In case you haven't heard, I have recently been hired as the college pastor of Cross Pointe Community Church, in Tontitown, AR. I'm way excited about the future ministry possibilities that God is presenting me with, but I fully know that I am incapable of fulfilling this duty on my own, and I am desperately in need of the service of the local church and of God. I ask that you be in prayer for my success in ministry.
On another note, I am departing Tuesday, May 18 to serve in India for two weeks with my predecessor, Matthew. We will be riding through villages in Bangalore preaching and teaching for 2 weeks, until May 31. I'll be constantly updating this blog whenever I have internet available to update you on my trip, my photographs, and other things that are going on.
Any questions?
5.15.2010
4.24.2010
Public Schooling
Have you ever thought about what you learned in high school, and whether or not it was a good idea for them to teach you that?
I mean, sure, we all complained about math because we're never going to use this in real life. Honestly, though, learning math is important for everyone in their younger days because it grows brain synapses that strengthen your problem solving abilities whether the problem is math or shopping.
I'm talking about morally. Is there anything you were taught that you morally object to being taught?
I feel like there was for me. There was one book we read my junior year of high school called Native Son, and the teacher read in class the part that was removed from the edited version. Basically, it was a scene where two boys masturbated in a movie theatre. Classy, right?
Now, this didn't seriously offend my sensibilities at the time, but now that I'm within 5 or 6 years of parenthood, I worry.
The other thing, aside from moral problems with education material, is the image that a public school portrays of religion, a thought which is encouraged by the state and national governments. When I was in that same class, with many very controversial books, we also read the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards. This is certainly a very colorful piece, but on the whole it is almost entirely irrelevant to both American history and its literature. It was also the ONLY religious material I recall reading during all of high school.
For the uninformed, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not a happy sermon, or one about love, but Edwards' primary sermon about the unstoppable wrath and judgment of God.
Now, if this is the only exposure allowed by public schools to Christianity for high school kids to learn from academically, there is no point in using this sermon except to portray Christianity as a group of fundamentalist nutjobs. That sermon is not for a group of people who have not accepted the beauty of the Gospel first.
From a literary standpoint, there are HUNDREDS of other famous sermons they could have used!
John Wesley wrote 120+ sermons of which exact copies exist online! St. Augustine wrote Christian philosophy, which is easily reconcilable with modern American education!
But, no, the public school system prefers what is "interesting" and ridiculous over that which is educational.
Homeschooling, here I come.
I mean, sure, we all complained about math because we're never going to use this in real life. Honestly, though, learning math is important for everyone in their younger days because it grows brain synapses that strengthen your problem solving abilities whether the problem is math or shopping.
I'm talking about morally. Is there anything you were taught that you morally object to being taught?
I feel like there was for me. There was one book we read my junior year of high school called Native Son, and the teacher read in class the part that was removed from the edited version. Basically, it was a scene where two boys masturbated in a movie theatre. Classy, right?
Now, this didn't seriously offend my sensibilities at the time, but now that I'm within 5 or 6 years of parenthood, I worry.
The other thing, aside from moral problems with education material, is the image that a public school portrays of religion, a thought which is encouraged by the state and national governments. When I was in that same class, with many very controversial books, we also read the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards. This is certainly a very colorful piece, but on the whole it is almost entirely irrelevant to both American history and its literature. It was also the ONLY religious material I recall reading during all of high school.
For the uninformed, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not a happy sermon, or one about love, but Edwards' primary sermon about the unstoppable wrath and judgment of God.
Now, if this is the only exposure allowed by public schools to Christianity for high school kids to learn from academically, there is no point in using this sermon except to portray Christianity as a group of fundamentalist nutjobs. That sermon is not for a group of people who have not accepted the beauty of the Gospel first.
From a literary standpoint, there are HUNDREDS of other famous sermons they could have used!
John Wesley wrote 120+ sermons of which exact copies exist online! St. Augustine wrote Christian philosophy, which is easily reconcilable with modern American education!
But, no, the public school system prefers what is "interesting" and ridiculous over that which is educational.
Homeschooling, here I come.
3.01.2010
Unnecessary Guilt
I feel guilty.
Not because I have done something wrong.
I have a blog in mind that I want to write, and yet no time for writing it.
I feel guilty because I have neglected my blog.
My blog has become like another friend that I just don't have time for, even though it is an inanimate, nonphysical entity that places no guilt upon me.
There is probably something psychologically disturbing about all this.
Not because I have done something wrong.
I have a blog in mind that I want to write, and yet no time for writing it.
I feel guilty because I have neglected my blog.
My blog has become like another friend that I just don't have time for, even though it is an inanimate, nonphysical entity that places no guilt upon me.
There is probably something psychologically disturbing about all this.
2.09.2010
The Chilled Chorus
Have you ever noticed that cold has a sound?
I'm sure this is a fairly common observation, but I really feel like the world sounds very distinctly in the snow.
It almost feels quieter, almost like the sound is muffled.
But it isn't just snow, there's just something about being cold that sounds different.
You notice it in movies, too.
There tend to be a lot less background noises when characters are standing in the snow, than if they were standing in, say, a desert oasis.
Now, by the laws of physics, the speed of sound in air = 331.3 + (0.66 x T) m/s, where T is degrees celsius. So, sound moves slower, but I wouldn't say that that means there would be less of it.
Whether it is sensible or not, what is the purpose for the altered sensual perception during cold? Because, you have to admit, it smells different, things feel different, stuff tastes differently, and it looks differently, as well.
If you think about what, exactly, cold is, that doesn't help much either.
Temperature is literally the rate at which particles in matter vibrate. Everything is naturally vibrating. If they vibrate faster, they are warmer, if they do so slowly, they are colder. This is why you have things like liquids, solids, and gasses.
Technically, when the air is cold, it's even closer to becoming a liquid than when it is warm.
But, still, I wonder, what is the significance of the sound of cold?
I think that a major part of its purpose, from a divine standpoint, is beauty.
Think about it, God created the laws of physics, back in the beginning, Genesis 1, etc.
Naturally, it seems that the generally accepted periods of growth are Spring and Summer, with flowers in bloom, and sparkling water, and freshness. Fall is beautiful because of the changing leaves and the wind.
Winter has the beauty of snow, but there is a beauty in cold itself.
Maybe; just maybe, God made the laws of physics (at least this might be part of the reason) so that when it was cold, the hushed sound of winter added to the atmosphere of serenity that accompanied snow. The sun's light is whiter and reflects off the white of the land, which provides a sharp contrast to the dark of dead trees and barren soil. What people often interpret as an imagery of death may really just be the atmosphere of peace and rest.
Then, add to this the smell of cold, and the silence that accompanies slower moving sound, and you get not just an image, but a mood.
Imagine winter. In Canada.
It's not chaotic. It isn't hustle and bustle. It's calm.
Why is that? Because God catered the laws of physics so that you would understand beauty in all four phases of the state of nature on the planet Earth.
God is the master artist.
I'm sure this is a fairly common observation, but I really feel like the world sounds very distinctly in the snow.
It almost feels quieter, almost like the sound is muffled.
But it isn't just snow, there's just something about being cold that sounds different.
You notice it in movies, too.
There tend to be a lot less background noises when characters are standing in the snow, than if they were standing in, say, a desert oasis.
Now, by the laws of physics, the speed of sound in air = 331.3 + (0.66 x T) m/s, where T is degrees celsius. So, sound moves slower, but I wouldn't say that that means there would be less of it.
Whether it is sensible or not, what is the purpose for the altered sensual perception during cold? Because, you have to admit, it smells different, things feel different, stuff tastes differently, and it looks differently, as well.
If you think about what, exactly, cold is, that doesn't help much either.
Temperature is literally the rate at which particles in matter vibrate. Everything is naturally vibrating. If they vibrate faster, they are warmer, if they do so slowly, they are colder. This is why you have things like liquids, solids, and gasses.
Technically, when the air is cold, it's even closer to becoming a liquid than when it is warm.
But, still, I wonder, what is the significance of the sound of cold?
I think that a major part of its purpose, from a divine standpoint, is beauty.
Think about it, God created the laws of physics, back in the beginning, Genesis 1, etc.
Naturally, it seems that the generally accepted periods of growth are Spring and Summer, with flowers in bloom, and sparkling water, and freshness. Fall is beautiful because of the changing leaves and the wind.
Winter has the beauty of snow, but there is a beauty in cold itself.
Maybe; just maybe, God made the laws of physics (at least this might be part of the reason) so that when it was cold, the hushed sound of winter added to the atmosphere of serenity that accompanied snow. The sun's light is whiter and reflects off the white of the land, which provides a sharp contrast to the dark of dead trees and barren soil. What people often interpret as an imagery of death may really just be the atmosphere of peace and rest.
Then, add to this the smell of cold, and the silence that accompanies slower moving sound, and you get not just an image, but a mood.
Imagine winter. In Canada.
It's not chaotic. It isn't hustle and bustle. It's calm.
Why is that? Because God catered the laws of physics so that you would understand beauty in all four phases of the state of nature on the planet Earth.
God is the master artist.
1.23.2010
Realism is too much to expect
Kristen tells me I need to be more light-hearted on this thing.
It has been a while since I blogged about anything frivolous. I love the word frivolous. Whenever I imagine a person doing something frivolous, I imagine them wearing an oldschool dress with lots of frills, regardless of gender.
Needless to say, I do not often imagine myself being frivolous.
Anyways, today I shall write about my experiences.
I spent a good 2 hours playing video games with my roommate, which was incredibly satisfying.
One of the games I played was an RPG, called Tales of the Abyss, where you controlled a guy who found out he was a clone of another guy, who went around and killed stuff, to the end purpose of saving the world.
The other game we played was an action game called New Super Mario Bros. Wii. This is a game in which you assume the role of a plumber who goes around and kills stuff, to the end purpose of saving a princess.
The primary distinction between the genres of these games is based on the manner in which one destroys innocent woodland creatures, who are a common enemy both in Mario (sometimes he even stomps on hapless mushrooms just out of spite!) and TotA.
But, I noticed a distinction that stood out in the Mario game beyond just the battle system. Mario changes clothes.
Whenever he picks up an item, if it's a mushroom or a fire flower or an ice flower or a mushroom that grows helicopters on top (botanists, rejoice!), his clothing and his appearance change.
These transformations are one of the primary gameplay elements of Mario, and most people are familiar with it, but it is so unique to the video game world.
Novels, which are similar to video games, and RPGs in particular, because they tell a story, do not inform the reader every time that a character does mundane, everyday things. Things which include changing clothes, going to the bathroom, eating, sleeping, scratching one's buttocks, etc. These are not included because they are not relevant to the events of the story.
On the same token, the vast majority of video games, despite having a very significant visual element to them which is not present in novels, do not show a character doing these things.
What disturbs me is that people complain about the lack of realism in video games.
I hear, on a very regular basis, grumbles about how the character doesn't change swords on screen whenever you equip a new one on the menu. It doesn't look any different. Or they tell me that it's unrealistic for so many story elements to occur at once without eating or sleeping.
The video game industry itself responds to this with titles that include a day/night system to keep track of time, or characters with multiple outfits or whose avatar changes when equipment changes.
Really, who cares. I don't want to have to worry about keeping my character well-fed, as well as staying on top of saving the world. It doesn't help the story at all.
I really view games like that as stories, and in no way does regular passing of time, having toilets, or daily changes of outfits impact my appreciation and enjoyment of the story.
Mario has a great excuse by these standards, because his change of costumes is necessary to him saving the princess.
So, stop whining gamers. There are a multitude of other reasons why this doesn't occur. It's a pain in the butt to change the actions of a character for every outfit. It doesn't make sense to have a hunger system in a game. Get over the cosmetic details.
I'm sorry Petey the Monster Vanquisher isn't wearing your favorite pair of overalls as he pulls the Sword of Eternity from the Rock of Apathy. The rest of us who actually have taste would much rather interpret games as we would a novel: It is excluded for the purpose of the story.
It has been a while since I blogged about anything frivolous. I love the word frivolous. Whenever I imagine a person doing something frivolous, I imagine them wearing an oldschool dress with lots of frills, regardless of gender.
Needless to say, I do not often imagine myself being frivolous.
Anyways, today I shall write about my experiences.
I spent a good 2 hours playing video games with my roommate, which was incredibly satisfying.
One of the games I played was an RPG, called Tales of the Abyss, where you controlled a guy who found out he was a clone of another guy, who went around and killed stuff, to the end purpose of saving the world.
The other game we played was an action game called New Super Mario Bros. Wii. This is a game in which you assume the role of a plumber who goes around and kills stuff, to the end purpose of saving a princess.
The primary distinction between the genres of these games is based on the manner in which one destroys innocent woodland creatures, who are a common enemy both in Mario (sometimes he even stomps on hapless mushrooms just out of spite!) and TotA.
But, I noticed a distinction that stood out in the Mario game beyond just the battle system. Mario changes clothes.
Whenever he picks up an item, if it's a mushroom or a fire flower or an ice flower or a mushroom that grows helicopters on top (botanists, rejoice!), his clothing and his appearance change.
These transformations are one of the primary gameplay elements of Mario, and most people are familiar with it, but it is so unique to the video game world.
Novels, which are similar to video games, and RPGs in particular, because they tell a story, do not inform the reader every time that a character does mundane, everyday things. Things which include changing clothes, going to the bathroom, eating, sleeping, scratching one's buttocks, etc. These are not included because they are not relevant to the events of the story.
On the same token, the vast majority of video games, despite having a very significant visual element to them which is not present in novels, do not show a character doing these things.
What disturbs me is that people complain about the lack of realism in video games.
I hear, on a very regular basis, grumbles about how the character doesn't change swords on screen whenever you equip a new one on the menu. It doesn't look any different. Or they tell me that it's unrealistic for so many story elements to occur at once without eating or sleeping.
The video game industry itself responds to this with titles that include a day/night system to keep track of time, or characters with multiple outfits or whose avatar changes when equipment changes.
Really, who cares. I don't want to have to worry about keeping my character well-fed, as well as staying on top of saving the world. It doesn't help the story at all.
I really view games like that as stories, and in no way does regular passing of time, having toilets, or daily changes of outfits impact my appreciation and enjoyment of the story.
Mario has a great excuse by these standards, because his change of costumes is necessary to him saving the princess.
So, stop whining gamers. There are a multitude of other reasons why this doesn't occur. It's a pain in the butt to change the actions of a character for every outfit. It doesn't make sense to have a hunger system in a game. Get over the cosmetic details.
I'm sorry Petey the Monster Vanquisher isn't wearing your favorite pair of overalls as he pulls the Sword of Eternity from the Rock of Apathy. The rest of us who actually have taste would much rather interpret games as we would a novel: It is excluded for the purpose of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
