VERY soon your life here will end; consider, then, what may be in store for you elsewhere. Today we live; tomorrow we die and are quickly forgotten. Oh, the dullness and hardness of a heart which looks only to the present instead of preparing for that which is to come!

Therefore, in every deed and every thought, act as though you were to die this very day. If you had a good conscience you would not fear death very much. It is better to avoid sin than to fear death. If you are not prepared today, how will you be prepared tomorrow? Tomorrow is an uncertain day; how do you know you will have a tomorrow?

Thomas aKempis, 'Imitation of Christ,' 23rd Chapter.

Deep question:

Why is Star Wars generally considered "cool," but other sci-fi, like Star Trek, considered "not cool"?

Name that tune:

(to the tune of 'Darling Clementine')

'Oh the Chur-ch, Oh the Chur-ch/
you run to li-cense and to law...'


What lyrics come next?


(copyright D.Schmidt)

I'm a big fan of Christians:

To me they've been the body of Christ, a nourishing context within which to know God.

W.H. Auden

Recently, I learned that 20th Century poet W.H. Auden was a serious convert to Christianity, and his writing was extensively about Christian things. He also had a good deal of overlap with Inklings J.R.R. Tolkien and Charles Williams. In his first decade of writing he was a non-believer, and was considered by many the foremost poet of his generation. After he converted, his work was largely ignored and disliked by his contemporaries.

I recommend check out his poems. I find them highly readable, interesting, and entertaining. Here are a couple of good links:

On the Circuit (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15552)

The Shield of Achilles (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15547).

I'm a big fan of Christians.

Christian bashing is in vogue, even among Christians. "Oh the crusades! Oh the crusades!" goes up the baleful protest and lament. "And Jerry Falwell! And George W. Bush! And Republicans!"

I'm tired of watching Christians bend over backwards to admit they're so bad, the Church has been soooo bad, particularly as they engage in discussions with non-Christians. I will admit that this may amount to 'turning the other cheek,' which just proves my point: that Christians are actually quite good. Try to find a non-Christian bending over backwards to admit he or she is bad and historically at fault.

Conversation with a materialist

This weekend I had a somewhat involved e-mail correspondence with the author of the article cited in the previous post. I told him about my concerns, and he was very cordial and generally gracious. However, he would not go so far as to concede any point. He felt that a rejection of dualism (any distinction between body/mind or soul) was uncontroversial, and was the consensus opinion of all the scholars he knew.

Maybe that's true. Maybe nobody he knows or respects thinks there is an immaterial aspect to a human being. So, I told him of several I knew of, but this did not seem to impress him. He was, however, very nice about it all, and said he considered my concerns "reasonable."

At one level, this was a humanizing discussion. I was reminded that someone I disagree with is a human being, just doing the best he can, and so I should avoid making him into a target for attack. However, it also validated all my concerns. He basically said science only concedes the existence and relevance of things that can be tested and proved, but that he also was not going to limit his statements to that jurisdiction - even though science can only deal with the testable, he was still going to use science to justify his value judgments (which are not testable). Yet, he didn't seem to acknowledge that this decision itself does not flow from something proveable, but rather is pragmatic and even dogmatic.

What's so dangerous about this type of scientist is that many people believe he is being objective, and he allows them to think this, but then speaks on his own beliefs, while still wearing his scientist hat, and fools people into thinking that his beliefs are objectively true. This is an abuse of trust; there are foxes in the hen house.

This type of scientist, unfortunately, appears to be the rule rather than the exception.

Bottom line: science can never tell you whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic to both Science and Christianity.

Science is the devil...

...not really, but there's a big problem with scientists making dogmatic statements while pretending to make objective, "scientific" statements.

For example, in an article I recently read on child psychology (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html), the authors state that, and I paraphrase, 'dualism is mistaken, but children intuitively believe in it. So how do we get people to be more receptive to science?'

Dualism is the philosophical term used to describe, among other things, the idea that your soul and/or mind are different from your body. So by saying dualism is mistaken, they're clearly stating you do not have a soul.

However, there is a very live debate on this issue - even among professional philosophers and scientists.

I don't mind that these psychologists take a side on this debate, but I do feel that as scholars and honest people, they should point out when they've made a major assumption on one of the most significant issues in philosophy and science. A simple footnote would suffice.

If they don't want to admit that, then they should admit that what they are writing is agenda-driven propoganda, not truth-driven scholarship.

Who has greater combat than the man who labors to overcome himself?

-Thomas a Kempis

'The Imitation of Christ,' by the way, is an absolute must read. It's earth-shakingly profound, yet written in a devotional format so that it's easy to read in daily doses.

My first published fiction:

http://raygunrevival.com/Published/RGR_0022_2007_05_15.pdf

My story is written under the sci-fi pseudonym 'Casey Chan.'

It's amazing how long I've been writing to just now get something published. If somebody had told me 10 + years ago how many hundreds of thousands of words of fiction I'd write before anybody'd publish any of them, I think I would have quit on the front end. So I'm glad no one told me. It's pretty gratifying to get my pinky toe in the door.

I recently learned that there are 3 leadership styles.

Autocratic: from on high.

Democratic: help the people decide what they really want to do.

Laissez-faire: only step in when things seem to be going off the train tracks.

I prefer autocrats, I guess, unless they're bad, one way or another. One nice thing about democracies is it seems as if people can't hardly get anything done, so despite the ideas of the people being pretty bad, on the whole, most of them never happen.

Happiness is a walk on a tight-rope.

My favorite line from a novel comes at the end of 'The Power and the Glory.' The Whiskey Priest says, roughly, 'at the end of your life, nothing matters but to have been a saint. And it wouldn't have been so hard. All it would take is a little bit of courage and self-control.'

I really believe that, and I really identify with the whiskey priest. (I prefer scotch, but nowadays I'm not drinking at all).

When I talk with people about my difficulties sharing Christ, and not just with non-believers, people often advise me about tactics. (say "this" or don't say "that"). But my problem isn't tactics. What I need is guts. Courage. A little bit of self-control to keep my knees from knocking.

I would love it if you'd pray for me in that regard.

The Office

My job is like the Office - only not funny.

Today, we had a "consultant" in who is studying the place for "how it can improve, for both the employees and the employer." The punchline, in Office Space at least, is that at the end of the day somebody gets to collect a check - from the unemployment office.

The strange thing about this consultant is that the foregone conclusion from the beginning of the interview was, seemingly, that the person who is the problem is el jefe - the senior/managing partner of my law firm.

It was both kind of sad and weird and anxiety-provoking to sit there for 30 minutes and explain that the problem is the boss. The one improvement that could be made would be to fire the guy who signs all our checks. The consultant promised the conversations were confidential. But there's only 10 of us who work here, so when he goes back to el jefe and says the unanimous opinion was that the boss needs to quit his day job...well, the anonymity kind of goes out the window.

Also, it's kind of sad, because if el jefe wanted to know el problemo, everyone here could have told him. He didn't have to pay some consultant $1,000 to find out what everyone already knows. But maybe it'll help him admit he's got a problem.

So easy a caveman could do it.

People talk about the invention of the wheel as a major accomplishment of early human beings, but how hard would it have been to notice that round rocks roll down a hill?

Do you like your job?

Things I like about being a lawyer: talking to people, writing, reasoning, making good arguments, lots of jobs.

Thinks I don't like about being a lawyer: sitting at a desk all day not talking to anyone, research, helping one person attack another person, feeling like a pretentious pariah when I tell people I'm a lawyer, long books full of rules.

What are the pros and cons to your occupation?

TEMPORARILY CLOSED...

I seem to have lost the will to post. Thanks for reading.

What do you rely on instead of God?

King Asa went to the King of Aram and made a treaty with him, emptying the coffers of Judah to buy his friendship. God then said to Asa, '"Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the LORD your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand. 8 Were not the Cushites and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemen? Yet when you relied on the LORD, he delivered them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.""

It gets worse for Asa. He imprisons the prophet who brings him this message, and the oppresses the people. (See 2 Chron. 16).

But the question arises, 'what do you rely on instead of God?'

For me, it's a lot of things. My education for my daily bread. My relationships and hobbies for my happiness. Money for security.

Let's work on cutting out the middle-men.

Christians often ask whether a particular action is “allowed” or “permissible.” But maybe that is the wrong question. Instead, the question is whether a particular action is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial.” 1 Cor. 10:23. If one must ask whether an action is permissible, the answer is “yes.” But the outcome-determinative question is whether it is beneficial. Perhaps, if one is asking whether something is “permissible,” it is indicative of a much bigger issue than the specific situation at hand; it suggests an entire misconception of human purpose as “what can I get out of it?” instead of “what is good to do?”

Do you think this is right?

If so, some questions:

If all things are permissible, what about categorical sin? In 1 Cor. 7:36, Paul says the man who marries “…is not sinning.”

And if there is categorical sin, then in what way are 'all things permissible'?

Holy Wars of the Hebrew Scriptures

Does anybody have a satisfactory explanation or characterization of the Israelites' holy wars, such as are described in Joshua, etc.?

The emphasis here is on "satisfactory" explanations - and by that, I mean 'an explanation that you feel good about,' that is, one that doesn't make you cringe as you try to tell it to someone who disagrees with you.