| Mental Splat a.k.a. Poem |
[Nov. 29th, 2009|09:04 pm] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | Home | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  complacent | ] |
Oh Lord, your grace and mercy are boundless. Your knowledge and wisdom are far beyond the capacity of man. You know my thoughts, and you know my desires. You have a plan for me that I am content to follow. I hear your wisdom in the voice of others but I do not hear your voice. I understand your ideas as much as I need and can clearly see what path you wish me to take.
My only desire is to hear your actual voice. I want to commune with you. I want to hear you oh Lord.
Lord speak to me in ways you have not before.
So be it. |
|
|
| Why I continued to train. |
[Nov. 14th, 2009|05:44 pm] |
This is the first of two essays I wrote for my second degree black belt. I am posting them here to link to them from FB by request. Vocabulary to know.
Kyo Sa = certified instructor
Sa Bom = Master Instructor
Dan = Blackbelt holder
Gup = Lower than blackbelt
cho = first
ee = second
dojang = school
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| Political Ignorance. |
[Jul. 4th, 2009|07:09 pm] |
I will preface this post with a warning. I am going to state a few political ideas, if you are one that hates politics just pass this on by.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| The uncommon occurence. |
[Jun. 18th, 2009|12:38 pm] |
Many people, including myself, have a system for determining whether they are being spoken to by God. Most of the time it involves counting sources involving/talking about the same subject. The more sophisticated people calculate the odds of those occurrences happening within the a given time window, but it amounts to a similar task of counting occurrences. The more people hear about a particular subject, within a week, from different sources, the more they are inclined to think it is an important subject to consider or reconsider. This post is not meant to debunk that thought, but to give it a closer examination and a slight refining.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| My quiet time. |
[Jun. 16th, 2009|11:26 pm] |
|
It seems that these days allow for less quiet time. Having a child, a job, a spouse, and a house to keep up with really eats away the spare time. Not that I would change any of it for the world, but it is starting to wear on me a little. This last month or so has been terrific in that I have had plenty of time off of work and plenty of alone time to mull over my own thoughts. The more time I get to sit still and think about my life and the situations around me, the more I think that it should be a required law for everyone to do so. I am kidding of course, as it would be very impractical to implement. However, getting away from the distractions of life, getting away from the work and stress, and just sitting alone thinking is something I find necessary. Letting one's mind remove all of the outside influence and really concentrate on creative problem solving, but it is becoming a lost art. One that I notice when I do not take the time to practice it. When I fill my head with too much information, that in the grand scheme of things is worthless, when I should only take in the information that will help me to accurately analyze my life and make good decisions, I notice. I notice that my mind starts to conform to the likeness of this world. Too much to do. Too little time. So many obstacles to overcome. One more paycheck away from the next goal. While overcoming what is set before me is important, while making good decisions about the resources I am in control of is important, there are more important things to contemplate such as, Who am I? What defines my innermost person? What separates me from the rest of the world? If all of my facades are stripped away, what is left? These are questions that each person needs to ask themselves and really consider their answer carefully. Not that anyone will ever be able to word that answer, nor is it necessary to tell anyone else. It is just a thought process each person should go through in their lifetime. To really understand on a visceral level as well as an educational level if they are happy with who they are now, are they happy with where they are going, and if not, what are they doing to change it? |
|
|
| Only writers are remembered. |
[Jun. 1st, 2009|10:09 pm] |
I will warn those who are reading, this post is going to be very disjointed. It is late, and I feel like writing this out, but my conversion to intelligible organized language is not wanting to work.
Writers and their subjects are the only thing that seems to get preserved over time. Even with the advent of film and computers, it seems to be the written word that manages to stay preserved. Given that written media is much more computerized, still the plain text information that exists is what is preserved. The format is closest to pure thought that takes the least amount of technology to see, absorb and interpret. Some languages do take effort to interpret if the language has not been used in 100 years, but it still seems that experts manage to decode even the most obscure, foreign languages. What does this mean? If one wants to be remembered, they either have to write, or be written about, or both.
Not that I particularly want to be remembered for generations past my own existence, I am just curious as to why this is. Why is it that things written down persist long past the life of the generation that created it? Why do humans have the need to preserve written text? In the grand scheme of things, most generations of people are almost identical to other generations. Each is trying to survive, each is trying to be entertained, each is trying to preserve its offspring, and each is taking the situations that arise and using what is available to its limit to attain these goals. What is it about humans that think the previous generation knew so much more about what is going on than the current generation?
Now don't get me wrong. I do understand the importance of accurately recording history so that it may be examined and used as reference material to make decisions today. What I do not understand is why writing seems to be the dominant form for storing that information and why people give history any more importance than as a reference material for making educated decisions. Also, why do so few people give history any merit until they experience something they are unable to handle within their own power? |
|
|
| War against wisdom, TED presentation. |
[Feb. 22nd, 2009|10:44 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | common sense, ted, wisdom | ] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | Home | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  tired | ] |
| [ | Current Music |
| | Shout to the Lord (Brad Henderson Jazz Series) | ] |
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
For those of you who are not familiar, there is a conference held every year where those with interesting ideas give presentations and follow with question and answer sessions. Usually it is a conference of discussing new ideas, fresh ideas, retakes of old ideas, and no matter what the subject I find it fascinating. I usually have to limit myself to how many of these I can watch.
Moving along, the reason I posted this web link is because this individual more accurately and eloquently states a few ideas I have been mulling over for a while. Where has all the common sense gone? |
|
|
| What is absolute truth |
[Nov. 16th, 2008|08:40 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | abstract, bible, science, truth | ] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | home | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  contemplative | ] |
| [ | Current Music |
| | Down by the Riverside (jazzy version) | ] |
This is something I have been thinking about and having a time putting into words, so be a bit forgiving if the words are a bit awkward.
In this world, there are a few kinds of truth. Scientific truth, believed truth, and absolute truth. Each plays a role in society, some good and some bad.
Scientific truth is what science understands to be true due to empirical evidence and experimentation. Only things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable fall into this category of truth. The beauty of this system is that anyone who wants to challenge a truth has to prove a current truth false with empirical evidence. This happens considerably less now than it has in the past, most are additions to the system or explanations of known exceptions within the system. This allows the system to be very stable, very flexible, and within its understanding close to absolutely true. The problem with this system is that things which are immeasurable, unobservable, or chaotic enough to not be repeatable cannot proven true in this system. Some things that fall into this category are trying to prove one's innocence in court. The window of opportunity to observe what actually happened has passed, and if there is no physical evidence to support one's story they cannot scientifically prove what did or did not happen. Which brings me to the second kind of truth.
Believed truth: the events or understanding of a situation/information that is believed by an individual but not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with the scientific information. I call this a truth only because to the person believing it, it is true. Some people may even call these opinions, but let me separate the opinions as ideas people are willing to change. These are the most dangerous "truths" in that they are arbitrary, not necessarily based on fact, and yet are used to determine a significant portion of what goes on in society. To use another legal system example, what the jury believes happened determines what happens to the defendant. What the police believe happened in an accident determines who gets the citation. What people believe about political candidates determines who they vote for and who ends up getting elected. What people believe about God and Christianity without scriptural backup. All of these beliefs can and often do result in negative situations. For those who are reading this, I challenge you to find support for your beliefs and to let your beliefs be examined by others that have your best interest in mind.
Then there is absolute truth. The actuality of a situation; the whole, complete, and correct information. What actually happened, how the universe actually works, what caused us to actually exist, who dunnit, etc. It is what everyone should strive to find and what everyone needs to know and understand. One of the problems that occurs is that the absolute truth of a situation is often guarded, concealed and distorted in order to generate a particular outcome. The reason? Believed truth is more profitable for those who instill it. The best example I can think of is that if I instill in someone the belief that they owe me money, whether or not they do, they feel obligated to pay it and I make money.
Finally, I will say that science, while imperfect, is the best system we have to figure out absolute truth when the observable facts are available. When the facts are being hidden or distorted, some good ol' tenacity and determination are the second best tools for finding absolute truth. The other thing to know is that when science is used to try and explain something that is immeasurable, unobservable, or unrepeatable, it will fail. |
|
|
| How do religion and voting mix. |
[Oct. 27th, 2008|10:31 pm] |
This time of year everyone starts thinking of politics and who to vote for. If nothing else, those that are able to vote should be thinking about politics and who they are going to choose to represent them in the next term. Of those who actually think, plan, and research the candidates they want to vote for, an issue creeps up in their mind. This candidate is better qualified, but this other candidate is of the same religious beliefs as myself. Who should I vote for?
Before I really address this issue, I do want to make a few points clear upfront. Politics and religion are two different subjects and each play its role in society. Politics should never be preached from the pulpit. Only truth from the Bible (this being written from a Christian perspective) should be preached from any church's stage. Likewise, any political bill, or argument should stand on its own merit without having to rely on a religious belief. That being said, there are places where these two subjects do meet and one of those is usually the voting booth.
First and foremost when choosing a candidate, make sure to fully research each candidate's policies or proposed policies. If it is someone in office, check their voting record on each bill that has passed their desk. Look past the mud slinging and evaluate what each candidates policies would mean. Often times their policies show more about what they support than their religious affiliation. As a voter, it is easier to see how each policy/vote lines up with one's own religious beliefs than a mass media outlet.
Second, understand the scope of the candidate's duties. If a candidate does not line up with one's beliefs, but would never be in a position to change a law that disagrees with one's beliefs, then that issue of disagreement is a moot point. For example, if someone disagrees with a presidential candidate's stand on abortion, it is not as big of an issue as disagreeing with a judicial candidate's stand on abortion. The branch of government that has typically handled *changes in law about abortion is the supreme court. If there is a reasonable chance that a supreme court justice will step down, the president is the one who appoints another judge and it is then an issue whether or not the president agrees with one's beliefs.
*I understand that the supreme court cannot change the law. However they can interpret the law in a landmark legal case that sets a precedent for the law to be interpreted a certain way, in effect changing the law.
Finally, all other things being equal, which should take precedence? Qualifications or beliefs. This is the tough question to which there is no answer. Historically, one can find well qualified people who were malintentioned and under qualified people who made wonderful representatives. Each individual has to decide how their candidates will represent them at the appropriate level of government and how that representation will line up with their beliefs. I do think that one should vote in line with their beliefs, but that is not to say that one should vote on the basis of how their beliefs line up with the claim of belief by a candidate.
On a side note:If voting were fair, and if the people that truly knew which candidate were better were the ones responsible for voting, the best candidates would be chosen each time. My own personal opinion (take it or leave it) of how to approach this is, if I cannot tell which candidate is better, if I do not know how their policies will effect life for everyone, if I am not informed enough to make an educated decision about who should be in office, I do not vote for either of them. I only vote for those that I truly believe that I am informed enough to make an educated decision on which would be the better choice. |
|
|
| Does God exist and is their an afterlife. |
[Oct. 16th, 2008|08:15 am] |
While looking up some information on the political debates, I ran across an advertisement for a DVD entitled "The God who Wasn't There." I have never seen the movie, but I read the review on it and came across a wikipedia article explaining the premise of the argument held by those who made the movie. Apparently there are people who believe that Jesus was not an actual person, just a myth that follows the patterns of previously heroic mythical characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S
After reading the wikipedia article, I found the argument not compelling in the least. It tries to make several parallels that did not originally exist (The December 25th birthday of Jesus), and it tries to draw conclusions from a lack of information about Jesus' life given in the Pauline letters of the New Testament, despite the letters being written to Christian churches that already teach about the life of Jesus. Even in the article, it describes how modern biblical scholars, even the skeptic ones, are quick to dismiss this claim.
The second article I read recently was in Scientific American today. It was talking about how after death there is nothing, a total void, a lack of experience.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die&ec=su_neversaydie
In some ways I find it interesting, and in other ways I find it disturbing how many people attack the idea of an afterlife or the idea of religion. This article completely dismisses the idea of an afterlife by claiming it is a psychological protection measure to prevent death anxiety. While that may be a side benefit of belief in an afterlife, there is so little we know about death and what might come after that to completely dismiss it is short sighted.
The main question I have for those who do not believe in an afterlife: If there is nothing after life, if there is no accountability for what is done in this life, if the only things to be gained is what can be gained in this world, then what is there to stop the already rampant selfishness of the average human? Those who are impoverished, oppressed, and miserable would then have no excuse to not want to take that which will let them enjoy this life. Those who avoid the justice of the current system while committing immoral, dishonest acts would be prime targets for vigilante justice.
Even if there is no afterlife(not that I would believe there ever wasn't an afterlife), the human race is nowhere near the intelligence or maturity or primarily the selflessness to handle that idea. |
|
|
| Re: do not resist evil. |
[Mar. 18th, 2008|09:50 pm] |
After thinking about this for a while, I remembered something. Some things in the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively. The main problem I was having in the previous post was to understand the real life application of what Jesus was saying in Matthew. The literal translation of what was said can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, "If someone murders you, allow them to murder you again." In this I realized that only a figurative meaning could make sense. As always Jesus addressed that matters of the heart, and the way people treat each other. Keeping this in mind, here is what I came up with.
Primarily, do not seek revenge against those who wish to harm you. Instead return harm with kindness and forgiveness. This much more direct thought brought the practical application to the foreground. It is still good to prevent someone from committing a wrongful act. However, in that prevention show them kindness and forgiveness. |
|
|
| Do not resist evil. |
[Mar. 6th, 2008|09:38 pm] |
I have heard from a couple of people an interesting interpretation of a well known section of verse. The verse in question is part of the sermon on the mount where Jesus talks about loving your enemies. Both times I heard this interpretation they honed in on the first half of one verse, Matthew 5:39a. "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." (NIV) They interpret this to mean that one should not resist an evil person at all. That each individual will answer for their choices in life when they get to the next one and "why should I go out of my way to persecute or condemn anyone." Given this argument came up within a conversation whose context included capital punishment, it was an idea that while inside the conversation proved persuasive, I wondered how its logical conclusion would stand up outside of that context.
Is it right and good to prevent someone else from committing a harmful act on someone else? On a personal note, if I was witnessing a scene in which one person was about to commit an atrocity upon someone else, I would not hesitate to assist the victim in whatever way possible. Unsurprisingly, most other people in this world would do something similar; some because of a belief in karma, some because of a moral obligation, and some because of a whim. So then does it not make sense that prevention of atrocities is good? Did Jesus himself not prevent a woman from being stoned?
Second, there is a small nuance that this interpretation neglects. Matthew 5:39 is in direct contrast to the preceding verse. Matthew 5:38, "38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. " (NIV) Because of the direct contrast to the preceding verse, it communicates an idea that 39 directly relates/contradicts to 38. With this in mind, one could easily understand this to mean that one should not seek revenge to those who do evil upon them, but to instead offer themselves as subject to the same evil yet again. Oddly enough the more I read that, the less I see how those two ideas differ. (Yes the momentum of this post has changed)
The last thought I had on this was what if we all followed this example. Anytime someone did evil to anyone else, the receiving party asked for another helping of the same. How would that effect society? Would those who do evil no longer be deterred for fear of punishment? Would those who steal have a change of heart due to the generosity? I see what God can do with all of his people following this example and at the same time I see the societal constructs of justice and liberty falling apart. I think of all the evil in the world, and all the harm it can do, and I hear these tough ideas and think of all that would follow if God's people were to adhere to these tough ideas.
In closing, what should be done about the evil in the world? Should evil be brought before the higher powers and held accountable for their actions or should those who commit evil be handled in the way stated above in Matthew 5:39? And if the second, can I trust and believe in God enough to know that He will make it right? And if the first, what is a righteous punishment for evil? |
|
|
| An odd dream. |
[Feb. 28th, 2008|09:18 am] |
Last night a had a very vivid dream that seems full of potential meaning. The exact details of the dream are still a bit unclear, but the elements of the dream are still vivid. I remember hearing a description of a giraffe that had the longest neck ever recorded for a giraffe, and it was able to reach higher and further than any other. I also remember seeing this odd beast, and it looked as though it could topple over at any second if it were to sway its head more than a few degrees of vertical.
This giraffe was not caged, and trying to maneuver around a series of low overhangs within a school building type of area. Along the wall was a long vine that stretched the full distance of the hallway/walkway. Following this vine to it's end revealed a lone rose blossom. This blossom happening to be inside a room where a church service was being held. The room was dark, with light shining in the windows. The person in the service speaking at the time began to notice and describe the odd rose vine. It seemed as though he/she was using the rose vine in some analogy, pointing out how much effort and distance the vine went to. I remember leaving the building, stepping over cords/cables to do so and standing in the front courtyard area of the building.
That was about the time I woke up. I felt the need to write this down and get feedback. Anyone who wants to give their opinion is welcome to do so, just be meaningful and/or respectful.
Dave |
|
|
| What is beyond? |
[Jan. 4th, 2008|10:58 pm] |
Before I go into this at all, I want to preface this post with a note. This is merely a mental exploration into what could be, not necessarily what is.
I have heard for most of my life that one should study the Bible. Take what it has, read it, again and again, meditate on it, know that it has all of the answers. Know that in it are the truths that are relevant to anyone and their current situation, whether that situation be physical, social, or mental and that all current situations are in and of themselves spiritual in nature. The Bible is a deep, layered, tangled, intertwined truth that likens itself to a greatly complex Chinese puzzle box. The more one explores the details, the more one finds to be studied. My question, is there a limit to the amount of information and insight one can gain from the Bible?
There is no question to how deep the Bible is. One can study the Bible for their entire life and consistently find new truths, and new angles of perspective on old truths. However, is there a tangible, reachable limit to what can be learned? Is there a maximum? If so ... what would that look like? What would someone who has learned and adequately put into practice all that the Bible has to offer look like? How would that person behave? How would that person treat others? How would that person treat their country? How would that person be treated by those around him/her? What would have been the background of that individual? Would that person attain Christ like attributes? What would have been the purpose of such an individual? Is it possible?
If it is possible, what would be next? What would that person do? What would be that individuals ultimate goal in life afterward? If it is possible, are we as Christians supposed to attain it? Are we as Christians supposed to strive for it?
If it is not possible, what does that mean?
At this point, one could ruin a thought like this by wanting to add a sentence that imposes their agenda onto the thought. This is merely a complicated question that I do not wish to have answered. It is a question I wanted to ask. |
|
|
| The end of the evolution vs. intelligent design. |
[Dec. 3rd, 2007|11:27 pm] |
Recently, I was engaged in a conversation about whether or not the Bible's creation story is a literal 7 days or a figurative language to describe 7 distinct periods of time. Shortly afterward the conversation moved to an ID (intelligent design) vs. evolution debate. During this debate it dawned on me that there is very little to be gained from a definite decision between the two.
As it turns out, both sides are staunchly entrenched in doctrine, circular arguments, undermining jabs, and reundermining counters. Both sides have a logical basis for their belief, and yes I said belief. Both have a logical basis for the disbelief of the other, and yet both lack the ability to, without a doubt, prove their belief as fact. Let me state that again, neither side can prove their belief as a fact. Unfortunately, in the US, something that is said repeatedly and loudly tends to gain credit as being a fact, despite it's actual validity, or lack thereof. Each side knows this and tries to convert people into mindless spewers of their belief so that it will gain this virtual stance as a fact. What is worse, is that any news article that in any way suggests a possible support or discredit to one side is immediately brought to a spotlight in the media by its supporting side as "proof."
What it boils down to is the heart of the matter. Since neither side can be "proven," there are only 3 reasons for someone to bring this kind of conversation to light. The first, the least likely of them, is to have an intelligent exchange of ideas so to understand one or both of the sides. The second is to brainwash someone into spewing words of the one side so as to add to its virtual stance as a fact. The third reason is to erode at someone's belief so as to sway them away from their religion, or lack thereof. (Then of course this reason, to end the senseless debate) Aside from these reasons, the origin of the Universe has zero practical application in anyone's life, for at least the next amount of time before Christ comes back, or when the universe sucks itself back into a singularity, whichever event is going to happen first. In either case, there is not much anyone can do about it.
How the universe came into existence has no bearing on my belief in Christ. How the universe came into existence has no bearing on how I live my life. Nor does it have bearing on the price of beer, the color of the sky, the production of goods, the gathering of families, nothing. How the universe came into existence, and how we all ended up on this rock rotating in an elliptical orbit around the sun, has absolutely no current or future practical application to anything. Does this mean that one should never study what came before? By no means. There is relevant history that absolutely has practical application. One who studies how a group of people died, can find a cause a prevent that from happening elsewhere. One who studies the notes and ideas of the great minds before them can invent something useful and productive. One who reads about other's mistakes and learns from them avoids making those same mistakes. However, studying anything that cannot be proven and has no practical application in the lives of anyone is a practice in imagination, a journey into the what could have been and what that might have meant. Something to be treated with no more respect than a science fiction novel. "That is an interesting idea."
Even if one side is proven to be absolutely true, what is their to gain? If evolution were to be proven true, if there were only the few years we live, then nothing. What then? What does a person have to live for? Themselves, and only themselves. We live only to procreate and stimulate the pleasure center of our brains until we rot? What kind of world would this lead to? A world that is much more depraved than this. What if intelligent design were proven absolutely true, that a higher being created all of this. Religion is no longer about belief, but about knowledge. "Didn't you know that there is a higher power? No? Wow, what an ignoramus." Neither is a world I would want to be a part of. I hope that it never comes to this, or anywhere closer that it already is.
Just because something is stated frequently and loudly does not make it any more true. Just because something is not stated frequently and loudly does not make it any less true. Just because something is at the forefront of the media, and a hot topic issue between people, does not mean it is worth discussing. |
|
|
| Posting to keep account open. |
[Sep. 1st, 2007|09:53 pm] |
|
Unfortunately for some, LJ has not been a priority for me lately. Here is hoping I will put it in my internet routine again soon. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 12th, 2007|12:39 pm] |
This is a hot topic among modern culture in the US and something that, for me, has been repeatedly shoved into the gray area of acceptability by several of my friends. The way that I have come to see it is this.
Is homosexuality a sin? I believe so. There is no time that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible(Old or New Testament) with positive language. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The laws in Leviticus mention death by stoning as punishment for those who commit a homosexual act. Romans speaks of homosexual practices as one of the results of someone not "glorifying God or giving thanks to him" among other things. I Corinthians 6 lists many of those who will not "inherit the Kingdom of God", including all manner of sexually impure.
Can a Christian be homosexual? Yes and no. The only perfect person ever to exist was Jesus. One of the major figures that follows him is Paul, and Paul readily admits several times that there is sin that he struggles with. He does not go into detail about what, but he does say that he struggles with his actions. So it is possible, I would even say almost guaranteed that any will Christian struggle with sin. Does that mean we can go on sinning with no repercussions because of grace, by no means. Paul says in Romans that we are to strive to avoid sin because of grace. So how do we reconcile the two (grace and our struggle with sin)? One should strive to stop sinning as they are made aware of the sins that they are committing.
It is possible that due to ignorance, anyone can be unaware that something is a sin for a time, but the Holy Spirit convicts Christians as we sin, so if nothing else, we feel guilt as we sin. After repeatedly sinning, people can become calloused to that sense of guilt, in which case one of their fellow Christians needs to intervene and point them to the Bible so that they may see their sin.
In conclusion; If someone cannot stop, chooses not to stop, or does not even try to stop committing a sin that they are repeatedly made aware that it is a sin, they are a slave to that sin. If they are a Christian, they have, for sure, stopped their progress of becoming closer to God until they have brought that sin under control. Furthermore, if someone claims to be a follower of Christ yet exhibits this behavior, I would challenge them, "You are still a slave to this sin, because it controls you. Faith in Jesus Christ is freedom from sin. Can you really expect me to believe that you are a true follower of Christ while still a slave to this sin?" |
|
|
| Romans 11:25-32 |
[Feb. 1st, 2007|09:04 am] |
(NIV)
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
I ran across this section of Romans recently, and am wodering to what its full meaning is. In Chapter 8 he talks in rhetorical questions about who other than God can bring any doubt to our slavation or seperate us from that salvation. Then in 9-11 he addresses a few topics, one of them being what has happened to Israel's covenant so to quash the flase idea that God has altered his covenant with Israel in anticipation to the critics around those receiving his letter.
One of the things that I know is that scripture does not contradict itself. I know that Paul's writing style is that of conviction; straight to the point. While he greives for his people, he would not write something as truth, that is false, for the sake of appeasing the temper of his audience. I also know that scripture directly teaches that the only way to the Father is through Jesus (John 14:6). So the question is, what does this verse mean by, "All Israel will be saved,...?" Is it referring to those who follow the old covenant, or is it referring to believers past, present and future? Or is it referring to those who died before the arrival of the Messiah, but with faith in the old covenant?
He also describes this same group of people "All of Israel" as enemies, with respect to the Gospel. How can someone be saved that also "..as the gospel is concerned, [is an] enemy on your account;"?
I feel that the meaning in these verses is important, yet cannot draw a meaning out of them that meshes completely with the ideas I know to be true. Most of the council I have received recently has been to the effect of, "If there is a small section of verse that the meaning you draw from it contradicts or dissonates with many other scriptures, you can assume that you are reading the wrong definition from it." While this is true, the action I wish to avoid is that of reading a definition into scripture that is not there. Scripture should stand on it's own, and have a relevant, harmonizing bit of information contained within.
(to be continued) |
|
|
| Use of gifts |
[Jan. 22nd, 2007|06:32 pm] |
My spirit has a desire that I cannot shake. A desire that I know not fully what to do with it. I question whether it is a desire given from God, or one of my carnal desires. I have thought about it, and prayed about it, yet no obvious answer has been shown to me as of yet.
I am a man of great physical strength. Unrefined as it may be, it is great. For a while now, I have felt that my physical potential is being wasted. On second thought, not so much wasted as not being used to its full potential. While I am physically active, and have used my strength to help others, mostly in the form of helping move furniture, I feel a desire to do more. I feel a desire to reach a better potential. I feel a desire to use all of what I can do, to not hold back. The breaking point being that I want a clear message as to where to apply this. I fear the damage I could do, and have made titanic mental efforts to restrain myself. I feel not unlike an elephant in an antique store. The slightest movement not made with careful consideration resulting in something being put at risk.
On the other side, I feel a desire to advance my mental ability as well and to share my understanding of certain subjects with others. This desire, however, is being fulfilled in the oppurtunity to attend college free of charge and in the oppurtunities that this curriculum will open.
Back to my original question, is the desire of wanting to use the entirety of one's physical ability a desire from God? If so, what are a few ways to adequately fulfill this desire in a manner that is acceptable and pleasing to God. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
caduswadoh's journal
blah
confused