I live in Candy Land

Life is pretty sweet right now.

Heaven and Apathy: Any Relation?

Heaven and Apathy: Any Relation?

“It seems to me, rather, that belief in the afterlife and an existence in the hereafter encourages apathy toward our life in the present, the only life we know we are assured of enjoying.” 

Nathan Dickey

I recently engaged in a Facebook theological argument with the person quoted above.  I have found arguing with atheists on Facebook to be a fruitless and unsatisfying endeavor. It usually just makes me uptight and anxious so I try to resist the temptation of commenting. However the topic of heaven and the afterlife is one of my buttons. My primary concern is not with what heaven is going to be like but with how the idea of heaven plays out in my life today.

I have a Christian friend who is fond of saying that some Christians are “so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good”. I object to this notion.  I will admit that it appears to be true but in reality it is false. Apathy as I believe Mr. Dickey means it, is when you stop caring about the problems of the world and set yourself apart in a religious isolation. Why bother with the world’s problems if it is all going to end soon anyway? That is what I believe people mean by the apathy of the heavenly minded person. I argue the complete opposite. In a sense it would be nice to wash one’s hands of the suffering, pain and evil of the present world. But to shut your self off from the bad things of the world is in a sense a desire to try and find comfort on earth. By this point one has become earthly minded and no heavenly good.  Apathy is a thing of this world and not the next.

What then does it look like to be heavenly minded?  I reproduce two scriptures, which I believe illustrate the point.

^“ Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. ²⁵ Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. ²⁶ Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air.”  1 Corinthians 9: 24-26

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” Hebrews 12: 1-3

In these two passages the Christian’s life is compared to a race. Those whose belief in heaven has lead them to apathy have simply stopped running. But the one who is really concentrated on the prize will run the race. The Christian who desires heaven can’t simply walk idly toward the finish line, they will give it all they have.

On the other hand you might say that Christ has already won the race. Why run if you have already won? Christ is the example of how to run, not the excuse for not doing it. Even when you are assured victory you still have to cross the finish line. I think that rabbit that got beat by the turtle is a good example. The first step toward the finish is as important as the last. It does matter how the race is run. Heaven is in each step of the way. Heaven is a goal and a reality.

I will throw in a quote by C. S. Lewis for good measure.

“If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next… It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in’: aim at earth and you will get neither (p. 134).” Mere Christianity

To finish I would like to quote the great Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer to whom I give most of the credit for my view on this matter.

 “So long as Christ and the world are conceived as two opposing and mutually repellent spheres, man will be left in the following dilemma: he abandons reality as a whole, and places himself in one or the other of the two spheres. He seeks Christ without the world, or he seeks the world without Christ. In either case he is deceiving himself…There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God, which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” (p. 195) Ethics

Democracy: diccionary series #2

It is interesting to live in a country where it seems most people don't believe in democracy. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that I live in a country where people believe in democracy just as long as their side wins. Democracy is a system that by its very nature can disappoint approximately half its participants. The majority wins no matter how small the margin. I remember hearing a story about a tribal chief somewhere in the world who was puzzled by the idea of democracy. He wondered how you could have a system where 51% could tell the other 49% what to do. In his tribe they sat around the camp fire and talked until 100% where in agreement. I do not know if this story is true and strongly doubt if the system would work with a nation of millions but it does make an interesting point about democracy.
Outside of politics I hear people say things like "You can believe anything you want but don't try and force it on other people." This idea, while popular, is undemocratic. When faced with a choice a democracy will impose the will of the majority on the minority. It is just that simple. Which is why I am very puzzled when people say that the system is collapsing just because their values aren't represented. The beauty of democracy is that  the individual's vote matters. The cruel reality is that there may be more individuals on the other side.

I would like to return to my earlier point about forcing values on others. There are those who speak as if a person should leave their personal values (religion and other world views) out of politics. I simply wonder what values one is supposed to bring to the table? Is there some sort of objective worldview that one should bring to the table? If you don't bring your values to the table I would suggest you have nothing at all to bring to the table. Democracy depends entirely on you having a view and voting accordingly. Another important thing is if you don't like imposing your view on others than democracy is not the political system for you. Likewise if you don't like having other people's view forced on you then democracy isn't for you either.  That is why I say I live in a country that doesn't believe in democracy because most people fall into one of the two categories I just mentioned. Of course you don't have to agree with the majority, the beauty of democracy is that there should be the freedom to disagree. It can always change next time.

But this country is also a republic, I might address that another time.

In defense of super evilness

I believe I have chosen my title poorly. What I mean to do here is to attempt a defense of super villains. I do not here condone or defend the actions of super villains real or imaginary. I simply believe that villains have been portrayed unfairly. I am unconvinced by the idea of a bad guy sitting in his evil lair laughing his evil laugh and rejoicing in how evil he is. I am going to put forth the idea that super villains don't actually consider themselves super villains (they can correct me if I am wrong). While people may adopt terms like "bad" or "evil" I do not think that they really mean this. Just like when people say that they are being bad or naughty when eat a chocolate bar. They simply embrace a word and change its meaning.
Now of course people come up with a million excuses to justify their actions and make themselves out to be not so bad. That is just the point. People can't bear the idea of actually being bad so they find excuses. Thus a super villain might joke about being evil but he can never actually believe it. If you cast all the excuses aside being bad or evil is an unbearable state to be in. Being bad implies being wrong and nobody can stand being wrong they must always give it another name.
 Often in literature and motion pictures we are presented with the psychopath as the most ultimately scary idea. For a psychopath is a person who has no regard for other people and will kill and hurt with no feeling. This is the type of person who is supposed to enjoy evil for evils sake. While I do find this idea frightening I do not think it the most scary idea.
I think that the Bible speaks rightly when it says that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light (I might go so far as to surmise that the devil actually fancies himself an angel of light.) But even just using this example metaphorically I think that evil more often than not comes to us in the guise of good. If you actually think a thing is wrong you won't do it. The thing must be twisted and turned before you will begin to consider. All that is needed is doubt of its badness and the rest is easy.  
The most frightening picture to me is the super villain who does not consider himself evil. This person might even call himself good. A individual capable of committing the unspeakable without remorse and it would not because he likes being evil but because he believes he is doing the right thing. Unlike the psychopath this person might even say they are pursuing the best for humanity.
If someone suspected they were bad you might be able to reason with them until they were convinced of their badness. But how do you talk to someone who thinks they are good and try to convince them otherwise? From my observations of when dictators and war criminals go on trial you do not see them standing before the court laughing and talking about how bad they are. I think that many criminal are willing to admit they were wrong simply because they got caught. That is why I write in defense of super evilness because a truly evil person would never think they were bad. The most frightening villain I can imagine thinks he is doing the right thing. I can easily condemn (or help for that matter) a person who thinks they are bad. It is hard to condemn (or help) a person who believes they are good.

Murder and why we like it

When I was younger I wanted to write stories about detectives and privet investigators like Sherlock Holmes solving crimes. My most elaborate effort in this direction was a story about some Siamese twins where one brother was a genius detective and the other a bumbling idiot. This shows the great lengths that one must go to these days to be creative in this genre. Over time I have become increasingly discouraged when it comes to the dream of writing detective stories. There seems to be an overwhelming glut of these stories in literature and TV that I feel I have nothing to offer to this tide of crime solving. The other difficulty is that I really hate killing people, especially in fiction. (Hmmm)


I have a feeling that I should change the name of my blog to "I wonder why?" for that is how I seem to be starting my sentences these days. But, I wonder why we are so fascinated by crimes, murders and the solving thereof. Over and over TV shows, movies and books try to delve into the killers mind to figure out what sick idea has driven him to kill.

 On TV I think there are three main murdering types. There is the person who murders out of rage but later regrets the action. There is the person who kills because they believe they are dealing out justice. And then there is the person who commonly refereed to as a psychopath who in my assessment kills for sport. These three plots have been done over and over to the extent that I am sick and tired.
However, in the end detective stories are usually character driven rather than plot driven, which is why I guess I keep watching and reading. Of course the truly interesting crime stories are a combination of both.

Still the question remains of why so many people like to read about or watch murders happen and get solved. For me reading Sherlock Holmes it was always about the powers of observation. How the smallest detail could unravel the biggest mystery. Maybe there is the answer, I think that we as humans like mystery and a murder seems to us a monstrous mystery indeed.

I started with the intention of writing one thing and ended up with another.  I guess I will have to write again another day to see if I end up with what I intended to write this time. Tune in next time for "In defense of super evilness"

Indoctrination: Dicitonary series #1

I have been for some time be puzzled by the term "indoctrinate". There seems to be sinister meanings surrounding this word which I am still trying to grasp. To me this term simply means "to teach" and I can point to the dictionary for backup when I say this. I could say "The children were indoctrinated with how to behave when there was a fire". This seems to me a quite good and decent thing to do. Children should be taught how to be safe if there is a fire. However this is not how this term is typically used. You are more likely to hear something like, "The young men were indoctrinated by the terror organization." Here we begin to feel an ominous feeling. The young men were not just taught by the terror organization they were indoctrinated! The negative connotation is that indoctrination implies that one is forced to learn something or to be taught to accept something without question.
I do not believe that people should be forced to believe something or be taught to accept things unquestioningly. At least for the most part. It would probably be a good thing if children did accept fire safety tips with out question (Unless they needed clarification of course).

I do not question the possible dangers of indoctrination or in other words of teaching. I simply question if indoctrination is only an instrument of religion or totalitarian regimes. I think that people simply choose to call something indoctrination because they don't agree with what is being taught. I believe there are bad ways to teach good things and for that matter clean, efficient ways to teach bad things.  However, I don't think that is what people are really mean when they call something indoctrination. More often than not it is the ideas that we disagree with. Many societies teach their youth that it is an honor to die for their country.  Yet we will call one indoctrination and another a civic or moral duty.

I have often heard the argument that religious families indoctrinate their children. I simply wonder what all the other families are supposedly doing?

Why is language funny?

In recent years I have become more and more amazed by language. Just the simple idea that sounds and symbols can be used to convey meaning is something which I believe boarders on magic. On the one hand language is very simple; you can point at an object and say a sound and now people know that when you use that sound you are referencing that particular object. Similarly if I type the word "tree" you will likely get some sort of picture in your head. Of course you will probably imagine a different looking tree than I do but non the less we will have similar pictures.
Some people are quick to point out that language is arbitrary. The sounds them selves don't usually have anything to do with their meaning.  Once people arrive at arbitrary language it seems they soon start wondering about arbitrary meanings. If everybody doesn't imagine the exact same tree how do we know what a tree even is? Reading this sort of thing in text books or listening to lectures I always want to point out one important fact. Why has the author been writing funny lines on the paper and what makes the professor babel so many nonsensical sounds? I believe that there is only one option; language must talk about really things or we couldn't be arguing about it.
The real answer to all this is that language is magic. For we can not only talk about wonderful things like trees and spiders and hats which we can see but also so many invisible things too. Talk about love and hate, good and evil and you have stepped into the wonderful world of ideas. As with the tree we do not all think of the same thing when we talk about love, hate, good and evil but I would argue we are talking about real things.
What got me started on all this was I was wondering why we find language funny. Of course not everybody likes puns but many people find it very funny that two similar sounds have two distinct meanings. Like the guy who was learning Spanish and said that he was pregnant when he meant that he was embarrassed. Why are double meanings so funny? Many be the people who don't like puns can explain to me why it isn't. Personally I think it is the funny pictures we get in our heads.
It maybe that we find it funny because it is nonsense. But this explanation might not suit the relativists out there because it would imply that there is such a thing as sense. That we can't laugh at language unless language talks about real things. Language can distort things and make them confused but things must be "torted" before you can "dis" them.

Anthropocentrism

University has educated me on some interesting things about the human species. Collage taught me that I should not be racist, ethnocentric or sexist among other equally evil things (I use the term "evil" here in the most culturally relative sense). The final and most important thing I learned was that I should avoid being anthropocentric. This long word means more or less; to think ones self superior to other animals. I learned in biology class that I am nothing but a highly evolved animal. I must of course strike the word "highly" from the previous statement for obvious reasons. I friend once remonstrated me for being anthropocentric when I declared a certain resentment toward the idea that I was evolved from an ape. He accused me of thinking myself better than other animals. I in turn accused him of eating chicken.
Things really came to a head during a speech I attended on the topic of climate change. I was in total agreement with the speaker when it came to the fact that human behavior can have negative effects on the environment. I was, however, shocked at the concluding remarks. The speaker wondered how humans could think them selves better than other animals while destroying the planet. It was the next statement that really got me because the lecturer explained that humans were nothing less than parasites.  I was puzzled and outraged how the speaker could insult parasites that way. Saying that humans were like parasites was somehow implying that parasites were "bad". Parasites can't be bad. Its anthropocentric to think that parasitic behavior is somehow sub-par, that's demeaning to parasites. I tried to express my outrage to some of the people around me at the lecture but they didn't seem to care.

In doing some research for this piece I tried to find if there was a term for when you think you are better than a plant. I didn't find one. However, I did find other people on the internet calling humans parasites. Come on human-animal-people why do you think humans should aspire to be better than parasites? What is wrong with parasites?

Applause: A mysterious Art.

Humans act strangely. If you think about it long enough so many of our behaviors begin to seem odd. Take clapping for example. Why is it that we think that beating our hands together is a manifestation of pleasure, recognition and  praise. Recently during a theatrical performance I attended I was thinking about the strange art of clapping. The theater was full of people slapping their hands expressing their approval of the actors on the stage. I guess it is just me thinking about it too much but I was imagining someone seeing a crowed clapping for the first time. Who would guess that this sound being produced by these strange people banging their hands together was a manifestation of pleasure? A most puzzling manifestation of this odd behavior is in the movie theater. Why do people clap when none of the creators are there to hear it?
What is more amazing (and I think that this is one thing that truly distinguishes humanity from other animals) is that humans can use clapping to express displeasure. The ability to clap ironically is a singular feat. Some one stumbles or fumbles and clapping could now to be used to express mockery and disapproval. To an outside observer unfamiliar with clapping this must be singularly confusing.
I don't know why I think about these things. I was just wondering how it happened that people started clapping. I wonder if ironic clapping came first. I imagine someone making an idiot of themselves and their friend finding no better way to express his jubilation than to beat his hands together from pure excitement. Of course I just wonder who was really making a fool of himself.

116

116 is a place where I have spent much of the last four years of my life. A dark windowless room in the heart of the communication building at Boise State University. In the middle of a semester it was almost my home, all I lacked was a cot in the corner. It is a video editing lab but the truth is that it is much more. The unnumbered hours of transferring video, of rendering, of re-rendering of exporting, trans-coding and DVD burning have fostered so much more than just video production.
During the busy days around deadlines you could have all kinds of interesting conversations. Religion, philosophy, theology, pop culture, film styles and many other random, politically incorrect and taboo subjects. There are few other spaces where I learned so much or talked about such interesting things.
One of the last conversations I had in 116 before graduation was about the meaning of life. One of the 116 regulars was explaining about how the night before he had been talking with some of his friends about the meaning of life. They had decided that there wasn't one.  As I usually do I tried to take this idea to an  extreme conclusion. If life has no meaning how do we know that anything has meaning? How would you be able to even articulate the idea? If there is no over arching meaning how can there be meaning at all, even at the micro scale? He looked at me as if I had misunderstood him and went back to editing. Of course I knew what he actually meant. He was expressing a very old idea which has been around since ancient times. That all is vanity. That our toil under the sun is a pointless effort.
I sat there thinking after he had left. I wondered why he even bothered being at school. What was the use of a collage degree or anything else if in the end life is meaningless. I reflected on this idea for some time afterward, wondering why he had brought it up and if I should have said something different. Of course if life is meaningless there really isn't any point to talking about the subject. I think that the point I wanted to make was that if life is meaningless, it is a rather amazing feat that we could have ever realized it. Humanity is distinct in its search for meaning. Other life forms communicate with each other but none of them, so far as we know have ever been concerned with the meaning for their existence. It seems entirely odd to me that we have so many words and languages only to discover that there isn't anything to talk about. It seems to me that living life without meaning is like trying to have a conversation with nothing to talk about.

Graduation

I have always been a skeptic of tradition and ceremony. I feel they are exaggerated, often meaningless and silly. For what ever reason people decide that we need to organize big events which are long, dull and terribly inconvenient. All this fuss about something that might not even matter in a few years.
In contrast to the above stated feelings I must confess that I have always been a big fan of tradition and ceremony. Something inside me has always revolted against those who attack traditions as empty and pointless. This has often been a revolt within myself. Mostly likely it is my religious upbringing. I find deep meaning and significance in symbols and rituals. Indeed I have often regretted that my particular church dose not have more traditions. It seems that the Lord's Supper and Baptism are the only real traditions of my church. Of course if tradition and ritual was all I was after I would only have to look about me to the many religions and cultural organization that are rich in tradition and symbolism.
Traditions can and do become empty, there is no doubt about it. But that is no excuse for not having them. Traditions are to remind us of things, not be become the thing they represent, but we tend to forget that fact. It is but a shadow. I wonder, perhaps, if idolatry is when a symbol becomes more important than the thing it is a shadow of. False gods who are empty because they can never be the thing they were only meant to point to.
I can't reject tradition though at times it is tempting. For traditions can help us remember and understand things which we might forget. They are like sign posts marking the path. But though we may look to the sign posts for guidance we can not stay there. Because a sign can never get you where you are going, it can only point the way.

So here is a toast to tradition.
Long life and may you ever be full of meaning.