Spitefully ignoring the irony which eclipses this otherwise excellent poem, I want to share a passage from Paradise Lost, book 5. In this chapter, the devil has assembled all angels under his command and used the authority and prominence given to him by God to incite his audience to rebellion. One angel from among the crowd rebels against Satan in order to return to God. This is the angel Abdiel giving his monologue (the first part is the introduction to the monologue). Abdiel's name means "Servant of God".

----

The Deitie, and divine commands obeid,
Stood up, and in a flame of zeale severe
The current of his fury thus oppos'd.

O argument blasphemous, false and proud!
Words which no eare ever to hear in Heav'n
Expected, least of all from thee, ingrate
In place thy self so high above thy Peeres.
Canst thou with impious obloquie condemne
The just Decree of God, pronounc't and sworn,
That to his only Son by right endu'd
With Regal Scepter, every Soule in Heav'n
Shall bend the knee, and in that honour due
Confess him rightful King? unjust thou saist
Flatly unjust, to binde with Laws the free,
And equal over equals to let Reigne,
One over all with unsucceeded power.
Shalt thou give Law to God, shalt thou dispute
With him the points of libertie, who made
Thee what thou art, and formd the Pow'rs of Heav'n
Such as he pleasd, and circumscrib'd thir being?
Yet by experience taught we know how good,
And of our good, and of our dignitie
How provident he is, how farr from thought
To make us less, bent rather to exalt
Our happie state under one Head more neer
United. But to grant it thee unjust,
That equal over equals Monarch Reigne:
Thy self though great and glorious dost thou count,
Or all Angelic Nature joind in one,
Equal to him begotten Son, by whom
As by his Word the mighty Father made
All things, ev'n thee, and all the Spirits of Heav'n
By him created in thir bright degrees,
Crownd them with Glory, and to thir Glory nam'd
Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Vertues, Powers,
Essential Powers, nor by his Reign obscur'd,
But more illustrious made, since he the Head
One of our number thus reduc't becomes,
His Laws our Laws, all honour to him done
Returns our own. Cease then this impious rage,
And tempt not these; but hast'n to appease
Th' incensed Father, and th' incensed Son,
While Pardon may be found in time besought.

Today I feel like complaining, but I don't have any complaints that I feel are worth mentioning.

I wrote another poem for my wife, but I'll post it later maybe. I've already given it to her.

I feel like I'm bridging the gap between blogging because I'm stressed and being too stressed to blog. I think that a hot cup of tea would be about right to help stave off the blues.

The time that me and Chowon have been apart is now about 4 weeks, and we have two weeks to go before I can return home for a week. It's not a really really long time, but she has made it clear that she doesn't like it. I'm glad that this business trip won't be 4 months, but only 2 months.

I'm blogging on the phone during my late lunch break, and I think my lunch break is done.

"If you are looking for their best interests, then they will not be offended"

I'm still traveling for business. Today I was going to attend an OPC church, but it looks like they got shut down. Instead, I attended a Methodist church -- I really like Methodists, and I'm led to believe that they are a saved denomination (so they must be Trinitarian, Sola Fide, etc), but I know little about their deeper theological ideas. All I know about them is that they emphasize the method: charity, outreach, etc.. And that is a good thing.

I took the "political compass" quiz today for fun. I thought that some of the questions pertained to particular aspects of a subject without acknowledging other important aspects of the same subject, betraying the author's assumptions about political stereotypes. When I read some of the questions, I thought "I don't agree with you, but I don't agree with the alternative that I'm sure you're expecting me to believe if I say 'I disagree'". However, I guess it wasn't too wrong in the end, placing me at near-center right-libertarian. Here's the results page.

I take some issue with the axes on this compass. I don't think they are an adequate means of defining political ideas....

...and actually, the more I've been thinking about these things, the more I think that the distinction between political ideas and moral convictions is artificial. I'm tempted to wonder if there is any decision at all which can be absolutely separated from moral consideration, but given that I believe that morality is a clear and absolute standard, the implications of that would mean that there is literally only one perfect way of thinking, feeling, and being..... and.... well..... ..... isn't that the case? Wasn't Jesus the standard of perfection in every way? (I'm talking about ways of thinking and making decisions. Physical distinctions are involuntary and are not a part of this consideration at all).

Now, it's important for me to note that it is possible for me to hold the view that there is only one absolutely perfect and correct way to be, think, act, believe, and prefer, without it being necessary that I know all the details about what defines that absolutely perfect and correct way. And, that said, I don't completely understand the correct way. I know a few things about it, like that it's wrong to murder and stuff, but I'm not about to tell everyone that they need to be just like me by any means (although I do intend to tell everyone that they need to be just like Jesus).

Anyway, back onto the political thing. I have very specific social, economic, national and penal ideas which are rejected by people on all parts of the left-right spectrum. I also have very specific ideas about authority structures which are rejected by both the left and the right. I want a third axis.

Uhm... some examples. Just a few quick ones.... don't try to use these to draw broader conclusions outside the meanings of the words themselves, alone and directly. Obviously these might leave some questions on your mind, so know that my ideal system isn't entirely represented by the following few paragraphs.

Social ideas: I think that the government has no business telling a small business owner "you have to serve everyone who comes to buy something from you.". That means that a business owner should be able to refuse business to young, old, white, black, gay, straight, or annoying people at his own discretion, with or without needing to provide the reason. (I think it's morally wrong for a person to refuse business to some customer because of race, etc, but I think it should be the person's prerogative).

Economics: I think that it should be illegal for Americans to give loans to other Americans with interest; that if a person cannot pay off his loans on time then it should be treated as theft; that once every 7 years all debts should be forgiven and that business should be conducted with that in mind. I also think that there should be zero government handouts, and that taxes should be 100% voluntary. If you want someone to help you pay for some kind of government project, you should convince them that it's worth their money, and if they don't pay then don't include them in it.

Nationalism: I think that we shouldn't have any kind of border control at all. I think that citizenship should be defined by participation in the community, and that said participation should be clearly defined by things like public gatherings, community projects, holidays and communal celebrations on the local level. I think that local communities should vote for their local government, and their local government should tally their votes for national affairs, but that the primary focus should be localized.

Penal sanctions: I think that jail is an unjust, non-beneficial, and utterly ridiculous penalty for any crime, especially since bail means that all sentences are reducible to fines if you are wealthy enough. I think that the major and common penalties should be basically be the following three items, with a few exceptions: fines (with indentured service if you can't pay off the fine; which service ends when the debt is paid or on the 7th year, whichever comes first); whipping (with a literal whip, not more than 40 lashes for any one sentencing ever); and the death penalty (for kidnapping or stealing a person, rape, and murder). Furthermore, I think that penal sanctions should be executed by the civilian community under the direction of the local officials, and not by an organized policing agency (how this works out is a little complex, so maybe another blog for it).

Authority structures: I think we should have a more numerically careful distribution of judicial authorities (judges and districts). Also, I think that a clean set of laws should be established and then left alone, completely removing the legislative branch, so that the written law is understandable by the common man, and so that the written law is king; I think that the Bible is capable of functioning as said law book. I think that, while precedents can be considered in a court case, they are not laws, and so they are not binding on the judge or jury (except any examples given in the law book itself to help explain the intentions of its authors). To this end, every elementary school student should be taught to read and should be expected to read the law book at least once per year -- it should be small enough that they are able to do it more often than that if they want.

So, I don't think I'm really a libertarian, but I agree with them most of the time when we're talking about the role of the federal government, especially as it pertains to things which need to immediately change in the American federal government. The place where I disagree with libertarians is when we talk about the role of the local government, and the nature of a nation state, and the way that local and national governments should interact with one another.

"I forgive you."

Blogging from my phone tonight because I'm at a restaurant.

Fido, the pet spider at the bottom of my blog, died semi recently. The site that hosted him stopped being. Also I only feed him like once or twice per year.... I guess, as far as spiders go, he lived a long life.

I scrubbed references to the company I'm working for out of my blog because [can't tell the reason]. I wrote those posts before it mattered, but I want to be above reproach.

Anyway, still working for them, and it's awesome.

Oh! My food is here. Bye

Wanted to drop this short one here...

I call this one "The Course".

------------------

I am dust falling through the heavens.

I don't know if I will be seen or found.

My course is directed, not by me.

I do not make a sound.

------------------

Still on the cosmic theme, I guess. Predestination and temporal fulfillment are on my mind. God destines some to eternal joy, others to eternal misery, and the causes for each are plain. Earth is a protracted irony, with wicked men trampling the poor in their path to power and wealth, their path to damnation. This while the righteous give what they have to the poor, leaving precious little for themselves on earth. The only way a righteous man can have what he wants is for him to want nothing except what he already has, and in having that he gains an eternal reward beyond his expectations. Peace in the heart is a mystery that I cannot comprehend.

Btw, (I think I've complained about this before, but) I'm really bothered lately with YouTube's inexplicable algorithms for filtering and censoring conversations. I can't discuss a controversial topic online without either me or the other person losing our comments. And YouTube doesn't give you any warning when it filters your comment; as long as you are logged in you will see it and think that it posted without issue, but the person with whom you're speaking will think that you just never responded. What a ridiculous system, contravening the free exchange of knowledge, which invariably requires controversial interaction so that all arguments can be answered. YouTube is an irony; censoring free expression in the name of free expression..

In my daily life, I generally go to work, home, church, and sometimes the gym. Of those four places, church and home are the only two where I feel like it's culturally acceptable for me to express my beliefs about God openly, and in those two places everyone basically agrees with me. Where is the Areopagus? Where can I go to talk in person with people who disagree with me?

I wish I had an open-mic coffee shop nearby that I could go to... Some place where people could get up and have 10 minutes to vent their stupid opinions, and then have a 5 minute Q/A; a place where those same people could arrange for a time to have informal, optionally moderated debates on said opinions; what a cool place that would be. Someday, if I ever get enough money, I'm gonna open that coffee shop and call it Areopagus Coffee.

And, still on a Luvbird kick, here's another song of theirs that I like:


"I don't think anyone can really know."

I said a while ago that I wanted to get into writing love poems for my wife. Here's the first one.

------------------------------

My wife is the moon,
I carefully observe her movements.

When I am dark,
she illuminates the world for me.

She is brightest and most beautiful
in the light of His countenance.

A light too bright to see,
she gracefully reflects it to me.

I bring her with me near the sun
in hopes of seeing her again.

To attain to that pure beauty,
I can only pursue.

She draws near to me,
and I am moved.

It is the pattern of her own volition,
the sweet consequence of God's gift to us.

I reach out to her with all my strength,
I sing my sweetest melodies to communicate my love.

The ocean turns violently around me;
the wind fills my atmosphere.

The clouds do not hide you from me;
I feel you near me, even when it is dark.

I will never stop loving you;
your presence shows the light of God to me.

------------------------------

I call it "Mirror of my Spirit" -- because that's what my wife is to me, reflecting God's heart into my life, completing my joy, and demonstrating to me through her nature the fullness of God's grace.

I haven't given it to her yet. I know she reads this sometimes, so whether she reads it here first or reads the handwritten copy I'll make for her, I hope she is blessed by it.

ETA: Forgot to mention, really liking this song right now.


"사랑하고 축복합니다."

Got a few things on my agenda tonight.

First of all, I realized that in my "knee jerk" reaction to that political post, I ignored the word "vicarious", which sort of makes a big difference. I intend to correct it for intellectual honesty. Nonetheless, that mistake pertains to one of my several objections, and I think that my premise stands.

Up next, I watched the movie "Patema Inverted" today. It was really disorienting, and left me thinking a lot, but it was a really well-done and intelligent movie. I recommend it. My only complaint is that they made some unnecessary ties to religion, and painted it in a negative light overall.

I also did some practice tests for my training, walked to panera bread for breakfast, hiked up a mountain, got lost in the woods, met some deer, and then participated in a beer mug holding contest at a bar we found while we were walking around; they served a great oktoberfest with brats and weisswurst. It was a really fun day overall.

In the past week, despite my wants, I have not been able to get myself into bed before 1:30AM. Right now, for example, it's 1:30AM and I'm blogging.

I also had an interesting conversation with an atheist. He had a long list of objections, and when I answered one of them he would not respond to my answer, but would just move on to his next objection. I wished he would either focus on one thing until he was satisfied, or acknowledge that my answer was satisfying. He had already read the NT, and he said that he refuses to touch the OT (which I called him out on, using some passages where Jesus upholds the OT). He already thought that predestination was a necessary part of Christianity, and one of his main issues was that he couldn't wrap his mind around how, just because someone doesn't believe right now it doesn't mean that they are nonelect.

In any case, that conversation was especially interesting because of the way it tailed nicely on my other conversations about Romans. During the talk, we touched on the bulk of Romans leading up to Romans 9, and then he said, "The Bible teaches that God predestines people, and this makes me think that man has nothing to do with it. Nobody is saved by hearing the Gospel, only by receiving the HS. But the Bible also teaches that we have to choose to be saved. They can't both be true." (it's a paraphrase; his post was much longer than that). This was really awesome because it gave me the opportunity to bring up Romans 10.

God here says, through Paul, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? ... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

The point is, God determines both *who* will be saved, and also *how* they will be saved.
Who: All of the elect who God chose before the world began.
How: By hearing the word of God and believing in it.
Every cause and effect was planned by God before He created the world.

One more thing he asked, though, and I didn't have a very satisfying answer for it. Here's the question and the response I gave:

He asked, "Why does God slowly sanctify His elect, piece by piece, rather than completely sanctifying them." And he suggested that this indicates that God isn't powerful.

My answer was, "The issue here is that you're thinking in terms of time. God does a complete work, but he decided that it would be accomplished in time. As to why God did it with time, as opposed to some other inconceivable substance -- He's the artist, and I'm just a self-observing piece of art. He's an infinite God, and I trust that His reasons are perfect."

This answer isn't all that satisfying, because I didn't actually tell him "why". I only told him "what". It's like a scientific answer. The scientist says, "the apple falls because gravity pulls it down", and I said, "we're sanctified slowly because it's what God chose". Neither statement answers "why", both statements answer "what". Neither me nor the scientist can explain "how" really either, (though we can try). We only know "what".

But somehow I wish that "what" was enough. I wish that I could answer to every question, "well, God did it that way and I trust him and it's enough for me".... but then my ways of thinking would be no better than those of an atheist.

As a Christian, I want my ways of reasoning to be better than nonChristian ways, because I base my thoughts on a better foundation; I want my thoughts to be worthy of the new heart and new mind which God has given me and on which God has written his law. Even when I am not reasoning through a problem, I can use my idle thoughts in a better and more God honoring way by following the teachings of God on how we are to conduct our thoughts:

   Philippians 4:8 - "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
   2 Corinthians 10:5 - "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"
   Psalm 1:1-2 - "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night."

God commands us to learn about him, and Jesus demonstrates to us that we may learn about God by examining His creative expressions of Himself. Jesus says, "consider the flowers" and "consider the birds", and makes several agricultural analogies; proverbs also says "consider the ant" and talks often about the nature of different substances like honey, and the behavior of some animals. These comparisons teach us about God so that we can know him better, whereby we are enabled to answer "why" and "how".

I guess in the end, "why" becomes "to teach us ___" or "to express ___ quality of God to us", which is always reducible to "For God's glory". So "how" becomes the more difficult question, but for moral and spiritual issues at least, the Bible seems to give the answers to "how".

"May it be a sweet sweet sound in your ears"

Today is Sunday, and I don't want to go to church.

First of all, I'm in the prayer group, and a guy there asked me to be his best man, and I told him I would do it, then I was totally inflexible for a while, and then I told him I couldn't do it anymore. He still has 5 months before the wedding, so I expect he'll have no trouble finding someone else, but I feel like a total jerk for the way it played out. He has every right to be mad at me, but he's only blessed me, and I've got coals on my head. I wish we could get together and spar out the awkwardness, but really I just need to get over myself.

Also, ever since we got married, Chowon and I have had discussions about going to a more "international" church. In short, I wish I could change things in that way.... but I've been postponing the inevitable leave.

In some way, I think could say, "I wish I knew a way out of this church", because I do want to leave and go somewhere where I can find down-to-earth friends who practice their Christianity simply, and where the whole church body gathers more often to put more emphasis on prayer and song... But there are two major things keeping me here:

First, because I've never been to a church like this, where they have shown me how to love reading 4-volume textbooks on theology written by ancient nerds; where my pastor boasts that he has a library of antichrisian literature that would make Dawkins jealous, and encourages us to read and discuss the same so that we can find our beliefs to be true and always be prepared with an answer; where I am shown clear and direct applications of broad and basic Biblical teachings to modern politic. I am worried that if we go anywhere else, then I'll end up at a church just like the one I grew up in: my dad's church, where the 3-point sermons intentionally avoided any text or doctrine which might be controversial. It's not a bad model necessarily, but it's not a good one either, because it leaves everyone in the church (including the pastor apparently) vulnerable to any gust of unknown teaching. I'm still learning about those verses that are controversial and why, and I'm not finished making my own opinions. I don't feel ready to leave this environment.

Secondly, even though the people here are weird, and the ones I get along with are impossible to have a less-than-10-minute-conversation with, because they won't stop talking... the fact is I care about those people and they care about me. That said, if I suddenly leave without good reason, then I run the risk of hurting people I care about. Leaving a home-church without physically moving to a new town is something people typically do after a conflict, or when they find they have irreconcilable disagreements with a non-adiaphoral teaching of the leadership and those teachings are not being called into question by the diaconate or other accountability structure in place. None of those are true, and so if I leave without moving to another state, then I will be asked "why" by my friends, and the only reason left is "because of the people". That translates in my mind to, "I am unwilling to confront my neighbors about something they are doing which I dislike enough to leave". But the thing we would be confronting them about is not something they are responsible for, and it isn't even the case that we don't like them. It is just their own lack of diversity. I feel like I should have a better answer for them.

Last thing, a followup on my previous blog:

Two of the conversants never responded. The third told me "You're wrong about Romans 9. Romans 9 needs to be interpreted carefully in its context. It's about our inherent sin nature" (that's a quote. No references from the text were given.). To which I responded, "please be more specific. Don't just tell me broadly what it is about, but show me that it means what you say by utilizing the meanings of the words in the text. For example, what does 'For who can resist his will' have to do with our inherent sin? And why does Paul anticipate that question after what he said about Pharaoh in the preceding passage?" That was on Tuesday, and no response, so I think the conversation is done.

"You can never be harmed."