Archive for the ‘literature’ Category

SLC Beatdown

Friday, August 13th, 2010

I’m walking down a sidewalk (don’t remember the surrounding environment, but it seems very open, pseudo-urban, industrial. More cement. Maybe some grass. Maybe I’m in downtown Lincoln. Or Salt Lake City, since I recently watched SLC Punk and it seems to have had an affect on me… maybe some of the landscape shots seeped into my long-term memory.) There is a group of “kids” sitting on the sidewalk. They are trying to watch me subtly, but I’m older than they are and I’m “like them” – so I’m a few steps ahead because I’ve been like them longer than they have. (I’ve often thought that I would still have a teenage mindset after I became an adult.) so I know they’re watching me. I can tell they’re going to ambush me as I walk by. They don’t want anything, they’re just angry and violent and they want to smear somebody. Maybe kill me in the process. Maybe it’s a premonition, maybe I can see their weapons. I don’t remember. I know there are rocks lying nearby. Some of the kids seem to either be reaching “subtly” for the rocks, or already holding them out of sight.

As I walk by they start up. One or two kids throw rocks at me. But I change my pace with more subtlety than they had – I actually pass through the other side of the group right at the moment they had meant to surround me (a miscalculation they wouldn’t have made if they’d thought I knew what they were up to).

On my far thigh, I’m drawing my Stiletto (the one I laid on my desk before I went to sleep. This is how I know it’s a dream – and realizing this, I also realize that “realizing it’s a dream” cuts my time-to-wake down to a few real-time seconds, so I’d better resolve the situation quickly.) It seems there must have been other people around who I didn’t want to see this, or maybe I was trying, with what little knowledge of weapons that I have, to hold the knife in a good position (kind of like you keep your hands in front of
your face when boxing.)

*snap* They don’t hear it (the blade coming out)… they keep moving toward me as a threatening mass. I feel threatened, don’t show it on my face. I’m [...] fearless [...] with a machine gun. This irks them a bit… I turn so they can see my knife. In my mind, I’m fighting them off like an action hero movie already, all at once. (Interesting to note that I use visualization in a dream. I’m not sure how this is possible but I distinctly remember generating imaginary images which I also remember distinctly, images that were distinct from the “images” representing the events of my dream). The willing suspension of disbelief gives me the ridiculous ardor I need to hide the fact that I’m genuinely intimidated. They stop short, intimidated themselves. Hesitation. I’ll play to it. Make them confuse this perfectly valid moment of pausing-to-reevaluate-their-strategy with fear.

“OK, WHO WANTS TO GET CUT FIRST??” It’s a psychological question – smarter than a threat, smarter than using the F-word (which would make them feel tougher for being “man enough” to listen to), smarter than something like, “I’ll take you all on!”… no one wants to be that one guy who gets it before the others take me down. (Also, “getting cut” sounds like it hurts more than “getting killed.”) Crowds are braver than individuals. These guys have beat people up before, but none of them have ever been stabbed. And, they may be street smart, but none of them have studied psychology. I’ve often marveled at my real-life ability to bring academic, intellectual reason to bear on a situation within a fraction of a second. Besides which, if it comes down to it, I have nothing to lose by fighting them all at once, to the death, … in fact, they’ve taken away my other options. And I think they can see that.

I lift my knife a little and they back down in a torrent of epithets. I’m a [...] chicken. I ought to pick on someone my own size. That type of thing. (The word poser has to be in there, although I don’t remember it specifically. It’s a general insult that keeps careening around, bouncing off the walls my subconscious.) They seem to sit down or fade away, give up and turn away and I jerk abruptly into wakefulness. Apparently I pushed that dream all the way to its limit.

Interestingly, I have meditated on the idea of carrying a knife into my dreams with me (although not this one), concentrated on the feel of it’s contours in my hand, the way it looks. Drawing it from a pouch on my belt seems to have been a freebie, especially considering that this part of the dream wasn’t fully developed into an event which I experienced as much so as it was a fact (where did this knife come from? Oh, I pulled it out of that pouch.).

This is one of the first recollections I have of diffusing a threatening situation in a dream without violence. I’ve shot gangsters, [... fought someone off] with a frying pan, [... defeated] intruders [...] or hit them over the head with the leg from an old table I used to have. I’ve also been [killed in various ways...] but I’ve never beaten a person or group of people who threatened my life or safety without harming anyone. I wonder if this has something to do with my recent thoughts on the pure stupidity of violence and the senseless mind-set people have in my hometown of always being ready for a fight. My recent thoughts about running first and fighting later. Maybe it’s the discovery I made within the last couple of weeks that I can still fight after all my physical resources have apparently been exhausted that causes me to feel a bit safer expending other energies before taking someone on in a fight. In any case the non-violent solution didn’t lead to my destruction any more than a violent solution led to safety (since it most likely would not have).

In addition, this seems to have been a successful experiment in rudimentary lucid dreaming. I say rudimentary because this off-the-cuff solution is obviously contrived and unrealistic – how convenient that this particular demographic chose to ambush me instead of a more commonly occurring class of violent mob that prides itself on a nearly self-sacrificial machismo. (Like most of the gangs I would have been likely to encounter in my old neighborhood.) How convenient that they were unarmed (particularly with the type of pipes and clubs they would have had in the movie, or even with guns).

It’s also possible that I was using this dream as a vehicle for clarifying the observation I’ve made about “Lincolnites”… specifically that they possess a capacity for committing acts of violence, but seem to lack the “hardened” anti-social mentality of a real, hard-core “gangster.”

Now that I think of it, my choice of demographic may also yield some insight. Watching SLC Punk I noticed that the “real” punks spent time whipping up on the “posers” – the “punks” would sweep in and clobber the other kids, who never had a chance in the face of someone who was genuinely “hard core” and experienced with the tough realities of life on the streets. I’ve been bothered by the idea that maybe I will never be anything but a poser since I’m neither given over to violence nor stepped in daily, stereotypical “anarchic” behavior such as robbing liquor stores or driving 25 miles per hour over the speed limit. However in the dream, it was these “real punks” that threatened me, and that eventually backed down in the face of something that was “genuinely” intimidating, which was ME. It was perhaps a Freudian “fulfillment-of-a-wish” type confirmation that I’m that much more genuinely “hard core” than the “posers” that go around trying to use violence to prove how tough they are precisely by virtue of the characteristics they would criticize me for, possibly coupled with my geographical background. (Remember how they called me a poser and yet, in the end, it was they who were the posers.)

The other dream, I can’t remember.

Writing Exercise 1

Friday, July 30th, 2010

Using a word that you somewhat understand in context, the exact meaning of which you are not completely certain, formulate as many sentences as you can think of.

Stipulation: you are not permitted to consult a dictionary or other officially recognized source of lexical information.
Allowance: you may inflect the word in whatever way makes sense to you.

I will use the word “viscosity.”

First, the word in its original context: “I am unable to ascertain the viscosity of this fluid.”

And now my sentences:

* The nob was possessed of a certain viscotic property that prevented me from grabbing it outright.
* Rays of sunlight poured in through the lattice and ran viscuously across the floorboards, seeping through the cracks and interrupting his incantation.
* The viscosity of this very vivacious vivisection is veritably vivid.
* “Shot Put and Viscus” were two of the most grueling challenges.
* She wore her viscosity like a medal; it was something she brought up “casually” or “in passing,” but which she also secretly hoped would win her an accolade or two in certain social situations.
* That’s a viscuous lie!
* Viscosity is… not exactly something you can put your finger on. In, perhaps – but not on.
* It smelled of viscosity… the old, feral viscosity that makes your skin crawl and makes you want to wince; but wincing is death. So you sit calmly and say nothing.

I’m out. More next time.

The Theory of Relativity started at Babel

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Wikipedia defines linguistic relativity as “the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.” (Click the word “Wikipedia” for a more in-depth explanation – not for the faint of mind.)

In layman’s terms – the language we speak affects the way we think, and the way we perceive things.

Of course this is a heavily debated claim… but have you ever asked yourself how far the linguistic divide reaches? I mean, when you and I look up at the sky we both say, “It is blue….”, but are we both really seeing the same color? How would anyone ever know if we weren’t? How do I know that when you say ‘up’, you’re thinking of the same thing I think of when I say ‘down’? After all… even if you were, you’d still call my ‘down’ ‘up’, and I’d never be the wiser. Neither would you.

A perfect example that illustrates this vividly is the Japanese word for “blue.” Well, they call it green. Of course they have a word that means “green” as well, but they only use it for plants. So a train car or a traffic light (which is just as green in Japan as it is here in the US) is “blue,” and a plant that is exactly the same color is green.

But you know what? The Japanese are 100% certain that the two colors are completely different. When they look at a stop light, they really “think” they’re seeing the color blue – and maybe they are!

So I’m starting to develop this theory… in the story of the tower of Babel it says that He confused their languages, and we tend to think, well that’s where all the different languages in the world came from. But what if the Lord made a change that was even more fundamental, a change that was even more subtle?

What if, in confusing our languages, He confused the very way we think about things? Not in a way that made us actually confused as individuals, but in a way that made it impossible for us to efficiently collaborate? After all, isn’t that why he did it – to make it impossible for the Babel builders to work together?

Earlier I observed that having views which deviate sufficiently from those of others can tend to separate us from each other. What if it’s literally impossible for two people to “put aside all of their differences”, “see eye-to-eye”, “be on the same wavelength”, or be “with each other all the way” on absolutely everything?

In fact, that sounds like common sense, and it’s why we have settled for “agreeing to disagree” with so many different people, about so many different things. Is it unreasonable to guess that this could be a result of what happened at Babel? That our widely varying perspectives actually serve as a handicap?

Before the tower of Babel, were there any wars? Think about it… maybe the key to Undiluted Perception has been hidden beyond our reach, only to be revealed when the Lord returns. Maybe the reason humans fail to agree about basic facts, including the best way to do things is because we lack the fundamental ability to do so – maybe we can’t arrive at the same version of “the truth”.

Just one more thing to look forward to, I guess.

“Remember, my son…”

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

“Remember, my son, there is no city in the world where they have a statue of a critic.” This was supposedly said to a famous composer by his father. However, he was wrong. I was able to find the severed head of Bion the Borysthenite, a Roman cynic philosopher, which is now in a museum, but which used to be part of an entire statue.

2001: A Space Odessy

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

The book was good and definitely worth the time to read; but, I wouldn’t waste my time on the movie. It was pretty boring.

Prayer and Sin

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

In my study of world religions I came across two serious objections to the teachings of Christianity. Most of the objections I come across are stupid and poorly-thought-out, but these two have cropped up in my thinking again and again, because they seem to make a certain amount of sense.

The first is about prayer, and I believe I finally have an answer. It ocurred to me while I was reading Murray’s book, “With Christ in the School of Prayer.” But the explanation requires a little excursion into my train of thought.

Prayer, from the perspective of a thinking outside observer, appears to be little more than ineffectual hoping. You might balk at the idea, but think about it for a minute. How do you explain all of those ‘no’ answers? “It wasn’t God’s will.” And in response to, “Why pray then?”, we usually say something that can be reduced to, “God just likes to hear what we’re thinking once in awhile, so He won’t get lonely.” Or worse, “Well, if you don’t pray, then you’re sure not to get it, because God often waits to carry out His will until someone prays for it.”

Then you have to go on to argue, “Then is God’s hand shortened, that it cannot save?” Of course not… and a 5-pointed Calvinist (this term is used derisively on purpose, and therefore doesn’t apply to you Calvinists of a sharper disposition) says, “well, God always ordains someone to ask Him to do what He wants to do.” That sounds to me like a bit of stretch–

But it gets even worse when the rubber meets the road, and we come right down to my personal prayer life. Because when I pray, how am I, as an individual, supposed to know whether what I am praying for is God’s will, and; therefore, whether or not I will get an answer? In effect, the neigh-sayers are right. I’m only expressing my desires to God, with the vague hope that what I ask for will coincide with His will. And if this is true, then what is prayer if not a useless, misplaced desire– a lazy replacement for taking action?

Indeed, certain religions take this “prayer,” which I have just described, and which ocurrs primarily in a self-subjugated position called “kneeling;” and, they replace it with a little thing called “Will,” which is capitalised in those belief systems just as it is here. The idea is, the stronger your will is, the more likely you are to get what you ask for, because instead of asking for what you want, and asking, and asking and asking, and doing nothing at all, you say, “Hallowed be MY name! MY kingdom come… MY will be done on earth, for there IS no heaven!!” And that is supposed to increase the likelihood that you will get up, go outside, and accomplish more of what you want by the time you expire than the ineffectual, unfaithful prayer of an unrighteous man could avail in ten thousand years.

Well, first of all, these religions also have loopholes. If you don’t get what you want, then either you didn’t want it badly enough (your will was either weak or divided), or you wanted something that just wasn’t possible. After all, there are still the laws of nature to consider– but since we’re trying to get what we want, why not do as much as possible to stack things in our favor? Here is where Christianity actually trumps, because our God is not confined by our thinking, and He can do things that don’t fit our superimposed models of observation, these so-called “natural laws”. The difference here isn’t that those with the Will to Power [Nietsche, Beyond Good and Evil; and Freud, On the Interperetation of Dreams] somehow vouchsafe to themselves the impossible; the difference is supposed to be that the Freudians and Nietsche-ans go out and take, while many (and I dare say, most!) Christians sit around and hope that things will start going their way.

Second of all, there’s what I read in Murray’s book. He reawakens the importance of the will in our prayer life, to a degree our detractors and I have never fully grasped:

“But the word of the Master teaches us more. He does not say, What dost thou wish? but, What does thou will? One often wishes for a thing without willing it. I wish to have a certain article, but I find the price too high; I resolve not to take it; I wish, but do not will to have it. The sluggard wishes to be rich, but does not will it. Many a one wishes to be saved, but perishes because he does not will it. The will rules the whole heart and life; if I really will to have anything that is within my reach, I do not rest till I have it. And so, when Jesus says to us, ‘What wilt thou?’ He asks whether it is indeed our purpose to have what we ask at any price, however great the sacrifice. Dost thou indeed so will to have it that, though He delay it long, thou dost not hold thy peace till He hear thee? Alas! how many prayers are wishes, sent up for a short time and then forgotten, or sent up year after year as matter of duty, while we rest content with the prayer without the answer.

“But, it may be asked, is it not best to make our wishes known to God, and then to leave it to Him to decide what is best, without seeking to assert our will? By no means. This is the very essence of the prayer of faith, to which Jesus sought to train His disciples, that it does not only make known its desire and then leave the decision to God. [emphasis mine.] That would be the prayer of submission, for cases in which we cannot know God’s will. But the prayer of faith, finding God’s will in some promise of the Word, pleads for that till it come. In Matthew (ix. 28) we read Jesus said to the blind man: ‘Believe ye that I can do this?’ Here, in Mark, He says: ‘What wilt thou that I should do?’ In both cases He said that faith had saved them. And so He said to the Syrophenician woman, too: ‘Great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.’ Faith is nothing but the purpose of the will resting on God’s word, and saying: I must have it. To believe truly is to will firmly.

“But is not such a will at variance with our dependence on God and our submission to Him? By no means; it is much rather the true submission that honours God” (75-76).

Need I say more? All of you who denounce displace prayer with Will Power, this is my answer! You are not limited by the laws of nature but by the will of God! No amount of magic(k) or effort can overcome it! And to you Christians I say, stop praying ineffectively! You are limited by the Will of God only, and He is a kind and merciful God, Who is delighted to give us more than we need.

The second is about sin. I mean, I’m working on memorizing these verses, right? From the Vest Pocket Companion for Christian Workers, by R.A. Torrey. And one of the first verses in there is I John 1:8, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Which is pretty bad news… since we are supposed to “be perfect, just as [our] Father in heaven is perfect;” and, “stand in awe, and sin not.” I was talking to one of my friends and he said, it seems like it’s just setting you up to fail. Clearly the Lord doesn’t want us to spend all of our time in the temple, beating ourselves up and crying, “have mercy on me, a sinner!” Besides, isn’t God “faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able; but will with the temptation provide a way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it?” Then why are we condemned to perpetuate this “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?”

Well, the only plausible explanation that I can come up with is, this whole life is just one long, torturous purification ritual. We are doomed to be punished and to suffer and to repent, and repent again and, just when we feel that we’ve suffered enough to have ceased from sin (I Peter 4:1), we run up against I John 1:8. Where does it end? Don’t you know, it’s pretty stressful being stuck in this rut with pretty much a guarantee that the only escape is death. Any thoughts?? Because I’d just like to put my sin behind me, once and for all. lol

Why I’m not going to finish Bondage of the Will

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

I was reading through Bondage of the Will at the request of a friend, when I ran across this paragraph:

AND now, what if I prove from your own words, on which you assert the freedom of the will, that there is no such thing as ‘Free-will’ at all! What if I should make it manifest that you unknowingly deny that, which, with so much policy, you labour to affirm. And if I do not this, actually, I vow that I will consider all that I advance in this book against you, revoked; and all that your Diatribe advances against me, and aims at establishing, confirmed.

You make the power of ‘Free-will’ to be—’that certain small degree of power, which, without the grace of God, is utterly ineffective.

[...]

I will allow you to make the power of ‘Free-will,’ not only a certain small degree of power [...] : provided that, you add to it this doleful appendage—that, without the grace of God, it is ineffective. Because, then you will at once take from it all power: for, what is ineffective power, but plainly, no power at all?

In other words, if the will is only free by the grace of God, then the will is not free. Of course, this presupposes that God has not given His grace to whoever doesn’t have free will. (He also says that even a Christian doesn’t have free will– and if he admits that free will is free only when it is backed by God’s grace, then this implies that not even Christians have received grace from God.)

This assertion is contrary to scripture.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself [His] own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you (Titus 2:11-15).

From verse 14 (“that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself [His] own special people”), it would be very difficult to prove that this particular grace isn’t the saving kind. In other words, God’s grace is available to everyone. Luther acknowledges that the freedom of the will is contingent on the grace of God, so he has actually proven Erasmus right.

“Therefore, to say, that the will is FREE, and that it has indeed power, but that it is ineffective, is what the sophists call ‘a direct contrariety.’ As if one should say, ‘Free-will’ is that which is not free.” – Wrong. Luther has failed to establish the assumption that God’s grace is not available to everyone, which is required for the wills of some people are un-free. The existence of free-will has not been dis-proven from Erasmus’ own words; therefore, everything in the book is revoked, and Erasmus’ arguments are all confirmed. There’s no point in reading a revoked book. ;) And, so much for Luther loathing to play the part of “rhetorician.”

Seriously though folks, that’ s my excuse for not reading. My real reason is disgust. Most of his arguments consist of “Erasmus is a retard and if you listen to him, you are going to hell.” Whenever he does resort to logic in the first part of the book, it’s broken and the arguments are messy at best. He talks alot about the scripture, but he rarely quotes it, and even when he does, it’s out of context and sometimes it’s even quoted inaccurately.

For example, he tries to quote Hebrews 11:6- “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of those who hope in Him.” Did anyone else catch the glaring error in this quotation? The verse actually says, “[that] He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” But Luther doesn’t believe that men can diligently seek God, so he simply edits out this inconvenient snippet. At least it flows well…

Here’s another quote: “when we begin to be, in the least degree, disposed to trifle, and not to hold the sacred truths in due reverence, we are soon involved in impieties, and overwhelmed with blasphemies.” Woah. I think it’s okay to dance and play cards… is that blasphemy? This is another example of how he threatens his readers. In essence, he’s saying that anyone who disagrees with him, even about the small stuff, is on s slippery slope that ends in hell. No wonder alot of folks who read this end up agreeing with what he says; they’re afraid to disagree! Don’t worry- “The curse causeless shall not come.”

So that was the bad news, my worst foot forward. Now for the parts I liked:

“Nor ought you to impute it to the Christian doctrine that the impious do evil.” Heh. Its easy to get sucked into the lie that Christians are so maligned and hated in this day and age, because of something we’re doing, saying, or believing incorrectly. Actually,

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before [it hated] you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me (John 18:15-21).

In reply to the idea that we should try to somehow make the gospel more acceptable to the enemies of Christ, he replies, There’s a War On:

I see indeed, my friend Erasmus, that you complain in many books of these tumults, and of the loss of peace and concord; and you attempt many means whereby to afford a remedy, and (as I am inclined to believe) with a good intention. But this gouty foot laughs at your doctoring hands. For here, in truth, as you say, you sail against the tide; nay, you put out fire with straw. Cease from complaining, cease from doctoring; this tumult proceeds, and is carried on, from above, and will not cease until it shall make all the adversaries of the word as the dirt of the streets.

And you know how I used to say that one of the main reasons people don’t want to become Christians is because of Christians? Well, that’s probably still true to a certain extent (except for the main part), but:

But now the Gospel is come, men begin to impute unto it, that the world is evil. Whereas, the truth is, that by the good Gospel, it is more manifest how evil it was, while, without the Gospel, it did all its works in darkness. Thus also the illiterate attribute it to learning, that, by its flourishing, their ignorance becomes known. This is the return we make for the word of life and salvation!—And what fear must we suppose there was among the Jews, when the Gospel freed all from the law of Moses? What occasion did not this great liberty seem to give to evil men?

Luther puts this more eloquently than I can:

It therefore belongs to Christians, to expect and endure these things, with a stayed mind: as Christ says, ‘When ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be not dismayed, for these things must first come to pass, but the end is not yet.’ (Matt. xxiv. 6.) And as to myself, if I did not see these tumults, I should say the Word of God was not in the world. But now, when I do see them, I rejoice from my heart, and fear them not [...]

Too bad he had to follow that with: “But yet, the Gospel was not, on that account, taken away; but the impious were left, and it was preached to the pious, that they might not use their liberty to an occasion of the flesh “(Gal. v. 13.) This kind of reinforces my theory that “predistination” serves as a partial justification for what I like to call Christian Supremacy. It’s the idea that some of us are just “chosen”, and “the rest of you unfortunate losers are just going to have to go to hell.” Yuck.

Rare nuggets like the ones above make it a worthwhile read if you don’t mind wading through the sledge, and aren’t intimidated by pretentious theological jargon and empty threats.

And now for my argument in favor of free will. “The will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irritated to crave; as is manifest from its indignation,” says Luther. This is true. But the assertion Luther is arguing against is not the assertion that the will can change itself. He is arguing, in fact, against the assertion that I can change it. I am not my will. This is an example of the straw man fallacy. He’s trying to prove that I can’t change my will by saying that my will can’t change itself. Not very convincing.

“This would not be the case if it were free, or had a ‘Free-will.’” Now isn’t that just funny? Of course my will doesn’t have a free will- I do.

Later he says that if the unsaved “yield at all, they yield through force, or through something attended with greater advantage; they never yield willingly” (emphasis mine). So how is yielding through something attended with greater advantage, not yielding willingly? In fact, this is how God saves us. “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,” and, “We love Him because He first loved us” (I John 4:19). John 3:16 tells us that God doesn’t just love the elect, He loves the World. In other words, the Lord presents us with some greater advantage, namely, the love of God, and that is, in fact, how we get saved.

But all of these arguments ignore the fact that God can be omnipotent and still allow for free choice. Just because I am the one who chooses whether or not to do a thing, that doesn’t mean that God couldn’t have either caused me to do it or stopped me from doing it… if He had wanted to. And of course He knows what I’m going to do. He knows that, sometimes, I’m going to sin. But just because He knows that, just because He allows me to do it, that doesn’t mean He causes me to do it. So everything that happens is according to God’s plan, even when that plan includes allowing something to happen instead of actively causing it. If a certain action or event doesn’t match up to His plan, He just doesn’t allow it.

Of course, God can cause people to do things sometimes, too. Like when he hardened Pharoah’s hearts, or when (I’m just guessing) Caiaphas the high priest prophesied about Jesus’ death. The idea here is that God doesn’t lose any omnipotence because He allows something to happen instead of directly causing it. Also that God is not governed by logic- He’s not a robot that has to follow His own programming. Even if “free will” did seem to challenge God’s power or knowledge, it still wouldn’t challenge it actually, because God would still be God and everything He said about Himself would still be true.

And what does all this say about free will? Nothing. I can honestly tell you that I don’t know whether He causes me to make all of the choices I make, or just allows me to make them; but I can tell you, that it seems to me like He is just allowing it most of the time. I could turn out to be dead wrong, but I don’t think it’s worth the mud Luther slings at anyone who disagrees with him. Since it’s not clearly spelled out in Scripture, I think we could spend our energy getting to know the Lord and each other, and serving and reaching out to the lost.

All that said, I’ll probably still finish the book.

This is what has been bothering me

Monday, September 29th, 2008

“It is said that during the persecution of the Papists by Queen Elizabeth, certain of the wealthy Catholics desired to save their lives by an open compliance with her intolerant laws, though they remained Romanists at heart. To their enquiry [sic] for direction it is reported that the Pope of that day replied, ‘Only let them give me their hearts, and they may for this time do as they are compelled to do.’ Whether the story is true or not, we may be sure that if the evil one can but keep the heart, he cares little what outward religion is practiced.” — Wisdom’s Request to Her Son. From Spurgeon’s notes.

Protestants, read carefully. He isn’t trying to say here that the Catholic is the evil one. Instead, he’s saying that if the Romanists believed they could keep their heart for God despite an outward lack of religion, then a wicked man can keep his heart for himself despite an outward zeal for God.

Where is my heart!

Japanese Bible

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

Well when I was in Japan I went to Toda and found a Japanese Bible. This Bible is great for my needs as a learner of Japanese (and it seems to be a pretty universally accepted version, since I’ve heard it quoted on numerous occasions), but it doesn’t really please me as far as translation goes.

Normally, I am a literal, word-for-word type of guy, but when it comes to a language like Japanese, this approach simply does not work. As much as we would not like to think so, the Bible does assume quite a bit of Western thinking. Certain portions of it can be read in context without explanation, and we just “get it,” since we Americans already know about things like “The Trinity,” “creation vs. evolution,” “Jesus Christ,” and the like.

Let us take, for example, the simple word, “God.” Here in the United States, the word usually causes to spring to mind, in the case of the more visually-oriented, images of a big (BERY big!), bearded, kind-looking old man, maybe sitting on a cloud. And with this image come all the associations from childhood stories and other religious ideographs we may have been exposed to. The point here is that even those westerners who don’t believe in the True God, have a pretty good idea from the outset what is meant by, “In the beginning, God created…” And so we can sort of follow.

Japanese culture makes even this most basic of Bible verses very convoluted and confusing (note that it is the cultural background which superimposes confusion on the text, and not a confusion which is inherent in the text itself.) To start with, the Japanese language doesn’t distinguish between plural and singular verbs. Therefore, this verse, if translated literally, leaves completely unsettled in the minds of readers the question of whether we are referring to a specific god or to many gods.

The version I picked up in Toda Books is just such a difficult-to-understand translation. Yes, it’s very “literal,” as far as I in my limited knowledge of Japanese can tell you; but that doesn’t do much good for the average reader if we need to get a scholar to give several pages of explanation for each verse. Perhaps such automated, Western-thought-laden, word-for-word (as opposed to thought-for-thought) translations of scripture is a large part of what has made Christianity so inaccessible to the Japanese mind.

Now I am not advocating a revamp of the Bible to make it “easier to understand”, as certain modern English translations claim to do. The fact is that these translations take liberties with the underlying teachings and truths of the Word of God under the guise of “readability.” What I’m advocating is a careful choice of Japanese words and phrases which may not exactly coincide with the original text, but will leave, in the minds of Japanese readers, exactly the same teachings and truths that the English versions of the Bible leave in our own minds. Ideally, this version of the Bible wouldn’t differ too much from what we would expect it to say; however, it might not be quite as easy to translate this version back and forth between Japanese and King James English.

Please bear with me because I’m excited to have found what I tentatively feel may meet the need, on the homepage of the International Bible society. Returning to the example of Genesis 1:1, the Bible I bought in Japan reads, “At the beginning/In the first place/to start with/for the first time,” in a way that, if I were Japanese, would leave me scratching my head. We can only hope and pray that the most (or least) they will take away from the completely ambiguous choice of words would be, “First,” as in a simple “first, next, then, after that” sequence, which doesn’t convey the idea we Americans get when we hear the words, The Beginning (as in, of All Time).

This other version (at http://www.ibs.org/bibles/japanese/pdf/ot/genesis.pdf) starts with what would translate literally into English as “In the time when there was still nothing.” True, these are not the exact words of the original translation. However, it places in the minds of Japanese readers PRECISELY the same idea as is placed in our minds by the words, “in the beginning,” including the sense that something momentous is about to occur.

The version I bought at the bookstore follows, “[some] god [or other, or maybe multiple gods],” whereas the IBS version continues, “Lord God,” (here “Lord” is a title, not a name referring to the Lord in question necessarily. However, attaching this title helps us to understand that “God,” in this sense, isn’t just a word, or a regular (not proper) noun used to describe a thing, but the Name of Someone. (This even comes close to saying, “Mr. God.”) This is exactly the same as giving the name of God a capital letter in English… and could very well be a Japanese’ first exposure to the idea of a Someone named God. This alone is enough food for a whole day’s-worth of thought.

The bookstore version continues, “caused to exist Earth [as in, the planet] and heaven.” Hm… not exactly the idea we get when we read Genesis. Although the Japanese does make it sound a little more personal than that (you see, something is lost here, even in the translation from Japanese to English) it doesn’t quite catch the essence of God as an active, hands-on builder-maker, a sculptor who commanded the universe into existence. It emphasizes the fact of the creation, rather than referring reverentially to the Creator. This translation even- subtly- leaves open the possibility that God simply had the world created. It could also mean, to a Japanese, that He simply determined that such a thing as the earth would exist. It fails to properly emphasize the important fact that it was God, Himself, who did the actual creating.

This description also sounds very text-book-like and difficult to understand. We have to read it two or three times even to misunderstand. It is grammatically correct, even without poetic license, but it’s difficult to follow.

Instead, the IBS says, simply, “made earth [as in, not sky or sea] and heaven.” To boot, the IBS version adds honorary inflections to the verb of making, to denote the admirable character and position of the Maker.

Now let’s see the word-for-word version:

“At first[/for the first time/to start with], god[s] caused to exist Planet Earth and the sky.”

and the thought-for-thought version:

“When there was still nothing, Lord God[, to His credit], made the earth and sky.”

(The “to His credit” part is very literally included, in an inflection of the Japanese verb, “to make,” but can’t be translated as an inflection, since we don’t have any such inflection in English. That’s why I added the words.)

The differences between the versions are, in the mind of an American reader, minimal (except that some of you are probably shouting, “Corruption of the text!”). To a Japanese, it is a difference between complete confusion and totally meaningless gibberish, and an earth-shattering truth (or outlandish fairy-tale), depending on how s/he chooses to receive it. And I’d much rather leave the reader choosing whether to believe than wondering what to believe.

To continue the argument, consider subtitles for a Japanese movie. If you saw one Japanese man hand a sack of money to the second Japanese man, (bear with me; this is relevant) and saw, in the subtitles, that the second man (the receiver) said, “I’m sorry,” you would wonder: “Why is he sorry? What did he do? Did I miss part of the story? Does the man pity his friend for having to part with his money? Is this some sort of Japense politeness? ” [Yes, by the way.]

This would immediately be followed, of course, with a “Nonono!” from the giver. Aha! So, something’s wrong, after all! Let’s rewind the tape and figure out why the receiver thinks he should apologize for receiving the money, and why the giver doesn’t think it’s such a big deal…. and so on.

But what if you knew that, in Japan, Japanese often say “I’m sorry/no” in exactly the same situation where Americans would say, “Thank you/you’re welcome”? Wouldn’t you think, “Well why didn’t the translator just translate that as, ‘Thank you/you’re welcome?’” You would be perfectly justified, too; after all, you want to watch a movie, and you shouldn’t have to take lessons in Japanese culture to understand what’s going on or what the characters are saying to each other.

In a similar way, I don’t think the Japanese should have to understand ancient Jewish and Greek culture (or, probably more accurately, American and Portuguese culture! Although I’m not entirely certain who did the initial work of translation), in order to read their Bibles. The Bible should be translated, as it always has been, into the common language of the people, not curtained behind in esoteric cultural references.

Yes, Westerners were involved in the earlier translations of the Bible into Japanese, and their limited knowledge of the language and culture may have severely damaged the ability of the Japanese to understand the teachings of Our Lord. But now there is an option, I’m excited to say! I think I’ve finally found a Japanese Bible that is a little better fit for popular consumption!

Blah

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah…

Blah blah blah blah, blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah. Blah blah blah.

Blah.