I'm missing something. Nothing is self-evident to everyone. That's what makes things so difficult. I need to hear the reasoning of folks who are not outraged that there's a 7-9 team in the playoffs who gets a first round home game, and two 10-6 teams are out of it? Here's what I've heard. "You win your division you're in." What? Why? That's not an answer that's a restatement of the problem. Why should it be that way? If you can answer me that, that would be an answer.
To me divisions exist to maintain and forge rivalries (which is sweet), and to keep teams from traveling all over the country, except the Cowboys, (which is fine by me as well.) If you disallow the Seahawks this year, you still have you're division battles, and the tie-breaker's can still go to the team with the best divisional record. But also, you would not get a chance to have a NFC West Championship. That's the one downside. But to me missing this year's NFC West Championship is like missing this year's professional lacrosse championship. I can live with that. I'd much rather not see the Bucs and Giants miss the playoffs than miss the "compelling" Rams and Seahawks battle out for the league's coveted, "most mediocre title". No, not even "mediocre", more like, "Not as bad as ten other teams title" The NFL HAS to change this. It is self-evident to me. Apparently to others it's self-evident that you win your division, you're in. I don't know. Win at least 9 games in a 16 game season and you're in. Sounds reasonable to me.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Beauty of Words
I went to Ohio for Christmas. I read nothing but a sermon, and my Bible. I ate too much. And watched an embarrassing amount of television. In short I splurged. And as much as I think my metabolism is paying for it, my IQ is paying even more. The television is so subtle in its brain draining effort, but the effects are felt today. I have nothing to say in my blog except this, and at least I know that going forward, as I try to regain the 6 IQ points I lost, that I have enough of a vocabulary to say nothing in a paragraph, unlike lesser mortals who can say nothing in mere nanoseconds.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
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.
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 takeFrom 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?
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?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, December 17, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
