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."

So I've been arguing in YouTube comments again. Between Friday and today I had three separate conversations about predestination. All three conversations went almost exactly the same way (summarily), and it was uncanny.

In all  three conversations, I pointed at Romans 9:6-13, where it talks about how God chose Jacob rather than Esau before either of them had been born.

In all three, the responder said something to the effect of "Your views are unscriptural [no evidence provided]! A just God wouldn't do that.", which is really amazing, because that's exactly what Paul expects in Romans 9:14.

So then I pointed to the next section of Romans 9 (15-18), where it talks about how God predetermined to raise up Pharaoh and then harden his heart and kill him, presumably not sending him to heaven.

In all three discussions, the responder said something to the effect of "I've looked at Romans 9, and I've determined conclusively that you're interpreting it incorrectly [again, no verse references provided]. How can a just God punish someone when He predetermined/caused their actions?". At this point, my mind is totally blown. I want to assume that they aren't lying about reading the passage, and it would be weird for me to have three conversations with people who claimed to read the text but didn't, in such a short period, but it's like Romans 9 is the script and I'm just on the stage with them.

So I responded by saying "Let me know if this is a fair paraphrase of your question: 'How can he still find fault, because who can resist his will?'" And then, without waiting for a response, I pointed them to Romans 9:19+.

At this point, in the three conversations:
One of them stopped responding, and he was pretty quick so I think he's done.

One responded by saying "If what you say is true, then 2 Peter 3:8-10 should not be a part of the cannon..." at which point another fine Calvinist took the conversation over before I had a chance to respond. He said basically the same thing I would have said: that 2 Peter 3:8-10 is, in its context, about Jesus not returning until the full number of the saints has been saved.

And I'm waiting on a response from the last guy. He's slow, so I still expect a response from him.

Anyway, I just wanted to get that out, because it was really surreal.

"...a derivative will, a derivative choice..."

Saw this video and couldn't resist posting my knee-jerk responses to it...

OK, so my points in response to this:
1. The speaker demonstrates that he doesn't understand the libertarian political ideal.
2. By doing so, the speaker demonstrates that he is (a) not libertarian, and his statements show that he is, in fact, (b) biased against libertarianism in such a way that he will be unable to represent it fully, positively, and accurately.
3. The speaker's statements  are extremely dangerous (not to libertarian ideals, but to libertarians as individual people), and the sentiment expressed by the speaker is borderline dehumanizing.
4. (Conclusion) Under the guise of a study into how emotions cause breaches in judgment, the speaker has in fact, committed an emotional breach in judgment. This video is at once frightening and humorously ironic.

Now, to elaborate a little...
1. The speaker correctly identifies the Libertarian attitudes towards the federal government, saying "their chief concern is that the government leaves people alone, and sort-of accept that there will be winners and losers in an economic game". However, any libertarian will tell you that this explicitly pertains to the federal government, and that they expect and desire for local and state governments to create laws pleasing to the populace thereof (be they "big government" or "small government" laws at the state level, a libertarian will say that the choice belongs to the people of each state). Libertarians repeat ad nauseam that this is because of their commitment to the constitution. What does that mean? It means that their representation in the "5 moral categories" actually leans very heavily on the "tradition" category. Not only that, but they believe that the constitution establishes conditions which promote freedom and equity in states, which I think that any Libertarian will tell you represent a "pure" condition for the free government. That is to say, I think that libertarians hold the "purity" and "tradition" bars very high.

[This conclusion required that I utilize a definition of "purity" which is different from what was probably intended by the speaker. This leads to a point I might discuss in another blog. I think his "5 categories of morality" are either flawed in design or a fundamentally bad idea]

2. This point stands alone, I think, as a logical step, and needs either very little or very abstract support. I hope that my thoughts on the following statement from the video will suffice.

[There was a substantial bit of argument here, which I've removed because I made an interpretive mistake.]

3. Lastly, and again perhaps most importantly, this "academic" video, produced by a university, describes libertarians with statements such as "libertarians are psychologically different", "their worldview is not a deeply moral worldview", "they tend to be...self oriented.",  "They're lower in empathy", "They just don't feel other's pain" and (again) "You may be better able to accept life's losers the less you suffer vicariously with them". Issues...

First, the above statements describe a clinical narcissist directly. When applied to the entire group so called Liberatian, they are demonstrably not true.

Second, the statements are frightfully divisive. A gullible liberal who hears this speaker will become afraid of libertarians, because they are apparently heartless. A gullible libertarian hearing it will become afraid of everyone else, because he has just been painted in a way that should make others hostile to him. A conservative watching this ought to be confused, because libertarians are just far-right conservatives.

Third, the speaker has just dehumanized an entire political group ("libertarians are psychologically different"), and isolated them against two other political groups.


4. The conclusion, I think, requires no further elaboration.

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

Now, to finish out this post, I want to ask and answer the following questions with a sort of internal dialogue.

Q. Is this kind of narrative characteristic of  "left-wing media"?
A. Yes (Example: the above video)
Q. Is this kind of narrative characteristic of  "right-wing media"?
A. Yes (Example: everything Prager U says about "the left")
Q. Is this type of thinking catching on among consumers of media?
A. Yes. (Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxm57q8QZac)

And a question for everyone, to which I don't know the answer: Why?

Why are we doing this to ourselves? What are the possible outcomes?

Is it the case that people are not willing to listen to the "other side" as is so often alleged by every media outlet I listen to? I don't think that that it is the case. I think it's more likely that people have difficulty finding access to realistic (as in, not extremely confrontational to the point of dehumanizing the other party) sources of media. I think the reason it's difficult to find such access is because of the behavior of popular sites such as Google and Facebook who, now, prioritize results containing ideas with which the searcher is likely to agree. I think that it leads to people thinking that their own view is the majority view and also the view with which every sane person agrees.

Personally, I think I can say confidently that I experienced an analogous illusion because of my sheltered upbringing. I thought that the majority of people I would encounter outside of the home would be solid Christians. I thought that Christianity was the sole unchallenged opinion of the masses until I got into highschool. In school, I was bombarded with atheist challenges based in subjects for which I hadn't studied any answers. College was another bubble, but it was even worse when I graduated and went into the workforce. Not long into my new life, a homeless person invited me to a church where they talked with me through the wide variety of arguments I was hearing, and I think that I now recognize the trains of thought used both within and without Christianity. The fact that I continue to believe is neither cognitive dissonance nor lack of information, but rather a decided measurement of the evidence in favor of Christianity, guided and drawn by God Himself for my good. The point here is that I know what it's like to become disillusioned, and I think that a mass disillusioning is a sooncoming and manufactured necessity.

Alright, sorry about the rant. Consider this the first of my aforementioned political commentaries, but don't expect me to focus on politics often.

"A zero is always false, and everything else is true."

It struck me that some of my favorite poets hated those works of theirs which touched me most. There's nothing intrinsically bad about the last poem in the collection, which I intended not to post. In my previous post I said I "probably" wouldn't post this.... I'm going to go ahead and post it. This one is actually the last item in the collection written by me. The collection included one poem written by someone else; I definitely won't be posting that one here, unless maybe I find out who wrote it. It was a good poem, though -- I liked it.

Here it is. It's called "goodbye mockingbird".

---------------------
scattered like dry leaves from an opening door
piled into a circle, to watch a newborn traveler

yesterday feels like a dream and it is apparent
that today will be more real than ever

this isn't the first time, and it won't be the last
my feet leave the ground, but are firmly planted
in the imaginings of a faithful engineer, long dead

there is a God, and he floats over the world
much like this, i wonder if he sees what I see
brilliantly fading landscape, horizons blue and red

all i hear is your voice

i haven't heard it in so long

my dim memory

reading this letter

over
and over
again

the song of the seagull. this place was never home

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

It's about leaving Texas to go to Utah (home from school). I moved a lot because my dad was military. Every place I've ever lived felt like home except for Utah. In Alabama, where I spent 7th-9th grade, I had a lot of friends who were into bad stuff (for example, one of my close friends, a girl I liked back then, missed the fourth quarter of our freshman year because she was in juvenile detention. Her dad was beating her, and she got hold of a baseball bat and seriously tried to kill him. I guess the neighbors stopped her and called the cops or something. The dad was sent to the hospital, and I never heard the end of the story because I never got to talk to her again. That's just an example. I still sometimes think she would have been better off if she succeeded). Those people and their problems never bothered me, because they cared openly about me and were kind to me even while others at the same school were literally pushing me down. They were legitimately doing whatever they knew how to do to cope with their extreme circumstances. They did drugs and had sex and did other bad stuff sometimes, but I understood, and I loved them.

In Utah, I met a behaviorally analogous group who had literally no discernible difficulties in life, and I hated them. I knew their parents and their LDS church. I knew how they spent their spare change and their lazy days, etc.. They were basically upper-middle class kids in a small town who were just bored and unruly. I couldn't stand being around them; I couldn't stand hearing them joke about the drugs they might do after school; I couldn't stand seeing them in the hallway boldly insisting to their female classmates that they allow them to touch their breasts, while the teachers were somehow completely oblivious. When Gavin moved away and left me there alone for my senior year, my world turned totally grey. I hung out with Dylan, Tommy, and Tyler, but Tyler super easily angered and was constantly being falsely accused of causing trouble and receiving penalties for it; Tommy kept making the same exact jokes over and over, and telling us about the good feelings that Mormon Jesus gives him, and Dylan was so reasonable that I felt ashamed of myself whenever I was around him. My brother and sister were both away in college, and my parents were broken enough that they got divorced almost as soon as I went to college, and dad ran off with some LDS woman (lips dripping honey, I'm sure). I remember 10-12 grade as the period in my life where I felt most lonely, but also as the period in my life where I was most judgmental and prideful. What an ass I was.

Maybe the reason I don't like this poem is because my family made me read it at a family reunion once, but I was sick and had no voice, so I couldn't read it and my mom read it instead of me. I was so upset about how I couldn't give it the intonation I wanted, that I teared up a little while she read, and my little cousin said loudly to everyone "He's crying! He's crying!" (not to make fun, but to accent how emotional he thought I was about the poem itself). I was so so so so embarrassed about it, and I can't read this poem without remembering that moment.

I've always cried easily. Not like bawling and moaning and sniffling, but my eyes get watery almost every time I'm backed into a corner or forced to be 100% transparent/sincere... Also pretty much any time I'm angry. If I am who I want to be, then it's because I have a lot of things I wish I could do in those emotionally intense moments, but restraining myself forces my thoughts out of my eyes. Realistically, I think I really just have weak tear ducts. Maybe I'm a wimp.

Come to think of it, a lot of my behavior is characteristic of wimpiness. I debate atheists online, cry easily, and write angsty poems.... but I debate in person, too! and I'm rarely incapable of admitting when someone has soundly shown me I'm wrong. There's evidence of that in my YouTube videos, where I conceded a debate openly after the first time I was rebutted. What a shame! But I can tolerate it and learn from it. I'm better every time I fail. What is it to be a man? I think manliness is characterized by conviction and humility -- a balance of stubborn adherence to what we believe is right and pliable willingness to admit when we're wrong, requiring wisdom, self control, patience, and self-awareness. 

"Who are we?"

This is probably the last poem I'll post from the collection. There are two more poems in the collection from my friend, including this one, but I really really really dislike the other one, so I'll probably not post it. My previous blog was pretty much skirting the line between "will-" and "won't-" post.

I used to participate in poetry slams at LeTU. I wrote this to read at the very last slam, so it has a slightly different feel. I brought a muffin to the front with me as a prop when I read it, and I tried to sound serious until the end of the poem..

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

The Shepherd of the Skies, a black colossus,
issues his command and the heavens coalesce
and the beast of the earth scatter
His many inseparable voices are the music of heaven,
the whisper of wind and the thought breaking thunder
inspire terror and peace simultaneously
We don't sway to its rhythm,
But we anticipate every beat
by its fast, flashing messenger
The most powerful display on earth
respected and feared by all of creation
God's masterpiece
ushers in the humble rain,
to nurture the ground
for our sustenance
*reader takes a bite of some food and smiles*
Delicious!

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

I called it "fit for an heir to the throne", but I don't think I told the audience about the name when I read it.

I'm increasingly concerned lately about how much time my work is about to take away from my time with Chowon. I know that our relationship will be able to handle it, but I'm really thinking hard about how I will be able to show my love to her meaningfully during the time apart..... and I seriously, seriously suck at coming up with ideas for this sort of thing. Maybe I'll devote some of my creative efforts to poetry about love for God and wife for a while.... but I'm worried that I'll run out of creative juices; not because she fails to inspire, but because I fail to come up with adequate descriptions which are various. Anyway, even when I was writing poems at peak speed, it was only like one per two months.

The angels proved that variety in metaphor isn't necessarily the only way to describe something deep and wonderful when they praised God by literally repeating the same phrase over and over and over, with only two distinct adjectives in it, "Holy holy holy is the Lord God Almighty". However, God still tells us to "sing to the Lord a new song", and that His temple should be made by "the work of skilled craftsmen", indicating by my estimation that we, images of the creator, can honor God by being creative and producing new and various worship. Perhaps the reason the angels were so monosyntactic was because they were not created in the image of God. All that to say, I'm really struggling at expressing love adequately these days, and the impending separation isn't making it easier.

By impending separation, I refer to an actually really amazing opportunity which I've been given to go work for [RETRACTED] for 4 months. I'm excited about it, but also extremely nervous, because it will be my first foray into programming with Siemens TIA Portal, and I don't know anything about the work I'll be doing yet, except that it will be basically just me doing the work. I'm told I will have someone reviewing my work for quality control during the first few weeks, but it doesn't make me less nervous. In any case, I'm super excited about the nature of the opportunity, as well as the client, and I intend to give it my best effort

Also, I just started watching Rick and Morty, and I'm really enjoying it a lot.

.... and I'm kinda in the mood for beer atm.

Alrighty, that's it for today. Pray for me that I'll share the gospel with my coworker.

"Peace and Love"

My supply of poems is nearly exhausted. I'm sure that I've written plenty of other poems, but my friend supplied me with my favorites, so I don't expect that I'll be searching them out more once I exhaust this list.

This poem, in particular, was not one of my favorites. I am only posting this here because it was kept by my friend. I'll comment more about it at the bottom. When you trudge through this, know that I'm wincing as I paste it in. Its name makes me too transparent, so I won't write it here.

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

When I was strong, you made me weak
by teaching me shame
When I was brave, you made me afraid
by teaching me heartache

A black and white bird:
"you look so familiar."
"is that what you heard?"
This river flows through us.

"that never happened."
Were both of us liars?
What was our passion?
"you're playing with fire"

When I was intelligent, you made me confused
by teaching me curiosity
When I was adventurous, you made me content
by showing me love

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

Bleck! There it is. I wrote it around the time I was in highschool, and so it's in the style that I utilized at that time. The uninterpretable nonsense in the middle, riddled with cliche and vague references to a then-recent relationship, is characteristic of my style at the time. It reflects a period I'm sure everyone goes through wherein I had a lot of angst, but wasn't quite able to articulate why. The first and last stanzas convey misapprehensions of my own experiences, which I now suppose were misapprehended even yet, and which I'd like to think time has clarified, but I'm still not sure about how much legitimacy can be justly lent to a person's pubescent emotions. Don't people often mention and dramatize the "magic" of "young love"? But isn't the "magic" of those emotions simply a product of young people's misunderstandings about the same emotions? Often when we don't understand the things we're experiencing, we attribute wonder to them.

Speaking of magic and pimples, I've taken the dive and brought my nerdiness to new heights. My coworkers started a game of D&D, and they asked me to DM. Most of them had never played, and the ones who have played lacked confidence, so I'm learning both to play and to DM at the same time. This Saturday will be my third "session" (where sessions are usually about 5 hours long). When I first started researching it, I wasn't aware of the wealth of pre-made adventures online, or their merits, so I made a "world" with some things happening in it. This has naturally led to the characters discovering several nooks that I never bothered to think about in my world, and I'm getting better at preparing as well as BSing my way out of those.

Also, I'm in Atlanta, GA right now, attending a training event for my work. It's at once very interesting and very boring. I'm truly riveted by every idea proceeding from the mouth of my presenter, if only I can stay awake. I miss Chowon, but I knew that we would spend time apart now and then because of my work, and so I'm not threatened by the experience of being separated. I trust God for her safety.

"Good job finding a rental car."