won't embed
youtube won't let me embed this. but you should watch it anyway.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hksil-KkebQ
coldplay
although their album is way better, i very much enjoy coldplay's new follow up ep to their album viva la vida. nice guys... nice. :)prospekt's march
awards
i don't often win contests... but today in my civil rights class, our professor asked the students to nominate both a girl and a guy who they thought were the best contributors to the class discussion. i was nominated. outstanding. i enjoyed all of my classes this semester, they were a lot of hard work, but well worth the time and effort. i learned a good amount this semester, both inside my classes and outside.our professor gave me a book with a personalized note in it. the book is titled "leading with soul." he explained to us that he always likes to have us leave the class learning more and hopes we will. i know i won't stop. it seems cliche to say that we never stop learning, but it is true. and i mean it.
faith
i just had a new thought about faith. it's when something:hits the head, hits the heart, hits the streets.
what do you think?
open question:
can faith be socialized and still be legitimate?stay tuned as my answer is in development, but i'd like to hear your thoughts if you have them.
today
i was asked a question: how could i be a devout christian and fit into berger's model of defining religion? as you may recall, or follow the link to read - which would be far more helpful - berger basically says that we can sustain meaningful ongoingness is because we forget that we created the means by which meaningful ongoingness is sustained.in essence, the question asked: is berger's model self-defeating? does it ultimately collapse because the believer of the model has to forget that the model exists in order for it to be successful?
to some degree: yes. but ultimately, the answer is no. especially in the case of someone like me.
i subscribe to berger's model - yes, i believe humanity created religion - and remain, i hope for the most part, non-heretical. hear me out.
we have this being who ultimately cannot be described, who is ultimately unknowable. we say this being is personal, and we attribute qualities to this being, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. we also declare that this being has a name: God.
what we are doing is describing something that cannot be described in the best possible way we know how - through language - but still fail to come to grips as to what this being is. our language and descriptions create a picture of God, similar to the way a picture of a soda can is not the actual soda can. to be concise, the word "God", is not actually God. the word God is a human construct. it is the way we attempt to define the unknowable.
however, God does exist, even though our construction of God may not exactly match up, we try our best. but now consider that this God, of whom the depths of which cannot be fully known, chose to build his image (we'll use a personal pronoun in light of the christian tradition) inside of us. the full gravity of that choice, we will likely never understand, but it has something to do with us being able to know God. not only do we have the image of God inside of us, but God stepped into our time and defined what he was doing and continues to do, in the language of society and culture. God said to moses: "I AM." God stepped into our time as the form of Jesus, at the very least, to show us what God looks like in our skin.
even in the creation story at the beginning of the bible in the book of genesis, we have God in the beginning who speaks creation into existence. and God said, "let there be light." and there was light. now it may not actually be that God spoke words, but it's the best way we can describe what it is that God did when he created the heavens and the earth. it makes sense that God would speak things into being. we have a God who through his story, uses our language so that we may know him better and more fully, that we may glimpse what it was that he did.
at the end of the day, i realize the need to develop these thoughts more. i consider it nothing but a miracle all the incredible things that God does. it makes God feel so big. that he could take a system so inadequate for description and tell a story through it... in ways that we can understand. he takes broken things and uses them for his purposes. imagine, if God can use our language... how much more can he do with us?
everything is okay
because i love you very much.The Pilgrims' Menu
Foods That May Have Been on the Menu
Seafood: Cod, Eel, Clams, Lobster
Wild Fowl: Wild Turkey, Goose, Duck, Crane, Swan, Partridge, Eagles
Meat: Venison, Seal
Grain: Wheat Flour, Indian Corn
Vegetables: Pumpkin, Peas, Beans, Onions, Lettuce, Radishes, Carrots
Fruit: Plums, Grapes
Nuts: Walnuts, Chestnuts, Acorns
Herbs and Seasonings: Olive Oil, Liverwort, Leeks, Dried Currants, Parsnips
What Was Not on the Menu
Surprisingly, the following foods, all considered staples of the modern Thanksgiving meal, didn't appear on the pilgrims's first feast table:
Ham: There is no evidence that the colonists had butchered a pig by this time, though they had brought pigs with them from England.
Sweet Potatoes/Potatoes: These were not common.
Corn on the Cob: Corn was kept dried out at this time of year.
Cranberry Sauce: The colonists had cranberries but no sugar at this time.
Pumpkin Pie: It's not a recipe that exists at this point, though the pilgrims had recipes for stewed pumpkin.
Chicken/Eggs: We know that the colonists brought hens with them from England, but it's unknown how many they had left at this point or whether the hens were still laying.
Milk: No cows had been aboard the Mayflower, though it's possible that the colonists used goat milk to make cheese.
Source: Kathleen Curtin, Food Historian at Plimoth Plantation.
I've been doing some reading recently for a class that I'm a good amount behind on. I have about 3 assignments to do. Since I'm not too motivated to do them, I'm writing a post about the first one, in hopes that it will get me motivated in starting to write it. I'm experiencing a bit of a block on where to start.
One of the pieces is an excerpt of the Evangelical Manifesto. It is made up of several sections, which were written as a repudiation of several practices of American Evangelicalism. The manifesto starts off by reclaiming what it means "to be an Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ: to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good." Evangelicals are to be people who are a part of a different tradition: One that brings change and social reform.
Our second piece is an Open Letter from President Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad to President Bush. In his opening, he writes: "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obligated to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make 'War and Terror' his slogan, and finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern?"
At the outset, both pieces define what Christians should be about; they bring to light what it looks like to carry the name of Christ and work toward the establishment of a community ultimately governed by Christ. This is capital Religion in the public eye: the way a person's beliefs influence their actions. "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16 (TNIV)
The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad, considers how one might shine like a light from a position of authority by defending the rights of the underprivileged, defending the rights of all people around the world by not imposing wars on them, or interfering illegally in their affairs, or establishing hellish prisons to incarcerate some of them. He questions if it would be a good idea to bring the world peace and security, and tell truth to our nation and others around the world. He goes on to ask if President Bush should be on the side of the people, to serve the people, which is a leader's main task.
The Evangelical Manifesto says the same thing. It is not the duty of a Christian to put faith in and imitate the power held by Emperor Constantine but rather Jesus of Nazareth's. It is power under, "Justice was promoted by a suffering servant emptied of power and ready to die for the ends he came to achieve." Were a president to actually follow the teachings of Jesus, they may find themselves out of a job... or they may find themselves redefining what the position should look like.
There is no doubt that many Americans would be very unhappy if a president actually helped "the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow." Imagine if instead of a 700 billion dollar bail out plan, the United States enabled people all over the world to have access to clean drinking water. It would cause uproar. Or instead of raising taxes for people who make over 250 thousand dollars a year, cap it, and give the rest away to people who really need it. Or, what if America got rid of the welfare system and healthcare system and said, "okay, the new law is: everyone love your neighbour!"
This obviously would never work for real. America is not a theocracy and Americans are far too selfish. If honest moral ideals were put into place within government, and actually followed, it could work. But it never will.
Thus: application of the “power-under” idea of the Christian church. A group of people so indwelt with the gospel that they spur major movements in social change. A group of people so convinced that the prisons need reform that they would readily swap seats with the man on death row, guilty as hell. Not to prove a point, but to give life. It looks like a group of people willing to move into the ghetto and provide gentrification with justice; using their God-given talents and abilities in their business and trades to bring change to corrupted and broken neighbourhoods. It looks like a group of people who are doctors who offer free care and supplies to those unable to afford adequate care. It looks like a group of people who love their “enemies” so much that they fly to Baghdad two weeks before the bombings and embrace their brothers and sisters abroad, showing them what Christ actually looks like.
The American Church has lost its imagination. The Evangelical Manifesto conveys that American Christians have put far too much faith in political systems and leaders than in the actual teachings of Jesus to change people from the inside out: to transform lives and the world around them. Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad imagines what it might look like for a professing Christian leader to do the same thing. It could be a different world indeed.
One of the pieces is an excerpt of the Evangelical Manifesto. It is made up of several sections, which were written as a repudiation of several practices of American Evangelicalism. The manifesto starts off by reclaiming what it means "to be an Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ: to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good." Evangelicals are to be people who are a part of a different tradition: One that brings change and social reform.
Our second piece is an Open Letter from President Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad to President Bush. In his opening, he writes: "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obligated to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make 'War and Terror' his slogan, and finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern?"
At the outset, both pieces define what Christians should be about; they bring to light what it looks like to carry the name of Christ and work toward the establishment of a community ultimately governed by Christ. This is capital Religion in the public eye: the way a person's beliefs influence their actions. "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16 (TNIV)
The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad, considers how one might shine like a light from a position of authority by defending the rights of the underprivileged, defending the rights of all people around the world by not imposing wars on them, or interfering illegally in their affairs, or establishing hellish prisons to incarcerate some of them. He questions if it would be a good idea to bring the world peace and security, and tell truth to our nation and others around the world. He goes on to ask if President Bush should be on the side of the people, to serve the people, which is a leader's main task.
The Evangelical Manifesto says the same thing. It is not the duty of a Christian to put faith in and imitate the power held by Emperor Constantine but rather Jesus of Nazareth's. It is power under, "Justice was promoted by a suffering servant emptied of power and ready to die for the ends he came to achieve." Were a president to actually follow the teachings of Jesus, they may find themselves out of a job... or they may find themselves redefining what the position should look like.
There is no doubt that many Americans would be very unhappy if a president actually helped "the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow." Imagine if instead of a 700 billion dollar bail out plan, the United States enabled people all over the world to have access to clean drinking water. It would cause uproar. Or instead of raising taxes for people who make over 250 thousand dollars a year, cap it, and give the rest away to people who really need it. Or, what if America got rid of the welfare system and healthcare system and said, "okay, the new law is: everyone love your neighbour!"
This obviously would never work for real. America is not a theocracy and Americans are far too selfish. If honest moral ideals were put into place within government, and actually followed, it could work. But it never will.
Thus: application of the “power-under” idea of the Christian church. A group of people so indwelt with the gospel that they spur major movements in social change. A group of people so convinced that the prisons need reform that they would readily swap seats with the man on death row, guilty as hell. Not to prove a point, but to give life. It looks like a group of people willing to move into the ghetto and provide gentrification with justice; using their God-given talents and abilities in their business and trades to bring change to corrupted and broken neighbourhoods. It looks like a group of people who are doctors who offer free care and supplies to those unable to afford adequate care. It looks like a group of people who love their “enemies” so much that they fly to Baghdad two weeks before the bombings and embrace their brothers and sisters abroad, showing them what Christ actually looks like.
The American Church has lost its imagination. The Evangelical Manifesto conveys that American Christians have put far too much faith in political systems and leaders than in the actual teachings of Jesus to change people from the inside out: to transform lives and the world around them. Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad imagines what it might look like for a professing Christian leader to do the same thing. It could be a different world indeed.
darius rucker
ha. new cd. country.
trembling car. sparked ignition; praises. smoke danced down the street toward home. all i need are three good days away, then i'll never come back.
the small village speckled in the rearview, with one last hill, it'll disappear. music, applause, that'll clear my head thoughts. good thoughts.
whispering static. no fm. great. what's on the am?
--zzZZT--
-- ave a good night, excite---
ain't nothin but a hou--
---ust in jesus to forgive you from y---
finally, a weather station. "goodbye hurricane! come bustin' doors, never believed it'd be over this fast. torn down three buildings since yesterday. first downed he---"
buzzing. lights from the passenger seat. a picture.
i wonder who it is... i'll check. no, i can't. i never liked it there.
new phase
how come i didn't know? why didn't they tell me? i'm actually quite angry. the fresh city near my house has closed. i had no idea...i should have a clever metaphor for telling you how i feel about this. unfortunately, i don't. but i do have a story. or at least a story about a story.
as i may have mentioned before: i have a new typewriter. this thing is fantastic. i'm currently in the process of writing a sassy piece of text on it. my goal: to explain santa claus.
more updates soon.
it happens about once a year. i update my blog's theme. it happened a lot last year. i wish i had some screenshots to show you. but i'm liking this one currently. it's funky, albeit a little dated. but that's kind of what i like about it i think. anywho, let me know what your thoughts are.
dollar store snacks
are off the hook, yo.
let me ask you a question:
have you ever wished you could go back to when you were xx years old with all that you know now?yes?
well... not me.
have you ever had to repeat a class that you understood everything, but my not have gotten a great grade? i think repeating life with "what we know now" would be like it. i think it would be incredibly boring. part of the excellence in life is the discovery of new things... while we could definitely discover things if we were to live life again with a cursory knowledge of events, we may be constantly trying so hard not to make a mistake that we'd fail to enjoy it the second time around.
or perhaps, we'd be so fast-tracked through life, being a six year old in college, because we're unable to enjoy kindergarten because it's so far below us, that we'd miss out on a lot of life experiences we would have had otherwise. life as a genius might be nice if you want climb intellectually, but it doesn't suit the majority of us who aren't intellectuals.
anywho, just thoughts.
would you go back with all you know now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
