Thoughts on God's social justice system

I'm in Chicago for Thanksgiving weekend. Just got in early this morning (6:10 AM), after having ridden the MegaBus overnight last night. This was also after I spent two days trying to sleep at odd hours in order to shake my body clock after sleeping in until 1 PM two days in a row last weekend. So I'm somewhat tired, somewhat awake, and I'm certain the topic I'm about to bestow on you today is going to be somewhat scattered. Bear with me.

One of the most important values in my life has been human relations (or how people treat each other), thanks to having had that lesson beat into my brain on numerous occasions as a kid. I've talked about the issues of human nature multiple times on here, but a new thought came to me while riding on the el this morning. My mind had wandered to Jesus' teachings on social justice, and the importance of taking care of each other.

The topic, once again, came from the same book I've been reading quite a bit over the last month. Somewhere in the Bible (and I'll need to look to see where this came from) there's a passage about how God tells his farmers to harvest all but 10 percent of their crops. The purpose of this "tithing" is to leave the remaining unharvested food for the poor to pluck for themselves. Jacobs refers to this as God's original welfare system, so to speak.

I've been thinking about the whole social justice/welfare system here in the US, and the vastly different stances Democrats and Republicans take on this. I think part of this derived from some time spent over the last couple days in which I read through bits and pieces of the George W. Bush-themed political comic book a friend gave me for Christmas (or my birthday) a couple years back. Naturally, my brain went between Bush's eight-year presidency that dominated this decade, as well as Obama's presidency over the last year. Simply put, conservatives believe in a laissez-faire free market-type atmosphere; liberals believe in an equality-for-all social justice-type atmosphere.

So who's right? This seems to be a debate in which people's rage will only intensify. The short answer is that both are, but in different areas. And this is what leads me to the original topic du jour, being Jesus' (and God's) views on social justice, and how we should take care of each other. Looking at the passage again, it's the farmers (the people) who take care of other people, as opposed to oligarchs or other persons of authority. So that appears to be a vote for the free market, a conservative value. But, there is also a call for the responsibility to really take care of each other, to really make sure everyone around is taken care of, something I believe is a liberal value.

So what's with the political fighting? With the free market, there is seemingly unlimited freedom to, in American terms, pursue one's happiness. However, what many people fail to realize, is that with great freedom comes great responsibility, and it is due to our human laziness that this particular system fails. It would seem to explain why other people, specifically those who get the short end of the stick in this laziness, clamor for a higher power (specifically a government) to step in and fix this mess.

[Insert logical and witty conclusion, maybe an ethical question for the readers to answer in the "comments" section below... eh, maybe another day.]

All the (comparative) nonsense that's fit to print

Alright, time to change up the tone a little bit. As much as I strongly believe that my primary goal for this blog is to enlighten the world around me (and any lucky passerby that happens to, well, stop by), I feel like I've gotten into a bit of a rut. The last several posts I talked about cafeteria religion, adultery, creationism, the sabbath, 2012 ... it can get a bit boring. I mean, as much as I'd love to turn myself in to a monastery and spend a few years following the Bible as literally as possible like that renowned book author did, it will never happen. At least, not that extremely. Sometime in the next few years, if I feel like it, I may do my own version of the project. But right now, my focus is elsewhere.

Turning my attention back to sports like I did for so much during my first couple of years blogging, I couldn't help but notice a rumor about the Toronto Blue Jays contacting my beloved Cubs about sending their ace pitcher for some prospects. Thankfully, I'm older and somewhat wiser, so I don't plan on losing sleep over something trivial like this. But for the Cubs to acquire Roy Halladay would be kinda cool. They'd finally have a true ace pitcher (Carlos Zambrano just isn't cutting it), and it would bolster their team. Even though the current group more or less has gone to the playoffs twice in back-to-back years, I have to say I'm getting a bit tired of the Alfonso Soriano/Kosuke Fukudome/Ryan Dempster/Zambrano crew. They're not getting the job done, and quite frankly the team as presently constituted can't do much better than a first-round sweep in the playoffs. No leadoff hitter. No ace. No closer (why the hell they got rid of Kerry Wood even though he wanted to return still baffles me). And some of their younger players, while some have shown to be pretty good, haven't proved themselves as good as I would have liked.

Of course, acquiring Halladay means a few other things still have to happen, most notably in the form of trades. There's that one guy I won't mention, not for fear that he actually reads these things and will try and find out who I am, where I live, and then journey all the way here to confront me. But he was one of those guys in which I believed had a decent shot at doing well when he joined the team less than a year ago, only to prove all of his critics right about his lack of a fit with the Cubs, and then some. The point is, sources say this guy has to be traded in order for the ballclub to have any hope of acquiring this pitcher. And I know how Cub fans are. They're probably already jumping all over this bit of "news" in the chat rooms, drooling over getting another good player while bickering about which scrubs they think they can con Toronto's team into taking.

So I'm going to guess that, much like with Jake Peavy last year (although he was traded to the White Sox twice... funny story, maybe I'll tell you sometime), Halladay won't be coming to the Cubs. Sorry, guys.

Other news: I'm quite amazed at the New Jersey Nets' 0-13 run to start the season. Funny thing is, I never really thought of this year's team as bad, especially since I got used to knowing about bad Nets teams in the mid-90s when I first started following the NBA. And I remember thinking, man, those guys are bad.

The record for futility to start a season is 0-17. The Nets play the Bulls in the 21st game on their schedule. I hope they snap their streak before then. Even though I'm more confident in the Bulls than I used to be, there's always this sense of not wanting to be the team that loses to a formerly-winless team, much like Notre Dame was to UConn in college football today (I believe UConn had lost every game since one of their players was murdered earlier this season).

Also, speaking of college football, I couldn't help but notice Central Michigan University clinched a spot in the MAC division title game. Wow, I guess their football program's pretty good, then. Here's a shout-out to Hilary and Mikki, two of my soon-to-be-sibs who currently attend said school. Speaking of which, my mom's finally going to be married in less than a week. About time, I say. I got to meet my soon-to-be-stepdad's family last Christmas (and it was a really good time), including my three sibs, Laura and the two aforementioned Chippewas. So I've got my MegaBus ticket to Chicago this coming week, largely because plane tickets are so damn expensive. Outside of the folks that I may or may not see on Wedding Day, I'll also get to see Dad and Chris. I can't wait.

In my year-plus in Minnesota, I've gotten around to playing board games and card games with several friends. [Oh, so that's how you spend your free time on weekends in the real world!] Yes, well, over the last six months I've acquired a taste for Settlers of Catan, a game in which I even ran off a 3 or 4-game winning streak during the summer months. Going of the theme of creating new games or modifying the rules for existing ones, last night a couple friends and I decided to play "Speed Settlers of Catan," which is basically the same game, but everyone has a 30-second time limit on their turns. ...To be fair, the time was after 1 AM when we started playing, and we didn't want to be up until 2 or 3 AM falling asleep while trying to finish the game. As a result of the implemented time limit, we managed to finish the game in half an hour. Progress? I say yes.

For future reference

For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and his his master's money.


After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, "Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents." His master said to him, "Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master." And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, "Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents," His master said to him, "Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master."


Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, "Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. here you have what is yours." But his master replied, "You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(Matthew 25:14-30)

I'll comment on this later. It's been on my mind off and on the last several days, though.

A parallel and a warning

I remember another dream I had as a kid, where in this dream I apparently had to take a nap (or hide) in a dark, enclosed spot all afternoon, not to come out until evening. To be honest, I'm not sure why I had to be asleep or in hiding all afternoon. I recall having a twinge of fear that my life might be in danger if I dared go outside before sundown. I remember being impatient, waking up a couple times, only to learn that it wasn't evening yet. Finally, I woke up (still in the dream) in a car, looked outside, saw it was dusk, and checked the time. It was 5:30 PM. I was looking eastward, through the back of the car and at the road behind me.

The image above doesn't quite capture what I remember seeing in my dream. I envisioned an actual highway, with some of those streetlights that you see on Texas highways (I actually remember the detail, not sure why). This is a parking lot, and even if I were on a highway, it still wouldn't quite fit, because neighboring I-35 runs north-south, not east-west like in my dream. The time was also 4:40 PM... not that it matters, but I figured I'd throw it in to further show the difference between my dream 15-ish years ago and my reality today.

But, like my dream, I did spend this afternoon inside a dark room. I went to the Lakeville Theatre to watch 2012, a 2 PM showing, one that finished in time for me to get outside just past 4:30. I had done some reading and youtube video-watching in the past, and I decided I needed to see this movie to see what it predicted might happen. Last weekend, while killing time with a friend while waiting for other friends to show up, my friend and I briefly engaged in a conversation about this movie, about how some critic apparently deemed it the worst movie he'd ever seen. I'm not a movie critic, and I never will be, but this movie was about more than plot, effects, the technical works. It's about the end of the world, about how the very fabric of life as we know and understand it has the potential to crumble beneath our feet. We think of the ground as solid, we think of our institution of family and friends as solid, but the truth is everything gets lost in the pandemonium and fear. Granted, there are plenty of arguments supporting both sides of the issue, and one I will not engage in this post (I've written a lot of extremely long sermons lately).

One lesson I learned from "2012," though, is humanity will be doomed if we can't figure out how to take care of each other. We've always had issues with favoritism, and of protecting our best and brightest (and richest, I might add) at the expense of the common people. If the apocalypse does indeed come, I fear we will still fail to take into account even the least of us, to ensure that they have a fair chance at survival. The argument of "life isn't fair" is there, and it's quite frankly a fair one, but one that must be thrown out in life-and-death situations, especially on a massive scale. If the events of December 21st, 2012 are as, well, catastrophic as the movie suggests, the only hope humanity has is a collective change of heart for the better. Time will tell.

Sermon on the sabbath

Passage 1: When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
--Numbers 15:32-36

Passage 2: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.
--Matthew 12:1-8 (abridged versions also in Mark 2:23-28, and in Luke 6:1-5)

Passage 3: After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. In these lay many invalids -- blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me." Jesus said to him, "Stand up, take your mat, and walk." At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.
Now that day was a sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, "It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat. But he answered them, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Take up your mat and walk'." They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take it up and walk'?" Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had disappeared in the crowd that was there. Later Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you." The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working." For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
--John 5:1-18

I want to begin by reflecting on these two quotations:

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath."

"My Father is still working, and I also am working."

It didn't take me too long in my reading through Numbers to find a potential contradiction within the Scriptures. I was right; each of the Gospels (with which I feel I have a reasonable amount of familiarity) present an "otherwise" of sorts. Now, it is tempting to look at this and say, "Aha! The Bible isn't infallible! See, it contradicts itself!" But, we must remember, the first passage was written thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years in advance. We have to look deeper, for if the Bible were to have any value at all, it is imperative that we take it in its entire body of work.

The storyline in Numbers takes place during the Israelites wandering on their way from Egypt to, well, roughly present-day Israel. Back in a time when walking was the primary mode of transportation (and general geographical knowledge may not have been top-notch, let alone the availability of GPS systems), it's going to take some time and a lot of patience to get from point A to point B. There's one section that continuously talks about a cloud (God) residing over the tabernacle, but when the cloud would move, it meant it was time for the people to set out and walk. When the cloud stopped and set over an area, it was a signal that this was the place to camp. Sometimes the could (and consequently the people) would stay camped for a day, sometimes a few days, sometimes a week, depending on what the cloud saw fit. (Numbers 9:15-23)

But there were a lot of issues with anxiety and despair among the people. Being stuck in what is considered "no-man's-land" will do that. In a couple instances God wanted to do away with them, but because of Moses' and Aaron's faith and begging He relented. God's human emotions and tendencies seem to be on display often in this early book. Like the Israelites, it appears God is just as desperate that the people stay with Him and trust Him as He slowly and systematically (not to mention, safely) tries to lead them to where they are to end up. And to me it's kind of a startling concept: God as fallible? Is this really possible? (I mean, how do you explain that even God can fall prey to such human emotions as anxiety and despair... and rage?)

Let's pretend for a second that the atheists are right and God somehow doesn't exist (which, as a Theist, is kinda hard for me to do). [I guess this means the cloud and the tabernacle don't exist, either.] Then let's assume that the Israelites' travels across the Sinai Peninsula are still historically accurate. I mean, you look at other trips in early history, for example Alexander the Great's conquests through the Middle East, and all the way to the Indus River. How would the people have narrated the trials of such travels? There's a possibility that mention would have been made about how many of the travelers went insane and killed themselves. It's possible that word would have spread about who decided to return to Egypt and vanished (because they didn't know where they were, and couldn't figure out how they got to where they had been), who decided they needed meat and somehow got trampled by a boar-type animal, and other acts of insanity.

The point is, even back then, it was human nature to adopt the "what have you done for me lately" mentality, because quite frankly our memories are terrible as to the kind acts we've received years ago. I remember growing up and hearing about how the Israelites kept forgetting God and He'd have to find a strong way to remind them, "Hey! I'm still taking care of you! Don't forget about Me!"

So, allowing that God did and does exist, and that there is some credence to this story (even though I am both somewhat amazed and skeptical as to the intense detail of all of this), we turn to the sabbath-related ordinance. I mean, there were a lot of rules listed during this time of travel, and apparently stoning a guy who's picking up sticks is an appropriate law. [Now, I'm aware of the irony that I also happen to be working on the (Christian) sabbath, but no one's stoned me in all these years, so I figure I'm fine at this point.] What would be the purpose of this? Why stone an individual to death merely for the infraction of picking up sticks on a [Saturday]?

This law looks ridiculous if taken by itself. The important key word here is "context." In Exodus (or Leviticus) there's an intensive series of commands concerning building the tabernacle, and a lot of the other commands were in such a way that the folk back then needed to understand it. In ancient Egypt, if a man whose house he built collapsed and killed its owners inside, he needed to be put to death. In modern America, if the same thing happened, he'd probably get sent to jail for manslaughter (or perhaps murder, if the judge and jury decided that the faulty house-building was intentional). But he wouldn't have been stoned. Stoning was merely a common method of punishment back in the Israelites' day, much like crucifixion during the Roman era. This stoning of a man picking up sticks on the sabbath was merely a commandment shaped to the human societal code, a punishment at a level that was acceptable to the people of that day.

So that takes care of stoning. But what about the simple concept of working (or playing) on the sabbath as an infraction? I will argue that this particular value is what's timeless. Regardless of the amount of truth in the creationist story "and God rested on the seventh day and blessed it..." (paraphrased from Genesis 2:2-3) I hear there is some degree of peace when it comes to doing something... different. Nowadays, everyone seems to be some sort of workaholic, either by habit or by necessity (or in my case, I'm a bum). But, as human beings we still need a break from whatever we spend our days doing. Working, gluing one's eyes to a computer... the purpose of a sabbath is to do something different (in most cases rest, pray and reflect). AJ Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Biblically, is a confessed workaholic. But he also discovered he immensely enjoys resting on the sabbath. I imagine more people would take this view if they disciplined themselves well enough to follow through (myself included).

My last point deals with the supposed contradiction in the Gospels. In Passage 2, Jesus explains that King David fed his companions with bread at the temple on the sabbath for the same reasons that He was feeding his disciples: they were hungry. In Passage 3, Jesus heals a man who had been sick for quite some time, and it also happened to be the sabbath. The message: doing good and showing common sense were more important than sticking to some tradition at the expense of helping others. In other words, while it is important to revere the sabbath, it is not the most important thing. Jesus' message reflected the idea of God as Love, and the greatest commandments being "love God," and "love your neighbor." Revering the sabbath fulfills the "love God" commandment; feeding or tending to others by any means necessary fulfills the "love your neighbor" commandment.

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." When in doubt, ask God what to do.

"My Father is still working, and I also am working." Love God, and love your neighbor.

Opening thoughts on creationism

I've been doing more reading and re-reading. One thing about The Year of Living Biblically is that AJ Jacobs changes a lot of his habits, and in that direction it helps him change his attitudes/opinions about things. At the end he is much more aware of the sacredness and interconnectedness of all life, especially human life. Ironically, I was aware of the creation story long before I was aware of the evolution theory, which I think I learned sometime around fifth grade. But I think what made me a pretty firm supporter of the latter is that when I learned of the creation story and everything else in the Bible, I learned them as stories and not facts. The evolution theory is supported with the "the scientists discovered" clauses. Jacobs is with me on this, but he also found some backup arguments and theories directly tied to the reason for the creationist story. The first relates to the Bible in general: if the creationist story is proven false, why should anything in the Bible be true? Funny, he didn't have an answer for that (nor did he hide from the fact that he had no answer). My preliminary response would be, "because whoever wrote Genesis preceded the authors for the Gospels by thousands of years." Remember, the Bible wasn't written by one person; it was written by hundreds (or at least dozens). So if one part is proven wrong, it could possibly be that one writer's fault, plus some other crazy theories I could spout. But I'm going to hold my fire, because I wanted to get to the second, and more currently appropriate reason: it props humans up. In the theory where the earth is five billion years old, every individual human is rather insignificant, like a single drop of water in the Pacific Ocean, or a gas particle on the planet Jupiter. In a model where the earth is 6,000 years old (and human life is 6,000 years old), each individual's importance in the fabric of life is heightened. The woman who lives across the street (and one I've only quasi-"met" like two times) could be considered my aunt. Prove the creationist model wrong, and we humans are faced with the issue of explaining to our young that we're all insignificant, and that they are unimportant, something that runs counter to the feelings a parent would express to his/her child.

So, basically, creationism seems to be pro-human. Your life matters, not because I'm your mother/father and I say so, but because God says so, and because there haven't been as many humans in existence as evolutionism would suggest. As much as I disagree with the creationist ideas (and given my rants on human nature I'm also somewhat anti-human), there's a certain degree of reverence and respect that it attempts to instill in each individual for everyone else. If there was a study that asked everyone which theory they subscribed to, and then a subsequent question as to how they view and treat everyone they not only know but also see but don't know every day (and everyone participated and answered honestly), I wouldn't be surprised if creationists scored higher on the respect-for-fellow-beings than their evolutionist counterparts. As an evolutionist subscriber, I'd have to say, "ouch." But this revelation would increase my respect for them.

Random exposition

One thing that marked my childhood and early-ish adulthood was my shyness to just volunteer and say stuff to people (even when Facebook came out my freshman year in college). The last few weeks I've been all over the boards putting stuff up and commenting, without fear of whether I would be saying something stupid or changing someone's opinion of me (and I'm pretty sure these fears were quite unfounded). Could this be a change in (what I assume is) my normally introverted behavior?

[I should say, with a degree of caution in my saying, that usually when I post things like these, a switch flips and I revert to whatever the opposite of what I said I've been doing was. This is one of those things I hope doesn't switch back.]

Picking up (sort of) where I left off

"This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24)

OK, so today isn't Sunday (or Saturday, depending on who you ask concerning which day the Sabbath really occurs). And that's not the main topic of today's post, although I found myself pleasantly surprised with the decent weather we've been enjoying up in Northfield. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a warm and sunny winter this year. I really wouldn't.

On to today's topic...

Alternate post title 1: "Who'd'a thunk the book of Numbers could be PG-13?"
Alternate post title 2: "Sacredness of a woman's womb"

[Now you see why I rated this post PG-13. I'm a guy, and I kind of feel weird talking about this, but at the same time, today's reading combined with relatively recent past readings kinda made me think. So here goes...]

After having read AJ Jacobs' book (and currently in the process of re-reading it), I found myself a little more interested in going through the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, for those who care about political correctness). Today I found myself starting to go through the book of Numbers, the point in the Torah I had stopped a couple years ago during a previous attempt to read through the early Scriptures. I came across this passage about a ritual people would perform when a man would bring in his presumed-unfaithful wife to the priest. I'm not going to quote the whole thing (it's rather long), but I will break it down into sections.

The first section (Numbers 5:12-13,15): "If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband ... (basically a couple more instances that could apply to the situation) ... then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour ... (plus a couple other provisions for said offering)." This section is the statement of the issue, in this case, infidelity or suspected infidelity. I will go ahead and say now that while this ritual, like many others in the early books, are considered obsolete, there is a point to it I will explain after the story is all told.

The second section (Numbers 5:16-18): "Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse." In the rest of this section, the priest makes the woman take an oath to drink a water that would put a curse on her if she were unfaithful (specific details to the curse's effect not intended for children 12 and under). Conversely, if she had been faithful, then the water would have no effect on her.

The third section basically has the priest write down the curse and then wash it off into the water, then has the woman drink it. The priest will also take the grain offering that the man (the accuser) gave him, and offer it to God. It can be a potentially very humiliating scene, one that apparently stays with the woman (if she is indeed to have been unfaithful) for the rest of her life.

Were I to have come across this passage anytime earlier in time, I probably would have brushed it off and called it unimportant. After all, Christians say that Jesus' death and resurrection made many rituals as outlined in the Hebrew Bible defunct. But having read Jacobs' book has drawn me back, to understand the significance of them. The passage goes on to say (Numbers 5:29-31): "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."

In his book, Jacobs tackles the issue of impurity, specifically not touching women in the first week after their discharge (like I said, content may not be suitable for children 12 and under). At first glance, it seems quite absurd that said individuals would be considered "unclean" at this time, but what he had gathered was that it signified respect for them, and for the loss of a potential life, rather than an act of shunning them. In the movie "The DaVinci Code" (and I assume the book as well), the characters talk about the womb's sacredness, specifically the Virgin Mary's. The chalice (for those who don't receive traditional communion, it's a cup in which wine or sometimes grape juice is poured and given for churchgoers to receive towards the end of a Sunday service) also resembles this symbol.

This argument could very well translate to the significance behind this ritual and argument against infidelity. Going off the sacredness-of-the-womb theme, if one is unfaithful, it could be seen as a loss of sacredness. The individual who cheats defiles her womb, and therefore (at least symbolically) part of her dies. I can understand that. I myself find beauty in purity, and in today's society it appears to be quite sparse.

On the other hand, I don't exactly think it's a good idea nor necessary to render a woman barren via some kind of weird potion in response for infidelity. I mean, I understand the kind of frustration that might come with a loss of purity and sacredness, but that's just taking it too far. Besides, the same passage also lists the woman as completely under her husband's authority. Why should he decide what happens to her body? And if it's right that he should have such powers, shouldn't she then have at least a say in what happens to his body? (As in, castration for him sleeping with another woman?)

Maybe we're focusing on the wrong part of the moral. Far too many people are obsessed with sin and punishment, as if everyone should have their reproductive system removed when they make even one mistake. If that were true, the human population would probably be 1/10 of what it is now. Instead, maybe we should celebrate purity and those who succeed in staying pure. That's the tactic teachers are encouraged to employ with at-risk children; focusing on positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement. At the very least, we could let God handle all those negative cases. He would do a much better job at it than all of us.

If I ever write a book...

Author's foreword: Below is an excerpt of writing I'd been working on for a few days. If I ever write a book in my lifetime, this would be one of several topics I would choose, either as a stand-alone book or a chapter. With more research, this argument will become more polished, but for now, I humbly present this piece, with hopes of using it in a more prestigious place down the line.
____________________________________________________________________________

A few weeks ago I bought and read this book. I’d seen the online video about this adventure several months before, but I came across it again at a bookstore. I was curious as to other people’s forays into religious/spiritual disciplines, specifically the forays of skeptics. The book itself is quite something. AJ Jacobs spent a year—a little more, actually—studying and living the Bible, obeying every single law with no questions asked (no picking and choosing for this guy!). That meant growing his beard out, wearing only clothes with single linens (it’s sinful to mix fibers), stoning adulterers, praying multiple times each day.

Ultimately, his thoughts at the end of the book on the Bible and “Cafeteria Religion” hit the nail on the head, for the most part. Due to copyright concerns, I will only quote bits and pieces, and try and outline his argument as best as I can.

Argument one: everyone practices cafeteria religion, including fundamentalists. How do we know this? If they didn’t, “they'd kick women out of church for saying hello ("the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak..."--1 Corinthians 14:34) and boot out men for talking about the "Tennessee Titans" ("make no mention of the names of other gods..."--Exodus 23:13)” (AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, p. 328). In other words, people would treat each other like crap for the sake of staying true to the Bible. Many of the fundamentalists I have met are quite nice, and treat others around them well. There is no way I see them criticizing their fellow human beings for putting their hand over the heart during the American national anthem, for instance (as this would be an act of worshiping the United States of America).

Also, some self-professed “true Christians” (like Pat Robertson) have a penchant for running their mouth. For in James 3, leaders are encouraged to discipline their words; if they fail, they are judged by God with greater harshness than lay persons: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sister, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle.” (3:1-2) James’ reason for this? “How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” In other words, if you read the tabloids about the latest celebrity gossip, even false rumors ruin their lives and the lives of everyone who care about them.

I bring up the last paragraph largely to show that many of these critics pick and choose themselves. They accuse moderate Christians (and their counterparts criticize moderate Jews, and Muslims) of being sinners in this regard, when in fact they too are sinners. Major sinners. Not to mention cafeteria practitioners themselves.

Argument two: practicing cafeteria religion is not only unavoidable, but necessary for true faith. Sounds heretical, right? Let me explain. The concepts of faith and religion have long been based on doctrine, beliefs taught either by God or by humans, interpreted by humans over the centuries, and enforced by humans. The Roman Catholic Church, in all its storied history, had held the distinction for being the sole link between mortals and God. In this arrangement, the Church was the authority, thereby interpreting God’s laws as its human leaders saw fit. After the Reformation shifted a good chunk of the population’s perspective away from the theocratic institution, the Bible became the new source of theological authority. Unlike the RCC, the Bible contained presumed-to-be-unblemished wisdom (at the very least, said wisdom was comparatively unblemished), and allowed commoners to have direct access to God; whereas RCC bishops and cardinals often took passages out of context to support their own personal values, precisely the “cafeteria religion” that many people decry.

However, the Scriptures are just that: scriptures. Without some level of interpretation, the written word is stale, stuck only in the time period in which it was set. It is necessary to look beyond the text that appears, to find a proper transposition of the original meaning of a particular law or value. Morever, for the purpose of having a strong faith in God, one must actually look to him (i.e. outside of the Bible as well as in) to find the Truth. Consider the passage from John 5:39-40: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The thing about the very existence of cafeteria religion is that there are a lot of written holy words in the Bible. A stack of rules, a list of values, a plethora of advice. Jacobs is right: there is only so much we can heap on our plate. He explains, using an actual cafeteria metaphor: “I’ve had some great meals at cafeterias. I've also had some turkey tetrazzini that gave me the dry heaves for sixteen hours. The key is choosing the right dishes” (Jacobs, p. 328). There are a lot of marriage-related laws, and yet there are a lot of single people in the world right now, a group certain to increase in size. Those same people, so long as they remain single, will supposedly never have to worry about violating the commandment on adultery. Vegetarians will never have to worry about eating sacrificial meat. The point is not that these laws are useless and should be ignored. By no means! Rather, those individuals can choose other guidelines (“laws” is so black-and-white) that would fit them better to focus on.

Now, I understand the opponent’s fear. Cafeteria religion can enable people to conform the Bible to their own potentially sinful values. I can hear various people’s justifications towards this end: “Divorce is OK if it’s mutual or amicable.” “I don’t have to give my money to the poor, because the government will tax me anyway.” “It’s OK to watch/play football on Sunday.” “It’s OK to commit adultery if my significant other is fine with it.” “It’s only a bee! If I hadn’t squashed it, it would have stung me.” “It’s only a fetus! If I don’t want the kid I don’t have to have it.” “Jesus wants me to live the American dream and to have a good life! After all, he advocates the capitalistic system. Just look up his parable about the five bags of gold!” “God doesn’t really care about homosexuality.” “Nothing I do matters. So I’ll raise hell while I’m young and convert to Christianity on my deathbed.”

The problem with this attitude is that the individual doesn’t really spend time actually thinking about the bit of Scriptural wisdom that he/she may come across. This is a part of human nature: we find something we like and live by it. So for those who fall in love with “the American dream” will be drawn toward any statement that’s remotely pro-capitalism. Supporters of gay marriage will naturally steer away from any anti-homosexual reference, and toward anything that says God is love. And so on and so forth.

Many people are also afraid to deal with challenge, or differing interpretations of a particular phrase or concept. Many of these same people also grew up with the idea of putting their trust into a doctrine or series of doctrines for their faith. Those who were taught that either their church (or synagogue, or mosque, etc) or a collection of books (that’s what the Bible is, anyway) where the only sources of truth will have issues with new ideas. They will not be curious; rather, they will either run away from them, or attack them, and neither option allows them to grow in their faith.

I know where I am. I am often afraid of challenge and confrontation myself. But I also know that, to grow in faith, I must combat these fears. And it hasn’t been easy. A couple summers ago while I was staying up in Minneapolis looking for work, I listened in on a religious discussion between two friends on opposite sides of the issue of cafeteria religion. At the time I didn’t feel comfortable contributing (partially because I was somewhat biased), but my Biblically-religious friend raised this issue of picking and choosing. That question stuck with me for some time. I didn’t have an answer. I’d like to think, after having spent some time picking apart this topic, that I do have one now. But for me to truly justify following my own cafeteria religion, I still have to do it right. I have to actively practice what I preach, pick my spots when doling out criticism, and above all look to God for guidance. After all, since this is a faith, it’s all about God. Far too many religious people forget that.

Brief commentary on a dream and teenage psychology

Sometime around when I was ten years old, I dreamed I was a teenager. I don't remember much (it was about fifteen years ago when this dream happened), but I remember being really frustrated at everything in life. When I'd woken up, I recall being quite surprised by it, having recalled conversations with friends at some point earlier in life about what it would be like being a teenager (or, more accurately, how "cool" it would be to be one).

Predictably, that dream turned out to be prophetic. But of course, I was far from the only one who went through the massive ups and downs during this stage. Last year, while with AmeriCorps, I listened to a brain development expert in this area speak about the teenage years, and learned that the still-developing frontal cortex is the primary culprit. I came across this online article about teenage psychology that could sum up all the points better than I could in a blog entry. But I will say this: the frontal cortex is directly related to judgments that teens have to make, especially while driving. The hormone-related aggression is there, but the faculties as to how to deal with it are not.

If I ever have kids, I'm probably going to make them wait until at least 17 before getting their driver's license, like my parents did for me. Maybe I could even convince them that driving is useless, or even bad for the environment, like several of my Chicago friends embraced during their late teens and early twenties (at last check, I think they all have their driver's licenses now). Even more so, I might employ a strategy of finding all my kid's "new" friend's parents, connecting with them, and swapping information with them about our kids and their possible doings, at least as a means for having a plan to safeguard them as much as we can. But I will admit, that plan is quite ambitious, so we'll have to see if it ever happens. Of course, that's if I ever have kids.

This is my kind of champion

I'm going to confess something on here: I don't blog very much about each champion in sports (be it basketball, baseball, football, hockey, or otherwise), largely because it's a team I don't care about, and occasionally because it's a team I don't want to win. But getting off the sports page for a minute, this is why I call Joe Girardi a champion. It's not because he happened to be the manager of a team that happened to win this year's baseball championship (while I was correct in my prediction, I wanted Philadelphia to win). It's because the guy has compassion for fellow human beings. Girardi is another one of those people I aspire to emulate in some ways. His act of kindness is a reason I'm going to go a bit softer on this year's Yankees for buying their 27th world series championship.

A lesson about favorite living spaces

If you were to ask me my favorite dorm room from my entire time at St. Olaf, it would be the tiny room I occupied for two weeks on the second-highest floor in Thorson at the end of my summer before junior year (i.e. 2006). Now, if you know me, you know I like space, so you might think it strange that my favorite room happened to be the smallest. It probably helped that, during the summer, I have fewer possessions (and less of each possession, specifically referring to clothes), so in spite of the tininess of said room, I didn't have as much stuff in tow. But it was my space (it was a single room), and for the first time in my whole collegiate career, I didn't have to share anything with a roommate. I enjoyed the simple pleasures of having the desk in one corner, the bed by the window, and my two portable fans running all day long on top of my dresser. I wonder if, had I lived there for longer than two weeks, had more stuff, and had schoolwork on my plate, if I would have loved it as much. But that's no matter. Now you have the answer to, Hey Nathan, what was your favorite all-time college dorm room?

The other side to this storyline was that this was the room I moved into after my roommate issues hit a climax the previous week. In some ways this was quite a low in my life, and it also happened to accompany the reason for my having my favorite dorm room. Why does this story matter? Because right now, I have essentially my own apartment, arranged largely how I want it, and as a bonus I have the parking spot I coveted for a year. Hmm, "coveted" ... yeah, religiously that's a problem (spiritually, too). Materially I am quite satisfied in my living arrangements, but I also know that my living here like this accompanies another long-ish low stretch. I'm continuing to strike out in job-searching, my means for survival; and I'm at the very juncture where it's do-or-die for my continued habitation in my current dwelling. Meaning, I probably won't have my arrangement nor my parking space for much longer.

There has to be a lesson in this, or at least a connection. It seems I've been happier when my living conditions were less than ideal. Consider my junior year in college, which I personally claim as my best school year on the whole. My room was a constant mess, and I really didn't care much to clean it up. Last year, while working for AmeriCorps, I had one of the longest continuous high stretches of my life. I also lived in an extremely cramped space, with all my possessions either crammed into my 12x8 bedroom or a 6x4 plot right outside my bedroom. [Note, this last point is not a complaint, but rather an observation proving my point. And yes, I did actually measure the spaces.] So there's a connection between favorite spaces or arrangements, and rough life patches. And the lesson probably is, don't set your heart on "dream" living spaces. Problem is, if I actually manage to learn said lesson (and I'm not quite sure I want to), how do I go about making a personal change to accommodate it? Not sure if I really can... (thus explaining why I have doubts about accepting this as a possible lesson)

In other news, Paul Manz, the great composer of "E'en So, Lord Jesus, Quickly Come," passed on Wednesday. I've actually attended a few services at Mount Olive Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, one of the places he worked. Manz was one of the few living composers whose music I had sung as a kid (outside of compositions by my choir directors), as most of the others had already passed. He will be missed.

E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come,
and night shall be no more;
they need no light, nor lamp, nor sun,
for Christ will be their All!
--Ruth and Paul Manz

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Ceci n'est pas orange.

Ceci n'est pas bleu.

Ceci n'est pas rouge.

Ceci n'est pas blanc.

Ceci n'est pas noir.

Ceci n'est pas gris.

Ceci n'est pas jaune.

Ceci n'est pas vert (ni bleu ni gris).

J'ai décidé à changer le thème pour ce poste. Généralement j'utilise ce blog pour parlez à moi-même, mais les thèmes se sont devenus un peu dépressant de temps en temps, surtout récemment...

Whoops, forgot to switch languages. Eh well. Maybe I didn't need to switch back. Either way, I would have ruined this evening's post by putting too much wordage. Maybe you'll enjoy it, anyway.

Cubs' sale: it's official

It's finally happening. The Chicago Tribune's sale of the Cubs dragged on for 2 1/2 years (at least), but now it appears the franchise finally hit a new chapter of ownership. Hopefully the Ricketts family will be more competent owners than the previous two (don't forget the Wrigley family in the years before Chicago's most beloved newspaper took over; they didn't exactly show how to make a championship contender out of a team synonymous for imposing hexes on itself and other teams on occasion (i.e. St. Louis Cardinals in 2007, see my post here)).

About a week or so ago I took another lame facebook quiz. You might be asking, why bother wasting your time with these things? To answer your question, I've got a lot of time to kill, and as much as I'm sure I would be better off spending the whole time reading or practicing writing with my non-dominant hand, it's going to happen. Anyway, here's one of several results I got (again, I took the same approach as I did with my key signature, checking to see how many options were available. I'm sure if I took this particular quiz 100 more times I would still never get the response, "Colorado Rockies" to the question: "What team were you born to root for?"):

Nathan completed the quiz "Which baseball team were you born to root for??" with the result Los Angeles Dodgers.

You're very laid-back and cool... SoCal style. You may show up for the game late, you may leave early, but you love your Dodgers - and your Dodger Dogs! You're proud to cheer on a team that has left its mark on the game on two different coasts..

On another quiz-taking attempt, I got St. Louis Cardinals (my only other honest attempt), Chicago Cubs, and New York Yankees (the last two I deliberately tried to get these responses). My comment from facebook doesn't show up here, but I will briefly paraphrase and say I got LA Dodgers by answering how I'd root for the Twins (the team I've invested more of a rooting interest recently, largely because their season went longer).

Oh, for the Cubs to have the Twins' savvy when it comes to drafting and developing minor-league players. If they could ever learn how to home-grow their talent, I think they could be world series champions someday. [I also wouldn't mind if they moved to a new stadium.]

Another rare poetic disclosure

He had had a good day.
Until he went onto facebook.
And yearned for all the people he no longer knew.

[Disclaimer (in prose): My day wasn't quite as extreme as this excuse for a poem makes it out to be, but there are times when I wish I could communicate with and see people that I physically can't (usually for reasons of distance, as well as scheduling conflicts). This evening, after a walk and a couple phone chats, I did indeed go onto facebook, and was hit with this. I hate missing people. Not so much the emotion, because it's a healthy sign for me that I am willing to expose to myself -- and others -- that I care about them, but more that -- to me -- they're missing. I'd rather have everyone I know and love right here with me. Oh, for being on the other side of college graduation and the blatantly-inevitable-to-where-I-could-see-it-years-ahead-of-time dispersion resulting from it.]

Without the internet... (and reflections on late-Generation Y)

I wandered onto youtube, and curiously explored some of the video blogs -- called vlogs, apparently -- primarily as a means of exploring youtube (largely because my exploration to date has consisted of typing up the name of an artist or song that I like, and then watching the video of what I was looking for). I'd occasionally wander onto some sports vids, but that's a relatively unimportant tangent which doesn't need further explanation.

After having watched a couple (what I consider) boring vlogs, I came across this one vlog of a guy tackling the question, "What would my life be without the internet?" and encouraging other vloggers to chime in with their own vresponse (yay! I made up a word! if this ever makes it into the vernacular, and history proves that I'm the first to come up with this word, I want credit. and monetary compensation.). Now, I currently don't have a camera or a computer with enough capabilities to post vlogs on my buh-log, so a vresponse is out of the question. I'll have to settle for a slightly more conventional and less hip way of responding.

Before I do, I just wanted to reflect on the few vresponses I came across so far tackling this "what would my life without the internet be like" query (I should let you know, I didn't watch all of these). First off, several of those whose vids I watched on youtube (and some that I couldn't re-find for the purpose of linking) are currently in college. Think about it. College! I'd known about middle school and high school kids walking around constantly texting as their main form of communication, in front of cell phones (for actually talking to people! what a concept!), getting on a computer to send an email, or (even more ancient) putting ink or graphite to papyrus' modern ancestor. This has been true for at least 3-4 years. Secondly, many of them are posting 2 or 3-minute deals where all they do is talk, talk, talk, and maybe occasionally walk. The most productive vlogs have some kind of purpose, either detailing a trip (with some tips for anyone who wants to go wherever the vlogger went), or imparting some bit of wisdom through a story or a life event also captured on said video... not just some, "I'm gonna hang out with ma thugs...", "Now I'm hangin' out with ma thugs...", and then "I had a blast with ma thugs, tomorrow I gonna do mo' sheeat, g'nite!" kind of crap. Ohhhh boy, as a very young elder statesman, I have to ask: what has this world come to? Junk gets posted all the time now, whether it's on youtube, in music, or elsewhere, and, depending on the person's popularity, permeates the worldly culture. It's times like this, I think, the apocalypse has to be coming pretty soon, right? (Not that I really care for it to.)

Now, my original intent for exploring people personal vlogs on youtube was to try and get a scoop of the current human condition, up-to-date vproof (hah, another one! I'm going to put a "v" (for vid) in front of every word it modifies and claim my right to collect any and all compensatory change)... where was I? Oh yeah, video proof, or vproof, as I'm now calling it -- basically I'm interested in where human nature is right now. You know I have strong moral issues with it, and none of them necessarily because I read out of a book that, while I admire and recommend everyone read it for his/her own edification, I think is fundamentally flawed in some areas. But that's going to be a post for another time (unless, somehow I get enough dough to spill on a new compy and new camera, then it'll be on my next vpost... but, don't count on it).

You'll notice how easily I got distracted the last couple paragraphs. And I'm making no guarantees that it will change this paragraph. I just realized, today's topic goes quite nicely with my post on multitasking several weeks ago. While multitasking has affected the vast majority from older than my parents' generation to our budding members in Generation Z (the one after Y), this reliance on the internet has caused our children (and now collegians) to become more powerfully distracted (my opinion, not fact). "Sometimes I twitter in my sleep!" exclaims this one vlogger. "I just absolutely have to check my facebook or twitter at 2 AM! Someone may have commented on my status!" (OK, I made that one up; but I have heard something to this effect from someone in real life.)

Reliance on the internet has also created somewhat of a divide between everyone born in the 1990s and younger, and everyone born in the 1970s and older. That leaves the remaining few of us, those born in the 1980s (myself included, having been born in the smack-dab middle), kind of as a tipping island, doing all we can to keep both sides remotely connected. We have to be both internet-savvy and ancient-methods-of-communication-savvy.

So, to finally get down to the question: where would I be without the internet? Two-part answer: 1a.) Lost. 1b.) More relaxed. To answer 1a, I reply that a good chunk of my communication comes from gmail, facebook, AIM, and occasionally, skype. Without it, I don't keep in touch with people from college, New York, or even Chicago. I also confer with Google Maps frequently when I'm going someplace new, and rely on it quite a bit to get the best route(s). I also check with weather.com, as well as other sites for either education on a subject, or aid in job-related searches, or for information in general. Without it, it means I'm going to the Northfield Public Library, and then staying there for hours hoping my brain can muster the stamina to get enough work done to justify my leaving so I don't have to exert the effort to rush back for any last-minute closing of information gaps. Without relatively immediate communication with other people, and ready access to whatever information I want and need, I'm lost.

To answer 1b, I will link you to this blog blurb I posted immediately after returning from Mississippi a year-and-a-half ago (that long already??). I will admit, it helped immensely that I had ready access to food, water, shelter, a pretty immediate knowledge of my schedule, oh, and a lot of people around that I could just sit and talk to. Also, I communicate with my family and closest friends largely over the phone, (I do still feel weird facebooking my parents sometimes), as well as friends I know who happen to be around (either when I'm in Minnesota or Chicago). I think I'm more relaxed, because I'm actually conversing, hearing their voice (although I'm still quite nervous talking on the phone). I don't know about you, but I always get a good feeling after a deep two-hour conversation with a close friend or family member. It's just not the same online. I still enjoy the conversation, but it feels less involved.

Now, I couldn't live like the Amish (occasionally I envy them for this reason), but I do believe a limit in internet use is optimal for my daily well-being. The stuff I described to explain why I'd be relatively lost without the internet fails to mention the laziness factor. If I walk or drive to the Northfield Public Library, it means I've gotten out of the house and made actual, physical contact with the world. It means I was outside when it was sunny and 76 degrees, or rainy and 42 degrees, or snowy and 10 degrees. It also means I'm communicating with people in person that I wouldn't have met online (the converse of the pro-internet argument where you meet people online that you wouldn't have in real life). To expound on the physical contact, it means you actually shake a boss' or a client's hand, hug a friend, or kiss your significant other, rather than type *shake hand*, *hug*, or *XOXO* (for kiss), all of which mean the thought is expressed, but the act of doing is still missing.

To conclude, the internet is great for keeping in touch, but terrible for any kind of physical contact. Heck, it might as well be midnight all day long, and winter all year long, as far as you know. I need it for the services it provides, but I can't substitute it for things that it just can't replace.

When in doubt, read Proverbs

Take a good look at the time of post. Yeah, I'm up this early. After staying up 'til 5 AM one night last weekend talking with a friend, my sleep schedule had taken a somewhat steep turn in the wrong direction. I spent much of the past week trying -- and mostly failing -- to reverse the process (getting up at noon just doesn't cut it for me or for anyone else). But for some reason, it wasn't until I woke up around 7 this morning to a recurring musical motive that I couldn't get out of my head -- or place where it originated (it came from the end of "Whisper" by Coldplay) -- that I finally adhered to my body and woke up. ... of course, it also could mean I'm hitting the sack again by noon to take a three-hour nap.

Piggybacking off yesterday's anti-human nature (and, specifically, anti-homophobic) rant, I came across Proverbs, and was reminded how much wisdom can be gleaned from this text:

• Better is the poor walking in integrity than one perverse of speech who is a fool. (Proverbs 19:1)
• Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full (P. 19:17)
• What is desirable in a person is loyalty, and it is better to be poor than a liar. (P. 19:22)
• Strike a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence; reprove the intelligent, and they will gain knowledge. (P. 19:25)
• A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. (P. 18:2)
• The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and cross-examines. (P. 18:17)

And, my favorite one of the bunch:

• Cease straying, my child, from the words of knowledge, in order that you may hear instruction. (P. 19:27)

Each of the last several weeks has been somewhat hard, but this last one wore me out in the faith/wisdom sector. Aside from what I mentioned in yesterday's post, I found myself knocked off my footing in terms of what I knew and believed (retroactive to the series of back-and-forths I had engaged with my religious sparring partner), and of course had to re-question the same faith I vociferously defended not a week earlier. When in doubt, read Proverbs, that seems to be my motto. It's one of several good places to start picking up the pieces.

On another, less emotionally-ridden note, I think I may have finally found this blog's identity (although I'm sure it settled on one long before telling me...). I happened to be bored enough to hit the "next blog" button, and unlike previous forays into this part of the unknown, I came across more intelligible blogs than I'd seen. But wow, I hadn't realized how many people create blogs so they can show off their families, and specifically their young children (this usually being the work of stay-at-home moms). There were a few others that focused on fashion, advertising shoes, or just an experiment to see how many days in a row the blogger can post a picture he'd taken. Unfortunately I don't have links (why the heck would I ever visit some of them again?), so you'll just have to use your imagination.

I've already spilled the origins of amid the noise and haste across several posts, so I won't go into that again. But one of the biggest challenges I faced with this was what to do with it once I graduated from college. The thing was, the first three-plus years I would log on, click "new post," and write about something, anything, there was always that twinge of being in college that seemed to permeate any of the topics I could think up: reflections from classes (final exams), Christmas Fest, choir, reflections from FCA, and of course, comparing my then-present self -- as a collegian -- to any time in my life before college. I suppose during the summers things would be a bit different, since my reflections du jour would come from anything I could make myself do while in Chicago.

This probably sounds a bit arrogant, but I think the purpose of writing is to spill my wisdom and opinions on anyone who will read, in the hopes that they will either agree with me or become a little more enlightened after reading. Yeah, that definitely sounds cocky, but I don't intend to be. Half the time I'll find something to vent about, point out why it's wrong, back it up with whatever meager facts I can find, and close the case. The other half, I'll update folks on what I've been doing lately. The latter happened a lot in college; lately, the former has been happening more. I mean, in the last two months alone, I probably talked news and politics -- and debated doctrines one-sidedly -- more than the whole entire time I've been on here. Granted, it's helped that I've had all this time on my hands, but at the same time, I now realize this has been a product of "stuff that came to mind," rather than trying to pick a monochromatic theme to talk about.

In other words, this is a place of venting insane wisdom (gee, I guess I really do take after my mother in this respect), and I don't think I will need to worry about changing the blog's identity, like I've lost sleep over in the past (not really). Unfortunately, once I do resume work, I will once again need to be on guard about my writing. I hear blogging can be a cause to terminate fringe employees at certain places (although I'm sure none of the places I plan to apply to in the next year (if it stretches that far) will have that rule). I also don't think I need to worry, since I did a decent job not talking about the goings-on at my job last year, a place where a lot blog-worthy material could have come if I'd let it.

The problem with people is that they're only human

Calvin: ... So Moe stole my truck, and when I tried to get it back, Moe wanted to fight me for it. I didn't want to fight, so I walked away and Moe kept my truck. ... I don't understand it, Hobbes. What makes some people so greedy and mean? Why is it that some people don't care what's wrong and right? Why don't people try to be nice to each other?
Hobbes: The problem with people is that they're only human.
Calvin: Well, you're lucky you don't have to be one.

(The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Watterson, p. 136)

I am once again bugged by people who claim to follow God and Christ, and yet they spill their merciless judgment on people of different sexualities. This follows into my larger human relations issue of people who are plain different (this includes race, religion, gender, nationality, and class), and how there is still issue with equality, especially in treatment. As I understand it, this past week (or the previous one) was National Coming Out Week. Last week I went for a walk across the Carleton campus (there was something going on that I wanted to attend), and on that particular day there were questions written all over the sidewalks pertaining to this subject, including this one:

[I actually took this with a blog post in mind, but the current post wasn't quite it. The intent was to spill my own story related to this, but given the frustrations I am about to unload, I will have to delay it.]

I'd gotten into a debate with an extremely conservative Christian (Catholic?) concerning said topic about a week ago, and I was frustrated that in spite of the arguments and proof I had laid before him, I couldn't even get any respect from the guy (let alone open his mind). Apparently he is bent on proving the idea that homosexuality is a choice (and a "wrong" one at that), and he backs up his assertion that he was "stamped by the Holy Spirit" and that everyone who disagrees with him is a Satanic, non-Christian fool. It took me a few days and one missile-ridden (read: emotionally-charged) missive later to realize the wisdom of backing out, and it's frustrated me since. Aside from the utter lack of respect, what frustrated me most was he wouldn't even back up his arguments, which I had given him numerous chances to do.

Now I've spent the past year living with people who either live and breathe American conservatism, or live and breathe Christianity, but at least they each are open to honest discussion. And my landlord once said that while he thought homosexuality was wrong (he does believe strongly in the Bible) the bigger issue was that Christians needed to love them, and not hate them. That gave me hope. As a result I've never really needed to bring up the issue, because while we may disagree on the smaller part, we agree on the larger, more significant point.

Kind of as a postscript, I've been reading a little bit of the online news, ranging from Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, to Rush Limbaugh's attempts to help purchase an NFL team, and I was immediately drawn to the issues outlined in the articles. Technically Obama won the NPP based on his humanitarian views and promises to follow through on them someday, and Limbaugh was dropped from a group hoping to buy the St. Louis Rams because of his comfort with speaking his [perceived] racist mind in a league with a large percent of its employees the target of his past criticisms. I bring these things up, because it relates quite nicely to the quotes at the beginning of this post. My two cents: 1.) While I think it was a bit early for Obama to have won (the only thing he's really done is his pushing for the revamped Heath Care Bill... and I'm still not quite sold on the plan), I think he would truly merit it with more humanitarian work. 2.) I understand and respect that Limbaugh is free to believe and speak his mind, but there is no Constitutional right to owning an NFL team, and therefore I support the fellow owners in their concern that his free-speaking mind will cause issues in the sport. It's one thing to speak your mind; it's another to come into a workplace as a complete outsider and insult half the employees.

Postscript 2: On a more personal note, I spent last year at an elementary school trying to teach some of the kids the importance of treating each other with respect. It's amazing how one can be strict about punishing those children who occasionally fall from this level, while some adults in the real world are time and time again the far greater sinners. It's a damn shame, and it's an even bigger shame when we realize that those who say they've been "stamped by the Holy Spirit" consistently disobey the very same commands that God gave them (i.e. love your neighbor). They're nothing but a bunch of farting hypocrites.

Aaaand, what Biblical book I apparently am

Haha! the question above on the publishing page asks: "Was this result accurate?" I guess I'm supposed to put "yes" or "no" in this space, but instead they allow me to write whatever I want. So, was this result accurate? My response: "Accurate? I don't even know her-ate... it...!" (Darin, Levi, and co. even though this a bit of a stretch, you know what I mean)

Nathan took the What Bible Book Are You? quiz and the result is Ecclesiastes

Life has taught you about the injustices of this world and the vanity of worldly pursuits. After trying to find worldly pleasure in many ways you have concluded that this is all meaningless. These experiences have drawn you closer to God and taught you to fear him and keep his commandments.

22 minutes ago via Make a Quiz! · Comment · Like · Take this Quiz

The question at the top of the post-quiz page really did say, "Was this result accurate?" I couldn't help but take a shot at it in an attempt at humor.

I'm still somewhat grappling at the meaning (of lack thereof) of life. Or in life. For my senior yearbook page from North Shore, I stuck the phrase "the meaning of life" at the top, and followed with a Calvin and Hobbes strip with the following dialogue:

Calvin: Hey Mom, will you drive me into town?
Calvin's mom: Why should I drive you, Calvin? It's a perfect day outside! What do you think people have feet for?
Calvin: To work the gas pedal.

To this day, I'm not sure what life lesson can be gleaned from this. I think I just wanted an excuse to stick in a Calvin and Hobbes strip to make mine contrast everyone else's senior pages, which were sure to be chock full of photos with friends (neither of which I really had at North Shore) and inspirational quotes. Maybe I thought the meaning of life had something to do with the purpose of why we had feet. The correct answer, of course, is to walk with them, not work the pedals in the car.

This brings me to the book of Ecclesiastes. I haven't read that particular book in a while, but during the most recent Lenten period I found myself engrossed in it for about a week (I even blogged about it... barely). Basically the book was written by the wise King Solomon, who only ascended to the throne because his older brother, Absolom, was killed while David was still king. [Although I must say, I'm not sure if Solomon was king when he wrote this text, or if it happened sometime before said royal possession.] The point is, he takes an extremely zoomed-out position on human life and all earthly affairs (including wars, conquests, transfers of power, and all that, and all that), and concludes: "All is vanity."

[Side note: I took this position a year ago when the US presidential race was in its prime, and it was almost as if the country was going to tear itself apart from it. I've had to deal with the conservative-vs.-liberal debates (more like wars half the time) and, to keep this part of the story short, it bugged the [dung]* out of me.]

Still, "all is vanity." Nothing really matters, and the only reason things seem to matter is because we as humans get attached to things here. I could reference all sorts of posts in which I've somewhat tied to this concept, including the epic one I wrote less than a week after I found out Maggie died, and when I couldn't stop listening to Ben Folds' "Smoke" after a week. Life is vanity. The past is vanity. And yet, for some reason, being blacked out from employment has seriously bugged the [dung] out of me so far. Theoretically it shouldn't matter, and yet it does. I suppose wanting to live counts as vanity, too.

I'm kind of going off on all sorts of tangents, as you might've been able to tell these last few paragraphs. But the other half of this "all is vanity" concept (something I've managed to put off for long enough) is that God is everything. Even though Solomon doesn't appear to reference God all that much in Ecclesiastes (if at all, I don't remember), I've found other more direct sources that share this same idea:

Psalm 46:6 [The nations make much ado, and the kingdoms are shaken / But God shall speak the Word, and the earth shall melt away]

and Hafiz' "Rewards for Clear Thinking" [Think about this for a second: / God (being God), having Infinite Knowledge, / Not only knew your every thought and action / Your life would ever experience / (Even before you were born) / But He also, being the Divine Creator, / Has etched every moment of your existence / With His own hand / With the precision and care / No artist ever could].

So I'm Ecclesiastes, according to some facebook quiz that has only been rated three stars thus far. Now you know how I waste my time.
_______________________________________________________________________________
*I'm not sure if any censorship codes on Blogger.com exist, but I don't want to find out the hard way. Hence "dung" in brackets.

Winter started early this year...

or so I'm told. Late last night it supposedly snowed (a cold front moved through the Upper Midwest, bringing in Arctic air). When I finally got outside this afternoon -- made a couple overdue phone calls -- it was all gone, and there was barely any evidence that it had even snowed at all. What I do know is, today's high was about 38 degrees Fahrenheit, with the wind chill at around 29 degrees.

Blergh. I wouldn't mind living in a warm climate right about now...

All geeked out about my key signature

Nathan Fivecoate 

I actually took this test quite a few times to see if it was rigged (thankfully it was not; I found results in D minor, F major, E minor, and E major, based on different moods that one might feel). This current result is actually based on honest answers, although I may have changed one answer from the first time I answered honestly (I think I changed what I would tell my kid as he/she starts college), because I got E minor then. I like this answer though; B-flat major is one of my favorite keys, and it reflects the kind of person I want to be (I think I'm mostly there?).

Nathan completed the quiz "What's your Musical Key? " with the result Bb Major .

You are a very just person and are the first one to point out when someone is being treated unfairly. You are a quiet person and are generally content and happy to spend time alone or with others. .

16 minutes ago via What's your Musical Key? · Comment · Like · Take this quiz!

If you read my comments directly on the quiz (you should be able to tell which ones are mine), I will say that I'm quite more pleased about this set of results than I was back in April when I posted my interval. Quite honestly, it's more specifically the B-flat major chord that I enjoy, although vocally I like its unusual placement of do. That key and A-major, wow, just where all the solfège syllables fall in terms of pitch frequency... for some reason they're all in odd places. In A or B-flat, usually only one do is used, roughly in the middle-to-higher part of the vocal range. One octave higher than said do is exclusively reserved for sopranos, and one octave down is borderline singable for non-alto/bass voice types (although you do see hymns with melodies that use the lower do as its final). [If you look at the keys of C, D-flat, D, and E-flat, and all the church hymns in those keys, the two does in the melody are both singable, making said solfège syllables' placements "normal."] That said, I love, just absolutely love the ending to George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, Ben Folds' "Landed," and The Fray's "How to Save a Life." Look it up on YouTube, and you'll understand why (unless, of course, you don't have perfect pitch... hm, shoulda thought of that).

For those of you who aren't musically-inclined and have no idea what I'm talking about (i.e. solfège, or the do in do-re-mi...), I've basically been pondering some more on this musical future of mine. I'm increasingly doubtful about my ability to survive and thrive in Northfield, and unless I want to take a third year off before entering graduate school, time is running short for me to take the GRE and get all my stuff in. Very short. The December deadlines are two months away (less, if said deadline falls on the 1st). I know that the GRE is still going to happen, but the other stuff... well, we'll see about that.

Been thinking quite a bit over the last week. Not going to let on too much more in the blog before ideas actually get put into action. If you would like to know more, you know where to reach me. Until then,

Brief source of inspiration

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

When we've been here ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun.


--Amazing Grace, John Newton (1725-1807), Stanza 6 anon.

Like with the Desiderata, I came across this text on a bathroom door at a restaurant. To be exact, it was at the Ruby of Siam in Evanston, a place I frequented as a kid, but hadn't gone very often since high school. Unlike the Desiderata, I'd made myself familiar with said text, having sung it in hymns at all sorts of different churches over the years. I scrapped up an a cappella piece with the complete set of text (at least according to the source responsible for providing me with the words above) just today, so I suppose it's a good sign I'm composing again, something I haven't really done for some time. I suppose it's also a good sign, because, between an increasingly daunting job hunt, and lack of contact with friends who are either really busy or just plain gone, it's been an increasingly agonizing situation. I think, for my own sanity, I'm going to compose more, and I'm going to set a finite date for independent job searching/finding before I pack it in and return to Chicago, even if for a brief period of time.

Amid the noise and haste

Today I watched on TV a moving tribute to the Metrodome, in which the Twins played their last scheduled regular-season game. Next year they move to Target Field and usher in another era of outdoor baseball. It's quite something to reflect on experiences at a ballpark of a team not considered my "home" team, even though I've been living here for a year (or five). I mean, I've probably been to about ten games over the last several years, so I have enough of a sample size to have memories of the place. I was there when Milton Bradley, then a member of the Texas Rangers, got ejected for arguing balls and strikes. I saw a presumably drunken fan evade security for about five minutes while running up and down the upper deck. I listened while an idiot fan a couple rows behind me taunted an L.A. Angels fan wearing a Torii Hunter shirt seated like ten rows in front of me. I scalped a scalper by taking his last three tickets for $8. I listened to a fan behind me yell out, "C'mon guys, let's go, we're in a pennant race!" to the rest of the cheap seats section during a game on the second-to-last day of the regular season, and with the division title on the line. I also helped his cause by standing up and yelling cheers while the rest of our section remained seated. Lots of memories to be had. It's nothing like pitching a perfect game or winning a world series, but there were some moments at the Dome.

Going off the baseball theme, I managed to find out how the rest of Chicago sports works in late summer/early fall, when their baseball teams' failures lead the fans to turn their attention to the local football team. I'm not much of a football fan. Aside from occasional athleticism and artistry on behalf of the quarterback, running back, and wide receiver, the sport is just a bunch of people hitting and tackling each other. Ever since the Bears' acquisition of Jay Cutler, however, I have followed them with interest. Looking at this team, they finally have a very good (if not elite) quarterback, something they haven't had in what seems like an eternity. But after reading about their latest victory over the not-so-hapless Detroit Lions, I'm a bit worried about their defense. Without Cutler, the Bears are at best a .500 team. With Cutler, they will have quite a bit of success this season, but I have a sense they will need to sweat out their wins more than anyone in Chicago would like. Of course, it would probably help to have some other good players on offense.

I also made-over the blog again. Changed the format, gave it a new name, the works. Nothing against the previous layout (it served me quite well), but it was time for a change. I'm also considering other changes, mostly more minute (pronounced mi-nyute , and not min-nit , mind you) than what I've already done. You may have noticed I've been posting more often, and quite frankly I kind of like it. This could mean something (and probably already has).

Still sticking it out in Minnesota, though. For now.

Lesson of persistence

One of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." He said to them, "When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial." And he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.' And he answers from within, 'Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.' I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs. So I say to you, ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. ... If you then ... know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11: 1-10, 13)

During my last two years in New York, every Friday the 7th and 8th graders would go attend a youth group called "Focus," which predictably would include food, games, and Biblical study (mostly Psalm study, actually). One theme I kept hearing was how we never deserved anything (good) because of our humanly unworthiness, but because of God's graciousness we were able to partake in them. Over the years I seemed to adopt the first half of that, and during my high school years I never thought about asking God for anything because, given the lesson(s) imparted from Focus, I knew deep down I didn't deserve them. Thankfully that began to change when I started going to FCA during my first year at St. Olaf, but even in college -- and since college -- I still have struggled to just outright ask, let alone be persistent, as verses 8-10 recommend.

I know this, because a few days ago I had been persisting in calling back this one place I'd had an interview a week earlier, but the night before I was to call for the final time, I'd prayed to God about this job. But in this prayer I wasn't sure what to ask for, because I didn't want to change God's will for me. I didn't ask to get this job specifically; technically I just asked for a resolution, and for it to be his will, regardless of which way it went. And maybe that was the issue. See, another thing I picked up from FCA was trying to see what God was planning for me, and trying (and often failing) to follow it; instead of trying to put my own wishes on him.

This morning I once again opened the scripture to a random page, and it happened to be Luke 11. Maybe it means I should stop worrying about going against his plan by not asking for anything, and actually be persistent in what I want or need. At this point in my life, it's time to stop being a child and actually take charge of my life like an adult. I'm now into my second year post-college, and this is essentially the juncture where I have to decide whether I'm going to strive for a decent career, or be stuck with minimum-wage dead-end jobs. I sincerely hope it's the former, but now it's time to put hopes into action. Persistence isn't really one of my strong suits, but if I am to survive and thrive, it will have to become one.

Chicago hope

So by now, we've learned that Chicago will not host the 2016 Olympics (congrats to Rio de Janeiro, you deserve it). About the only thing that disappoints me from this is the pride that would have come with having the world's most prestigious event in my hometown (or, more accurately, the big city right next to my hometown).

But, the question that had been swirling around for some time was, was this going to be worth it? I mean, you look at all the money that would have been needed to fund this massive project, the construction that would need to be done. As I understand it, the citizens would have been solely responsible (or close to it) for funding everything, plus having to deal with all the extra traffic, crowdedness, and extra expenses that would definitely have popped up.

Here's the deal though. The 2016 Olympics was Richard M. Daley's latest pet project. I'm sure some people (mostly non-Chicagoans, granted) will say this was partly Obama's project, too, but I dispute that notion; he's got way too much to deal with in Washington to put a lot of attention to this. This was Daley's thing.

History says Daley's never been one to lose graciously (or really do anything graciously, for that matter), but history also says he's one of the most corrupt individuals in the US (what does that stand for, anyway?). I mean, the Meigs Field incident (I didn't realize it happened in the same month as the invasion of Iraq...) was a completely unilateral decision carried out in an utterly unlawful way. The Hired Truck incident exposed two things: 1.) paying private truck companies' workers to do little to no work, and 2.) mob connections and bribes between the mayor and individuals involved in this scandal. Of course, the good citizens of this fine city ended up footing the bill once again. I've also spoken out once on here before about the O'Hare Airport expansion at the expense of bulldozing a suburb. There's something wrong with a mayoral order to kick people out of their homes, as well as moving a cemetery because "it's in the way."

Of course you also have the Chicago Machine incident too (voting early and often). I don't actually remember it (nor can I find a link to an article about it... hmm), but I trust it's pretty self-explanatory. It's kind of funny; I've been a Minnesota voter ever since I first registered, but if I ever had a reason to register in Illinois it would be to kick Daley out.

Before I close off today, I want to direct this last blurb at Obama critics, specifically those who try and tie him to stereotypical Chicago politics. I defy anyone to prove to me -- meaning, if you comment, you better have a ready link to a credible source (and no, FOX news and the New York Post don't count... it has to be something like BBC) to back up your claim -- that Obama is a "crook" just like Daley. Granted, his cabinet has a few questionable Chicago people in there, but that's the cabinet, not the president. [And just because someone's from or associates with Chicago doesn't automatically mean they're corrupt.] I may not agree with everything Obama does, but I still think he's working as best as he can to help American citizens.