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."

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."