Well, I thought since I haven't done a proper update in a while and the one line blog posts were getting kind of annoying [even to me], so here is an amalgamation on what's going to happen by November's end, and what the month of December is probably going to entail.
This also means that I may or may not post in a while, at least to this extent.
December is definitely going to be one of those months. I don't mean to sound surprised, because it always is, but it gives me the impression that it's going to be busier than usual.
The end of November, for Americans anyway, brings the advent of Thanksgiving. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be thankful or anything, but I've never really liked this holiday. Like most others, it seems to exist as an excuse to completely gorge yourself on food. Because that's what you're thankful for, right? Either way, we have guests coming over, none of them do I know very well. Maybe that's why I'm so jaded: This happens every year. Well, mostly.
I've only got about another week to last in Movember before I get to shave everything off. Not that it really makes any difference, and if you could actually see me, you would know precisely what I was talking about. I have plans to last through Thanksgiving, only to give up just before and succumb on the twenty-eighth. Only because, you know, I want to look nice for the school dance that's coming up.
Which leads me into the next topic: drama, drama, drama. I'm taking someone else (a girl, just in case you were wondering) to the dance for the first time, even though I haven't actually asked her yet. I've bought the tickets already, yet I haven't talked to my parents yet (that comes later today), and I'm going to have to go almost right after an extra Shakespeare practice that we're having. I can only hope I can get dressed and smell good properly in time.
Ah, Shakespeare. Shakespeare encompasses most of the busy feelings that I have about the upcoming month, primarily because we're performing on the eighteenth and the nineteenth. This means practices, practices, and more practices. I've also discovered that I'm going to be playing two characters instead of just one, which also means that I have some extra lines to memorize. Piece of cake, a stress-filled cake. So, we have two practices a week (we could use more, but we're a club, not a class) and then a practice every day for the week leading up to the performance. We've got a venue, and posters, and much prayer going out, praying that it all goes well. If we miss more than one practice, then we have to be out, and considering I'm one of the main characters, that just can't happen.
I will however, have to miss one practice: On December 3rd, my mom and younger sister and I will be on a plane to Singapore, with the eventual destination of Malaysia. My cousin is getting married to an American-Malay, and since he has family in Malaysia, we are conveniently right around the corner to attend their wedding (or second one, that is.) This means I get to wear my suit twice in the same week. Looks like, he has...arrived in style. YEEEAAAAHHHHHHH.
Christmas really does come earlier every year. This Christmas, I just might have enough money to buy presents for all my friends, and that's the one thing that fills me with hope about the holiday season. Although it may be commercialized schlock, Christmas is still my favorite time of year because I absolutely love the gorgeous atmosphere surrounding it. Cinnamon and holly leaves, not the smell of someone's sweat as you're getting trampled for marked-down prices at Walmart.
My brother is also thankfully coming for Christmas, and since I haven't seen him in a year, that's probably the thing I'm most looking forward to. Sadly, this will be the very first family Christmas that the whole family isn't able to make to, but I think I can forgive my sister for that. Maybe not for going to New Moon on the midnight showing, but we'll discuss that later.
I think I'm pretty much covered on what I wanted to mention, but if I've forgotten anything, I'll let you know. Otherwise, keep on truckin'
-Ben
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
I've come to the conclusion...
...that I have a near one hundred percent chance of being friendzoned by every girl I have and will come into contact with. Ever.
That is all.
That is all.
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Dead Person Breathed On Me!
Hey, my thirtieth post. I'm actually proud of myself. I made it. Woo.
Anyways, I don't have a whole lot to say. We lost our debate today, but I don't care. I did my best. Sort of.
I'm also taking a break this week from everything. There's been so much busy so I'm going to step back and take some naps. And you might not get a new blog for a while, because I'm not sure how much I actually have to write about at the moment.
Well, I'm off.
-Ben
P.S. Title is reference to a Forgive Durden song off their debut, Wonderland. You should get it. It's great.
Anyways, I don't have a whole lot to say. We lost our debate today, but I don't care. I did my best. Sort of.
I'm also taking a break this week from everything. There's been so much busy so I'm going to step back and take some naps. And you might not get a new blog for a while, because I'm not sure how much I actually have to write about at the moment.
Well, I'm off.
-Ben
P.S. Title is reference to a Forgive Durden song off their debut, Wonderland. You should get it. It's great.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Blahness.
It's Sunday morning, and I'm sitting at my desk in my boxers because I was deemed too unhealthy to go to church. I'm listening to The Classic Crime and desperately want some Milo, even though we don't have any.
The tragic part about all this is that I actually have work to do that I haven't done yet. Such is life, I guess, but I wish I wouldn't have to. Guess, I mean.
The tragic part about all this is that I actually have work to do that I haven't done yet. Such is life, I guess, but I wish I wouldn't have to. Guess, I mean.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I speak.
I decide that I'm going to try hard to keep up with the blog posts, regardless of whether or not I have interesting things to say.
Top Ten Lies Told By Parents To Their Teenagers:
10. I'm trying to help you.
9. We will support you in any decision that you make.
8. You are free to make your own decisions.
7. We will teach you how to drive.
6. We will try and give you your allowance this month.
5. We won't mind if you get your ear pierced.
4. We will listen to what you have to say.
3. You can go to any college you want.
2. We are doing this because we love you.
1. This hurts me more than it hurts you.
I chew my fingernails at my desk. I'm not sure why; they don't taste very good. I wonder if my glasses affect the way my monitor light travels to my eyes. I suppose in several hundred years they'll dig up my body and say, 'Oh lord, not another one,' because there will be a concentrated dent in the bowels of my eye cavity.
I didn't find out about November Novel Writing Month until it was too late to do anything about it. I chew some more. I shall have to keep this mentally annotated until further notice.
- Ben
Top Ten Lies Told By Parents To Their Teenagers:
10. I'm trying to help you.
9. We will support you in any decision that you make.
8. You are free to make your own decisions.
7. We will teach you how to drive.
6. We will try and give you your allowance this month.
5. We won't mind if you get your ear pierced.
4. We will listen to what you have to say.
3. You can go to any college you want.
2. We are doing this because we love you.
1. This hurts me more than it hurts you.
I chew my fingernails at my desk. I'm not sure why; they don't taste very good. I wonder if my glasses affect the way my monitor light travels to my eyes. I suppose in several hundred years they'll dig up my body and say, 'Oh lord, not another one,' because there will be a concentrated dent in the bowels of my eye cavity.
I didn't find out about November Novel Writing Month until it was too late to do anything about it. I chew some more. I shall have to keep this mentally annotated until further notice.
- Ben
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
All you need is love. Eh, not really.
Here is the last in a string of posts that accumulate my thoughts regarding the philosophical world. It might not be the last ever, but I'm going to take a break from it for a while. It hurtz mah brayne.
First off, we find out one of the traits of a personal God is love. From the manuscript Understanding the Times (for which all this philosophical rambling is responsible) it reads this:
"God's love is sacrificial." It then goes on to describe the sacrifice of God as atonement for man's sins. God is the essence of everything perfect and everything pure. God is love, God made love. Love is just simply one of God's core attributes. But lately, one of the things I've been wondering is this question: Is God a romantic one? The church is regarded as the bride of Jesus Christ, but what exactly does that mean?
God created Adam and then decided that he needed a companion to roam the earth with. Enter Eve. Why would God create a need for a companion, a soul-mate? Despite some Scripture in the New Testament written by Paul that suggests leading a single life, I believe that man was designed to have a lifelong female partner. Which makes sense, if you read Genesis. My question is...why?
It seems I got my point (or question) across a lot quicker and shorter than I thought, so I'll leave you with this. Anybody able to shed a light on this subject for me?
First off, we find out one of the traits of a personal God is love. From the manuscript Understanding the Times (for which all this philosophical rambling is responsible) it reads this:
"God's love is sacrificial." It then goes on to describe the sacrifice of God as atonement for man's sins. God is the essence of everything perfect and everything pure. God is love, God made love. Love is just simply one of God's core attributes. But lately, one of the things I've been wondering is this question: Is God a romantic one? The church is regarded as the bride of Jesus Christ, but what exactly does that mean?
God created Adam and then decided that he needed a companion to roam the earth with. Enter Eve. Why would God create a need for a companion, a soul-mate? Despite some Scripture in the New Testament written by Paul that suggests leading a single life, I believe that man was designed to have a lifelong female partner. Which makes sense, if you read Genesis. My question is...why?
It seems I got my point (or question) across a lot quicker and shorter than I thought, so I'll leave you with this. Anybody able to shed a light on this subject for me?
Not so long ago, on a computer not so far away..
I'm not sure what the really real topic of this blog post is going to be, but I just wanted to point out a few things.
Ah, Star Wars. Many a time I've enjoyed these movies. Not so much anymore, but there's a wealth of memories in there somewhere. If this sudden intrusion of topic seems random to you, forgive me. I came here to talk about the implications and inner workings of Star Wars, and then as a footnote, add some Star Trek commentary to the mix.
[Overly sensitive] Christians have always complained that Star Wars is a tremendous advocate of New Age propaganda. And, in fact, many of these claims do not go unfounded: The Star Wars universe is not unlike one steeped in cosmic humanism. First, you have this unspeakable energy that surrounds all living things, and through the help of random genetics (Lucas' ill-conceived 'midichlorians') and finding yourself, you can harness this energy with supernatural-esque powers. You also have the ascension to a higher plane of being after death, if you have the ability. Otherwise you'll just become reincarnate, but that's what George Lucas doesn't tell you.
I've always thought that something rooted in fiction and fantasy is never a good way to show off your religious beliefs. I see it as more a disservice to the idea. It's like saying, 'Hey, look! Here's something that could never ever happen in real life, but if you look closer you can see religious principles that apply to us! Whoopee!' That's why I didn't so much as hiccup over the controversy surrounding such things as The Golden Compass (yes, I read all of them) as 'dangerous' as they may be.
Aside from that, I just think George Lucas is incredibly confused. It's like he got too caught up in promoting modern religion that he decided to throw the whole pot into the mix. We learn in Episode 1 that Anakin Skywalker was conceived of a virgin birth. And, as we all know, he progresses into becoming the main antagonist, who becomes worthy of redemption at the very end...through sacrifice. And while Christ was never ever ever the villain of our Bible, the comparisons are interesting.
I also want to discuss a particular line that had at least some Christians up in arms on message boards. It takes place in the final battle on Mustafar at the end of Episode 3 between Obi Wan Kenobi and his turned padawan, the soon to be Darth Vader. With the green swirling of a foreign planet's atmosphere behind him, Kenobi looks past the camera and says to his changed student, 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes.' (Going crazy with the formatting today, eh?)
Wait, wait, wait. Rewind. That has got to be one of the stupidest lines that Lucas has ever written, only surpassed by the 'Anakin, you're breaking my heart' that came just a few minutes previous. Why? Because Lucas figured since he'd already thrown most other religions into the mix, he might as well sprinkle some postmodernism. Why does this not work? The thing is, when you have a working religion within a world that deals with standards, a throwaway line that's meant to be important is simply not acceptable. Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would only a Sith deal in absolutes? The Star Wars universe is divided into the light side and the dark side (if you're a force user, anyway). There is no in-between. Are we supposed to believe that the Republic was 'evil' all along?! DOES ANYTHING MATTER ANY MORE!!
I'm probably missing some subtleties since I haven't seen the series in a while, and won't for a while either, but these are things that have annoyed me for a while. And like I mentioned, as a footnote, I will be discussing a little Trek.
Star Trek directly contrasts with Star Wars' religious melting pot sensibilities, and moves directly into the age where God is no longer relevant, and all religions eradicated. I fear we are reaching this age quicker than others might think, but Star Trek is the utopia of futuristic thought. Poverty, famine, most diseases, have all been terminated, all without divine intervention. The humans have conquered themselves and usher in a new age of prosperity. While there are some episodes that touch on the idea of God ('Who Watches the Watchers,' TNG) most are for the purpose of showing that God is an outdated and foolish concept. We now worship the higher powers of technology and interspecies diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong, I have poured hours and hours into each individual Trek series (*blushes*), and I've grown fond of Star Trek, but sometimes the unreality of this situation sickens me. More technology, more advanced weapons. More advanced weapons, more ways to kill people, and more wars. The cycle never ends, and never will end until it eventually destroys us.
I choose that positive note to end this blog. I fear for it's relevance and importance, but in the end it's just more nonsensical blogstuff that I choose to ramble about.
Live long and prosper,
Ben
Ah, Star Wars. Many a time I've enjoyed these movies. Not so much anymore, but there's a wealth of memories in there somewhere. If this sudden intrusion of topic seems random to you, forgive me. I came here to talk about the implications and inner workings of Star Wars, and then as a footnote, add some Star Trek commentary to the mix.
[Overly sensitive] Christians have always complained that Star Wars is a tremendous advocate of New Age propaganda. And, in fact, many of these claims do not go unfounded: The Star Wars universe is not unlike one steeped in cosmic humanism. First, you have this unspeakable energy that surrounds all living things, and through the help of random genetics (Lucas' ill-conceived 'midichlorians') and finding yourself, you can harness this energy with supernatural-esque powers. You also have the ascension to a higher plane of being after death, if you have the ability. Otherwise you'll just become reincarnate, but that's what George Lucas doesn't tell you.
I've always thought that something rooted in fiction and fantasy is never a good way to show off your religious beliefs. I see it as more a disservice to the idea. It's like saying, 'Hey, look! Here's something that could never ever happen in real life, but if you look closer you can see religious principles that apply to us! Whoopee!' That's why I didn't so much as hiccup over the controversy surrounding such things as The Golden Compass (yes, I read all of them) as 'dangerous' as they may be.
Aside from that, I just think George Lucas is incredibly confused. It's like he got too caught up in promoting modern religion that he decided to throw the whole pot into the mix. We learn in Episode 1 that Anakin Skywalker was conceived of a virgin birth. And, as we all know, he progresses into becoming the main antagonist, who becomes worthy of redemption at the very end...through sacrifice. And while Christ was never ever ever the villain of our Bible, the comparisons are interesting.
I also want to discuss a particular line that had at least some Christians up in arms on message boards. It takes place in the final battle on Mustafar at the end of Episode 3 between Obi Wan Kenobi and his turned padawan, the soon to be Darth Vader. With the green swirling of a foreign planet's atmosphere behind him, Kenobi looks past the camera and says to his changed student, 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes.' (Going crazy with the formatting today, eh?)
Wait, wait, wait. Rewind. That has got to be one of the stupidest lines that Lucas has ever written, only surpassed by the 'Anakin, you're breaking my heart' that came just a few minutes previous. Why? Because Lucas figured since he'd already thrown most other religions into the mix, he might as well sprinkle some postmodernism. Why does this not work? The thing is, when you have a working religion within a world that deals with standards, a throwaway line that's meant to be important is simply not acceptable. Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would only a Sith deal in absolutes? The Star Wars universe is divided into the light side and the dark side (if you're a force user, anyway). There is no in-between. Are we supposed to believe that the Republic was 'evil' all along?! DOES ANYTHING MATTER ANY MORE!!
I'm probably missing some subtleties since I haven't seen the series in a while, and won't for a while either, but these are things that have annoyed me for a while. And like I mentioned, as a footnote, I will be discussing a little Trek.
Star Trek directly contrasts with Star Wars' religious melting pot sensibilities, and moves directly into the age where God is no longer relevant, and all religions eradicated. I fear we are reaching this age quicker than others might think, but Star Trek is the utopia of futuristic thought. Poverty, famine, most diseases, have all been terminated, all without divine intervention. The humans have conquered themselves and usher in a new age of prosperity. While there are some episodes that touch on the idea of God ('Who Watches the Watchers,' TNG) most are for the purpose of showing that God is an outdated and foolish concept. We now worship the higher powers of technology and interspecies diplomacy.
Don't get me wrong, I have poured hours and hours into each individual Trek series (*blushes*), and I've grown fond of Star Trek, but sometimes the unreality of this situation sickens me. More technology, more advanced weapons. More advanced weapons, more ways to kill people, and more wars. The cycle never ends, and never will end until it eventually destroys us.
I choose that positive note to end this blog. I fear for it's relevance and importance, but in the end it's just more nonsensical blogstuff that I choose to ramble about.
Live long and prosper,
Ben
Sunday, November 1, 2009
You can't handle the truth.
Most of the upcoming blogs stem from the fact that I've been taking a class titled 'Understanding the Times,' which is an analysis of each major worldview, and how to understand it, and relate it to winning people for Christ. It's a pretty impactful course/book, and I've found it quite intriguing so far, even if it is a lot of material to keep up with.
This blog is going to be about a very short, yet problematic word: Truth.
Most Christians have pointed out the conundrum in the humanist philosophy of the statement 'There are no absolutes,' when in fact, that is an absolute statement. This is a little off-track already, but I think Christians miss the point when they point that out because the actual statement is not the basis of the entire worldview. Detractors could just retort with 'the only absolute is that there are none,' and all Christians would be left with is trembling lips.
Truth is an interesting concept: What constitutes as true? The aforementioned book that I am studying postulates that in the Bible, Jesus states that He is the way, the Truth, and the life. Jesus is truth, and the essence thereof. This is, in fact, a true statement. Jesus cannot lie, and therefore be the opposite of what is true, because untruth is imperfect. It would then also stand to reason, that since Jesus is truth and the essence of everything true, anything untrue with contradict with Jesus' divine nature.
The bigger question is: What divides truth from the falsehood? Where exactly does the line stand?
In the essay Playing With Fire by Walt Russell, he describes a growing epidemic in the general public of America, as well as America's churches: Relativism. As an example, he uses an adult Sunday school class to illustrate:
"Twenty-four year old 'Janet' was angry at my emphasis on seeking to discover authors' intentions when we read their texts. She was an evangelical Christian and a second grade teacher in a public school. She prided herself in helping her 20 students learn to love literature. She would read them a story as they gathered around her, and then ask each child, "What does the story mean to you?" She prodded them to come up with their own unique meanings. With such strong encouragement, the class of 20 would eventually have 20 different meanings for the one story. Janet sensed that I was opposed to such "love of literature." Pouring a little emotional gasoline on the fire, I said, "Janet, you're certainly doing your part to insure that these 7 year-olds will never recover from a radically relativistic view of meaning!""
Russell then goes on the describe the shift in literary perspective from the author to the text itself.
I get the feeling that I'm reaching for a cookie jar too high on the shelves with this attempt at coherency, but that was one of the hardest paragraphs I've ever had the displeasure of reading through. To realize that it was very true, and yet very false all at the same time. Is that up to me to decide? I'm not sure, but here's where I'm coming from:
I believe that the Bible is the infallible, true, God-breathed Scripture imparted to us to channel our relationship with God. And while some passages allow for interpretation, some scriptures can be very dangerous when taken out of context, especially when seeking personal justification. However, I fail to understand how the truth of Jesus Christ can render an interpretation of a piece of artwork untrue. I'm not just talking about paintings, I'm talking about stories, lyrics, and almost especially poems. On one hand, wonderful things such as these can be used to tell a story personal to the author, unraveling a thread of their existence, but on the other hand, regardless of what the author's intention was, when different people few the same piece of art, very different conclusions are always reached. Who are we to say that the way a person feels about a piece of artwork is wrong?
My mom and I were discussing this in the car, and she came up with this much simpler explanation:
"Is art God?"
"Well...obviously not."
"Then why should art hold to any standard of truth? Art is neither true nor untrue, but exists purely for the experience of the creator and the viewer both."
Well, I'd have to agree, except I just had to go and think about it some more. What about the crossover CCM bands that write truth about relationships with God, yet, oftentimes they will get misconstrued and interpreted as being a relationship with a girl?
I think I may be over analyzing at this point, but these were just a few thoughts I had.
Next post: You will find how much of a geek I actually am, and how much I am not.
This blog is going to be about a very short, yet problematic word: Truth.
Most Christians have pointed out the conundrum in the humanist philosophy of the statement 'There are no absolutes,' when in fact, that is an absolute statement. This is a little off-track already, but I think Christians miss the point when they point that out because the actual statement is not the basis of the entire worldview. Detractors could just retort with 'the only absolute is that there are none,' and all Christians would be left with is trembling lips.
Truth is an interesting concept: What constitutes as true? The aforementioned book that I am studying postulates that in the Bible, Jesus states that He is the way, the Truth, and the life. Jesus is truth, and the essence thereof. This is, in fact, a true statement. Jesus cannot lie, and therefore be the opposite of what is true, because untruth is imperfect. It would then also stand to reason, that since Jesus is truth and the essence of everything true, anything untrue with contradict with Jesus' divine nature.
The bigger question is: What divides truth from the falsehood? Where exactly does the line stand?
In the essay Playing With Fire by Walt Russell, he describes a growing epidemic in the general public of America, as well as America's churches: Relativism. As an example, he uses an adult Sunday school class to illustrate:
"Twenty-four year old 'Janet' was angry at my emphasis on seeking to discover authors' intentions when we read their texts. She was an evangelical Christian and a second grade teacher in a public school. She prided herself in helping her 20 students learn to love literature. She would read them a story as they gathered around her, and then ask each child, "What does the story mean to you?" She prodded them to come up with their own unique meanings. With such strong encouragement, the class of 20 would eventually have 20 different meanings for the one story. Janet sensed that I was opposed to such "love of literature." Pouring a little emotional gasoline on the fire, I said, "Janet, you're certainly doing your part to insure that these 7 year-olds will never recover from a radically relativistic view of meaning!""
Russell then goes on the describe the shift in literary perspective from the author to the text itself.
I get the feeling that I'm reaching for a cookie jar too high on the shelves with this attempt at coherency, but that was one of the hardest paragraphs I've ever had the displeasure of reading through. To realize that it was very true, and yet very false all at the same time. Is that up to me to decide? I'm not sure, but here's where I'm coming from:
I believe that the Bible is the infallible, true, God-breathed Scripture imparted to us to channel our relationship with God. And while some passages allow for interpretation, some scriptures can be very dangerous when taken out of context, especially when seeking personal justification. However, I fail to understand how the truth of Jesus Christ can render an interpretation of a piece of artwork untrue. I'm not just talking about paintings, I'm talking about stories, lyrics, and almost especially poems. On one hand, wonderful things such as these can be used to tell a story personal to the author, unraveling a thread of their existence, but on the other hand, regardless of what the author's intention was, when different people few the same piece of art, very different conclusions are always reached. Who are we to say that the way a person feels about a piece of artwork is wrong?
My mom and I were discussing this in the car, and she came up with this much simpler explanation:
"Is art God?"
"Well...obviously not."
"Then why should art hold to any standard of truth? Art is neither true nor untrue, but exists purely for the experience of the creator and the viewer both."
Well, I'd have to agree, except I just had to go and think about it some more. What about the crossover CCM bands that write truth about relationships with God, yet, oftentimes they will get misconstrued and interpreted as being a relationship with a girl?
I think I may be over analyzing at this point, but these were just a few thoughts I had.
Next post: You will find how much of a geek I actually am, and how much I am not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
