30 December 2003

Death, in a spiritual sense, is a topic which Christians either do not consider enough or consider incorrectly. They either ignore it (and continue in their sinful ways) or consider it without the corresponding idea of resurrection. This is why, it seems to me, that Christians are either no different than the world or pathetic imitations of humans - a spiritual living dead, fit for only a stake through their dead heart.

If we do not consider death without corresponding resurrection, this is what we become. We become emotionless, passionless creatures, whose only desire is to destroy the desires of others. We’ve all met those Christians: the ones who live their lives by a set of harsh rules and spend their time condemning others by the same rules that damn themselves. The dead always seek to consume and destroy the living, unable to bear the sight of them.

Christians tend to think that desire is wrong and evil. They are wrong. Desire, before the death and resurrection of our flesh, is generally evil. However, after its death and resurrection, is it always evil? Is it wrong to desire to love and be loved? Isn’t lust merely a corrupted version of love? And pride a corrupted understanding of our ultimate worth? Would we have a life free of desire? How then would we desire God?

No, desire can be purified in Christ. It is remade, holy. There are remnants, to be sure, of our flesh and our desires must be tried and tested to determine whether they are pure. But to elimate desire is to eliminate our need for God and to become dead creatures, when Christ has called us to life. First comes death - than comes life.

( C: 0 )

28 December 2003

Here is an interesting article on the zero-point field. The zero point field is, essentially, what is left when all matter and outside interference is removed space. It is a vacuum - but not in the truest sense - when everything is removed, the zero-point field remains. It is the background field of energy of which the universe is comprised. Essentially, it is a sea of light. Mass, according to the article, is merely the illusion - the result of the zero-point field causing a force against acceleration.

It’s extremely interesting and far more in depth than I wrote above (I should hope so. I’m not a physicist.). The theological aspect of the zero-point field is this: it explains why God created light on the first day, because the zero-point field not only is the basic element of the universe but is also, essentially, a field of light.

( C: 0 )

27 December 2003

If what I wrote in my previous post is true, then the choice of Christ is an act of both supreme irrationality and supreme rationality. To choose Christ is irrational by the standards of the world; after all, how can we believe in something unseen? How can faith be the reality of the unseen? It is irrational from the world’s mindset. A worldly person (and I do not mean this in the sense of “sinful”, though that is true. I mean it in the sense of a person of the world’s mindset) who chooses Christ is taking a risk and performing a self-defined act of complete irrationality. He or she is not living what they believe, for the world does not believe in Christ. It is irrational.

But it is also a supreme act of rationality - for it is an act which changes philosophy and mind. It (the decision for Christ) can be looked back at as a divine intervention, a burst of rationality in an irrational world. Because, ultimately, reality and truth cannot be defined by humanity. It can be only defined by God. Therefore, what is rational to God may very easily be irrational to us, and it takes divine movement to penetrate our human minds and make us see. The act of choosing Christ is irrational when originally made by a worldly personal. But, from a historical and eternal perspective, it is an act of ultimate rationality.

( C: 0 )

26 December 2003

It seems to me that, above all people on the earth, Christians should be the most intelligent and most rational about their existence. After all, most other people’s belief systems are bound to their own ideas of reality - in other words, they are generally bound to the culture of day. And the culture of today is exceedingly irrational and relativistic. Most people today have given into despair because they have no moral basis for any belief, or have a belief which is inconsistent at best and irrational at worst. Irrationality rules the world.

Christians, having a basic structure for belief (the argument for whether a faith based structure is rational or not can be left for another day), should be the most rational. After all, they have a coherent basis from which to work - they can seek to understand its intricacies and depth, and attempt to play it out in their lives. Because they have a foundation, Christians can study and know it and incorporate into their lives. Is their anything more real than a person who truly lives out his or her beliefs? Isn’t moral consistency the logical result of a rational belief system?

I say Christians should be the most rational; I’m referring to their understanding of what they believe, their ability to live it out in their lives, and their ability to communicate it to others. There is something there to know and understand, unlike those who are knowingly or unknowingly relativists. For that reason, Christians should be able to know more and go deeper than any others.

I don’t think that’s the case. Most Christians I know are as irrational as the rest of the world and nearly as relativistic. It’s as if, in this day and age, there is certain disrespect for those who want consistency and truth. And there is, most certainly disrespect for those who point out inconsistency in others. It’s troublesome. Rational thought will not save us; neither will moral consistency. Yet they should be a result of the Christian life.

EDIT:
I feel obligated to note that a rational belief system based on worship of God should be rational in relationship with God. In other words, if you believe in a God who knows all - and he instructs you to sell your house and move across the country, it’s perfectly logical that you obey and do so. Yet others would point out that you have a nice house and a good job; to them, you’re being irrational. True rationality is based on whether it (faith) is based on something true.

( C: 0 )

25 December 2003

Welcome to Digitalbranch.net version... probably about 29.2... It’s actually version 9, I believe.

The design is up and completed. Beside the obvious visual changes, I’ve made some adjustments to the search engine and other minor things which only I’d notice.

I’d appreciate your comments.

( C: 0 )

24 December 2003

For what it’s worth, CSS isn’t as easy to work with as I’d imagined. You can do a load more with it than straight html - but the caviat is that you’re never quite sure what it’s going to do. You demand it does something and CSS laughs in your face and makes some crude comment about your mother. In other words, it’s not the most obedient child. CSS is much better than straight html, so I suppose I can’t complain too much.

I’m working on making this page xhtml compliant. Why? Eh, why not. If I’m going to redesign the thing, I might as well do it right.

( C: 0 )

22 December 2003

I’m working on a new design for this site. I hope to get it up sometime soon, as well as more advanced (and clearer) search features. Why? Because that’s just the kind of guy I am.

Actually, I’ve been quite controlled lately. I use to redesign the site about every month - but I got that under control when I realized that I’d spend more time posting if I spent less time designing and redesigning the site. Afterall, what’s the point of a pretty face if it doesn’t have personality?

EDIT:
Now that I’m working on a new design, I feel the need to appoligize for the current design - or at least all the ugliness to the left. I know it’s there. It bothers me. I’ve been to lazy to care. The ugly color and bullets to the left are the remnant of my Wordpress upgrade. They will soon go away. When I redesign the site entirely.

( C: 0 )

20 December 2003

I believe this song “Two Points for Honesty” (by the best unknown band in America, Guster) accurately summarizes my life so far. I’ve certainly “dreamed a thousand dreams” and none of them do seem to stick in my mind.

If that’s all you will be, you’ll be a waste of time
You’ve dreamed a thousand dreams, none seem to stick in your mind
Two points for honesty
It must make you sad to know that nobody cares at all

If that’s all you will be, you’ll be a waste of time
You’ve dreamed a thousand dreams, none seem to stick in your mind
Two points for honesty
It must make you sad to know that nobody cares at all
Nobody cares at all
They never care at all

( C: 0 )

19 December 2003

Hum - so I bought a new motherboard today (My mother takes offense to that term and wonders why it isn’t a fatherboard. I answered her quite simply: “I have no idea”). Oddly, I feel quite guilty about it, as if any purchase of such cost is frivalous and stupid. I suppose that, technically, I could live without it, though my computer is growing old by leaps and bounds. I’m certainly not getting it because it is the super-top of the line fulfillment of all my lusts. I’m getting it because I feel its about time. But that doesn’t stop me from feeling a bit queasy about it.

I suppose I’m always just a bit wary of my desires - I formerly felt quite guilty about buying anything for myself. I’m not entirely sure if that’s the right attitude to have or not. This is one of those topics I have trouble working out - even in writing, where I’m generally at my clearest (depressing, isn’t it?)...

I suppose most people wouldn’t see the difficulty here. But the problem is this: as one who (theoretically) has given his life and everything to the king, the question is whether desire (in a purer sense) is allowed to remain for anything other than the king. It seems that, somehow, Christ calls us to such a radical thing - but Paul makes some allowances (ie, the desire of marriage). It doesn’t seem to me that all desire can be called evil. Allowances are made for man to be as God created him. I’d say that, by our natures we are creatures of desire. We desire God. We desire each other. We desire to grow and to learn. God would not create us in one manner and then curse us by saying that manner was evil.

The trouble comes when lesser desires overcome our desire for God. When we desire God, all other things become subservient and related to that desire. They become holy and purified. They become true.

I think that’s what I think. And I dont know if that helps me at all.

( C: 0 )

18 December 2003

Love. It’s a concept I cannot rationalize away. It’s something that I cannot escape. It’s something none of us can escape, no matter how much it pains us to conclude this. It’s something that I’ve had on my mind quite a bit - not just lately, but for as long as I can recall. I’m knowing, now, that the pain from lacking love is far greater than the pain from the loss of love. At least, I know this in my mind - convincing my heart of this is a different matter. It’s been said that its better to have loved and loss than never have loved at all. It’s cliche, but its true. Because the pain of loss is, in its own way, a good feeling - a memory of something so worthwhile that it had to be torn forcefully away. If love is that valuable, why I am so willing to forgo it entirely?

( C: 0 )

I was totally going to brag, yesterday, about having posted five days in a row! I forgot to - and as a result, only ended up posting four days in a roll... even that’s pretty good, for me. I’m still proud of it. And, ergo, I win.

I’m feeling considerably better now, having seen Lord of the Rings twice already (for those of you counting, yes, that’s opening night AND the day after). The movie is great. Go see it - stat.

( C: 0 )