Our Expectations of God: They May Be Off… Way Off

A short time ago I finished a book by Phillip Yancy called Disappointment With God. It was a great book, and one that I recommend to anybody, but particularly those who have/are in difficult times.

One of the main points of the book was to address why we can be disappointed with God, as the title may suggest. He does this by answering three questions: Is God unfair? Is He silent? Is He hidden? Instead of answering these questions and giving an explanation, as we so often do, he takes a different route. he addresses why we are asking these questions in the first place. In asking these things, we clearly have presuppositions in regards to how God should be and how He should act. If we think He is unfair, clearly we think He should be fair. If He is silent, clearly we think that He should speak. And if He is hidden, clearly we think that He should make his appearance known.

Typically, the answer to these questions revolve around philosophy and theology. using wordy responses and scripture references to show that He is fair, is not silent, and is not hidden. But to what use? For those experiencing things that raise these questions, they certainly seem to be legitimate questions. It’s more of a “Why is God not being fair now, why is He not speaking to me, and why do I not feel Him?” You can’t use the answers that we most often give to the original questions and expect people to say, “Oh, that makes sense. Ok. I’ll move on because that eases my pain.”

By addressing our presuppositions about God, we can see why His reality is not matching our expectations of how things should be.

If there are a few things that we can learn from the Bible and human history, they are that God has tried multiple methods of trying to reach out to us, and most have failed. This is not to say that God failed, but rather that we failed Him. He even knew they would fail, but tried anyway. For example, He led the Israelites out of Egypt, into a desert where He fed them every day in a miraculous way, “resided” in a tent and could be felt, and then led them into the Promised Land despite heavy opposition. Did the people continuously praise Him and act according to His will? Not by any means. They complained about the food they were provided, they doubted that they could take the Promised Land despite the fact that they had seen Him part a sea and cause the Plagues. He then tried prophets instead of interacting personally, and what happened? They were killed and hated. Then came the kings, who also failed. And finally the success of Christ. But if He knew that Christ was the answer all along, why try these other, pointless options, destined to fail?

I think He did it to show us that they fail. He wanted to be able to say, when people asked why He wasn’t making Himself clear as day, or not speaking directly to them, that it doesn’t work and that He has tried it before. He is able to say that He has spoken to people and they didn’t listen. In fact, He came down Himself as a person, a human, and we killed Him. Fortunately for us, that was the whole plan. But it still showed us that God is there, and that He does care, and that we need to trust Him.

Jesus suffered not only for us, but also with us. God wanted to be able to say, “I know the pain that you feel. I know what emotional and physical pain as a human is like. I have been there, and I made it through, so can you. Follow my example.” What a God we have that He would exhaust all options so that we could have no excuse, and then He suffered in our place and can say that and mean that, and we can know that in the end, God wins.

Definition of Science: What can be an explanation?

In listening to a podcast today, I was getting more and more frustrated. It was two Christians discussing the origin of life. One kept saying that intelligent design was a science stopper and that minds should not be an explanation for anything in science.

I find this to be ludicrous. If it is the case, because it is certainly at least possibly true, then your definition and limits of science are science stoppers themselves. How can you have such things that would potentially give you necessarily false answers. For if it could be true that there are agent causations(which there certainly appears to be and all other fields permit them, just not biology and physics), then you are operating on a concept that necessarily prevents you from finding the true explanation.

I don’t understand why this is so common, and why some of the smartest people in the world think this way. Agents cause things. We know this from experience. How can you then rule that out simply because it is “science” and not something else? If you are limiting yourself from particular explanations because they are “unscientific,” then you have a faulty concept of what science is, because science is suppose to study reality, and the things that take place in it and effect it. If there is a dimension of this that you leave out, you the are no longer doing honest and open science and are bound to have false answers.

Jesus was Human… So are we: Don’t forget that. He didn’t push His God button.

SO I will start off with two links to pages by N.T. Wright on Jesus self-identity and self-awareness that will shed some light on where I will go in this post.

Jesus’ Self-Understanding

JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD

And then I will post this link as well, which is another source for this post:

God Button: The Mind of Christ

I shall try to combine an analysis for the two together.

The first point is that we need to remember that Jesus was a HUMAN. So often we lose sight of this, and put Him in this “other” category so that a)we feel we can no longer relate to him, or b)so that we can rationalize why we mess up and sin and He didn’t. Both are dangerous, and both should be forbidden. Yes, Jesus was God, but His humanity was equally important. It had to be a human that lived a perfect life in order for our sins to be pardoned. It had to be someone who dealt with the same things we deal with, but win them all. It had to be a human so that we could relate in times of need, and turn to Him as a perfect example rather than an idealized concept of how things could be if we were God too.

The reason why I think that these three messages relate is because it all comes down to one thing: Jesus was human. It does not deny His God aspect of Himself, but it refines it. Jesus temptation, if anything, was probably greater than anything we face today. He was put in situations where pressing His “God-button”would have alleviated a lot of things, whether for Himself, or, perhaps more interestingly, for others. He easily could have taken Himself off the cross, in some ways proving His divine power. But in doing so, the necessary sacrifice would have been spoiled. he could have restored the city of Jerusalem to power, but knew His spiritual mission was far more important. How often do we live like this? I think one of the major problems in today’s world is that people think that preventing and fixing problems is what makes someone a good person. To a degree, it is. But there is so much more. Physical support is good, but nothing compared to spiritual support. How often do we focus on people’s physical needs above their spiritual needs?

This is not to say that we should not meet physical needs, but in doing so, there is supposed to be more to it than just that.

I think Jesus life shows how to handle this. He didn’t succumb to the worldly pressure to meet physical needs, but was more concerned with spiritual things.

Back to Jesus and how He saw Himself. It would make sense, that in being completely human, He would have His doubts and questions. We all do as humans, and it would be crazy to set Him apart and think that He didn’t as well. For me, this is a major comfort. He persevered through His doubts and held steadfast in the faith, even when He felt rejected. He may have been unsure of Himself even at times, as we all are, but trusted in the Father and the Spirit to work through Him and provide and win in the end. This is something we all need to learn. This dependency upon God. It is such a danger in setting Jesus apart too far away from us, and lose out on this hope that we can be like Him.

I think that fact that the name “Christian” means “little Christ” is so perfect. I mean, how often do we call ourselves that but not think about it? It has come to mean a follower of Jesus, a God-fearing person, but has lost it’s original meaning, which was to follow in His footsteps. In the name itself, it is assumed that we can be like Him. We can’t be God, but we can trust God and utilize the Holy Spirit in the way that Christ did, and in that sense be like Him. I think this is what we are called to do.

I think our issues have multiple origins. The fact that we put halos around His head in pictures, that we have portraits of Him hung up in some churches. We set Him up high, which is good, but too high to reach. That was the problem of the Old Testament. God was too big and impersonal to be reached and trusted in in the manner that He wanted. Which is why He sent His Son, and the Holy Spirit. They were to be the personal, reachable aspects of Himself. In setting them so far above us, we miss out on some of the greatest aspects of their existence. Our relation to them, both in the typical relationship status, but also in how we compare to Christ. He was human, we are human. If we miss out on this, we miss out on a giant reason for why God did things the way He did. It was more than about just saving us, it was about redeeming us, and helping us live the way we were meant to live. If we don’t think of it like this, we are rejecting our greatest ally and advocate in life, and making it that much harder on ourselves.

Jesus was a human. Jesus was God. We are human, and not God. But in His humanity, we can relate to Him much more closely than we often think. Don’t succumb to this pressure. Yes, He was perfect, but He was perfect to show you how it was to be done, and that it was possible. Don’t reject His example.

On the other side of the road…

I recently listened to a sermon on the Good Samaritan… something we talk about far too often it may seem, something we all think we know about. It’s typically told in order for us to see that everybody we come across is a “neighbor” and what it means to be a good Christian is to help out those in need, no matter who they are or their relation to us. And that’s not a bad message. But this focuses solely on what the Good Samaritan did, and I think, after hearing this particular sermon, that there is more to the story.

No, I’m not saying don’t walk alone on dangerous roads because you might get jumped, though that is true. Rather, it’s much more general. Something I had never thought about were the people who passed the man in need of help. They were good people too, well-respected people with important things to do. Not just that, but if they helped this man, they probably could not do their important things since they would be ritually unclean, and performing rituals was their job. You see, we had a priest and a Levite. Men of the temple. They had Godly business to attend to. It wasn’t as though they merely didn’t want to help, maybe they did but had other obligations. And not just selfish obligations, but stuff that served God…

A friend needs to talk, but we have prior obligations, it would be rude to ditch the other thing for your friend, though, since that came first. And a true friend would understand this and not want to interrupt your prior event. You have a softball game Saturday night, a playoff game, and someone from church asks if you can teach a class because they won’t be able to be there. If you don’t go to the game, your team will have to forfeit because they won’t have enough players. You have to politely, yet regretfully, decline because your team is counting on you.

These scenarios are have quite a bit in common. These aren’t just excuses, these are real reasons, legitimate. We are torn, but in the end stick with the plan. Deviating would be too risky, and it would disappoint too many people.

But yet these are the things that Jesus was criticizing, right? He was showing how Godly people, who were trying to be Godly, had their priorities messed up. We aren’t told what this Samaritan was doing, or where he was heading. I wish we were, because I have a feeling he had somewhere important to be too. And he put that on hold, and attended to this man.

How often have we done this? I wish I could say more. I am guilty of it, and I’m sure you are too at some time or another. We have things that we think are important, and yet Jesus is telling us that we have our priorities messed up.

We are walking on the other side of the road.

Part of this is about avoiding the issue to begin with. When we see something that will be trying or difficult, we often make our way around it, trying to pay it as little attention as possible as not to force us to actually make a decision. That way, we don’t feel bad, and can rationalize that we just didn’t see it or it was out of the way. This seems to me to be what the priest and Levite did. They recognized something that was going to call them to act, to make a decision, yet they avoided it, but for God’s sake.

I think there are 3 points being made here. The first is direct, and that is that everybody is our neighbor, since that was the original question that was to be answered. But I think there was a point to the people and situation that we often miss not being in the culture. Anybody listening would have known that the priest and Levite were on their way to the temple. They had duties to fulfill that the people counted on. So Jesus was flipping this on it’s head. It seems clear that this is a point since Jesus makes it other places as well. People are more important than “godliness.” I’ve heard something similar before, “business is not godliness.” People are more important than doing “things,” even if “important.” People are what God is after anyways, not a clean church, not a great sermon, not an well-said prayer. These things mean nothing if not intended to bring people to God.

The preacher emphasized this. He called us not to “walk on the other side of the road.” Calling us not to avoid stuff if at all possible, and to rationalize our actions.

How often do you walk on the other side of the road? At work? At school? Even at home? Can you say that you have dropped what you were doing, though seemingly important, to help someone in need?

If yes, keep up the good work. If no, work on it. It’s important. People matter more to God than anything else, it should be the same for us as well.

Where does God fit into my life?

This past week has been full of awesome thoughts in regards to faith and action and such. Our church has been going through the book of James, discussing a lot of the basic practical applications for a Christian. This past week reminded me of a great video I saw a few years back. The sermon was about submitting to God, while the video was about where God fit into our lives. But they were extremely related in their practice.

First, the sermon merely reflected what it meant to submit to God, which seems so obvious to us, yet so hard to actually do. The whole “Your will be done” idea, not my will. The video was something that merely popped into my head in the middle of the sermon that had a similar effect on me in remembrance as it did the first time. It’s a short animated clip of a boy who has the most awesome house ever, a mansion, with so many cool things inside. One day, he sees a giant ninja statue, and just has to have it, knowing that his house will always seem incomplete without it. He tries to get it in, but it just won’t fit. He can’t find a way to get it in. Instead of giving up his hopes of having it in his house, he decides that this statue is so important, that he will destroy his house and rebuild it around the statue. This is submission to God.

If it isn’t clear, which it didn’t stand out right away for me the first time, or at least not the huge impact it has had on me since, let me explain. God is the ninja statue, not in an idolic sense, but merely in an metaphorical sense. God doesn’t just fit neatly into our lives, it just doesn’t work that way. It’s a “nice” theory, to adapt a lifestyle that has God in it along with other things, since family and work and friends are important too, and they need attention and space as well. But in practice, it leads to a mere nominal Christianity, one that isn’t very Christian at all when you compare it to the “Christianity” that Jesus was asking of us. I put this in quotes because it’s not about the religion or the things that we do. In fact, this was part of the sermon that I thought fit so well into this. Doing the right things just simply isn’t enough.

This requires some more explanation as well. We were left with a question to ponder when it comes to making decisions, “Is this consistent with my call to be a disciple of Christ?” Everything goes through this filter that we say, do, etc. This is where the video comes back in. The tearing down of the house was the radical change that is required for a Christian in their lives. Everything changes. Rather than having some God in one’s life, their life should be built around God. Everything is for Him.

And then comes Steven Curtis Chapman, one of my favorite music artists. He recently released a song called “Do Everything.” The chorus goes like this:

Do everything you do to the glory of the One who made you
Cause He made you to do
Every little thing that you do to bring a smile to His face
And tell the story of grace
With every move that you make
And every little thing you do

It’s this idea that we should go about every aspect of our lives for God. Eating in thanks, working in praise, doing homework for His glory, playing sports to honor Him, everything. You can’t be a Christian and do these things for yourself, and only go to church or pray for God. It’s a life for God, not a moment or part of your day for God.

So tear down your “nice” houses and rebuild around God. If you find this hard, pray for it. You can’t do it on your own. You need God’s help. Don’t be afraid to ask for it.

God doesn’t fit in my life, your life. We fit in Him.

Lack of “Child abuse” is why there is a trend to deny Hell. So spank your kids… for God

This may seem crazy at first, but let me explain. By “child abuse” in the title, I simply mean good, old-fashioned child rearing. You know, that crazy one that actually involved punishing bad behavior? Yeah, that. But how in the world would this play into people becoming unorthodox? Let’s take a look…

Psychologists and the like today tend to say that spanking a child is bad and can lead to them being abusive when they are older and mal-developed. I tend to disagree, but I’m no expert I guess. Apparently looking around at behavior exhibited by Gen Y that wasn’t reared what I call properly compared to that of the behavior of Gen X and prior isn’t enough to show these “experts” that they are wrong and that if anything it leads to children being defiant, stuck up SOBs. Yeah, I said it. 50 years ago, no kid would have ever dreamed of calling his mother an inappropriate name because he knew mom would slap him in the face, make him eat soap, and then wait til dad got home, and that was worse. Now, not only is it not uncommon, but I’m surprised if I go to the mall or grocery and I DON’T see it happen. But for some reason the parent takes it in stride and simply gives them a verbal warning, followed by more name calling and back talking from the child, and yet another verbal warning ensues. Effective, eh? Not really. Now that is just one example, and while I don’t have any hard and fast studies to quote here, I reckon that crime in the teen age group as well as behavior and grades in school have dropped as well, and while there may be more than one factor for these, I would bet quite a bit that how children are raised has affected this.

But where does orthodoxy and belief in Hell come in? How about right here. What the child ends up believing is that punishment is evil, and that a parent should never hit a child, and if they do, that’s abuse, and EVIL. What this leads to is the belief that God surely couldn’t punish people if He loves them, right? That’s evil and unloving, and God is supposed to be benevolent and all loving. So while the problem of evil doesn’t concern us quite as much, because this is within the Christian camp and they affirm God exists, and whereas in the problem of evil, we know evil exists and can’t simply deny that to get around the problem, here, we don’t have “evidence” of Hell. Teaching that punishment, that justice, is evil is ludicrous. Its almost as if we are taught that only the REALLY bad people deserve punishment. So murderers and rapists and terrorists, right? But the idea of justice isn’t just that great people get great things and horrendous people get horrendous things, but that decent people get decent things, not so great people get not so great things, etc. You get what you deserve, you reap what you show, you get out what you put in. And this is across the board, and not just for extremes. Otherwise the petty thief shouldn’t be punished because he’s not THAT bad.

This is the world infiltrating Christianity. Let me explain a bit more. In Christianity, a little sin is a big sin. One sin, and you are no longer perfect. It doesn’t matter whether you raped and murdered a child, or whether you disobeyed your parents when they asked you to help clean the dishes. They both separate you from God. That’s the nature of sin. This is not to say that the degree of sin is unimportant in the end, because I think it is since God is perfectly just. But just as a petty thief gets punished some, and a murderer gets punished more, hopefully in a somewhat proportional manner, I would think something along those lines would occur when it comes to sin as well, though I do not have the knowledge to say how it actually works, but I trust that it does. But either way, there is in fact punishment even for menial sins if they are not repented of. Its one and done in God’s eyes if you are outside of Christ. Christ is the only second chance.

And we can also play up emotions to make people think that Hell surely doesn’t exist. Rob Bell likes to do this, he asks if we really think God won’t win in the end, that He won’t get what He wants. Its easy to think that of course He will, He is God. But what Bell doesn’t tell you is that God doesn’t want sin now, or ever, and by giving us free will, He already has relinquished getting completely what He wants because He wants us to choose. And if I choose and God doesn’t, that argument fails.

Certainly nobody likes the idea of Hell and nobody wishes it upon another. But I don’t like that fire causes pain, or that gas costs $4 a gallon, or tests in school, or etc., but that doesn’t mean that that is not the case and that I am better off acting as if they are not the case, because all that would get me would be burned, in prison, and flunked. And in the case of Hell, its eternal, and not something I can possibly fix. Jesus/God said it was real, and that is enough for me. I don’t have to go there to believe in it. So by teaching kids that they should not be punished for bad behavior in the home, that they should not be punished in school, that things should be changed so that they can succeed, they start to think that that is how the world is. It isn’t. God doesn’t change for me. I change for Him. Hell isn’t designed for me and He doesn’t want me there, but I get to choose. If I don’t change, well…

Proper child rearing, therefore, not only leads to better behavior and more respect of others, it will lead to more orthodox beliefs in things like Hell and justice. So spank your kids… for God. It will do them good.

True(thful) to Myself

One of the popular sayings in today’s world is that one needs to be “true to himself.” What this means, no one truly knows. In fact, I have never heard of a positive definition of it, only negative ones. Sometimes its seems to mean that if we do something that we feel guilty about, we weren’t true to ourselves. Sometimes it simply means that if we are struggling with something, like alcoholism or drug addiction, marital problems,… that we are not being true to ourselves and that that is the cause of our troubles, and if we were true to ourselves, then this would have prevented or will fix the problems.

This seems fine and dandy to some degree. It may mean not lying, not being self-deceptive, accepting our faults and mistakes, etc. But there are a huge problems with it even within secular society, and even more in Christian culture. In a secular worldview, while one may accept their faults, being true to ourselves means merely accepting them at times, and may discourage us from trying to improve upon them. From this, angry people stay angry, selfish people stay selfish, etc. And not only that, but they justify their behavior by saying that it is just the way they are, implying that they have to be that way if they are to be “true to themselves.” So it can give people reasons to not improve themselves and be better people, and may even increase some faults as they become more “true to themselves.”

On a Christian worldview, this becomes an even bigger issue. That is because true human nature is sinful, and we should certainly not be “true to sin.” Paul calls us to crucify ourselves and be alive in Christ, no longer living for ourselves but living for Christ, not only this, but that Christ live in us(Galatians 2). He also says that we should be dead to sin and alive in Christ(Romans 6). So the message here seems to be saying that we should not be true to ourselves at all, but rather, allow Christ to live in us, that is, be true to Christ. This seems very contrary to the message that society is giving us, so when Christians adopt it, they are making very dangerous assertions that can be extremely harmful to themselves and other Christians. We end up with a similar result as the secular world, where people justify sin/bad behavior by saying its who we are, whereas for a Christian, that is the whole point! We are bad people by our nature and need to get out of it!

There is a song out there by MercyMe that says it quite well:

Well if I come across a little bit distant
It’s just because I am
Things just seem to feel a little bit different
You understand
Believe it or not but life is not apparently
About me anyways
But I have met the One who really is worthy
So let me say

So long, self
Well, it’s been fun, but I have found somebody else
So long, self
There’s just no room for two
So you are gonna have to move
So long, self
Don’t take this wrong but you are wrong for me, farewell
Oh well, goodbye, don’t cry
So long, self

Stop right there because I know what you’re thinking
But no we can’t be friends
And even though I know your heart is breaking
This has to end
And come to think of it the blame for all of this
Simply falls on me
For wanting something more in life than all of this
Can’t you see

It is only when we recognize that this self needs to be gotten rid of and that we should not associate with it at all that we become Christlike and Godly, and our relationship with The One, God, grows by leaps and bounds when we do so. But if we cling to any part of ourselves, God cannot do all that He wants with you. And when we are “true to ourselves,” this leaves no room for God at all and we live in sin and separation from God.

So Christians, please discard this idea entirely from your life and beliefs. For everybody else, you too. While you may not believe in God, surely improvement should be preferred to stagnation, and justification of bad behavior should be frowned upon, that is exactly what we get when following this doctrine to its core. Yourself is not a “higher power,” so don’t act like it. You can’t submit to yourself, for submitting to yourself is the same thing as living for yourself and requires nothing different than if you did not think in such a manner but just lived according to your whims.

Rather than being true to ourselves, let us be truthful to ourselves, and recognize that this is a stupid idea and that it is a terrible way to live and that this world would be even worse if we all lived in such a manner.

Clothing and other stuff

I like to look nice, but also like to sport my faith. c28.com is a site that sells Christian clothing, from shirts to jeans to hats to belts, everything. You can also get books and movies here. The link posted here even allows you to get 10% your purchase! Just click on it, and enter 10MINIFLYER in the coupon code section before submitting your purchase.

I have taken advantage of this site quite a bit. Recently bought a DVD on The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, as well as the book. Awesome stuff.

Here is a shirt that I am thinking about getting soon as well. Revelation V-Neck

Check it out, let me know what you think.

If you like to design things, check out http://www.canvasthreads.com/ where you can submit and vote on t-shirt designs. If you are selected, your design will be sold in the c28 store.

A Couple New Papers

Just posted a couple of new papers. One is on Mary the Color Scientist and the whole deal of intentionality. I bring up an objection as well as an objection to the objection. The other one is on the sociology of science and a critique of the Strong Programme put forth by Bloor.

Great discussion: Check it out!

If you want to join in on a great discussion, and in turn make following the posts where we already have multiple topics even more convoluted and difficult to keep track of, check it out over at Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God-Dialogue with Michael (re: Heaven and Hell). The original post was here:A Nonchurchgoer’s Guide to Jesus and His Kingdom-Everyone Is Going to Heaven. So check it out and join this discussion.

These are both blogs by Mike Gantt, cool guy, has a great name(like me), and always gives a good discussion and thought provoking posts.

Chich-Fil-A has fantastic chicken, and good values. Quit hatin’

So a story came out that Chick-Fil-A(CFA) donated to a pro-family organization that was against gay marriage. Gay rights advocates have unleashed their wrath upon this wonderful restaurants that makes a mean chicken sandwich. They’re telling people to protest the restaurant, and it has even been suspended at certain universities around the country. I find this… I guess not surprising, but certainly frustrating.

But let’s address this issue from the bottom up. CFA is an Evangelical Christian owned company. Its founder is of such background and wanted his business to be the same. They are closed on Sundays, they ask if they can “serve” the next guest as opposed to “help,” they have passed out various Christian toys, similar to the toys in a Happy Meal, such as Veggie Tales, Christian children’s books, etc. This is something they they are adamant about, and many CFA fans know full well.

And this is not the first time that they have been in the news for a political type issue. A former employee, who was a Muslim, sued saying that his religion was the reason for his firing after he refused to partake in an employee prayer. The suit was settled outside of court on undisclosed terms.

And now this. While legal action is not being pursued, it is possible that this will be more harmful than other issues since it is more public. But I just don’t get it. What’s the big deal? I don’t know of any anti-gays that refuse to go to Starbucks because they have donated to pro-gay organizations, and I know a lot of coffee drinkers! First, its food, if you like it, eat it, if not, don’t.

But second, let’s break this down into what it really is. Pro-gays are bigots and act like they aren’t. And here’s why: When someone speaks for Christian family values, they blast them for being evil and bigoted and homophobic. Its not like this someone even had to point they’re finger at gays as people, but that is what they get in return. Rather than a heated debate on the issues, which would be somewhat pleasant to see, what they get in return is the typical political ad hominem arguments that attack the person holding the belief rather than the belief himself. This is not to say that no proponent of Christian family values has never done the same to a gay rights advocate, but merely that it is less public and seems to be more rare. So the tolerance tends to be on the side of the Christian family values, as given in my Starbucks example earlier. Even mere support for any contrary belief is taken to be a jab at gay rights and they declare homophobia and intolerance. It is important here to note that this is quite wrong. To support one idea is indeed to reject its contrary, but that does not mean that to support one idea is to reject the people that hold the contrary. But this is the way the gay advocates portray it, specifically Perez Hilton. But what is really going on is that the side claiming tolerance, the gay right supporter since it is “about equality,” is being intolerant of the actually tolerant, since they don’t want to allow the opposition to support their own beliefs that are actually more idealistic than personal attacks upon homosexuals.

I think it is a fair comparison to communism of sorts here, where a certain side wants to repress any expression of a contrary view, but this is much more…. refined. That is because in this case, it is the minority that is suppressing the majority, since this country has given so much power to the minorities as to not upset them, often with the result of ignoring the cares of the majority. That is why this story is not surprising. But that is also why this story is sad. In the country that claims to be the land of the free and home of the brave, the country who boasts free speech, yet we have this. Where a private company can’t donate to who they please without negative repercussions in the media.

So in the end, I will continue to go to Chick-Fil-A, and continue to love and respect what they do and their firm stance as a Christian company.

Hell, what is this place? Heaven, does everyone go?

There are multiple words that get translated as “hell” in the Bible. Sheol in the Old Testament, and Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna in the New. Sheol does not have any clear meaning as the Hell as we know it today, but more like the Greek Hades, which was where all went where they died. Hades and Tartarus seem to be used in similar ways, but we get the idea that there is a divide somewhere in it, such as the story of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man is in torment and asks for a Lazarus to dip his finger in some water and touch his tongue, but Lazarus cannot due to the great chasm between them. This is commonly seen not as Hell proper, however. Rather, there is usually a distinction made between where the dead go when they die and the Heaven and Hell that come about after the Final Judgment and mass resurrection of all people. Gehenna seems the most strict of the terms. It seems to get its roots from the valley of Hinnon, which was outside the city of Jerusalem and was often on fire due to the garbage and waste that was there. Moloch and child sacrifice, and evil in general was associated both directly and indirectly with it. But the use of the word in the NT seems to have a more symbolic and figurative meaning than referencing the actual place, so a simple translation does not seem to fit.

So Hell proper seems mostly to come from a select few passages in the Bible where Gehenna is used, or where eternal damnation is mentioned, and then a few instances in Revelation, though I will not mention those here due to the nature of the book that is so hard to interpret. The main “proof texts” for Hell as eternal punishment are Matt. 25:41, Matt. 25:46, Jude 7, which actually don’t even have the word Hell in them, but merely speak of eternal torment or punishment. In Matt. 3:12, Matt. 5:22, Matt. 18:8-9, Gehenna is used in conjunction with sin and the punishment for that sin, so in conjunction with the other passages mentioned, the doctrine of Hell is established.

So what does that mean about Heaven? Well, we clearly see that in Hades in the Lazarus and the rich man story, that there is a divide between the righteous and the unrighteous. [On a side note here, the doctrine of imputed righteousness(often associated with Reformed Theology and Protestantism) or infused righteousness(often associated with Catholic Theology) has to be mentioned, since Christians do not claim to be righteous of their own accord, but that as forgiven people, are given the righteousness of Christ.] And if there is a divide in Hades between the righteous and unrighteous, and we combine this with the idea that some will receive eternal torment, it would make sense to say that these people will be the unrighteous. The other option would be to say that there is some sort of purgatory, or that Hell is like purgatory, insofar as Hell would be finite according to the punishment fit for one’s sins. While this may be the more likable idea, since then all would be saved and this seems more just than eternal punishment, it seems impossible to me to get this out of the Bible, especially given that we know that some will in fact be punished in an eternal manner with “the devil and his angels.” To me, this seems impossible to get around. I will concede that some passages are ambiguous about Heaven and who gets there, but these passages hat talk of eternal punishment are impossible to coincide with the idea that everyone could get into heaven, because if that were the case, then surely this would not have been said in the first place.

Laying out some of the alternatives for Hell:

Annihilationism: God destroys the souls of the wicked so they do not have to suffer eternal torment in Hell. To me, this sounds a lot like euthanasia. The purpose of this idea is that God prevents eternal suffering by taking one out of existence entirely. But is that really a better option? It seems that if one is abhorrent, the other would be as well.

Universalism: There are basically two types of universalism. Contingent and necessary. Necessary is more problematic in that it says that it is impossible for anybody to go to Hell, which would seem to fly in the face of a just God, and it also implies that no matter what one does in their life on earth, it has no affect on their afterlife.

Contingent universalism seems to be the nicest view. That while it is possible for some to go to Hell, none in fact do. The problem here seems minor, but ends up with the same problem that it was trying to solve, mainly, that God would not send anyone to Hell due to His goodness. What the universalist wants to say is that God can’t send people to Hell, that He won’t has no affect on His ability to, and it is His ability to that they have to object to.

Second chance: Many views here, but the main point is that while some go to Hell it is finite. Problem here: the passages listed earlier mention eternal Hell, and this is not compatible with that.

For some interesting comments regarding Hell and Heaven and the problems with annihilationism and universalism check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/#1.1

The objective or goal here is to have an internally consistent doctrine of Heaven, Hell, and God. In my opinion, the traditional view that Hell is eternal, some people will go there, Heaven is eternal and Good, but both only come about after the Final Judgment and mass resurrection of both good and bad, and that before then, we all go to Hades but that the righteous are with God in a good realm, while the wicked are separated in some manner from the righteous. I would go as far as saying that for an infinitely good God, that in order to maintain that attribute, He cannot be in the presence of any sin or unrighteousness, which is why forgiveness and imputed/infused righteousness is necessary for salvation and entrance into heaven. And those only come about after repentance and wanting to be forgiven. It is not that forgiveness apart from wanting to be forgiven is like rape by any means, but rather that it is a two way street, the main aspect being repentance and recognition that we are sinful and need to be better, and the sincere effort to improve and try to be good. This would allow for some non-Christians who recognize that they fall short of being perfect, yet strive anyways, and honestly seek truth to get a pass. Now, not being God, I do not say who fits in this category and who doesn’t. If someone is agnostic or atheistic and is 100% honest and pure in his seeking, then they may get in since God can see into out hearts and our thoughts. I do believe more certainly that this allows minimally for those who have never encountered the Gospel to begin with to get in if they fit into this category.

New Papers!

Some new papers from this Autumn quarter in Philosophy of Science added to Papers and Other Documents on the right. Check them out if you want. They are pretty good if I can say so myself. Would love some feedback as well.

Dating of Gospels and Acts: Response to Frontline-From Jesus to Christ

So I was quite confused when watching PBS Frontline on “From Jesus to Christ” and how the scholars they had on the production dated the Gospels. They had them all at the very earliest AFTER the destruction of the temple, and said they were all decades apart. So if I do the math, Mark is around 71ish, Matthew 85, Luke 95, John into the second Century, and Acts I guess would also be second century. To me, and hopefully to you, this is absolutely absurd. None of the Gospels nor Acts mentions the temple being destroyed. John, who is typically dated after the destruction of the temple even by more conservative dating, is much more figurative and loose than the others, so maybe that is not so surprising. But when it comes to Luke, who mentions reigns of governors and such, and deaths of seemingly minor martyrs, why would he fail to include something as catastrophic to Jews as the temple being torn down?

The people of the program seemed to be reading way too much into Mark, as they said that his Gospel was actually an answer to the fall of Jerusalem. I find this to be odd, since he never mentions the fall, as one might want to say what they were answering in such a work.

So how about my idea of the dating and how I think it went down, which maybe you should take with a grain of salt, but it seems pretty logical to me, and much more plausible than the dates that this program laid out.

Acts: Before Paul and Peters deaths, which were mid-60s. The entire book of Acts pretty much follows Paul’s life, chronicling many of his journeys, as well as his trial and his trip to Rome. Yet the book seems to end rather abruptly, as it does not mention the verdict nor the sentencing that Paul received, which we know to be beheading. Now this would seem extremely strange had Acts been written in the 90s or the second century, or even the 70s or 80s for that matter. Why include so many details into Paul’s life and leave out his death? As for Peter, we hear of Stephen’s martyrdom, as well as other seemingly minor figures compared to one of the main apostles, so why would the martyrdom of Peter not be mentioned. Another interesting part of that is the story usually associated with Peter, that he was crucified upside down because he did not feel worthy of Jesus death. So I say around 63 or so, since it includes Paul’s initial trial and his trip to Rome to stand trial there, but nothing more.

Luke: Before Acts. This is pretty obvious, as I know of nobody who says Luke was written after Acts. The typical dating is about a decade before, but lets play nice and say 5 years, which would put Luke around 58.

Matthew: Before Luke. Sticking with the seemingly consensus order, Matthew comes before Luke but after Mark. Again, often placed, as seen in frontline, a decade preceding Luke, but again we will say 5 years, placing this Gospel around 53.

Mark: The earliest Gospel by most accounts. We will again use our 5 year formula, placing it in the late 40s, maybe 48 or so.

John: Difficult to date John, given its much more abstract and yet concrete writings. Much more up front than the others about Christ’s divinity, which makes sense if Jerusalem has fallen and such claims would not result in such consequences as death somehow or another by Jewish law-keepers, much like Jesus. So I am comfortable saying after the destruction of the temple, and I like to be nice, so we can say around 85 for John.

Paul’s letter: Often dated in the 50s or late 40s, this would seem highly unlikely if Mark was written in the late 40s. So I think we can pretty safely say, given our dating of the other Gospels, that Paul’s first letter was written in the mid to late 30s, given his many journeys and the timescale he himself gives and that Luke gives in Acts.

These “conservatively” liberal dates, I say this because it would be very easy to stick with the general liberal framework of a decade between each piece, end up putting Paul’s writings within 10 years of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which is pretty significant. However, I do find it plausible that some version of Mark was floating around in some areas as early as the early 40s and that Paul didn’t hear about it due to geographical restrictions, and similar concepts can be applied to the other gospels as well.

Where does this leave us? First letters in regards to what is now orthodox Christianity are written within 5-10 years of Jesus death, which means Paul was preaching before this, which means the hymns and such that he quotes are earlier than the beginning of his ministry, which would put these within a year or two of Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension. So in contrast to the liberal frontline idea that there were many ideas of Jesus and many Christianities rising in different regions that wouldn’t be “set straight” until the second or third centuries, we see a unified Christianity from the outset, and while some were saying other things, Paul, the apostles, and the original disciples were correcting these as they came about, and not simply corrected at some council in the third century.

So not only is this important in dispelling the myth of there being many versions of Christianity that were quite unique, it also gives credence to the historicity of the New Testament writings as they inch closer to the dates of what they are giving accounts of.

More to come on the Frontline special, and here is the link to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/

Hawking disproved God with M theory?

Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design claims to have shown God unnecessary, or at least it seems so. But many critics disagree quite fervently, long time partner Roger Penrose being among them. Penrose says that M Theory, and all string theories for that matter, are purely speculative with no way of truly testing them, given that what they try to describe is unobservable and therefore, at least currently, untestable outside of its own consistency.

But while string theories seem promising, they still don’t do what Hawking says they do. He makes the claim that given M theory, there would be 10 to the 500 possible universes and that this constitutes a multiverse. And that given M theory, gravity would actually “cause” the universe to be created out of “nothing.” And at first glance, he seems to present a decent case. But upon further investigation, the “nothing” he refers to is really a quantum vacuum, and that is not the “nothing” that philosophers have defined. But early on in the book, he makes the claim that philosophy is dead, so it seems that he is quite content with his ignorance of the philosophical side of things that defines that terms he uses.

Much of the book is quite technical, but interestingly, despite saying philosophy is dead, he gives his own shot at philosophizing and saying the way he thinks things are. These turn out to be quite inconsistent with his own views. He seems to espouse some sort of anti-realism of sorts, as well as determinism to the extreme. Given his view of how things really are, it seems that his model is simply his way of organizing his sense data, and that given determinism, he was determined to organize them in this manner, which would discredit them entirely.

In the end, he seems to me to be getting more and more desperate to justify his own disbelief, this being the latest step in that process.

Trinity=Confusing, yet… astoundingly marvelous

The Trinitarian aspect of God has been thought about and discussed since the Early Church, and we still don’t have a very strong grasp on how it works. It’s something I have been thinking about and reading about lately, and this is where I am at now.

First, it follows from the ontological argument. This argument “proves” the greatest of all beings, so omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. But after some thinking and a sociology class, I came to the realization that the trinity would be a necessary attribute of the perfect being. And here is why: The most stable relationship is a three person relationship. This is common knowledge in the field of sociology. This perfect being must be self-sufficient, we all know that a truly lonely person is not very sufficient, is quite lonely, and many times unstable. So it makes perfect sense to see this perfect being as having three major separate, yet connected parts.

Second is on how we can understand the Trinity. Some mistakenly think that it works like the situation of a father with one sibling. He is a son of his parents, a father of his son, and a brother. Three identities, one person. But that is why it is wrong. Still ONE person. We need three. So with the help of C.S. Lewis and a few others, I have a different concept of it. Think of a triangle. Three individual sides, yet one shape. All connected to each other. We can even imagine somewhat the aspect of ourselves in regards to the trinity and why it is so difficult to comprehend. We can imagine ourselves in a one-dimensional world, whereas the triangle is obviously in a two dimensional world. We could try to grasp how this triangle looks, and prove it mathematically to be consistent on some level, but we could never come close to a full comprehension of it. That is the situation we find ourselves in now. God is so other, so infinite the out finite minds can’t comprehend Him, especially not in this life.

Third, how does the Trinity affect us? Well, it shows us that if we are not worshiping the Trinitarian God, we are not worshiping the right God. Which means a lot of people have it wrong. It is one of God’s major attributes that has a huge impact on His reality, and not just ours, so it is a very important doctrine to be preserved. It shows us that God truly IS love, as He demonstrates perfect love and perfect relationship.

Along these lines, I began to realize the answer the my sociology professor’s question to our class in regards to human relations. His question was that if a three person relationship is the best kind, should be practice polygamy? Some people sort of conceded the point, but I knew that that was going to be unstable because there are only two sexes, and the concept of the perfect relationship would be between three DIFFERENT types of persons, not just three different people. You would always end up with 1 male and 2 females or 2 males and 1 female, which are both lopsided in some manner. I brought this up and assumed, correctly, that God was this third person that would make our relationships better. But what I missed out on was how perfect this really was. Who better to have in your marriage than the creator of marriage, of humans, and the perfect lover? He would give the best possible advice, literally. He would be the perfect mediator. And the perfect friend. Not to mention, He is part of His own three person relationship that is perfectly stable, and we all know how we become more like those we are in relationships with. And who better to become more like than God?

In the end, I have been left with this feeling of awe, in how God has made things to work in harmony so perfectly. It’s almost as if He knew exactly what He was doing, almost… Obviously, I am still nowhere near fully understanding Him in this aspect, but I am trying. My way of trying to love Him with all of my mind.

Why I’m not a Muslim… They can’t be right.

Jesus is pretty much the most polarizing figure in all of human history. Nearly everybody knows about Him, what His followers say He said, and what He claimed to have done. Most people know more about Jesus than any other religious figure like the Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Muhammad. This, to me, seems to attest to something, though what that something is is up for debate.

But in spite of what we are told about Jesus, what are the possibilities of who He really was given our knowledge of Him? I would say we have three options. One, He was who He said He is, viz. God in the flesh, the Son part of the Trinity, the Messiah, and that He did miracles to show God’s glory, including defeating death for our salvation. Two, He was a lunatic that was off his rocker. He made claims, as many have, to be a god, yet like the others, failed to show it. Finally, He could have been the devil, or some demon, who wanted to lead people away from God, doing miracles in the name of the devil, rather than God. Interestingly, the Christians take the first view, many atheists take the second, and often Jews take the third. But notice, the Muslim view, and the popular view are not options! That is, that He was a good moral teacher, with good advice on how to live in harmony with others and how to be a good person, yet that He wasn’t who He said He was.

And that’s the problem. If we accept His moral sayings and life advice, which we find in the Bible, we must accept His other claims as well, which is that He is God, the Messiah, our Savior, etc. I don’t see anyway around this. Even the Jews seem to attest that He made such claims, since they denied His claims and said He was the devil or at least a demon working for the devil. You can’t say He was a great prophet, yet not accept His claims to divinity. You can’t say He was a good teacher, because He taught that He was the only way to heaven, and that He was God.

This is why I could never be a Muslim in the orthodox way. It is also why I could never be the naïve atheist and say that He had some good things to say but that He wasn’t really claiming to be divine. He did not leave those options open to us, and He did not mean to. He wanted to be polarizing, where you were on His side or against it, 100% either way. You can’t accept part of Him and leave the rest.

Where does that leave me? Well, a Christian right now, and probably forever. But I will never be an orthodox Muslim, or follower of the moral Jesus but not the God Jesus. Those options aren’t on the menu, and for some reason, people keep trying to order them anyway.

Beauty

I recently was reading through a few arguments for God based on the existence of Beauty in the world and found them quite interesting. They flow similarly to moral arguments in that they say Beauty is contingent to God. And I actually see them as somewhat persuasive. And I think this is so because I think it is harder to deny the existence of beautiful things than it is to deny good and bad. This is because even subjective beauty can be used in this argument.

If we consider something beautiful, then there must be a scale of beauty that we are using. Sometimes it seems like a personal scale, other times not. Why is it that most people find sunrises and sunsets beautiful? Or are attracted to similar people? Or think that a blue sky is wonderful? I think there is a beauty scale that is subjective but matches up somewhat with others, like when we compare the outward “beauty” of people, but something totally apart from us when looking at nature.

I don’t think I could ever have called a day in my life ugly, at least not the nature part, since I sure have messed up a few myself. But I don’t think I can honestly say that I have looked outside and said, “What an ugly day today.” I know I have said it when I wanted to play baseball and it was raining, or golf even. Or if I wanted snow on Christmas and it was 60 degrees. But that was merely because the weather was not in conjunction with my wishes for the day, and had nothing to do with the actual beauty of the day. On the other hand, I have watched storms from balconies and porches and sat in awe at the rain, lightning, and thunder. I have sat in the grass and watched blue skies hang there, and possibly watch a few fluffy white clouds go floating by. Its really a remarkable thing that we so often take for granted. Maybe we should all make a habit of thanking God for such a beautiful day each time we wake up. It might brighten up our days.

But even if we don’t go that far, though I think we should, there is still something to be said for the beauty of a mountain with the sun shining on its snowcap. Or an ocean as it shines in the sun as far as the eye can see.

Speaking of mountains, I find them certainly to be a sign from God that He is there. First of all, the whole mountain points up to him, and so do all the trees on it. The base is often dirt based, while the top is white with snow. Not many people get to the top, but those who do experience something we can’t possibly imagine. Now compare that to Christianity. God is on top of all things and is perfect. We are along the base, covered in sin. We can assume that since the path to heaven is narrow, not many people will get there, but it will be a wonderful experience for those who do. Its like a micro-Christian world all in one mountain.

But certainly we all acknowledge that there is beauty of sorts all around us. In animals, trees, flowers, the sky, the solar system, the universe and its fireworks of exploding stars. Awe-inspiring. And I know that God was its creator, and that He must be beautiful as well.

LeBron, “The Decision,” My Take

Again, I know I don’t usually post on sports, but as a sports fan, how could I not post on this?

I have mixed feelings being from Ohio and a James fan. Part of me is upset that he left his hometown, and showed that maybe he wasn’t as loyal as some thought. On the other hand, he showed that in fact, winning means more to him than money. He is losing a ton of money by going to Miami. The Cavs could have given him about 125 million over 6 years. He won’t be able to sign a max contract in South Beach due to Wade and Bosh, and they can’t max out the salary cap with those three because they only have 4 other players on contract, and two are draftees. So it wasn’t about money for him, but about winning. This was certainly his best shot at winning multiple championships.

And for those who think 1 championship in Cleveland for LeBron is worth more than 6 someplace else, what planet are you from? If Michael had won just 1 in Chicago, is he who he is today? They didn’t have a major history of championships in Chicago, just like Cleveland. Baseball, football, basketball all were struggling to get there. LeBron needs 7 or 8 rings to show that he’s better than MJ, otherwise, he’s still in MJ’s shadow.

And for those who think that if he wins a handful in Miami, the superstar trio takes away from it… nonsense. Magic had a Hall of Fame roster in LA, same for Isaiah Thomas, Larry Bird, hell, Jordan had quite a team too, so much so, that they couldn’t afford to keep them all together because they got so big individually. LeBron went through a list of the teams to win multiple titles, and all of them had 3 or 4 star players on them. He understands that championships are about the team and depth. He carried the Cavs by himself for 7 years and Cleveland and always fell short. Yes, Jordan didn’t win it all for a while, but he won in his 7th year, LeBron didn’t. And it didn’t seem like the Cavs would be adding any players to the mix, and none of the ones they had were up and coming, like the Bulls had in Horace Grant and Pippen, notably. So LeBron would have had to wait for jamison, Williams, Verajao, etc. contracts to expire since they were overpaid and limited cap space tremendously, which is another 3-4 years. That’s now 11 years and no rings for LeBron if he stays, where Jordan had 5 by then and on his way to a 6th if you don’t include his first year of retirement. LeBron had to do something now if he was going to make a run at surpassing Jordan’s legacy, and this was the right move for him. Obviously not for Cleveland, not for his fans, but for him. It was his decision, and it was about making him happy and realizing his goals, and not about what any fan wanted him to do.

If LeBron wins a few here in the next 4 or 5 years, we should be happy for him, because his decision will have paid off, even if that meant that Cleveland was left heartbroken.

On another note, talk about “fair weather” people in Cleveland. Gilbert really ripped “his” former star after he made his decision. If my biggest fans were going to turn on me as soon as I put winning at the forefront of my career, staying would have been a big mistake. Cleveland fans have a right to be sad, yes. Very sad indeed. They weren’t able to keep the most amazing physical specimen the NBA has ever seen in his hometown, with no fault due to themselves. Rather, it was the management who decided to overpay good, but not great players, good, but on the decline players, rather than chasing young, developing talent, or true seconds. Did you notice how Gilbert said that their motivation and determination which reach new heights now? That means that they WERE NOT trying as hard as they could have to bring a championship to Cleveland with LeBron as they claimed. Maybe if he had said this 3 years ago, it would have happened. Or if he had said this after the loss in the Conference semis, LeBron may have stayed. But he announces it after LeBron leaves, not a smart move. It proves to LeBron that he was right to leave, that Gilbert wasn’t really going for a championship, but was taking his King for granted, and was worried about filling seats. Cleveland fans should be mad at the front office for not doing their job and simply hoping LeBron could do it on his own. That’s the saddest part about this whole thing. LeBron wanted to stay, but how could he if his front office was half-assing it, and not as focused on his goal as he was. I found it interesting that even in one of his answers last night, he said that a championship was only reached when everybody, from the fans, to the coaches, to the players on the court, to the front office, to the ticket salesmen, to the custodians all had that as their goal. I think this was him saying that no matter how much he and his teammates wanted the ring, it wasn’t going to happen because a link or two was missing.

But let’s get this straight, Cleveland fans have no right to be angry at HIM. Not for wanting to win a title, which he so much deserves for having flipped that town upside-down. Which he so much deserves for renewing the interest in the NBA since his rookie season. Which he so much deserves for being LeBron, and MVP’s, and putting Cleveland on the map, and making Mike Brown look so good. Not for wanting to be a part of something bigger than himself, which was all he was in Cleveland. Not for wanting to change the face of basketball like MJ did. Not for wanting to surpass MJ’s accomplishments, and place himself at the helm of the NBA’s greatest. In fact, for a true basketball or simply a true sports fan, one wishes him the best, and does not wish him to limit is potential if by doing so means he stays in his hometown. If they are going to be angry, it should be at Gilbert and the front office for waiting until AFTER James was gone to become so focused on a championship. His letter should have read, “We did our very best, not just to keep him here, but to win a championship for Cleveland. Unfortunately, it was not enough, and we will have to find another way to bring one to this city.” Instead, he threw the hometown hero under the bus, taking no blame upon himself, and telling Cleveland fans that they deserve better. But let’s get something right, Cleveland fans have, for the most part, only been fans for 7 years. Cleveland basketball was nothing before LeBron. If anybody deserves a championship, its the Chicago Cubs. Try over 100 years of loyal support and no ring. Boston was the same way until a few years ago. But Cleveland? Really? The fans there are only fans if the team is good, which wasn’t very often in any sport. So to say that they “deserve” better is truly funny. Really, LeBron and his teammates deserved better. Better treatment from the front office, and clearly, better treatment than the fans, as a true fan would not go burning his team’s savior’s jersey even if he went to another team. Cleveland should be thankful for the time that they had with LeBron, and not upset. If he had retired in Cleveland without a ring, would they be upset for him retiring? Or would they feel stupid for making him think that he had to stay at all costs, even if that meant never realizing his ultimate goal?

I am a huge Griffey fan, and he played here in Cincinnati for 8 years, and while I was sad to see him get traded to the White Sox, I was also glad to see him have a shot at a ring, something that did not look promising here at the time. This is a similar situation. Sometimes, we have to be big people, grown ups, and make decisions that are about us for a change, and not about others. Griffey stayed in Cincinnati through some bad years, even when fans turned on him! That’s loyalty. So was he betraying the city of Cincinnati by leaving? Of course not, he was pursuing his dream. The fans in Cleveland loved LeBron. He was the hometown kid, just like Griffey. he was expected to be the missing piece, just like Griffey. It didn’t work out, so should we hate him for leaving and trying his hand elsewhere? Again, no.

At least he didn’t pull a Joe Johnson, and take the money to lose out on a chance to win. At least he didn’t go to New York, where Amare was all they had to offer him. At least he didn’t go to Chicago, where he would always be in MJ’s city, in MJ’s shadow, literally, as he walked past the Jordan statue on his way to and from every game. At least he didn’t go to Kobe’s city, where the Clippers would have pulled him down like they did every other star to go there. At least he didn’t go to the Nets for a part owner friend in Jay-Z, and no team. Rather, he went to the team that truly gave him the best chance to win now, and in the future.

But now the pressure is on, right? He has to win 3 in the next 4 years, or this was a failed move, right? It’s all on him, now, to make good on this decision, right? Well, maybe not. He has two other options now. Two helpers. Hence, the trio. He has help, somebody, to be exact, who can help him carry the pressure. The added pressure is on the Heat as a team, not LeBron himself. This is an open relief for him. The weight on his shoulders has been lessened.

WIll he have to share the ball a bit more? Yes. So he could now legitimately average a triple-double this year. Will he score a little less? Yes, so he won’t win a scoring title this year, but I bet he takes a ring over that any day. Will he have to heave up ridiculous shots while doubled teamed and falling out of bounds to keep his team in the game? No, he can dish it off. Let’s look at it this way. If there is one team you don’t want to have to play in the finals in 2011, who is it? It’s the heat. You don’t want to have to hope that all 3 hit a slump for 7 games. You don’t have 8 defenders to double team each one and guard the other two men on the court. You don’t want to not have a clue whose hand the ball will be in the closing moments of a game. You don’t want to have 3 major scorers, rebounders, and defenders to worry about and know where they are on the court the whole game.

We thought the mid 90′s Bulls were possibly the greatest team ever, right? They had Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman at their core. How about a bigger, stronger, faster Jordan, a taller, more athletic, higher scoring Rodman, and a faster, better passer, higher flying Pippen? Does that sound ok to you? Throw in Pat Riley to rival Phil Jackson, and we have an eerily similar team, if not better team, will we get an eerily similar, if not better result? Only time will tell. But keep your eye on this team for the next 6 or 7 years. If they sign 5 year deals, 4 or 5 titles in a row may not be out of the question. And without a mid-career, in his prime retirement, with LeBron deciding to try his hand at wide receiver in the NFL, he could catch up the Jordan and Kobe in a hurry. And then who would question this decision?

New paper

Just posted a paper regarding Wittgenstein. If you’ve read the Philosophical Investigations, it might be interesting, or even if you haven’t. Check it out, let me know what you think.