Pickwick12's Xanga

The Salahis and Entitlement

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:19:43 GMT

Can't you go to jail for being criminally obnoxious?

Not only did Michaele and Taraq Salahi crash a presidential dinner; now Washington Redskins alumni cheerleaders are alleging that Michaele crashed some of their performances and passed herself off as one of them.

How sad is that? The amazing part of all of this is that the Salahis are acting like they're totally entitled to all of this, as if wanting to be invited to a state dinner means you deserve to be.

That mentality exemplifies something I absolutely can't stand about society, particularly as it relates to raising children.

Another case in point: I work with Bible Quiz, a program that helps elementary-aged children learn Bible verses and facts and compete with other children, much like a geography bee or math olympics. The children compete in teams and quiz against each other in rounds. At the end of each round, the score keeper reads the results. When I was little and involved in the program, you could still hear scorekeepers say "The winning team...and the losing team..." Nowadays, no way. We have a winning or 1st place team...and a 2nd place team. No losers in Bible Quiz! No way!

I believe this mindset goes far beyond children's games. It's the kind of mindset that thinks no one can really be wrong; we all just have different opinions. It's the mindset that says we all deserve to win all the time, even if we...don't. It's the mindset that says I should be able to steal from you in order to afford the things I want or need, because I deserve them even if I didn't work for them and you did.

Why should the Salahis be in trouble? As a society, we raise our children to feel good about themselves even when they're bad. We pay people who break our laws and come into our country illegally. We use the money of working citizens to support millions of people who won't work. We give people scholarships and handouts simply because of their nationality or race. We penalize people who succeed by taking huge chunks of their money and giving it to people who failed. Basically, we are constantly saying, "You're the winner, but no one can lose, so we're going to take what you have." We're not a society of good sports. We're a society of people who have lost the idea of sports at all because everyone has to win, and if you believe differently, you're an evil bigot. The problem is, when you try to make everyone win, everyone loses.

Why don't we put the Salahis on every national talkshow so they can talk about how they embody the new American dream? After all, they're living out what our society preaches. They take what they want when they haven't earned it, just because they want it. After all, shouldn't they get what other people have? Who cares about actually meriting it?

Why are we upset with the Salahis? Aren't they as entitled as everyone else?

Taking Ourselves Seriously

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:52:23 GMT

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.

Is taking ourselves too seriously a blogger's disease? Should we rename it Blogger's Malady?

I am certainly including myself in this. Yes, I dislike meta-blogging (blogging about blogging), but I'm going to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if we remember that the real world exists. Is the Internet real? Yes. Do we know people and form friendships on it? Yes. But lest we forget, you do not "know" me, and I do not "know" you. I believe there ARE ways to facilitate real connection on the Internet, but that's for another time. I don't actually think blogging does this.

I think blogging is about ideas, whether those ideas are "I painted my nails today" or "I believe in capitalism."

To you, I'm a collection of ideas, a sum of concepts with a tiny avatar picture. In fact, I'm pretty sure you haven't even read every post I've written, so your idea of me is limited to some of the things I've chosen to reveal.

My idea of you is the same way. My concept of you is based on your self-presentation. Even the most personal of details you've revealed were revealed with your full knowledge and under your control, with your style and stamp on them.

Unless I also know you in person, which is an extremely small slice of my readers, you've never had a chance to observe me as I actually am, and I've never had a chance to observe you as you actually are.

There's a communication theory that says that life is a stage: Front stage is the presentable part, and back stage is the hair-down, messy craziness. Blogging, as raw as it may seem, is always front stage. Even our "spontaneity" is planned according to how we want to be perceived.

That's why I believe we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously as bloggers. The thing is, if you do anything toward me as a blogger, that's very different from doing it toward me as a human being. You don't know me as a human being. You know me as ideas on a screen. You might be able to predict how I'd act, but you can't know for sure. In fact, you could be dead wrong, because all you see is what I choose to reveal.

I believe in a healthy objectivity. I realize not everyone agrees with me about this (by any means) but when I write something, I put it out as an idea. It's welcome to be disagreed with, added to, debated, laughed at, and generally bandied about in the public forum of this site and the Internet in general. I will defend it heartily, but I'm defending it not me. My blog is not who I am, and I am not my blog.

I believe we take ourselves too seriously when we equate our ideas with our identity. Then, we start acting as if our lives are played out in cyberspace, rather than in the living, breathing world. I have certainly done this and probably will again, many times.

I believe that what preserves our sanity as bloggers is realizing that we have an identity outside our blogs. It helps us to be both confident and humble. We're confident because we know that who we are is not dictated by anything on a screen. We're humble because we also realize the power of what we write and the responsibility we have to glorify Christ with our self-presentation.

So here's my pact:
If I disagree with something you put forward, I will endeavor to separate it from you, remembering that what I see of you is ideas, not identity. I would ask you to do the same-to remember that what you see of me is not me, but my ideas.

Please don't take me too seriously. I'd much rather you enjoy playing with the Rubik's Cube of my ideas than that you knit your brow trying to unravel all of them. Maybe you'll line up all the colors and help me see things in a new way. Maybe you'll mix them up even more crazily. At least you'll have fun.

To me, ideas are fun, even the important ones. I hope they'll be fun for you, too.

Doing the Undoable

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:42:06 GMT

I have another assignment. I am pretty convinced that I cannot do it. Period, plain and simple. Cannot do it.

But

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me, and NOTHING is impossible with God.

I want to escape, but I can't. It's like playing that "Bear Hunt" game. You'd come to a river, and you couldn't go over it or under it. I keep coming to rivers, and I have to swim through. I know I'm not capable of swimming through. I feel like one of the least capable people in the world, but none of that really matters, because God makes ways where there aren't any. I wish my Thanksgiving week could be different, but it can't, so once again, I look to the mercy of God to sustain me in a situation that feels intolerable. I look to the God who is hope when there isn't any, peace when there's only anguish, and joy when there's nothing but horror. I look with eyes of faith at the victory ahead, and, just as the three Hebrews said, even if He DOESN'T, He's still my God, and I will trust Him. Praise His name.

Lewis and Chesterton

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:25:41 GMT

Lessl (2004) discussed the rhetorical aspects of the work of C.S. Lewis, particularly emphasizing Lewis’s twin emphases, reason and imagination (p. 128). The remainder of this post will briefly compare and contrast aspects of the communication of C.S. Lewis with the communication of his predecessor and contemporary G.K. Chesterton.

According to Lessl, Lewis viewed myths as a necessary counterpart to logical teaching. To Lewis, stories provided experiences that proofs could not give (pp. 122-123). The truth of this assumption can be seen in the response to Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, The Great Divorce, Perelandra, and The Screwtape Letters, to name a few of his best-known works of fiction. Not only are these works enjoyed as stories, but individuals often report enrichment to their spiritual lives and understanding as a result of encountering them.

Chesterton’s works illustrate that his beliefs were similar to Lewis’s. Along with his weighty and intricate apologetic and theological works such as Orthodoxy and Heretics, Chesterton also wrote numerous works of unusually whimsical fiction, such as The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Ball and the Cross, and The Man Who Was Thursday. Like Lewis, he invited readers to experience his Christian beliefs through stories as well as through logical proofs.

Despite this overarching similarity, Lewis’s and Chesterton’s uses of stories differed strikingly. Lessl used Till We Have Faces to illustrate the masterful way in which Lewis wove his philosophical perspectives into his works of fiction (pp. 132-135). For Lewis, stories were a teaching platform meant to end in a particular location. At the end of The Last Battle, the Pevensie children unequivocally find themselves in the Christian heaven. Metaphorically speaking, readers of Lewis’s works always find themselves in heaven at the end of one of his works. Though Lewis once told a child admirer that a story should be admired for itself and not picked apart too deeply for its purpose (Lewis, 1995, pp. 35-36), it is clear that his stories were intended to convey the reader to a specific philosophical place.

Chesterton’s works were also peppered with philosophical perspectives, but his conclusions were not necessarily as neatly tied up as Lewis’s. For instance, The Man Who Was Thursday ends quite ambiguously, with the character who represents God listening to various philosophical objections and then offering himself instead of a logical solution. Chesterton seemed to be acknowledging to his readers that weighty objections to faith exist; however, he also presented the madness of Satan in contrast to the sovereignty of God (Chesterton, 2001, pp. 178-181) and invited readers to make their own judgments. Chesterton’s goal seemed to be to lead the reader to a point of decision-making, while in Lewis’s stories, the decision is already made, and what follows is for Lewis to unfold to the reader how that decision is justified.

Both authors obviously valued stories and reasoned logic as apologetic tools. For Lewis, though, the argument was clear and the conclusion inevitable. For Chesterton, the clarity of the argument hurled the reader toward a decision, though he did not necessarily explain what that decision should be. Perhaps it could be argued that Lewis’s method was the forerunner of the styles of modern Christian authors like Frank Peretti and William P. Young, whose fictional allegories presuppose a faith conclusion, while Chesterton’s method was the forerunner of classic Christian authors like Flannery O’Connor and Graham Greene, who made cases for faith but did not necessarily presuppose conclusions.

References

Chesterton, G.K. (2001). The man who was Thursday. New York, NY: Random House.

Lessl, T. (2004). The legacy of C.S. Lewis and the prospect of religious rhetoric. Journal of Communication and Religion, 27, 117-137.

Lewis, C. S. (1995). Letters to Children. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Food? Meh

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:39:19 GMT

I am not skinny, and I don't have an eating disorder.

Nevertheless, I don't like food.

Don't get me wrong, there are individual foods and types of food I can like sometimes, but even so, quite often the thought of eating anything is repulsive. Sometimes my problem is that I don't eat enough to keep my metabolism going.

They say that if you are truly hungry, you will be willing to eat anything. This is not true of me. Very often, I would rather deal with hunger pangs than put anything in my mouth. Now, I am in no way trivializing the real starvation problems in the world. Yes, I get enough and more than enough. It's just that I can't seem to get excited about it.

I am one of those people who would be delighted if they came out with a pill you could take daily to get your full nutrition. I would want to eat food sometimes, maybe every couple or three days, but that way I wouldn't have to eat on the days when food seems disgusting.

When I find a food that really excites me, it's a big deal. I recently discovered sushi, and everyone laughs at me because I eat it so often. But really, imagine to yourself that you can't stand most foods and suddenly find one you love. It's a big deal!

Overall, though, it's not the taste I can't stand. It's the texture, the act of putting something in your mouth, swallowing, eating. Again, I do not have an eating disorder. I eat. But...yuck.

I've never been big on food since I was little, but Crohn's Disease also does something there. In fact, it can cause anorexia; it makes patients want to avoid food because of the horrible associations with what happens when they eat. Thankfully, I do not have anorexia; I just go through regular periods of time when I dislike the idea of food.

I believe food is a gift from God, and I want to learn to appreciate it more.

What's your food orientation?

Prayers Needed!

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:11:09 GMT

I haven't been blogging much lately. It's been on purpose because I've been going through so much emotionally and spiritually that I had no idea how to say anything that would make sense or be helpful in any way.

I believe that what is going on in me now is that Satan is losing so much ground that he's fighting harder than he ever has as he sees his strongholds being ripped out of his grasp by my Savior.

I had another punch today. It's almost like being hit in the face. I am not sure what to do or how to deal with it. Once again, it relates to school. I need God's wisdom because the next few days could see me changing my schedule by withdrawing from a course for the first time ever. I am desperate to get out from under the control of a professor who seems so horrendous to deal with that I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I had him last session, and I was devastated to find that I was going to have him again this time.

I need to know if God wants to bring me out or bring me through.

I realize that all of these things that keep happening are results of Satan's anger at my spiritual progress as well as opportunities to trust Christ in me to a greater degree than ever before.

Please pray for me.

Thanks so much

Romans 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Positive

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:13:59 GMT

2 Corinthians 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

Christ is our YES, the ever-present affirmation that God will do what He has promised.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Are you 1,000 generations from the first person in your family who loved God? No? Well, you're nowhere NEAR exhausting God's faithfulness and love.

Psalm 130:4 But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared.

Why do we fear (revere) God? Because His mercy is incomprehensibly wonderful.

Deuteronomy 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

What does God want most from you? LOVE. How do you love Him? Let Him love you and see what happens!

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

God loves and creates beauty.

Matthew 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

God desires to give you rest TODAY!

Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus isn't going anywhere!

What verses encourage you?

Unmoved

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:11:48 GMT

I'm sick, the kind that puts you in bed or sitting near it. According to the scale, I lost 7 or 8 pounds in between last Wednesday and yesterday. Crohn's Disease is not fun.

BUT

But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. Acts 20:24

Why I believe in birth control

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:05:35 GMT

I believe God is in control of all things. I also believe He has put certain natural processes in motion that are natural laws because He made them that way.

For instance, it is a natural law that if you eat extra, you will gain weight. Now, there are some exceptions. Some people can eat more than normal and not gain weight because they have unusually fast metabolisms, but the general law remains.

Does anyone want to argue that I should eat and then pray that I will only gain weight if it's God's will? No, because we know how that natural process works. If I eat more than I burn, I will gain weight.

Now, I fully agree that children are a blessing from the Lord. I also know what needs to happen in order for a child to be conceived. The way natural law works, if the biological necessities are there, a child is going to be conceived. God sometimes intervenes to change natural law, but not often. If two people sleep together enough and are healthy, they will conceive. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the natural law is still there.

I don't see a fundamental difference. God allows natural processes to dictate how much I weigh based on how much I eat and burn (I realize that's a simplification). Does he care how much I eat? Sure, but the point is, He allows the natural process to work. In the same way, God cares very much how many children people have, but He allows natural processes to work in that area as well.

As long as a human being is not being killed by the birth control method used, I believe it is permissible. We no longer live in a time when half of our children die in infancy or when we need them to help us harvest crops. I believe big families are a great blessing and that we should be open to God calling us to bring more children into this world. I also believe that birth control is a blessing that allows us to change natural processes. If I eat, I'll gain weight. If I exercise, I'll be able to keep that natural process from happening. If a healthy couple sleeps together, they'll conceive. If they use birth control, they'll be able to modify that natural process and plan ahead.

All of that said, I don't wish to argue with someone who has a different conviction. People should do what they believe is right in God's sight.

What are your thoughts?

Ophthalmic Migraine (A Picture Post)

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:33:29 GMT

This is what it looks like. It's beautiful, like an art show in your brain being shown on the projection screen of your vision. Suddenly, a little slice of reality smashes into slivers of silver, and it grows and grows, and turns colors like a prism.

(Note: If any of these pictures are yours and you want them taken down, let me know, and I will.)