It is to say, that without the knowledge of good and evil, no comparison to bad can be made, and therefore the concept "ideal" would not a part of the human vocabulary. The great ethical dilemma is that ethics has to exist. We are restless, not  simply because we have desires, but because our desires are confused, because we have lost any ground aside from human reason to be able to determine what is right and what is wrong. In a world of confused desires and gratuitous trust in our ability to reason there will exist a scary ability to rationalize our wrongs. Faith is the only acceptable return ticket to contentedness.