Lyrical Musings II

The Wisdom That the Workers Just Won't Wait For

Among the talks of how things are and all these petty academians, I crumble.
Realizing I'm just me.
I got my face behind these books are making shelves.
And I believe its too much w o r k to set me free.
And my method is flawed
And my way is wrong and they would let me
Sell myself if it would mean that they could buy themselves a drink; I'm helping everybody die and I'm forgetting it.
But I tend to preaching life into the lifeless walking corpse out on the street
And not regretting it
Among the tales of jobless people there's a wisdom that the workers just won't wait for.
But I will hold my breath
It's crowded all the time and everywhere I go.
And I wonder if the talkers hear themselves
And believe it
I've got my hand attached to paper and pretending that the talkers do not k n o w the things I know.
But it so is not so
There is nothing that I know.

Connections

I saw her take

From the bottom of the barrel
And I was thinking did she think I thought her selfess.
But I know
It was only obligation
And besides
The only thought I had was thinking she was cute

And so we see
Ourselves in hopeless situations
Entertaining motives motioning for clues
But I am blind
To the existence that surrounds me
Can I behold what I claim to be the truth?

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

There are connections
That my friends are just not making
But my finger's been found missing from what point do they begin
To see the bridges
That I'm burning at a blazing speed.
But they understand the gulf
Oh, they understand the gulf.

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

I'm going to stand under a burning sun that burns me
Let it paint me reddish colors slowly fading to tan
And then relax inside a cubicle of entertainment
I'll return to beige and pink and cream

I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to. I love her cause she wants me to.
Is that alright with you?

Eternity In Our Hearts?

"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!"- Johannes de Silentio (Soren Kierkegaard)

I have lots of things to teach you now, in case we ever meet, concerning the message that was transmitted to me under a pine tree in North Carolina on a cold winter moonlit night. It said that Nothing Ever Happened, so don't worry. It's all like a dream. Everything is ecstasy, inside. We just don't know it because of our thinking-minds. But in our true blissful essence of mind is known that everything is alright forever and forever and forever. Close your eyes, let your hands and nerve-ends drop, stop breathing for 3 seconds, listen to the silence inside the illusion of the world, and you will remember the lesson you forgot, which was taught in immense milky way soft cloud innumerable worlds long ago and not even at all. It is all one vast awakened thing. I call it the golden eternity. It is perfect. We were never really born, we will never really die. It has nothing to do with the imaginary idea of a personal self, other selves, many selves everywhere: Self is only an idea, a mortal idea. That which passes into everything is one thing. It's a dream already ended. There's nothing to be afraid of and nothing to be glad about. I know this from staring at mountains months on end. They never show any expression, they are like empty space. Do you think the emptiness of space will ever crumble away? Mountains will crumble, but the emptiness of space, which is the one universal essence of mind, the vast awakenerhood, empty and awake, will never crumble away because it was never born.-Jack Kerouac (Jack Kerouac)

If neither of these quotes make a ton of sense to you, its probably because they didn't make all the sense in the world to their authors either. Kidding aside, Kerouac and Kierkegaard are two authors always worthy of comparison. Both relied heavily on pathos, both used pseudonyms, both were prone to depression, and both were highly introspective, concerned not with grand schemes, but with the particulars and quirks of everyday happenings. The main differences, in my mind were that one, Kierkegaard is considered a philosopher, (although he rejected the label), and Kerouac a novelist and poet (although a philosopher in his own right). I own the books from which both these quotes came, but I have neither of them on hand, so I looked them up via internet. The funny thing about the site from which I got the Kierkegaard quote was that it was called "Stream of Consciousness". Kerouac practically invented, stream of consciousness writing. Truman Capote, a contemporary often compared with Kerouac, as both novel writers wrote what was coined, "the autobiographical. novel", about Kerouac's style quipped, "That's not writing. That's typing". When you read Kierkegaard it sometimes appears he was just "shooting from the hip", but this is more likely than not, because of his intentional aloofness, and not as Kerouac's "typing". Now to compare these two quotes, which turn out to be quite contrasting. Or more precisely, Kerouac proves Kierkegaard's/de Silentio's point. (From now on we will refer to the author of the former quote as "de Silentio").
There's a ton of analysis to be done on Silentio's . I'm not sure a Google blog is the place for that. Let it suffice to say that at the bottom of de Silentio's rhetorical charade, is the singular statement: men believe in eternity, because they must; they must in order to prevent themselves from utter despair upon despair upon more meaningless despair about the utter despairing vanity of everything.
At the bottom of Kerouac's pathos laden quote is the denial of reality as he knows it, so that he can claim everything is eternity, for if everything is eternal, then everything is nothing, and if everything is nothing, there is nothing over which to despair. It's a convenient belief for Kerouac, but albeit one that you could never shake him of, even you drop on him the soundest, most compelling skeptical analysis in the world. For Kerouac, like de Silentio know, that if there is no such thing as eternity, then their is only lies and despair.
The Bible agrees. It says, "God has set eternity in the hearts of men."
However, Stephen Hawking has argued that an materialistic assurance of no-after life does not necessarily lead to despair. He has seemed to prove that true as one of the happiest men alive (for all appearances). Those who disagree with Hawking's strict materialism can say that he's out of touch with his feelings, and that he's just in denial. I say that's just begging the question, and mean prejudice. Perhaps he really is happy, then de Silentio's comments are not necessarily true for all men, maybe for de Silentio, but not for everyone. None of this sheds any light on the existence of God or an afterlife, nor the validity of a skeptical worldview. But it at least contrasts two paradigmatic psychological perspectives. On one hand, you have the scientific objective observer, and the other, the introspective subjective thinker. Neither can make his case perfectly for his opponents. Both can only edify those who share the psychological predispositions. The main question, the meaning of life, ultimately is left without an absolutely doubtless conclusion. But as one who identifies with an introspective approach. It is perhaps the case that I have an unhealthy obsessive fear of the unknown, namely death. But I do believe that the scientific approach deals with the question by denying the importance of the question. The introspective person deals with the question by posing eternity. Both are going to die. That's the inescapable bear truth. And I cannot believe that the irreligious blind denial of an afterlife is any less religious or superstitious handling of the question than the religious blind affirmation of eternity. For now, I can only appeal to Mr. Pascal and his wager.

Who Should Christian's Have Voted For in 2008?

So I was reading this book. The book was written by a fairly well known evangelical pastor. I actually know the guy, but that's neither here nor there. In 2008,he informs his readers, he voted for Barack Obama. And he wasn't the only evangelical Christian to do so. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I would be curious to see if more Evangelical Christians went Democrat in the recent elections than ever. (post moral majority) Here was this Pro-life/family values pastor reasoning. (I'm being slightly unfair by paraphrasing, but I feel its necessary for brevity's sake)
Having concluded that God no longer forbids nor demands that Christian's vote, he decided to use that freedom to vote. (This is, I think, a good way of approaching this issue as a Christian). Having also decided that The United States of America is an earthly kingdom that is not the kingdom of God, he must vote according to which candidates position is more in line with Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God, realizing of course the extreme improbability that any candidate would completely embody all Jesus' vision. (Discerning, and commendable). So while he believed that Jesus would've been Pro-Life (I presume, and presume he would've agreed) and would've thought that homosexuality was a sin, the presentation of Jesus' political attitude spelled out in the Gospels was about social justice, help for the poor, downtrodden, and outcast, enemy love, and a generally pacifistic attitude, something that is at least by first appearances, not Republican. So he decided that although President Obama, was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage,(unlike Jesus presumably) that he was also pro-people, and pro-diplomacy, and pro-little guy, like Jesus, that Obama was the obvious candidate, and he could excuse the pro-choice thing basically because the Gospels don't address it.
This seems to be the natural way to approach the issue as a Christian. We're awaiting the kingdom of God, realizing that America is not the kingdom of God, exercising our right to vote, we make the decision based on the information we have, according to the candidate that best lines up with Jesus' political perspective which we glean from the Gospels.
Now I'm going to give this Pastor the benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that he doesn't believe that voting is his final contribution to politics. But voting is a contribution. However, I want to point out that regardless of political party, whether the candidate is running on a Republican or Democratic ticket, he is not running for an office that is elected by God to represent His Kingdom. You cannot vote for King Jesus. He is never on the ballot.
But while being convinced, as I think is this pastor, that the American Government is not the Kingdom, I'm not sure that the Democrats best represents the Gospels. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in talking about this, we're trying to bridge gaps that are not close to each other. The difference between the kingdom of God and the American Government (A kingdom of man) is a more fundamental difference, than the difference between Republican or Democrat. The Christian vote just doesn't exist.
In order to showcase the fact that the Christian vote doesn't exist, I will now ask questions that throw wrenches on the issue. It's not as simple as: Republicans believe this. Jesus doesn't. Democrats believe this: Jesus does too. What would Jesus think about about big government? What would Jesus think about welfare and social programs? Jesus asking us to care for the poor is not the issue at hand when it comes to who we should vote for. Democrats would like you to believe that Republicans don't care about the poor, but the real issue is that Republicans believe that small government is better for the poor. Whether they're right or not is another issue. Jesus wasn't advocating state welfare, nor was rallying against it. It was a completely different atmosphere. But the main thing that Jesus was rallying for politically was that oppression is the natural outcome of any man-made political endeavor, no matter how well-intentioned the original idea, whether it be Rabbinical, the Pax Romana, or the Declaration of Independence, but also that any direct revolt is as worldly and man-made as the existing political power and is doomed to the same fate. The kingdom of God is like a small, insignificant mustard seed at first. You don't notice it's growth until all of a sudden, it's an all pervasive tree, casting it's shadow over everything. That's the kingdom we represent as Christians as we wait. As such we fight for social justice, the equality of all people as image bearers of God, the right treatment of God's creation, all things Democrat, but we don't like laziness, nor can we stand for a system that enables thievery in the name of welfare. All things, Republican. We consider the pro-life issue an issue of social justice, the physical life of a human being taking precedence over the free choice of a human being. Republican. We don't believe the government can solve our problems, definitely not Democratic, but not all that Republican either. Granted everything I said in the last paragraph is stereotypical, sharply rhetorical, and just plain polemical. There is room for interpretation. We can discuss that. But does not my point still stand that it is impossible to stand with any party absolutely and at the same time call ourselves Christians? And more importantly, there is almost no way that Christians can call any vote for a candidate an expressly Christian vote except by appeal to conscience.

In the Contest for Best Season...

For the first winter since 2005 I am not working outdoors. This has to be the main contributing factor to my sudden affection for the season. The only amount of time I spend in the cold are the seconds to minutes between my car and my destination. (If it's minutes, it's never even two) If it is even 2 minutes, it is 2 minutes in anticipation of some warm drink I will be consuming very shortly, with a book and/or friends, and potentially intellectual conversation, or fun meaningless banter about coffee, beards, or sports. On my way to this presumably coffee laden location, I am wearing my new coat, new scarf, new sweater, and sweet hat.(I have never sounded more metrosexual).
Fall used to be the most appealing season to me, and probably will remain that way after the winter in Northeastern Pennsylvania finally ends somewhere in early May, and begins again the second week of October. And you will probably be hearing a different tune on this blog come post-march madness.
I have always declared Fall to be the best season. I love the mild conditions, the partly sunny days, and the re-busting out of the sweaters and hoodies. I love the colors, the smell of the air, the restart of academia on the college campuses, and gettin' ready for some football. But in NEPA it lasts for a week and a half.
Spring is fun, but its manic, and again short lived here in NEPA. There's the one day, where everything is suddenly alive again. It's like a religious revival. Exciting, but eventually disappointing, deflating, and grossly inauthentic. Spring exists to prepare us for summer, and make us forget that there's this drudgery called work that we all have to do, and we must always remember this if we wish to avoid letdown. Spring is the ultimate tease.
I'm a fan of books and sports. Both of which get kicked to the curb in the summer. I like baseball, but it is the only thing between quad-annual World Cups, and always crappy quad-annual Summer Olympics. And baseball just never ever ever ends. Maybe it was a good idea to play over a hundred games when it was America's pastime. America's sport is now Football and they play at most 20 Games, and when's it over people can't wait for September. By the time Baseball is done with their near 200 games, people are saying, "Oh, ___. If opening day comes before July, I'm going to purposely choke on a cracker jack." Books are not in vogue in the summer. People go hiking and climbing, and on horrible family vacations. (If someone has fond memories of family vacations, please let me know) There's this feeling pervading the summer atmosphere that says, "to relax indoors is stupid". Why? Because outside is an oven? I am not a fan of oppressive heat cured only by "thirst quenching" lemonade, or going to the pool. I am not a fan of swimming.
Now, when you were a kid, summer was awesome. Now as an adult, unless you're a teacher, you gotta go work in the hot summer sun, and it's oppressive no matter where you are in the populated places of North America.
And there you have my rundown of the seasons. Let me just point out some other things about winter, as it pertains to reading and viewing sports. Winter has the NFL playoffs, the Superbowl, the BCS Bowl Games, and March Madness. Are you kidding? Sports fans spend the months of January, February, and March in pure open mouthed ecstasy. Reading is off the chain in winter because it's too cold outside. After further review, in the contest for best season, it's a push between Fall and Winter. Considering that winter has hazardous roads, snow shoveling, and car scraping, and is really long, if winter was shorter and didn't include Valentine's Day, it would win, but barely. Official decision: Push.

The Church

My facebook status right now contains what I think is a great definition of the church. "It is God's embassy in a specific place". Embassy is a great word. The church is not the kingdom, but it is the kingdom represented, the voice for the kingdom, the ambassador of the kingdom of God. What is the kingdom of God? This is an entirely different blog post, nay, an entire book? Briefly, I think the kingdom of God is how the earth conducts itself when every man, woman, and child lives in total submission to God's will, and is full recognition of his awesomeness. The church is the ambassadors for this kingdom, which has been inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus, which has disarmed the evil powers that previously held sway over the affairs of men and women. The church testifies to the Lordship of Christ as demonstrated at the cross and His Resurrection as the meaning of everyone's life. This works out in the unique way in which the people of the church go about their lives before the watching public. The church does this by worshiping, committing heartily to one another, and calling light into both private and public darkness, through word and deed. In this way the church is an embassy.
But in order for the church to do this, it must be visible. People must recognize it as a church. This does not mean that it has to have the word church in it's name, but that it has a place that everyone knows they can go where they will be in the midst of followers of Jesus. Church however is a good name for that group, because "church" avoids cultic associations. The point is that the church is visible and stationary. If the church was invisible,that is, a mysterious conglomerate of believers in Jesus, how did the messenger know to deliver the letter to the Corinthians? Feel free to add to the discussion with your comments.

Double Standard

The reason for the not convicted Big Ben Roethlisberger's suspension was "conduct detrimental to the integrity of the league". Yeah no kidding. Still vague. What is the "integrity of the league" anyway? Apparently its whatever Roger Goodell says it is. Because a Brett Favre "sexting" incident that's well documented empirical evidence is not "conduct detrimental to the integrity of the league."
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't disagree with the Roethlisberger decision. I wouldn't even have a problem with a no decision both ways. But you can't have a split decision. Roger Goodell has concocted an image of terse morality; a disciplinarian spring cleaner. Except Brett Favre has no accountability. I'm not resorting to throwing our conspiracy theories. I'm just saying, why the double standard?

Giving Up Everything to Get Everything and More Back

Today I lived a hipsters' dream. I went to a coffee shop and in no particular order talked about beards with friends, wandered aimlessly on facebook, talked about the Christian's attitude towards capital punishment, and typed on my computer for about four hours. Then I went and got a chili-dog, went to Starbucks, wandered facebook some more, and read Kierkegaard. While I was at the coffee shop I ran into many folks that I knew and had varying degrees of interesting conversation with them. Now I'm at the same coffee shop drinking a yerba mate, listening to a local hipster kid sing John Prine, typing this blog post. If this was life all the time, I think I would be happy.
While I was struck by the perfection of my day, I was struck by the happiness of the chili dog place. If my day was the hipster's dream day, then Coney Island Lunch is the Scrantonite's dream spot. The owner is a connoisseur of baseball and a collector of classic baseball memorabilia with which the store is chock full. There are bobbleheads, pennants, and old newspaper clippings plastered on the walls. The employees are one of two kinds of people. They are either middle-aged men, or twenty-something girls. Everyone knows everyone that comes in the little shop and they all talk a little smack, a little sports, a little politics, and chops are being busted like plastic Christmas gifts. I feel like when Scranton was founded, that the little chili dog shop scene was exactly what the founders had in mind.
As it is, my hipster days are few and far between, and while the original vision for the city was that everyone would just own a storefront and bust each others' chops, this is not how it always is. Sometimes people flip you off. Sometimes they curse you out. Sometimes they fire you.
I think we all have our own visions of what life could or should be like. I think we all flock into groups that share our vision, and I think most of the visions are pure, albeit idealistic. And it's a shame that they're idealistic. It's a shame that despite their distinctive purity, that they are in competition with each other. We cannot all have our way.
I also think that most of us have never exactly thought through our vision. For many of us, it is undeveloped or sub-conscious. But either way we act on it, more often than not in ignorance of why we're really doing what we're doing; without any idea of what we're striving for. We call this the human condition.
The nice thing about religion is that it gives us the vision and the method outright. It does all the work of figuring out the meaning of life for us. We just have to do what it says.
So I'm a Christian. (If you're an old subscriber, you know this.) I don't believe in the hipster way. I believe in Jesus' way. But Jesus' way is hard to believe in. I read in Luke yesterday that Jesus' asks me to follow Him. And then I realized his destiny was the cross. Of course the hope is the resurrection, but the cross is inevitable. Jesus says I can only have life if I am willing to give up my own; if I am willing to lay down the hipster way of life. Some might think that this means that the ways we find to live in this world, whether it be "hipsteresque" or Scrantastic are by self-definition sinful. I wonder if when Jesus says if one is willing to lay down his life he will not fail to receive it back sevenfold when His kingdom comes, if he means that these pure but various ways of life which we choose to embrace will not be given back to us, but in a form in which they compliment each other instead of compete against each other. It makes sense to me that one must be willing to lose his life, to gain it. For God is not able entrust us with our own life while we live in the flesh. Our flesh is under the influence of our common ancestor, Adam. But the second Adam, Jesus, has by his own sacrifice, freed us through faith in Him to have our life without the hindrance of the flesh, but we must pass through the fire. We must actually be willing to stake no claim on our own life. We must entrust it to Him, and then we will be free, despite the fact that the decision of faith, that is the decision to entrust our life to Jesus, is a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice that returns freedom.

Brd, Trd, nd t f ds.

Dd ths nc bfr. wrt n ntr blg pst. Th prps ws t s f flks cld rd wtht th s f vwls. Ddn't trn t t rdbl lst tm. Bt hv nthng bttr t wrt bt. Lbrn Jms s a lsr. Th Brwns wll mk th plyffs nxt yr.

Lyrical Musings

Thoughtless Creeds
by Matthew Paul Miller

If dire straights are good
Then Nirvana is hell on earth
And the only thing that prayer is worth;
is knowledge of our pain
I don't know what I should
do in situations such as these
A reference to thoughtless creeds?
If to you it's just the same?

Give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was never right.

If intimacy's good
Then protection is a waste of time
Let's start believing that we'll all be fine;
until there comes a day
In a casket made of wood
They'll be viewing just a lifeless shell
Knowing that we didn't go to hell
'Cause for our sin to Jesus pay

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time to realize that what I thought was always right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?

If television helps;
we can watch a little matinee
Immobile in the middle of the day.
It's just a way of passing time
And all the feeling that we've felt
become invisible and float away
And when they ask us all about our day
we can say that it was fine

Just give me a minute to figure out that I don't know what is wrong.
I could use the time realize that what I thought was never right.
Do you know who you are to me?
Do you know who I ought to be?
I want to know who you are to me
and all other knowledge agnostic-ally.

Ezekiel 32

Your foreskin is showing, exposed, and I don't have the patience to deal with;
the problem
And there's a sword about your waste
And blood on your hand
but its not your own
But it will be someday
It will be someday

And there are swords
lying in heaps upon the hordes
of the dead
sword bearing warriors
And we honor you today
for your success in the campaign
But we've got our own blood on our hands

And I'm inclined to say;
that if you changed your ways
and your style
you'd be better off today
But am I unjust?
in assessing your misdemeanor?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself
You killed somebody else.

Kierkegaard, Not Steinbeck

If you take the time to look at the info on my facebook, you'll notice that one of my favorite quotes is one from John Steinbeck. The book: The Grapes of Wrath. The quote: "Fear the time when the bombers stop bombing while the bombers live. For every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died", which is the climax of the chapter. The chapter, unfortunately, I do not have memorized. But the chapter is exactly what I wanted to share with you today. I do not own the book however. (I don't own many books) So I went ot Barnes & Noble to borrow The Grapes of Wrath, but lo, NO GRAPES OF WRATH! Every other Steinbeck novel, short story, and poem was there, but not the one I wanted.
The truth is I didn't feel like saying anything myself to today, but I felt like saying something. I have this Kierkegaard book in front of me, so I have decided to quote him. (Or should I say, I have decided to quote Climacus?)
"With regard to the dissenting conception of what it isto communicate, I sometimes wonder whether this matter of indirect communication could not be directly communicated. For example, I see that Socrates, who ordinarily held so strictly to asking and answering (which is an indirect method), because the long speech, the didactic discourse, and reciting by rote lead only to confusion, at times himself speaks at length and the states as the reason that the person with whom he is speaking needs and elucidation before the conversation can begin. This he does in Gorgias, for example. But this seems to me an inconsistency, an impatience that fears it will take too long before they come to a mutual understanding, because through the indirect method is must still be possible to achieve the same thing, only more slowly. But haste is utterly worthless in understanding when inwardness is the understanding. To me it seems better truly to come to a mutual understanding separately in inwardness, even though this occurs slowly. Yes, even if it never did happen because time went by and the communicator was forgotten without ever being understood by anyone, it seems to me to be more consistent on the part of the communicator not to have made the slightest adaptation in order to ahve someone understand him, and first and last to watch himself lest he become important in relation to others, which far from being inwardness, is external, noisy conduct. If he does that, he will have consolation in the judgment when the god judges that he has made no concession to himself in order to win anyone but to the upmost of his capability has worked in vain, leaving it to the god whether it should have any significance or not. And this will not doubt please the god more than if the go-getter were to say to him, 'I have gained ten thousand adherents for you'... That subjectivity is truth is my thesis, I have tried to show... which at its maximum is Christianity. That is is possible to exist with inwardness also outside Christianity, the Greeks among others have adequately shown, but in our day things seem actually to have gone so far that although we are all Christians and knowledgeable about Christianity, it is already a rarity to encounter a person who has even as much existing inwardness as a pagan philosopher. No wonder that people are so quickly finished with Christianity when they begin by putting themselves in a state in which receiving an ever so little impression of Christianity is entirely out of the question. One becomes objective, one wants to consider objectively--that the god was crucified--an event that, when it occurred, did not permit even the temple to be objective, for its curtain tore, did not even permit the dead to remain objective, for they rose up from their graves. Thus what is able to make even the inanimate and the dead subjective is now considered objectively by Messrs. Objective"
Good enough.

It's Beginning To Feel a lot Like Christmas

I'm not usually associated with one who is bubbling with that vague moniker: "Christmas spirit". I walked out my door today, it was snowing. And I got that feeling. You know that feeling. That little warmness like hot cocoa, teeming in the knowledge of the approaching festivities, the lights, the tree, the wreaths, the smells, the sounds, and the briskness in the air, the feel on your cheeks after taking a walk and coming home putting on your sweater and wool socks and snuggling with your special someone with something sweet in your cup. (Is that Christmas spirit?) I actually thought, "You know it really is the most wonderful time of the year".
And then I had to get gas. As I stood outside for what seemed like 10 minutes, I noticed one, that the temperature was 30, but that also a crisp wind was blowing, so I would say that it felt like 20 on my face, and two I noticed that gas was $3.09 a gallon. And then I got back in my car which takes until I get where I'm going to heat up to a comfortable temperature, and braved the horrendous traffic of downtown Scranton. I finally settled and then walked a block to the cafe' in which this post is being written. The moment I left my house this morning, and noticed that it was snowing, and got that warm feeling in my belly, it was gone by the time I was pumping gas. And I remembered why Christmas exists; to distract us from the reality that December is the most horrible time of the year. The shortest day of the year is in December. I think that the most hipster slackers see is 20 minutes of daylight that day. It's cold. Cold is unpleasant. As unpleasant as hot can be. Cold is much more unpleasant. The first snow is nice and nostalgic, and even pretty, but it is not long until the dogs, the plows, and the children turn into various shades of colors only elsewhere seen in toilets. I do like the evenings of cuddling, but I can't do that in the summer? I can do that in a pool or a beach in the summer!
I will not go into the endless woes of Christmas time. I have already mentioned all that is possibly good about it, which melts away as soon as you pump gas, shovel snow, or scrape the ice off of your car as you become later and later for work. Still, without Christmas, December would be even worse. But we can at least be honest about it.

Movies

I'm not a movie critic. But so what if I was? I'm not an actor or a filmmaker. Just a simple viewer for whom most of these movies are made (thankfully not all) And thankfully I am an American and most likely so are you, so you have to believe I have a right to share my opinion, even if it may be incredible.

So here are my thoughts on some recent movies I've watched.

Doubt-
I wonder how much skill it really took to make a movie as open ended as this. There is a subtle difference between laziness and subtlety. If you're open-ended enough, and know the right philosophical questions you can make anything seem profound. But with a work of art, being different than philosophy, its profundity is found in a large number of things, and is admittedly, annoyingly subjective. However, no aspect of this movie is poor. But what makes it truly outstanding isn't its plot, or its ability to solicit different responses from different individuals, which interestingly, is only remarkable because the movie works on every other level, and the frustrating thing is that the movie's creators are pretentious enough to think that it is the open ended aspect which makes their movie, when really it is the superb acting which makes the open ended aspect really really fun.) The acting jobs take this from the most mediocre movie ever made, to one of my favorite. But give no credit to the director, who simply found good actors who know how to provoke interesting questions that the philosophers conjured up centuries ago.

American Beauty-
If you really want this to be a derivative satire on the American suburban life, you can hate this movie, but given all the other great elements of this movie, can you possibly believe than director Sam Mendes is that dumb? To me its not a satire at all. It doesn't attempt to be. I don't mind unoriginality because I think to a large extent originality is just like the American dream, a mirage. The movie is a simple coming of age tale, and the fulfillment and victory that Lester experiences is real. It's scored well; acted well. The cinematography is great. It's entertaining, it's meaningful, and it understands the human condition.

Lebron

Brett Favre, Brett Favre, Brett Favre. Lebron, Lebron, Lebron. Heat, Heat, Heat. The decision, the decision, the decision. It's all you ever hear about right. I'll admit, I don't find Favre all that interesting, and am sick of hearing about him every time he breaks a nail, but Lebron fascinates me. It may be because he was "the franchise" of my favorite franchise for 7 manic-depressive seasons.
Now I don't like Lebron. I'm not naive enough to forget that I'm a Cavaliers fan. I understand that my dislike is rooted deep in my "fandom". But I want to make a case that Lebron is an unlikable person regardless of what team he is on. This holds true, even though Michael Vick killed dogs, and Steve McNair beat his girlfriend, and Kobe at least had an extra marital affair. If your point is that what Lebron did in "the decision", is nothing in comparison to what these men did, I would shoot back that what Lebron did wasn't even wrong. It's not even worth comparing. Dan Gilbert and the city of Cleveland's reaction would lead one to believe that Lebron committed the worst atrocity against humanity in the 21st century, but in the end their reaction also did more to justify Lebron's departure than anything. Who would want to work for a boss like that? The decision wasn't wrong. "The decision" wasn't wrong either. Lebron has broken no laws; has shown no one any disrespect. He has just went about his business as a free American employee.
With that said, I am also a free American employee, who has the right to not like somebody. And what makes Lebron so fascinating is how the last 5 months he has made PR gaffe after PR gaffe to the point where you wonder if he should fire his PR guy, or if he was always that much of a jerk, and now with new found free agent freedom he has come out. What he has come out as is a self-centered, naive, Generation Y crybaby, who is in way over his head. He overestimated his "untouchable" quality. He underestimated the value of team chemistry. He underestimated the historical value of bringing championships to a city, especially like Cleveland. He has made us suspect of his competitiveness, perhaps seeing his move to South Beach, as the easy road to a championship.
Granted, I don't know him. I might even like him if I met him. Maybe the media has cast him in this light. I admit that my opinion of him is based merely on the perception I get from the media. My only point is this. If the media is the only chance I get into Lebron's psyche, then I don't feel bad for him that people don't like him. With that said, I defend Lebron's right to play for whomever he wishes as a free agent. I am not really all that offended over "the decision", although a little irked by the way he went about it, and his undiscerning/insensitive/arrogant comment about taking his talent to South Beach. The Cleveland fans reaction has been childish, unacceptable, and worse than anything Lebron has done. But this post is not about the Cleveland fans. It's about me understanding why Lebron is not liked. He's not a real competitor, or leader. He doesn't seem to be very team oriented. He's a millionaire with a victim mentality. His one redeeming quality beside his skills at basketball is... um... he hasn't slaughtered any dogs, gotten in any legal trouble, or sold drugs??? In the immortal words of Chris Rock. "You're not supposed to slaughter dogs!" You also don't have to be a nice guy. You're allowed to be selfish and whiny. But I don't have to like you for it.

Powers and Principalities

So I've been on this Gospel kick. Been on it since 1993. Over the years I have greatly struggled with my Christianity. Many of the issues that caused my frustration were political and cultural. By now the acute difference between Republican/Bible Belt politics and the politics of Christianity is so plain to me that it takes me a minute to place my wits when I meet a person who does not see that difference. Having been tormented over the issue of how an ancient message such as the gospel, can be clearly understood in and communicated to a post-enlightenment culture, I have scoured the likes of political theologians, right and left, but mostly left. I have dabbled in liberation theology, only to find that it was as worldly, and defunct as the Bible Belt ideology I was raised in. I have read relativistic postmodern theologians, and emergent authors who tickled my ears, and found in the end, that that was all they did. All this to say that I have recently read a book that tickled my ears, but also warmed my heart with a renewed love and deeper understanding of my own treasured Christianity with its precious Gospel. The remainder of this post will be a quotation from that book by British missionary, pastor, apologist, and theologian Lesslie Newbigin called "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". But before that I must say that I doubt that my struggle is over. There must always be struggle for the Christian trying ot live out the ideals of the next world in the world that he finds himself in. But we are already victorious in Christ, and in this faith, I stand strong, and am glad to proclaim that despite the struggle, I walk into the future with my basic faith in Jesus' cross and resurrection stronger than ever.

Quotation from "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" from the chapter entitled "Principalities, Powers, and People"

"We are not conservatives who regard the structures as part of the unalterable order of creation, as part of the world of what we call "hard facts" beyond the range of the gospel, and who therefore suppose that the gospel is only relevant to the issues of personal and private life. Nor are we anarchists who seek to destroy the structures. We are rather patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already received, in the Spirit, the firstfruit of the new world. (Rom 8:19-25)...The soldiers in Christ's victorious army were not armed with the weapons of this age; they were martyrs whose robes were washed in blood. It was not that a particular Emperor was discredited and displaced; it was that the entire mystique of the empire, its spiritual power, was unmasked, disarmed, and rendered powerless. A conversion of individuals which failed to identify, unmask, and reject that spiritual, ideological power would have been futile as an attempt by Christians to wrest that power from is holders. Evangelism which is politically and ideologically naive, and social action which does not recognize the need for conversion from false gods to the living God, both fall short of what is required."

How To Preach Foolishness to the Learned.

A preacher is to preach the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and is coming again to receive His folk. Of course, explaining why the Gospel is good news is integral to preaching the Gospel. Keep in mind the teachings I use to explain the good news are not the Gospel itself. The Gospel is unchanging. The way I make it make sense in a given culture is flexible.
In preaching, I am trying to persuade people that the Gospel is good news for them and everyone. I realize that if one is not convinced of the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, that they cannot believe the good news. I do not believe that a skeptical person however must be convinced of the historicity of the Gospel, prior to believing the Gospel. I believe that they may believe the Gospel on grounds that do not line up exactly with the skeptical worldview, and change their skepticism from the inside out. But I do not believe that it must happen that way either.
For these reasons I think that proofs for the existence of God are often overemphasized by preachers of the Gospel.For instance, while a person must accept the existence of God when He accepts he or she accepts the Gospel, it may be that he or she believes in God because he or she believes in the Gospel. A person may see that the cross and resurrection explain the human life and purpose better than any other gospel and accept it even as an atheist (As they simultaneously cease to be an atheist).A person only has to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, so a good route for most common folk to take in their preaching of the gospel, lacking perhaps in formal academic education at a culturally legitimate university (not a Bible College), instead of trying to explain the teleological/ontological/cosmological proofs of the existence of God, (a passe' proof laughed at in the universities since the the 19th century), is to be a walking testimony of how the Gospel has changed their life for the better. Perhaps, most small churches, full of common folk, should concentrate more on understanding the kingdom that they're representing, and then working to live it out, than understanding passe' philosophical proofs, because there is a Holy Spirit who is able to open people's eyes to the truth of the Gospel without human wisdom. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit can use beautiful and meaningful redemption story of the church as a witness to the blind. This happens when we understand, talk, and walk the story.

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Blogging

Young Thinkers Working for Minimum Wage: Blogging

Blogging

Has it really been since July 16th? I got caught up in my professional blog for Steamtown Church and neglected my personal blog. For what it's worth I'm back. And this is inspired by my wife, Mrs. Miller (Rachel). She started her own blog over the weekend. I read it the other day and its really very good. Better than mine I think. She has music, pictures, humor, and an ability to evoke tears. Her writing is surprisingly angsty. In short, her blog is everything mine is not, and it has made me want to apologize (not really) for being so Stoic. True. I am biased. But fortunately, I am also Stoic.
Mrs. Miller starting her own blog has also made me think about blogging in general. I feel that I started a blog for all the right reasons. I like writing. I do not like keeping a journal. I actually prefer typing to handwriting. Handwriting is too similar to drawing for my taste. Typing is faster, and more efficient. For the record, when I say writing, I don't mean strictly handwriting. And there is a distinction between merely typing and writing isn't there? Should anyone ever critique me for being a mere typist, I would then question my skill in writing. (Rambling on...) I did not start a blog to make a living, or to make people like me. I started it simply because I like writing. Of course I want people to read my posts. Of course I enjoy expressing myself. (I am a writer). But mostly I like writing. But the biggest mistake bloggers make when they start a blog is that they assume that people care enough about their opinions to read them. The key to successful blogging (I think) is to talk about issues that people care about. If that makes you feel like you have to sell some odd sense of authenticity, you shouldn't blog. But I always talk about what I think is important, and I never consider my audience. Maybe that's why I don't have much of an audience. But I'm okay with that. I like writing.

Conservative Doldrum vs. Christian Hope

Not by choice, but not by coercion neither, have I been watching a lot of FOX News lately; particularly O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. And here's my question. Is not FOX News as ridiculously biased on the conservative perspective as is CNN the liberal? Now I understand that talking heads are what they are. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and the right to share it, and if they can get paid to have people watch it, that's fine by me. But when it comes to just reporting News, does anybody do that anymore? (besides the local news of course.) Another problem is that people like Beck are extremely influential in people's lives. He must express many Americans sentiments, otherwise he would not be so popular. But it seems that FOX News is now the alternative for conservatives. It's Nirvana to CNN's Guns and Roses. Maybe the press is so overwhelmingly liberal that this is necessary, but I'm a little concerned about conservatives today. I've spent the last two weeks of my life with people more conservative than the people I am accustomed to being around, and while I deeply appreciate these people, I am becoming infected by their apocalyptic paranoia. Today's conservatives seem perfectly content to consider the war (against our country's increasing liberalism; a debatable position itself)lost and have resigned themselves to fear mongering, complaining, and waiting for the ball to drop. Conservatism, in my life time, has never been so depressing.
Here's the impression I get of today's conservative viewpoint: Our country is headed towards inevitable socialism, which in their minds means totalitarianism. Socialism+national debt= fall of our nation. Our youth culture has no ambition or morals. We must get back to the way things used to be.
The problem here is twofold. One, there's seems to be no plan on how to get things back to the way they used to be, other than preaching to to the choir, and fear mongering. Two, no real attempt is made at dialogue with liberals or the youth culture, and thus my generation has no idea why things so much better then, and why things are comparatively worse now. Then was the the Great Depression. Then was two World Wars, and the Holocaust. Then was Vietnam. Now is all sorts of bad too, but its all sorts of good as well, as well as was then. I wish divorce wasn't prevalent. I wish violence was not so volatile. I wish abortion wasn't on the rise. I wish our government wasn't so big and didn't spend so much money. But is it really all a part of a giant Obama/socialist conspiracy that started all the way back in the 60's? Attempts to explain how we got where we are have their merit, certainly. They can help us moving forward, but what about the future? What do we do to curb all this badness? If I hear a conservative who thinks in those terms I might not feel so stifled and lethargic.
Now it's no secret that the American conservative is generally speaking, a religious person, and is most likely Christian. I am a deeply committed Christian myself, and so the religious angle matters to me. It is inconsistent with Christianity's message of hope to be so despairing, is it not? Don't we know that we win? Society must go down the tubes. That's its natural course, so why would we want to return to a better time, when one, regardless of what time you find yourself in a society, its regressing, two, its still not the optimal situation which is the kingdom of God, and three, regardless of what age we find ourselves in we have the keys of the kingdom, and a message that applies to our neighbors, an urgent message at that? Isn't the call to return to better days, a call to return to something that is not the kingdom of God as much as looking forward to better days (like progressives) is the same thing. Call out abortion, I say, but not in the name of the Constitution, but in the name of what's right. And if we live under a socialistic, totalitarian government, yeah it sucks, but either way we have God on our side, and a gospel that not even the government can contain. (Besides we still are considered a center-right nation. Republicans are going to win the house and senate. How close to socialism can we be?)
Some Christians attachment to an American ideal seems to be a form of idolatry. Perhaps this because I was born in 1982, received a public education, and didn't grow up in Christian home. Perhaps I learned a different history than some in previous generations did. The idyllic age is unfortunately not a part of my experience. Hence, my lack of sympathy. I can see that it probably feels pretty crappy to see a generation of folks destroy everything you fought for, believed in, and cherished.
A wise man told me something. He said the problem today is that young people do not listen to experience, and that older folks do not listen to developing perspectives. A healthy society does both. Trust me when I say I've listened to "the old" perspective, and I'm genuinely trying to be sensitive to it, mostly because I think it would be foolish not to. But I ask you to look at mine. As a young person who has no attachments to the things of the past, but who wishes that the government wasn't so big, the borders were not so open, and the debt wasn't so high, who is a Christian and a Biblicist, let me lead us to a perspective of hope, let me call all people liberal and conservative to move past discussions that depend on man's wisdom, to faith that believes that God wins, despite all contrary evidence. Let us focus on the task, saving people, so they will be on the right side of society's salvation. Patriotism and nostalgia are a distraction from that.

Lebron and the Distinction Between Disappointed and Angry

Anger is the result of felt injustice. Injustice is the breech of a moral contract, spoken, or written, or unspoken, or unwritten. Do we as Cleveland fans have a right to be angry at Lebron James? It depends on what we're angry about. Because just because it feels unjust doesn't mean that it is, and as it pertains to Lebron's decision as a free agent, he broke no rules, written or unwritten. He never promised the city of Cleveland that he would stay for his career. He may have promised owner Dan Gilbert. We'll never know, but that would explain his anger at least. Of course, before Gilbert goes out calling people disloyal he needs to have a conversation with Mike Brown, the the winningest coach, percentage wise, in Cleveland Cavaliers history. Perhaps we are angry about the way that he went about it, carving out a one hour time slot in prime time just to take a piece out of our hearts. That was mean, granted. It was classless and ill-conceived. It added fuel to the fire, but how much less angry would we have been if he had made the same decision quieter. I think we might not have reacted so emotionally so quickly, but I think the burning of all things James would have been inevitable, and it might have squelched a Dan Gilbert email that he is now regretting forever. The seat of our anger comes from our belief turned expectation Lebron not only would stay in Cleveland, but more importantly wanted to win a championship in Cleveland. We gave our hearts to him. We wouldn't have done that had we not been convinced that he wanted to be for Cleveland what Jordan was for Chicago. The story was set up beautifully. James was being criticized for all the same stuff Jordan was in roughly the same period of his career, and then Jordan got Pippen, and Jackson, and the rest is history. All Lebron needed was "Pippen" and "Jackson", and the Cavs could be a dynasty. Alas, it seems that James had a different idea. No doubt, James decision was based on wanting to win championships. He took less money to go to Miami. He also wanted to stay in Cleveland. He wanted Bosh to come and be his "Pippen". Bosh wouldn't come. Lebron looked at the roster, post Bosh signing with Miami, and said, "to win the title, we have to get through Boston, Orlando, Miami, and Los Angelas". Gosh, I'm just one guy" This was the identical thought that went through his mind in the Boston series. He just didn't have it in him to carry them through the playoffs. He believed it in '07, '08, and '09, but not in '10, and you could see it on his face, the last three games of the series. I agree with Dan Gilbert, Lebron quit in the Boston series. He felt the burden of an entire city and folded underneath the pressure, and when Bosh sided with the Heat, Lebron decided he couldn't take that again. This is interesting because we're really hard on our athletes that lack a competitive spirit, but in some sense, it was Lebron's drive to win that led him to despair, and led him to choose Miami. Regularly we declare cynically that players always go where the money goes, and we kill them when they go to inferior teams for more money. Well, Lebron went to a superior team (with him on it)for less money, and we kill him for being disloyal. I point out this double-standard adding one caveat. A truly competitive spirit tries to win, always. Even if he's down two games to Boston in the second round, and he still has to get through Orlando, and the Lakers. Losing brings out character. I appreciate that Lebron hates losing. At least he didn't just smile and peace out, but he was a sore loser, and still is. He has to still play hard in Miami to win, not to mention with 9 summer league bench warmers. Winning is hard no matter where you are, and one would've have liked to see Lebron stay in Cleveland in sheer recognition of that fact. I mean, they did have the best record in the NBA two years in a row. (Combined Record- 127-37!)Perhaps there's stuff going on with management we'll never know. You can take this rant as an outsider's opinion, but this is how things appear to me given the facts that I have. What hurts is that through deciding to go to Miami, Lebron James communicated that he was not as enthusiastic or optimistic about Cleveland as we had believed him to be. The jury's still out for me whether this was misguided. I think it was spurred mostly by the media constantly comparing Lebron to Jordan. I think we were self-deceived. Lebron is a great basketball player who truly wants to win, but something's missing, that thing that Jordan, Kobe, Magic, Bird, and Wade have. The Derek Jeter factor if you will. He never had that look in his eye. He's actually a perfect Pippen to Wade's Jordan. We should've saw it coming. As second fiddle, Lebron doesn't have the pressure of a city's expectation and cursed history. He can be his goofy self and let Wade lead. He can make pretty passes, nasty dunks, and put on a show while Wade brings the necessary leadership. He wasn't who we thought he was. We should've known that championships are more appealing than Ohio, or where you grew up. We should've known that Lebron wasn't the King, but the Knight. But we wanted to be witnesses of the next legend, the next greatest player, the next dynasty. Lebron didn't see it that way, and he left, and it hurts.
If Lebron was unjust he was unjust in the way he went about leaving Cleveland. But this is not the issue is it? To call him disloyal assumes a moral imperative, and that loyalty is morally imperative. Only when the spoken/unspoken,written/unwritten contract is breached,is anger justified. Truly loyalty is nice. But in this situation, is it imperative? What loyalty are we asking Lebron to hold? He was drafted. He didn't have a choice to come to Cleveland. Is he disloyal to his word? What word did he give that he would stay in Cleveland. He finished out his contract without ever asking to be traded. Was he morally obligated to stay here? If he was, what's the meaning of "free agent". Of course he's not obligated to stay in Cleveland. Loyalty is based on a promise, and he fulfilled his. We feel betrayed because we let ourselves believe things that weren't true, but Lebron never shared them. A little look at recent history makes that clear. So somebody turned out not to be who we thought they were, but he never led us on, we led ourselves on, therefore, the anger, the bitterness, is unjustified. But the disappointment, the shock, and the loss of respect, well, at least that's how I feel for now.

Cars

Is society the collective refusal to examine philosophical presuppositions?


Okay. I am only a little serious. But I thought about this upon thinking about cars. Only capitalism could justify the automobile's popularity. First of all when you are driving a car, you are encased in thousands of pounds of metal moving at speeds up to 100 mph. Your options of communication with fellow motorists are few and the possibility of malfunction at some point is moderate to high.
And they cost money. And they depreciate in value. And if you work anywhere other than the three to five major metropolitan areas, you need this metal case of speed and death. It's nuts. And people drive 50 miles an hour. (I said 50 miles and hour! That's 73.3 feet per second!)To appreciate the force of this, run into a wall as fast as you can from ehh... 20 yards away. You will be traveling, probably, 10mph. Ridiculous. And why do we perform this daredevil stunt with a regularity that results in 1000 miles of driving every month? We have to get to our job. Wow. The need for capital has caused us to believe that we are safe at speeds up to 100 mph encased in a metal shell, depending on, essentially, electricity, and combustion, as if these things just work on their own and never break down, as if elderly people aren't licensed, as if we never make mistakes, and as if every one on the road has lasek surgery and has perfect vision. The well known fact that it is much safer to be suspended thousands of feet above the earth for hours, in a motorized flying machine made of metal may shed more light upon our lunacy. Long live the mighty dollar.

*Disclaimer* This post is meant mainly for humor, but is also intended to be truthful. As it stands, I own a car, and am okay with it. I am also okay with capitalism, but am also anticipating the perfect economy of Christ's kingdom.

Coffee

I am not addicted to coffee. I have evidence. I fasted from coffee for lent last year, and had basically no problems. I am however on the verge of obsession with coffee. I cannot work without it. It's a mental thing however, not really physical. I cannot stand to work without a liquid to drink, especially coffee, particularly when my work involves reading, which most of the time it does. And there's something about that taste in my mouth. It's wonderful the way that coffee lingers. This is my coffee comment of the day.

The True Christian

I find that the true Christian is unconventional. I do not mean that he is often unconventional, or that that his most distinguishing characteristic is unconventionality. I mean that he is a person void of convention. He is not even conventional in his conventionality. Now I must qualify what I mean by "true". For I do not think that either the mark or the mode of a "true" Christian is unconventionality, but that the sincere, genuine, fully functioning, completely sanctified Christian is unconventional. And by "conventional", I mean that he is himself in each and every situation that he finds himself in. He has no clique, albeit a community, which is entirely different. He has no clique because he is not afraid of being disliked, and has no desire to conform, and yet is consistently aware that "non-conformity" is a form of conformity, and that conformity itself is not the virtue in question: neither is non-conformity, but to the extent that conformity and nonconformity can be considered virtues, they are virtues if they conform to truth, and no person conformed to truth can succumb to the pressure of fitting into social norms. The conformist to truth is also a conformist to unity, and thus promotes it within himself and within society. He is a soul-undivided, utterly authentic, and contagious to all other authenticity seekers. Because he is okay with himself, others sense that he is okay with them, or they want to rid themselves of him because they have no power over him, and since they are not okay with themselves, they need this power.
I must finish with two qualifications of separate points just made. One, I promote neither acquiescence nor anarchy. The conformist to truth, a.k.a. the true Christian, stands up for what is right and against what is wrong, but he lives within the order he has known and understands since childhood. He must in conscience stop something that happens within the order is bad, not primarily because it creates disorder within the order, but because it was bad before the order existed, and will be bad upon the order's dissolution, and if the order prevent him from promoting something good which he must promote, he must promote it within the order and accept the order's consequence. So he is a non-conformist to the order but a conformist to truth, which compels him to conform to the order unless the order becomes non-conformed to truth, and still there is a way to refuse, without rebelling. For instance, say eating peas is wrong. Your mother, your authority, thus your order requires you to eat peas. The wrong reaction is to simply eat the peas, well as to deny your mother's right to authority. You refuse to eat the peas, receive your spanking, and go to bed a member of the order and a non-eater of peas. Or say you must eat peas, but your mother never makes them, and forbids them in your household. Likewise, you go buy peas, cook them, eat them, and take a spanking a pea eater.
The second qualification is more of a clarification and it deals with the question "What is truth?" How do I know in the first place that I mustn't eat peas (or must). And it is clear that I am assuming truth to have a thesis/antithesis quality. All I can say for now is that this is not a metaphysical or epistemological enterprise and that the first statement of the current post should be pretty revelatory of my basic assumptions about truth. To put it more bluntly. I am a Christian. I am assuming that the Nicene Creed is true, and I am assuming a classical Christian view of the necessity of antithesis. In as much as this enterprise concerns conformity as it relates to the Christian,(of which there is entirely to much confusion over lately)I want to call Christians out of conformity to the world all together, especially if it is pious because conformity to piety is the most deceptive of all. And lastly I am not suggesting that the true Christian can not be pegged. Anyone can be pegged. Pegging is the advantage of the subject, and he can be mistaken, but he cannot be prevented from opining, and thus pegging. If anything, the true Christian has no doubts about his pegging. He believes he is what God says he is, and lives joyfully in that. It is the church that will be difficult for the world to peg. Because the church is not a clique, it is a community. And as a community, it includes everybody, and everyone relates to everyone, exactly as they are. The former rule of subjective pegging applies. A church can be pegged as well as any individual, but not in truth. Because once one knows that the truth is that there is one body and many members of which Christ is the head, then one knows that any other peg is a mistake, and one can live in a distinct, truly non-conformist community; non-conformist in the sense of the main difference being a conformity to the truth instead of the world. In that sense, the church really is only more difficult to peg by reason that it is more complex than the individual, so we are back to where we started. The way out of this "paradoxicism" is a matter of the will. It is to truly not care what others think, only to take God at His Word and do what He says. This is a great mystery; non-conformity that cannot display non-conformity, but surely it can be practiced.

The Pluralistic Christian in a Pluralistic Society

What do you do when you find yourself in the following cultural situation? You live in a modern western, nation in which the great majority of its citizens claim to be Christians, yet the basics of Christianity is mostly misunderstood, or the pervading attitude towards the challenging Christian teachings is a form of apathy, or complacence? What do you do when you find yourself trying to follow the teachings of Jesus by reading the Bible, and most of your peers application of the Bible is to change nothing, except don't drink, get divorced, hang out with bad people, watch unbiblical movies, or say dirty words, but by all means support war, be rude to liberals, listen to Toby Keith curse and womanize, and make fun of sinners.
(I realize that many of my readers are sensitive to my implications. I am not talking about you. And I realize that I am misrepresenting a whole lot of individuals who are socially conservative, but also very cordial, polite and loving. Please realize that I am being slightly facetious, and that I in no way intend to ostracize my conservative brothers or sisters or make them look ridiculous. I am expressing however a common sentiment among more liberally minded Christians, and this is going somewhere. I don't wish to upset anyone.)
As Christians, we're called to be different; not different for the sake of different, but different in a way that is redemptive. But what does "different" look like in a pluralistic/secular/christian culture. It sure doesn't look like being a homophobic, pragmatist, elitist who doesn't drink or watch bad movies or a drinking, porn-watching, populist, who volunteers at soup kitchens, and pays more for gas effective cars. Why can't someone be a Christian who dislikes capitalism, because they believe it's about marginalizing people, more than helping them? Or be green, or a vegetarian, or vote yes for socialized health care? (Or not?) But who also hates pornography, abortion, and alcoholism? Why can't all of these qualities exist in one human without it being contradictory? What if its exactly what the Bible intends a Christian to look like within a pluralistic culture? What if "Biblical" in a pluralistic culture looks like each subculture appearing pluralistic? What I mean is that the culture is pluralistic in that many worldviews are accepted by the culture at large, but once people find others who agree with them, they form subcultures that are not at all pluralistic. This explains how subcultures become the authority of Christians' lives, instead of the Bible. This explains how the Bible gets re-interpreted in light of the subculture instead of the Bible shaping the opinions of the one individual. But I am convinced that if we interpreted the Bible before filtering it through our culture, that we would produce a truly pluralistic subculture, and that this subculture would be truly counter-cultural, and being that it would be biblically based, redemptive.

Ronald Reagan

The other day I heard someone say that that Obama is a communist. I think this is ridiculous, and a shameless piece of fear mongering. I heard another person say that Ronald Reagan was a fascist. This is just as ridiculous. I urge anyone reading this to look up both "fascism" and "communism".
Anyway, I was born in 1982. That means that I was born in the second year of President Reagan's first term and spent the first six years of my life under his presidency. Needless to say, I don't remember much about him. I remember that my father didn't like him. He (my father) said that Reagan was cocky, suspicious, and a warmonger. So that has been my general impression. But when I figured out that I was a Republican in high school, (as if you even have a choice in rural Ohio), I liked Reagan, but only because I was a Republican, and in my mind Republicans were the "moral" party that didn't make me pay taxes. Even so, the impression that he was a little shady, and arrogant stuck.
Recently, I found myself stumbling upon some old Reagan speeches and debates in the eighties, and I decided that my Dad's assessment was maybe a little off. President Reagan seemed to be very charming, eloquent, informed, and authentic. In fact, having grew up under the Clinton and Bush administration and now Obama, listening to Reagan made me feel like he was the last truly "presidential" Commander in Chief. People talk about how eloquent Obama is. He's a first year communications major compared to Reagan. Compared to Reagan's sincerity, Bush is a downright liar. And as far as charming in concerned, Clinton may have had a way with interns, but even liberals seemed to like Ronald Reagan. I found myself really appreciating President Reagan. If he's not sincere, he's the best politician, but I really think he's the last president I can listen to and believe that he really believes what he's saying, and that it has nothing to do with votes, but with the integrity of the office. I don't know. That's just my impression.

Sin

It's a funny thing about sin. It always has a rationalization.
That statement being so anecdotal can stand alone by itself as some sagacious facebook status. Expect this to continue.
Sin has this way of bothering its owner, that it is usually too difficult to face. The usual turn is, "This is a much more complicated situation". And it is true in a fleshly sense. The problem is that is not quite an acceptable excuse. Sin is sin is bad. God's original command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (as if there were no original concept of the difference between good and evil or the individual existence of either) was simple. The serpent, in questioning God's rationale behind the command, successfully introduced the idea that complexity, being the reasonable result of contemplation, and moderation, was reason for sin. Although to state it so crudely would not be the ways of the the serpent. In other words, it has always been part of the fabric of sin that the decision to commit it was based on something that could be rationalized as being good. (Ironically, this is not possible without the looming presence of evil. For what are we to call good if we do not know what to call bad?) The indivisible truth of humanness is that the human only ever does that which he or she thinks is beneficial at least to him or her. Therefore the best strategy the devil might have is to somehow convince the human that a given action is what's best at least for him or her. The devil essentially manipulates the human's desire for physical pleasure, beauty, and significance, a.k.a. lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These innate desires being God-given are not evil in and of themselves, but can be used for evil which can be simply defined as "that which is disobedience or human malice".
I say all this to say this. When you're living in sin, it's always complicated. But if sin is simply disobedience, it's not complicated. Because when you're in sin, you're in sin, you have not the advantage of the objectivity of this post, and so the exit from this state is akin to an enlightenment or perhaps a rescue. (If they are different?)The only pragmatic benefit of this blog post is for counselors or mentors, who in trying to help someone, can benefit from realizing that the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem, and that its really all that simple. I am not being facetious. You can't work with a person who's self-deceived.

Conservatism

Conservatism is a funny thing. Liberalism is a funny term, not quite descriptive. Conservatism is just a funny thing I think. The word conservative implies a hesitation; an action towards the impeding of progress. This has to be a bad idea every once in while right? Is it good to be conservative about shoes, underwear, marriage? Certainly progress is required in certain areas of life. (I appreciate redundancy). As Christians, should we be conservative about sanctification? If all I have done up to this point is point out the need for clarification of what one means when he/she says she is conservative, then I can live with that. Generally though I find myself wanting to talk about most things issue by issue seeing the subjective nature of calling oneself conservative, or labeling oneself in any case. Besides when it comes to authority of Scripture, God Himself seems to be very conservative, which is why we can take Him for a liberal when it comes to answering prayers for wisdom? Not to mention that Paul took the liberal position in Romans when He suggested that rebellion was the cause of homosexual relations. At this point homosexuality had been a normal Mediterranean practice for years.

Yankees Vindicated

I am not fan of the New York Yankees. But I am less of a fan of haters. There's a harmless element to sports fandom when it comes to rivalries. I am a Cleveland Indians fan, and for whatever reason I have found myself not liking the Yankees, mostly because of George Steinbrenner. But this is not personal. If I saw George on the street, I would say... "Holy Crap! That's George Steinbrenner!" I would say this out loud and that would be it. A Red Sox fan might punch him in the throat, or sick his brainwashed ravenous son or daughter on his ankles, but this is taking a game way too seriously. But within the realm of sports, I think George is kind of shady and have a difficult time respecting his organization.
Here are bad but common reasons to dislike a sports franchise.
Reason # 1: They win all the time
This is pathetic. Get over it. Tell your owner to get
some players.
Reason # 2: (And this is the one of concern to this
particular blog post) The Yankees take all
of the good players because they have all the
money. Small market teams have no chance. It's
not fair.
There are several problems with this line of thinking. Let us name off last decades World Series winner and losers since they were pretty good teams too. Yankees, Mets, D-backs, Angels, Giants, Marlins, Red Sox, Cardinals, Tigers, White Sox, Rockies, Phillies, Rays. 4 out of 13 of those clubs are "big markets". Albeit that the Red Sox and Yankees won twice, that the Yankees went to the world series three times, and that the Phillies went twice. Perhaps the Big markets have an advantage, but this does not mean they are worthy of hatred. It is after all a business. It's just plain communism to think that it ought to be fair. If the Yankees have millions of fans, are compelling, and can afford to pay these guys, have their own television program, why shouldn't they? Your team would. Maybe if they were killing everybody every year, and there were struggling teams without ever the chance, but...? Really last year's lineup was the first all star lineup that the Yankees ever won with. When they won their four out of five around the turn of the millenium, they did it with all homegrown guys who were just good ball players. The 2004 Red Sox are names now because they won the World Series. So baseball rewards excellence, and the 2007 world champions were stacked. If you payed your dues like the Red Sox did and won a championship, people will start to like your team and they will pay to watch your team, which increases your team's revenue. The Yankees started getting these high profile free agents in 2000 with the acquisition of Roger Clemens, and won one World Series before last year's championship. And if you think about it, how many new high profile free agents did the Yankees have last year? Sabathia and Texeira. The rest of the team was old guys. Arod, Jeter, Jorge, Rivera, Petitte, Damon, Matsui. If you ask me I say it was veteran leadership, and pitching that won last year's title.
Stop whining haters! The Yankees are helping you buy a championship too. Baseball has this thing called revenue sharing, and the Yankees are the biggest contributor to small market charities. Guess who the richest owners are. They are the owner of the Twins, the Nationals, and the Pirates. The Steinbrenners are actually down there, and the reason I suspect is that they want a winning product. So what would you rather have? A money grubbling owner who can afford to spend money and put a team on the field but doesn't. Or I guy who spends the money and gives you a winning product. As much of a weasel as ole' George is. He genuinely wants the Yankees to win as much as you do, and tries to make this happen. Who can blame him for that?
The one legitimate reason to dislike the Yankees: You grew up in Northern Ohio, but now live in Scranton, PA, and you never stop hearing about them Yanks.

Art and Objectivity

What is good art? I found out today that I don't know. My friend, an art major is going to school essentially to find out what exactly good art is. Apparently, things like composition, lighting, technique, etc..., there are rules to art. Imagine. Art has rules! I shouldn't be surprised. Music has rules. (something I am lot more familiar with)I use the term art in reference to the works you would find in any art museum, so I am not including any type of writing or music in my use of the word art, although everything I am saying probably applies to the loose usage of the word art.
My friend claimed that professional art critics know what constitutes as good art in the same way that your mechanic knows how your car works. I had several questions.
1)Who made the rules? The car works how the car works? What is the standard of good art?
2)How does everyone enjoy art if only the experts know if its good or not? If it is true that only experts know, how much do they have to study before they're experts? Who decides that the experts are experts? If it is true that only the experts know then what the novice calls good, is different then what the expert calls good. They mean different things.
Conclusion: Art is inherently subjective.
Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Opinions can be wrong. Facts cannot. This is obvious but at least it' stated. So to put this on simple terms. My friend's hypothesis is that there such a thing as good and bad art as an objective fact. This means that if a person who knows nothing about art likes a piece and shows it to another person who is an art expert who discredits the piece that the former person likes a bad piece of art. But this cannot be.
The earlier questions apply. Who said it was good art? Why should we believe them even if we know who they are? How does an expert become an expert? Any value we assign, or reason we come up with will not be based on anything absolute, and therefore will fall short of "fact".
You ask, "what is based on anything absolute".
Let me say this. All reason is based on possibility and probability. The best way to arrive at the probability of something is through experience and repeated experimentation. But probability is not absolute. It is not by definition. To say that something is probable is to say that something is possibly improbable. If probable is as good as reason can come up with, then absolute is yet elusive. In other words, what we mean when we say that a piece of artwork is good, is that there is good reason to for us to assume that trained artists know what they are talking about. Of course this can be disputed and no doubt has been, but the point of what I'm saying is in the case of artwork, good is based on pure ideas, and ideas however improbable that they be wrong, can still possibly be wrong, which must mean that ideas however improbable to be right can still possibly be right.
So the next question is: Is there any link between ideas and fact? There is a relationship, but not a link. If a fact is only arrived at by reason, then it cannot be arrived at by reason because reason can only go so far as probability will allow it and probable opens the door for "possibility of not being". But perhaps there is another kind of thinking that gives us access to the absolute. It is this kind of thinking that ought to be of interest to us. Reason tells us the function. "This kind of thinking" tells us the form. Let's call it faith. But faith is a confusing word. Shall we call it derb?
So we have learned that when you make judgment value about anything, be it art, or anything else, that the words you use are used within a system based on probability. And if someone corrects you, they are not correcting the correctness of your opinion, but your ability to use reason. If someone says that death is an illusion, that no one has ever died. Our experience tells us that this is such a poor use of reason that this person ought to be locked up, but it does not mean that they are wrong. It just means that they probably are.

More Thoughts on the Concept of Virtue and the States Role in Promoting It

I'm back. Sorry.
So the dominating virtue of American society is not work ethic, but independence. If we can have independence without working for it we will take it. Our government is on the the way to providing this for us. However, as our entitlements increase so does our dependence on the providers, so in effect we are becoming less dependent. We're being dooped. They are using our virtue against us. Conservatives in this country recognize this and are disturbed by this because they understand the scheme, and see how its undermining the real American Dream, which is of course the age old tale of "rags to riches", which no longer necessarily requires a strong work ethic. The fear in secular terms is legitimate.
But how does the Christian faith fit into all of this? Some would argue that our heritage is Christian, that it is the hand and the American Constitution, as well as our overall heritage is the perfectly sized glove. Of course, for Protestants (which I am) this would require some inductive Bible Study. The pertinent question is: Does the Bible agree with the Constitution or with what our Father's declared? If it does not, are we not required to disagree with the Constitution, or the assertion that our heritage is Christian if it does not also agree with the Bible? Just because our conservative pastors, and FOX News political pundits tell us that we are a Christian nation doesn't mean that we are. We're a Christian nation in as much as we're biblically based as an entire nation, not in part, but in whole.

Let me supply several reasons why the United States of America is not a Christian nation, and never was, and then we'll pick up the discussion again at a different time.

1) Given 1 Peter 2, and Romans 13, and the overall mood of the Bible towards government, which is: complete submission unless it means denying Christ. What were we fighting for, and killing people for in the American Revolution? Is the sermon on the mount worth setting aside in our fight for "certain inalienable rights"? was the Gospel at stake in the American Revolution, or was it independence from Great Britain? Even if the Gospel were at stake, is it Christ-like to kill people in its defense? Should we even be a nation at all?

2) The whole flow of the New Testament suggests that the Christian community is a representative of the Kingdom of God, not any kingdom of man and it is therefore questionable that there is any such thing as a "Christian Nation", unless of course that nation is perfect, is the kingdom of God, which of course America, even its ideal form is not.

3) The early Fathers, drawers of the constitution, highly favored freedom of religion, and were of various persuasions themselves. The forefather crew, if you will, ranged in beliefs from atheism to deism, to true-blue Protestant. Unless we can somehow fit atheism, which denies the existence of God, and deism, which denies the deity of Christ, into the the category of Christianity, we cannot say that this is a Christian Nation, unless we try to argue that it's Christian in mood, which becomes so ethereal that an argument for a return to our "Christian" days would be too vague to be substantial.

I could be wrong. I welcome your input, perspectives, questions, and beliefs. My thesis is very nuanced, and inconclusive, so please be patient and wary of quickly jumping categories. I will praise America, when I think America deserves it, but I think people must understand that fighting for the Gospel is primary, time consuming, and different from fighting for all politically conservative values. To be a Christian is de facto, distinct from being American, not mutually exclusive, but different.

I'm not done. I'm just slowing down for responses.

Health Care and More Interesting Topics

So our so called representative legislature passed a bill that will further us on our march towards less personal liberty. What's new? they're politicians. Enough of that. Let's talk about the NFL's new overtime rule enforced only in the playoffs.
For those of you who don't know, the NFL has made some alterations to the way overtime is conducted. The former way of doing things? Sudden death/first one to score any points, safety field goal or touchdown. When I heard that the NFL was looking into changing the overtime I thought, "Finally!". It was terrible. A team was awarded possession on the basis of a coin flip. For years my friends who are football fans have observed the superiority of College Football's overtime system. In this system, each team gets a possession at their opponents 35 yard line. All normal rules are in place. There is no clock. 10 yards to a first down. Touchdown is six. Extra point is a point. 2 point conversion is two. Whoever scores more on their possession wins. If after both teams have had a possession and the score is tied, then they go into another overtime, and the team who had the ball first in the first overtime, now is on defense first. Of course in this system, its to your advantage to have the ball second. It gives you options knowing how many points you need to score. However the defense is also freed up and clued in to how to play. After three overtimes, you have to go for two so that this doesn't go on forever. It's as fair an overtime system as can be contrived in a game like American Football.
Sudden Death Overtime is an impossibly random and unfair "system". This is self evident. I don't need to go into this year's NFC Championship game or any other game where the losing offense didn't get a chance to score. I don't need to show the statistics that the team that starts with the ball wins 60% of sudden death overtimes. To make my point I would only say that imagine the hoopla if we didn't have a coin flip. If the ref just picked the team he wanted to have the ball first to get it first. Well, everyone would be up in arms. Why? Because it matters who has the ball first. If it's sudden death you have a distinct advantage if you have the ball first. You have to score. You have to do one thing. If you are without the ball. You must stop and score. In college both teams must stop and score. Sure the team that goes second has an advantage. Maybe they should give the choice to go on offense or defense to the team with the most yards on offense. At any rate, the advantage of going second in the college is system is nowhere near the advantage of having possession first in sudden death. And its based on a coin flip! Why shouldn't it be based on ref's choice if it doesn't matter? Many complain about the BCS, but nobody complains about the overtime system.
So the NFL got smart (which it usually does) and changed the overtime system. But the system they came up with, hardly more fair, is also more ridiculous. Here it is. I think.

The Game is over if...
An offensive or defensive touchdown is scored.
A safety is scored.
The team who receives the ball first, (this will still be decided by coin toss) scores a field goal and the stops their opponent from scoring.
If both teams have a possession and they both record a field goal, then normal sudden death rules apply.
If the second team scores a field goal and the first team does not, the game is over. If neither team scores anything. It all just starts over.

This effectively does nothing. As journalist Jon Star says, "The new rule retains the game's sudden death feel because the rule still keeps intact the reality that a team can lose without touching the ball"
I was admittedly under the illusion that the motivation for changing the rule was built upon realizing the absurdity of sudden death in football. Our friend Jon makes another great point, "The new rule persuades the receiving team to score a touchdown. The new rule also removes the notion that a team can receive the kickoff, move the ball 30-40 yards. and end the game.

The new rule was not about removing the sudden death element, it was about simply giving the other team an opportunity to touch the ball following an opening field goal, yet simultaneously adding value to going the length of the field.
Illusion removed. Thanks to Jon I am no longer baffled by this decision. I should have known that the NFL values sudden death. I am not sure that anything has changed, other than the NFL overtime has become more intriguing. But one more catch, it's only effective in the postseason. In the regular season, the old rule applies. Next weeks topic? "Iraq War and More Interesting Topics" That more interesting topic would be Baseball's refusal to have instant replay. Please help me understand why guys who work in sports refuse to make their game more fair. Oh, I have a great idea. How about in the NBA overtime, all free throws are worth 5 points if you are fouled with under 10 seconds left on the shot clock.

The List

So, I hate lists. But I am making one. Actually, its not that I hate lists. Its that I hate how out of control they are. Actually it probably has more to do with me hating pop culture. (Should I write "hate" one more time?) Anyway, for what its worth I decided to make a list for my favorite rock/pop songs. Top 20. Easy.

20. Guitars, Cadilacs, Dwight Yoakum
19. Sugar, We're Goin Down Fall Out Boy
18. If You're Feeling Sinister Belle and Sebastian
17. Screaming Infidelities Dashboard Confessional
16. Ballad of a Comeback Kid The New Pornographers
15. Chem 6A Switchfoot
14. Ever So Sweet The Early November
13. Lithium Nirvana
12. My Rights Versus Yours The New Pornographers
11. My Name is Jonas Weezer
10. Blacking Out The Friction Death Cab for Cutie
9. Here Comes the Sun The Beatles
8. Title and Registration Death Cab for Cutie
7. Friday Night House of Heroes
6. You Know How I Do Taking Back Sunday
5. You Never Even Called Me by My Name David Allen Coe
4. Expo 86 Death Cab for Cutie
3. Jambalaya Hank Williams
2. El Scorcho Weezer
1. I Saw the Light Hank Williams

Clarification

It has been brought to my attention that I come off as being rather cynical and somewhat angry. This made me angry, but then I thought about it, and read some of my blog posts and my profile which says, "I am sometimes happy and sometimes angry like the rest of you" And then I was angry because I think the person who brought this to my attention was right. But its true. I am sometimes happy. I don' think I am upset a disproportionate amount of the time, but when I am angry, boy can I be a jerk. This however is not my intention, and I am truly sorry if I come off as negative. I will work on it.

When It's Warm

When people refer to the good 'ole days it makes me want to cry. Not because the good 'ole days were any better than today, but because the good 'ole days only ever exist in the past. I assume that the longing for the good 'ole days are the sign of bitterness and an inability to cope. One day, when life apparently is worse, you will look nostalgically on today, when you were complaining about how bad life was at the good ole days. I suggest that we end this pessimistic life sucker of an attitude immediately, and start being thankful to be alive today. I think nostalgia is a good thing in general, but I think people that assume a glory day of the past are just irrationally sad.
There are certain things that are not good things that some people in our society have tried to twist somehow, but whenever people try to say they are good things I know they are lying. Here are some things that are always true that people question from time to time.

Being sad stinks.
Snow is horrible. White is a bland color, therefore an entirely white terrain is bland. This is assuming that snow is always white. It is however mostly yellow or off white. Snow allows us to see the dog pee that the grass usually absorbs. Snow means its cold.
Warm is better than cold.
Being a nerd is the definition of NOT BEING COOL. That's the point emo kids.
You were just as bitter during the good ole days. You just think they are good now because you don't have to live them.

I'll be happier tomorrow. When its warm.

Being A Christian

Being a Christian I would think would become less confusing as culture becomes more secular. As it turns out, no matter what if you want to call yourself a Christian, you gotta have faith. You gotta be willing to accept a reality you can't see with your eyes and fully explain with your mouth, as if its as clear to you as these words, and as perfectly rational as any math problem.

Getting Old

"Old" is relative. 16 year old men are young. 16 year old rice pudding is officially a living organism. Ironic. I am 2 and 1/2 years from being 30. (You only believe it because of my stupendous beard) I remember when 30 was old to me. 30 the youngest that anyone has ever been "old" to me at anytime in my life. I realize that to some of you 30 is young. Like I said, old is relative. I will cherish every age that I am because no matter what I am young to somebody. That is not entirely true since there is an official age that is without question old. The age is 100, and then obviously anything coming after that. I heard about a woman who lived to be 123. She outlived her grandchildren. That's ridiculous. Moving on.
But I can't stand when things are all relative and subjective, so I decided to invent an old scale. On this scale, it doesn't matter if you're young to someone, only if you're old to someone. Just pretend that young means under 25. The reason I say that "old" starts at 25 is 25 is the age that you can start saying "when I was your age" to people in High School and they think you're lame. Just the fact that you're saying, "when I was your age" or are even inclined to say such a thing to anybody is a sign of being "old". In my estimation, you're old if you're old to someone. I realize this means that most of the human race is "old" and that if I were serious about making an "old" scale that it would be more sensible to make a young scale since that includes a less amount of the population. According to my line of reasoning thus far, "young" is under 25. But of course it's no fun to be sensible. And so it's on with the old scale.
The point of the old scale is to declare who you're old to. There is a gap between 19-24 that's somewhat of a mathematical enigma, but these people we can just call "the have yet to understand how great it is to have a job group" Like I said if you're 25-35, you're old to 18 and below. If your 36-45 you're old to 21 and below. If you're 46 to 60 you're old to 25 and below. If you're 61 to 77 you're old 40 and below. If you're 78 to 85 you're old to everyone but people over 100. If you're 100. You are 100! You've lived a century and are above the irreverent moniker "old". You are an honorary sage.
A key question is, what are some sure signs that I'm old? Remember "old" simply means "old to someone". So, you know you're old when you can remember when Blockbuster was awesome. You know you're old when you can remember when people laughed at people who wore glasses at the theater. You know you're old when you've seen corduroy come in out and out 5 times. You know you're old when you've seen just finished Tim Burton's Batman (1989) and had this thought. "I thought this was the blockbuster of all Blockbusters. And I thought the Joker wasn't actually supposed to be funny" You're old when you say "Mac Machine". You're old when you have an emotional response to the phrase "Smells Like Teen Spirit". You're old when you know why Pearl Jam doesn't deserve "best new artist" at the Grammy's.
Some of you will read this and think, "I must be really old, since I don't even know what ole' Matt is talking about." And then you will think. "Hey Matt doesn't know what he talking about!" He's young! I bet he doesn't know which member of Simon&Garfunkel wrote their songs. I bet he doesn't know what Neil Young means when he says 'four dead in Ohio", I bet he doesn't know what Roller Skates are, not to mention the Roller Derby. I bet he's never seen a live pterodactyl" You must remember that the objective definition of "old" is when anyone thinks you're old. So although they are certainly degrees of "old", you and I are both old. But you know what. Older is wiser, so I'm all ears.