fun directions

Alright, got an email from someone with these simple directions:

1) go to Google Maps
2) click on "get directions"
3) in "from" section type "New York"
4) in "to" section type "London"
5) check out direction number 23!

yeah, I really want to know who at google got the crazy idea to put that in there.

I'm a Dad!!!

Yep, it's official. Zachary Keaton Jones arrived yesteray morning (that's right, Easter Sunday!) at 9:05 am, clocking in at 8 lbs and 9 ozs, at 20.5 inches from head to toe! A little scary at the last minute because of an emergency ceasarean, but everybody is fine and dandy now. And I'm lovin' being a dad!

Best bet or not?

I really enjoy when people give me feedback on any of my blogs, especially when they disagree. I always a love a good conversation where opposing views can get expressed. I did get a good response from my last post. I guess one of the things I want to avoid in approaching my "religion" or my pursuit of Christ is this post-modern mindset of "spirituality", which seems to transmute any belief system into some sort of journey wherein you are transformed into a better man. I think the danger is wherein my relationship with Christ suddenly becomes about me being a better man. The reality is that should be a result of my relationship and belief in Christ, not a purpose or goal. And I do think that most people would agree with me, but the emphasis in their mind still is skewed.

Christ came to reconcile man to himself, not to make man better. There is a heretical view being propogated of late that emphasizes Christ's example. The danger is it makes light of the cross and the resurrection. This view says that Christ came to show us a new way to live, and it is his example we must follow. We must believe in what he believed in.

But Paul saw things differently. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19 that if Christ was not raised from the dead, then our faith is useless, and we are still in our sins. Paul concludes by saying that if we can only hope in Christ in this life, then we are the most miserable people in the world.

So if you like to think of Christianity as your "best bet" for this life, we may have to agree to disagree. For I fear that puts us too much in the drivers seat: let us evaluate all belief systems and what they offer, let us make what we seems to be the best choice. What if it doesn't deliver up to our expectations. What if we wake up one morning and realized the depravity of our sins, and that there is nothing we can do to change who we are?

I see Christ as the answer to that last question. For I am depraved, and my sins are many and deep. I have been estranged from God. But there is Christ, and in him alone do I trust. For it was he who died to reconcile me to God, not that I might live better, but that I might draw near to God and worship as I should (see the entire book of Hebrews).

My only Hope

Just read an interesting article wherein Rick Warren (celebrated christian pastor and author) was brought together with Sam Harris. The latter of which is apparently a very intelligent atheist who has recently written a book attacking religion, and I think specifically Christianity. Overall, I thought the conversation was very interesting. Lately I have found that I am slightly wary of Warren's ecclesiology, primarily because of the way he has structured his church. In what I have been studying of late, it appears to me that he has strayed from the biblical example of what a church should be, delving slightly into a post-modern mindset and organization. Thusly I was curious what he would say to defend the faith.

Overall, I think Warren did a pretty good job of "defending the faith" against Harris' attack. I think what most christian's understand (or should understand) and non-believers can't quite grasp is that there is an innate element of foolishness to Christianity. Paul harps on this theme throughout his writings (1 Corinthians 1:18 and the following paragraphs). If you want to have a "logical, rational discussion" about Christianity with a non-believer, there is this bottom line problem, that at some point you will hit that line of foolishness that the nonbeliever cannot cross without the help of the Holy Spirit.

What scares me about Warren's defence is that he summed it up by stating, "We're both betting." One of the pastors I'm interning under made an interesting statement this past week, that if all Christianity is is a bet, then that is a sad state of things. That following Christ, if Christ be a liar and the bible false, would be a great waste of a life. I think I understand that logic. For if this is all I have, this life and nothing more, then I do see that all is meaningless, and therefore the thing I must do is get the most I can for myself out of it. It's survival of the fittest and in that every man for himself - altruism has no rational foundation outside of God and eternity, and there I think Harris is a complete fool. He wants to believe in eternal purposes, but not an eternal God.

I am betting the ranch on Christ. All I have. If I am wrong, if there is no God and the bible false, then I have lost everything. My hope is Christ alone, and in him do I glory and trust.

Lesbian wanting to undo a gay adoption?!

interesting article about a lesbian who had a child with her "partner" through artificial insemination...and she's now claiming the courts shouldn't have let her partner adopt her child (something she originally pushed the court to do).

Is the outrage she has raised among that homosexual community at all concerned with the child in this situation, or are they only irate over the fact that she seems to be pushing for something which could "set gay rights back a century"?

What seems even more interesting here is the morality of the situation. Are the people dictating to the court what should be allowed (and thusly moral), or is the court dictating to the people what is right (and thusly moral). Or are there just laws with morality floating out there somewhere in the air, sometimes being reflected in law, sometimes not?

Finally, how can those who have no moral authority outside themselves expect others to accept and adhere to the morality they prescribe when that individual, on the same grounds as the first, has established his or her own morality which conflicts with that of the first?

If everyone can determine his or her own morality, is there any absoluteness at all about morality? If there can be no absoluteness about morality, why do we even worry about the facade of maintaining it?

cool little program...

Found this new program on PCWorld.com. It's called "Launchy". You can find it on launchy.net. Basically, it's a rip off the Windows Vista function which allows you to hit the 'windows' key and type in a program name and the OS searches for the program it thinks you will want to open. "Launchy" works the same way, but in XP, and with a different key combination to open it. Pretty snazzy. I think it's a pretty cool way to open programs, because, I don't know about ya'll, but I hate opening the start menu and having to go through all those different folders and programs to find the one I want.

Not sure if you'll enjoy this, but it's worth checking out. Completely free. Let me konw what you think about it. I'm going to put it in the "free stuff" section of my website within the next few days.

A little crunch in the Chicken Helper...

Alrighty, interesting story, if you care... I was making some Hamburger Helper last night. First thing I changed was the meat, because my wife didn't feel like beef, so we substituted chicken. All we had were chicken tenders, and I wasn't sure how many would have made up a pound - so I guessed. I think I was a little short of a pound in that arena. I was making the cheesey enchilada meal - which is very good, I might add. It doesn't use noodles, but rather an interesting form of rice.

To make a long story short, after following all the directions and letting it simmer for awhile, it still had a "soupy" consistency. I figured that probably due to switching to chicken and me maybe not using enough meat, I needed less water to make the meal. Oh well, couldn't go back, so I had to figure out something to contribute to help soak of this excess liquid. Ah, I though, I know. I'll just add some rice (since noodles seemed to be contradictory with the rice). So I grabbed some rice off the shelf - it looked the same as the rice that had come with the original hamburger helper meal.

So the rice did the trick nicely and helped soak up the excess liquid. When I told my wife what I had done, I'll admit, I was a little proud of my clever solution to the problem. She, on the other hand, was quite dubious, stopping short of laughing out loud (which was very tactful of her, I might add).

Finally we pray and eat, she allowing me to be the guinea pig for my creation. Not so bad, I say, just a wee bit 'o crunch to the meal.

Yeah, that's right, "crunch" and hamburger helper aren't really supposed to go hand in hand. I don't think I've ever chewed a Helper meal so much. I think we spent the first 5 minutes of our meal laughing between bites because it was just so, well, weird.

So, all you Helper manics out there, note that the rice which comes in the Helper meal is not the same as that which resides on the shelves in your kitchen. Though, if you want a meal with a little different "feal", you might want to try adding it in...

Beatbox Mario!

Okay folks, this just rocks and I had to share it!

Beatboxing Mario Bros Theme

Leadership thoughts

I don't know how many of you watched the UNC vs. NC State game the other night (I think it was Wednesday night), but I found the difference between the first half of the game and the second half of the game amazing. NC State, which was pretty much overall regarded as the underdog and least likely to win, was staying head to head with UNC, but during the half-time the NC State coach collapsed and was taken to the hospital (no sweat, he's fine now). The assistant coach had to finish coaching the game. The craziest part was that State then proceeded to lose by around 20 points. What was the difference? I'd say leadership. Of course there are a million variables, including an amazing coach for UNC, who might have just figured out how to take out NC State.

But the most significant difference I saw was leadership and motivation. First point I want to make is that if the NC State team had no head coach their performance would have remained steady, because there would not have been a massive shift in leadership to upset the team's equilibrium. But the downside of that is that the team would not have been able to perform to the maximum of their potential without a coach. So a simple understanding would be that with leadership they were able to far exceed their capabilities without it, but when the leadership was removed, their performance dropped below where it would have been had they been playing without a leader/coach all along.

Secondly, motivation. A good leader can motivate his team. I'm not saying anything bad about the assistant coach. The poor guy had to step in on one of the toughest, fired up games of the year and try to inspire a team who had just seen their coach collapse. But the real teller was the way the team played the second half, like a ship with no sails. They lost all control of the game, they were only responding. A good leader motivates, an incredible leader empowers his people so that at some point they don't need him anymore - they can go and do without him because he has given them what they need and they no longer depend on him. College athletes aren't necessarily expected to quite operate at this level, but the evidences of great leadership at the college level emerge further down the path of a college athlete's life.

I know the lack of a head coach is not the sole reason NC State lost the game, but I think it was a major contributing factor. Something to be noted for it's effects.

Different way to say it...

"I'm not complaining, I'm just expressing my negative opinion!"

Attention span

I was thinking yesterday (since my job is pretty brainless, I do pretty much nothing else but think through many different random things while I work). One thought that popped out was that our modern attention span may have shortened more dramatically than to the supposed 22 minutes most claim it to have shrunk to. They make this claim because of the numerous half hour shows which fill up the channels on TV. These shows, minus the commercials, run on average around 22 minutes. This phenomenon has made many public speakers rethink their presentations so that they do not run past the 22 minute mark, because supposedly the public begins to quickly lose interest after that.

I fear this may be a wrong analysis. I think the modern attention span has shrunk to around 5-7 minute segments. I use the term "segments" because most people can pay attention much longer than 5-7 minutes, but that's how often they are used to having "breaks" in their attention paying, due to commercials. Anything requiring attention longer than 5-7 minutes begins to seem long-winded unless it is highly stimulating.

Though not universally true, I think this phenomenon is sad. A dependence upon stimulation for cognizant focus and interaction will ultimately undercut an individual's capacity to focus upon something and retain information gained therein.

Yeah, completely random...but sadly true.

Thoughts on Eden

That would be "thoughts on the Garden of Eden." Yeah, just a random thought that popped up in Theology class last week that I've been meaning to get on here to see what you (my wonderful readers) think about it. The basic idea is whether there was death in the Garden before the Fall (you know, Eve and Adam and their apple binge). Now don't get bent out of shape. What I am speaking of is death specifically for plants. Since one of Adam's prescribed roles in the Garden was to "tend and keep", would that not have included working with the plants? And would there have been plants that died (as they do in season and out) - or would they have grown and grown and grown and never died?

And that question begs a second - would the animals that are carnivores now have been carnivores then? Could there have been animal hunters?

The reason I've been wondering this is because the text of scripture is largely silent on this point. The main thing we know is that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23) - but the context (in Romans) seems to emphasize more spiritual death (and life in Christ) than physical.

I love seeing people's initial reaction to these two questions (about plant and animal death in the garden), just because it shows how much they might have actually been leaning on an assumed "fact" of no death at all in the Garden. More importantly, I would say, is how there being death in the Garden effects your perspective of salvation and God. If there were (plant and animal) death in the Garden, would that affect your relationship with God or how you perceived him?

Simon Cowell and the American Psyche

So I finally got a chance to watch a little of "American Idol" the other night. Though I only watched a little (less than an hour's worth), a few thoughts stuck out in my head. First and foremost among them was that I found that I really did not have any argument with the judgment of the group choosing those who would go on or not (Simon included). The only reason this surprised me was because of the national uproar over Simon Cowell's comments over so many auditions in the past.

And even though his comments (as I watched) were a little less biting than others which I have heard attributed him, I began to wonder about America's ability to recieve criticism. Simon Cowell may use harsher words than others when confronting someone about their lack of talent, but that doesn't mean he's completely incorrect. I'll admit, there are probably many who get rejected from the show which have huge potential as vocalists, but their potential needs to be developed and shaped. But in the context of the show, he and the other judges must choose the best. But American's do not like to be told that they can't do something.

It's the great American concept of freedom (I won't even go into the problems with that!). But many of the contestants have the attitude of, "You can't tell me that I can't sing!" When, in fact, maybe that is just what that person needs to hear. It brings to mind a story I heard of a music minister who, when taking over a choir at a church he had just joined, warned the pastor that the choir was soon going to shrink a little because he was going to wean the choir of all those who really should not be in it. In the process of this weaning, he came across a woman who had a very great desire to sing in the choir, but who had no musical talent or ability. When confronting her about this, he not only showed her how she had misunderstood her talents in this area, but also brought to her many other ways she could serve her church (specifically in the children's ministries). In the end she ended up being more happy and serving better there than in the choir.

But America doesn't want to be confronted about those things which it lacks or about those areas in which it is incompetent. Why? Because we're the great America! And as individuals, it is unkind (and stifling to our personalities!) to tell us that we are incompetent in an area, or that we are not talented in some way.

That's what makes American Idol such a phenomenon. Here are individuals willing to raise up a standard and hold to it (albeit slightly overly aggressively). They do this in the midst of a postmodern culture which promotes relative standards subjective to the individual. That creates the conflict within the show (the contestants constantly butting heads with this standard they don't think really applies to them) and outside it (America hates being told what is good and is not good, but then again loves it because that's really the way we were made, to live within boundaries and standards).

Baby Construction Mania

Yeah, in the last week I've put together a changing table, a bookshelf, and a crib - all for our expected 'lil one! If you're wondering about the bookshelf for the baby, well my wife and I deced that since she could not find an acceptable dresser in our price range, we would just get a bookshelf of the correct color (that would be black ;-) and then use baskets to keep all the clothes and stuff in. Great idea, and it looks great as well.

So yeah, I am a baby construction maverick, having survived the construction mania, my wife and I are now ready to bring our little Keaton home! Now all we gotta do is wait another 10 weeks for that...

Hopefully, after my wife makes the final call on the layout of the baby's room, I will be allowed to take a few pictures of the room and post 'em on here for all of earth to admire.

Yeah, I know that'll keep ya on the edge of yer seat!

What?! School Starts on Monday?!

Yeah, um, I'm totally not ready for the next semester - which starts next week. Bugger (in the words of Captain Jack Sparrow). Yeah, Terra and I are barely getting ready for 'lil Keaton to come - but we did get a car seat yesterday! That was fun. And the crib my parents are giving us should come in early next week. With those two things we can bring Keaton home from the hospital and have a place for him to sleep. That's major, in my book! So a big thanks to my parents, Grandma Connie, and to Terra's mom for making that happen.

Yeah, but about school. I can't wait to start, and I'm kinda wondering what books I need. That's right, I haven't really checked on that either...guess I'm not so much Johnny on the spot this semester. And since I'm going to be having a child soon, I don't seem much hope for the near future...

So here's a shout out to all those who have started or are starting up the Spring semester: Let the chaos begin!

In response to Christian Science (comments)

First off, let me say I love a good debate. A 'good debate' being one in which all participants act with maturity and do not overstep from the initial setting of the subject matter into personal attacks. Though none of my comments yesterday were intentioned as personal attacks on any who believe in Christian Science - though I guess any time you discuss something which comprises one's personal beliefs, the very nature of the discussion makes it personal. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But if my comments irritated you enough to make you think more - can't say that I am sorry, because one of my goals is to make people think. It is a fool who accepts anything without thinking it through and challenging it.

Yesterday I did use the term 'cult' to refer to Christian Science. Though derogatory, I didn't necessarily mean it as such. Ironically, the term 'cult' also applies to Christianity as well, for a cult is primarily a "particular system of religious worship" (to quote Dictionary.com).

I would like to note that my observations were based on one service I attended, and not based out of any personal study I have done. But I think all Christian Scientists should take note of my observations, because whether or not my observations were accurate, they were what I derived from the service I attended. In the same sense, if a non-Christian (or even a Christian Scientist) were to attend my church on Sunday morning and not walk away with the basic understanding that we believe that all have sinned and that the only way to reconcile ourselves to God is through Christ, then the service was a failure. I would put that challenge out to every church - if a visitor cannot walk away at least with that, then you have failed.

In the same sense, what I walked away with from the Christian Science service was partly my responsibility (how well I was paying attention), but also that of those who structured the service. I was attempting to pay attention as best I could and to also absorb as much as I could so I could later hash it all out. I'm not perfect, so I know I missed some. But one of the main overarching themes that I walked away with was that physical healing is a primary goal of Christian Science. You can also note my other other observations from yesterday, which are those things which stuck out most to me.

As far as my statement about Science and Health interpreting scripture, I stand by it. In the service which I was in, it was stated that the bible would be read with it's "correlative" passages from Science and Health, but all "correlative" means is "related to". And in the setting of reading scripture and then passages from S&H, the latter interprets the scripture reading or at leasts focuses the meaning derived for the listener.

This next statement may be offensive, but it isn't intended to be so. But if came about from only a 3 three year study, what separates it from many modern (or classical) biblical commentaries? Why is Mary Baker Eddie's work so special? I am working on a Masters in Advanced Biblical Studies, and one of the overarching themes of the bible that I see emerging more and more from the Old Testament through the new testament is God trying to reconcile man to himself. Mary Baker Eddie seems to have missed that entirely. Her emphasis of spirituality (if I am beginning to understand it correctly) which subjugates the physical realm to something lesser seems more Platonic than biblical. The Incarnation (God becoming man) itself seems to indicate that God places high value on the physical. Why would God choose to use physicality if it was so pointless or useless? For man? But then wouldn't that point to some desire on God's part for man? Isn't that indicative of a primacy of value on relationship for God?

I know my perspectives are biased (but aren't all perspectives biased?), but the logical inconsistencies flow to easily to be cast aside for me. I welcome your thoughts/responses, but please understand I am not trying to deride your beliefs, only work through them to try and understand them correctly.

First Church of Christ, Scientist

Well, I had an interesting experience yesterday. A close friend of mine had to attend a "cult" service for a class (guess what he was studying in the class...). So Terra and I said we'd go with him for "moral" support, so he wouldn't have to do it alone - and yeah, we were both curious and wanted to see what it was like.

For various reasons we decided to attend a Christian Science service (The First Church of Christ, Science of Raleigh). In our massive amount of luck, we hit one of two communion services they have per year. What're the odds of that?

It was very interesting. They do seem to have a belief (at least stated) that supports the inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible. Unfortunately, they also firmly believe that the bible cannot be properly interpreted without using the works of Mary Baker Eddy. So the service consisted of "readings" of scripture and then the "proper interpretation" being read. There were no pastors, but there are elected 'readers' who lead the service.

A few themes emerged over the course of the service. They largely viewed Christ's coming, sacrifice, and resurrection as the enactment/example of living out science in its truest form. Their concept of science seems to have no correlation to what I learned in school (I learned it to be basically the study of the physical universe). Christ's actions, according to Mary Baker Eddy, freed us from sin and thusly sin is nonexistent, though apparently if you believe in sin then God will still punish you for it (I think the internal contradictions of that understanding should be self-aparent, as well as how such a belief might impinge upon God's impassibility, among other attributes).

They also believed the material world (all matter) was nonexistent. This, to me, was contradicted by a primary belief/thrust of their service upon the use of prayer for healing. The members of the church seemed to genuinely desire healing for themselves and to be able to effect that healing in the world at large. As good as this desire is, how can any physical form of healing be consistent with a belief that matter doesn't really exist?

Finally, one other belief that stuck out to me was their emphasis upon love and truth. These also, according to their 'interpretive readings' enable and effect healing in one's life. Though they used the term "Christian" over and over again, this understanding is quite contrary to scripture. Take the story of blind Bartemaeus, for when healing his blindness, Jesus proclaimed that his faith had healed him - though Jesus was acting in love, the healing was linked by Christ to faith not love. Interesting. The huge "word of faith" movement and others have played this concept way out of proportion, but faith remains central to true Christianity.

In retrospect, I find it interesting that they didn't seem to mention faith at all. But Christianity hinges on faith. Check out these words from Paul:
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24)

To me, it seems quite obvious that God wants us to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled from our sinful state to him through Christ. I'm sure Mary Baker Eddy has some "spiritual" and "scientific" understanding for this passage, but in the words of some character whom I can't remember, her interpretations are "hogwash." The bible itself excludes other works as divine and presents only one way to know God: through Christ. And that, my friends, is something you can bet your life on.

Getting ready for baby

Yeah, Terra and I have been spending a lot of time trying to get ready for 'lil Keaton. I realized the other week that Terra was in her last trimester, so feasibly she could go into labor at any time, though we definitely want her to try to go as close to full-term as possible.

So we've been packing up even more stuff. My fiction library is now completely in storage - everything I've read and/or own fiction-wise, except for my "to read" pile is now boxed up. Next I get to tear down my most awesome sound system and box away around 275 CDs (did I mention that I like music?). Saturday is beginning to look like a fun day at the storage unit. I think I'm going to have to pull most everything out and repack it all just to try and fit all the boxes in.

The funny thing is, a year ago I think I would have fought tooth and nail to keep my sound system up and running and for me to have "my" little office space. But now 'lil Keaton has come along and I care less and less about what I want. It's almost scary to see the change - but it's good, and I embrace it.

I know I have no idea the changes this baby will bring in my life, but I can't wait to engage and embrace them. Children are a blessing from God - even though sometimes I know they make it seem like a mixed blessing. But God uses them to challenge and shape us more in his image. And I am looking forward to enabling my children to be all that God has called them to be, to equipping them to be eaven greater men (and women!) of God than I am. That's my truest challenge and one of the few that I truly desire and will consumingly pursue to fulfill.

Need a piano teacher?

Well, I've officially signed the contract and mailed it in. I'm a piano teacher with Keyboard for Kids and More. It's a cool little school of music here in Wake Forest, NC. So if ya know anyone who's interested in piano lessons, send 'em my way or to the website. I really need to drum up about...say...14 or 15 students. Yeah, that would be great!

In other news...I'm sick of my job. Not my new one (which I will be doing in addition to the one I have right now), my job at CarQuest as a loader. Yeah, the pay is decent and they've been really flexible with my hours and schedule. But I'm still sick of it. So maybe this piano teaching gig will help me some with tolerating my loading job. I hope so...because I'm sick of it!

Finally thinking again

Yeah, just wanted to drop a note and say that I am finally starting to write on my thinking blog again. Today I pulled a quote from a book I've begun reading called, The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami? The book mainly deals with the conflict between the idea of a morally righteous, benevolent, and omnipotent God and the reality of such massive (and natural) tragedies as the Tsunami of a few years ago which had a death toll reaching near a quarter of a million. Really good book, and I think I'm going to be processing much of it on my thinking blog in the weeks to come.