Quote of the day

"Christianity didn't begin as a new religious experience; it began with the claim that something had happened, something that had changed the world...something that had happened to Jesus." 

-N.T. Wright 

Sleeping In Church

Now, I'll confess, there are times that some sermons are a bit dull, and even I have fallen asleep, at times (those were times of working early morning shifts), but if you're tired, then do your best to get rest at some other point of the weekend. Now, if you don't, make sure I'm not around with my phone.

I believe that Sunday morning services are to be refreshing, but in a different sort of way.

-Steven 

An Observation on a Tweet

 
  I have a friend who has attached a link on her Instagram profile of a speech given by an abortion-survivor (Here's the link! http://youtu.be/q5YlJ9CZ9fI). Through this subtle act, she states her position on an extremely controversial matter. And, very importantly, she does this as a woman. This tells me a few things about her, and I will take a bit of time to show my observations, or assumptions. In comparison to others (including myself), she places the link to point to something other than herself, and yet she connects it to her, with the link being juxtaposed to her picture, and brief comment-her bio is closely tied with her stance; thus, showing her to be a mixture of personality, and conviction. This is not as a means to deflect anything from herself, a means to avoid being noted because of insecurities, as it's commonly done with deflection, rather, it shows that she believes in something other than herself; she shows that there is something important outside of her (a great relief in a narcissistic culture). Thus, she is not showing insecurity, rather humility-this, I find, is admirable, especially since I shamelessly put the link to this blog, which I see as an extension of myself.With that being said, her position has made me think about abortion more than I usually do. Not that I find it unimportant, but it is something that I've had a hard time placing it in a sensitive perspective. That's not to qualify my lack of contribution to the cause, rather that it's a tough subject for me to work through. As it is my hope that this post helps, I devote it to her. But, if it's absurd, and damaging, then, it's to go on as a memory of my absurdity, and to that I say, "my bad."
  It's worth noting, things of this sort (wrestling with issues like this) are the reasons why this blog exists, and it's also worth mentioning, this is a difficult topic to discuss.
   Coming from a patriarchal society, we find that it's easy to subjugate women to our preconceived notions-this is found in, both, North American and Mexican culture. Women had to fight for suffrage, and some (especially in school campuses),now, are fighting for justice in rape (which is an outrage!). Our culture, our American one, has a prepackaged context- we know that it's wrong to like soccer (which I find fairly entertaining), and to not like football (for which I don't truly care). Or, the Bible and the Constitution are pretty much the same thing (ok, ok, I'll stop with that one, but that irks me). Along with that, we, as men, are supposed to take pain "like a man", or that someone who has a pathetic toss "throws like a girl"-we also compliment girls when we say she's like "one of the boys"; we do this without thinking that that places men at a higher level than women. (Women and men are different, but no one is more important, or any less than anyone else-there is no superior sex.) This, also, runs smack in the face of the recent killings by Elliot Rodger because of misogyny. Hence, it's difficult to come with a acceptable argument against abortion as an outsider. There are too many layers of cultural contexts that I must pull out of before I can honestly say that I can think this through without the pull of my unnecessary biases. Now, please don't misunderstand, everyone will present any argument with bias-there is no such thing as a disinterested observation, or argument, but in the name of equality, I must be sure I'm not presenting something polluted. Hence, I will deal with one statement posed by a man, and this will be my first post dealing with abortion-I hope that I'll be able to work through this issue in the near future, and I will be able to help others throughout the process.
 

  Though I will be dealing with the second statement, I will agree with his first tweet. It is an important discussion, and as Christians we must be wise in presenting our side of the discussion, in particular with those that are willing to have a dialogue. 

  Now, when I first read his tweet, it made me think, "hmmm...interesting point...". However, as I thought it through, I saw it for what it was, a non-sequitur. Firstly, he works from the basis that there is morality. His position works from a division of wrong and right. Not only does he have that presupposition, but he also states that termination is bad, but not in this context. Hence, we have two parts of his foundations: there is a right and wrong, and termination, at times, falls under the wrong category. 

  He then makes the statement about terminating "a person who doesn't exist". Of course, he is emphasizing that he doesn't believe that a fetus is a person. But, can anyone really make such a statement about someone who doesn't exist? It is now under the category of non-existence. I dare ask, if a fetus is nothing, what is he arguing? Apparently, his whole argument is based on nothing. Termination can only work if there is something to terminate; there has to be something started. With no beginning, there can be no end. An end to nothing is nothing within itself, and that's just to start! Along with that, he states that rejection of sex would be murder. Of course, that's absurd. Once again, there would be nothing created to terminate. His logic works backwards, giving him that much credit. Termination in itself is an end, and denying sex is refusing to make a beginning. This is also out of touch with reproduction. Sex doesn't always produce pregnancy; if that were the case, there would be many people I know with enough children to make their own small town. It seems as though he equating termination with non-production. Thus, his idle, non-baby-producing, tweeting was the equivalent of an abortion. 

  The argument, therefore, makes the assumption that one can terminate nothing, or no one. In termination, non-existence is the end, not the start. Thus, we are given a non-sequitur. I know that I didn't deal with abortion directly, and I will eventually, but as I stated earlier, there's a lot that has to be considered before I can give a sufficient argument. As a note, this, undoubtedly, is full of non-sequiturs in itself, and is incomplete, but I this is unedited, and quickly written (all in one sitting). Also, I'm not a philosopher, so I argue from an untrained perspective. Please feel free to comment, and ask questions (I'm assuming I have a true readership).  

New Post

    Happy Fourth of July, everyone! It's been far too long since I've last posted something, but there are good reasons for it. I'll be devoting this post today's post for that reason.
    The reason for my hiatus is not that simple. It's been, mostly, because of my personal development, and personal development tends to be a bit of complex thing. As a warning, this may become a bit personal, but that's part of the purpose of this blog; this blog was intended as a form of mental expression, and as a means to help others as I work through problems on which I've found myself musing over, and that, at times, will involve very personal issues. I will not attempt to be offensive, nor will I intend to write anything to make anyone uncomfortable-when I say personal (please understand), I mean, in regards to me as a person, or a personality. And that of my personality will not be an attempt to be a superficial expression of narcissism cleverly disguised as "blog post". I'm usually quite lazy, and I could easily find easier means to be a narcissist in disguise through other forms of social media, and I would get a better following, because not many, it seems, like to read these blogs, at least in a large portion of my social circles.
    Now, as some may know, I enjoy working through studying philosophy, and theology. Those who know me very well will know that my interests began about four years ago. I will go over the narrative as briefly as possible, and, of course, this will not be exact-I doubt many will remember everything to the details, and I'm no exception. As I just mentioned, this interest began four years.(I had given up on schooling a while back, simply because I found it boring-my first two semesters were boring pre-reqs with professors who were not scholars, nor were they passionate, so everything in this time was unscholastic.) And, I had begun to devote my reading to classics, a bit of Dickens here, Tolstoy there (which I've never finished), Sophocles for lunch, and a pinch of Plato for good measure. And it was when I had read Plato's Republic I found myself absolutely enthralled. I had never found a figure as intriguing as Socrates. He, in his brilliant form of questioning, seemed to me, as a prophet. Though the Socrates was a means for Plato's ideas, and his arguments, at times were flawed, he had represented a revolutionary form of thinking. This was the beginning of my intellectual development. It was from this work that I found that if one is to question things, but one had to do so within reason. I had begun to become questioning, but in forms of metaphysics, I didn't escape with just inquiry, I had been stained with platonic concepts and had been influenced by Plato's forms. It's been this past year in which I have been able to escape the traps of his forms, but the story will have to follow in the next post, hopefully, tomorrow, or tonight. This didn't end up being much of a narrative, but that will, again, have to follow. Also, I don't feel like editing this (remember, I'm pretty lazy). As a note, I have only edited one post, but did that after going over it very quickly, so my grammar will always be sloppy-these are all rough works!
-Steven Carrisalez

"...he's good. He's the King, I tell you.”

    Well I'm back. It's been a while since I last made a post, and I apologize to anyone who reads this blog. I wish to continue on the subject of God's goodness because it is such a large and misunderstood subject. This  post will kind of jump around but it is connected!...loosely... I plan to make a couple of points. I plan to point that God is good, that we must trust in Him, and that our condition is ultimately one of choice.
     I remember reading C.S. Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe years ago, and there was a part when the four main characters; Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy (all in age order), went to a mysterious world through a wardrobe, and found themselves in the country of Narnia. They had been mysteriously transported by Aslan, the Emperor's son, by magic to save the country of Narnia by defeating an evil witch that had cursed the land. She had declared herself the queen of Narnia, and ruled the country merciless. She and other Narnian's-she wasn't an actual Narnian- were aware of an ancient prophecy regarding two son's of Adam, and two daughters of Eve were to conquer the witch and were to rule Narnia afterwards having Peter as the high king.
     Before they were to defeat the self-declared queen they met Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, a lovely beaver couple that were supporters of Aslan- he was the true king of Narnia- and the Beaver's were telling the kids- they were still kids at the time-about Aslan the king, and that he was a lion. Lucy was uncomfortable with the idea of meeting Aslan because she learned about lion condition. She then tried to comfort herself by confirming that he wouldn't be frightful, and Mr. Beaver confirmed that she was wrong, she then asked if he was tamed, this also proved unfruitful, she finally asked if Aslan was at least safe-and I quote Mr. Beaver here because he said it eloquently-“Safe?" said Mr. Beaver."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.” 
    And I present to you Aslan!  C.S. Lewis in his genius subtly presented Christ by using Aslan, and he beautifully presented Christ in that small section. To me this is possibly one of the most beautiful writings in literature outside of the Christian scriptures. 
   A few months earlier this year I had lost my Dad to cancer. This was one of the most confusing times of my life, everything I had known was in question. I thought I understood God's goodness-I already knew how to reason I realized long ago that God is good, and that we would not have any concept of goodness without God, but this was different. I still have problems coping with my dad's death, but I remember praying one morning, and I was hurting. I couldn't understand God's goodness and how it pertained to me. Who wants syllogisms, and deductive logic when one's heart is hurting? Then I remembered Mr. Beaver telling Lucy "Safe? Who said anything about safe? ' Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." And I immediately asked myself who said life wouldn't hurt? He's good. He's the King, I tell you. 
     I had to trust Christ the King because He is good. No matter if I hurt or not He is still good. St. Paul wrote this in his letter to the Roman church  "And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." 
    As humans we have difficulties separating what is good and evil. The writer of Hebrew's wrote "it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.", this can only be dreadful to those that rejected him, but is this not goodness? We must remember that God is immutably good.
   I remember discussing God's omnipresence- which is a fascinating subject! and it is one that i will enter in the future- that involves time, and eternity, and even a pen! I was almost labeled a heretic developing my idea...sigh...it was fun- and the person I was discussing with believed that God could not be omnipresent because he would have to also be in hell, but he forgot that God isn't confined to space. He also misunderstood the goodness of God, as believers we recognize that God is also just, which is also good. We forget at times that God's goodness isn't just grace, or redemption. It is also righteousness. It is difficult to accept that we must give ourselves to a completely good God, yet I would rather give myself to a just God, and die a thousand deaths because he is good. Yet we really want to reject that. 
    When man had fallen in the Garden he fell because he ate from the forbidden tree. Specifically the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is remarkable that they chose to eat from the tree, because they already knew goodness. God had declared that everything was good, and He Himself was ultimately good. Yet, man chose to also know evil. And now we are misdirected in our understanding of good and evil. We are still trying to trying to act as a god, trying to determine what is good and what is evil. If we know God than we will know goodness. 

Delay

I would like to apologize to anybody that reads this blog, and is waiting for my second part regarding my first post on a good God. I have been bogged down at school, and will not be able to write much until I organize my schedule, but I do have a thesis for my next post, and I should have it finished by next week-now that is subjunctive not indicative (thanks Dr. Hyatt)-so it is not for sure, but I will do my best. Please leave any questions or comments, and I will try my best to answer them. This is my approach to apologetic's so please bear with me because I am just a student. As Idan Rachiel says "Ya bless!"

A Good Cause

               In the last post I ended by saying that I will continue the discussion with human value, and I feel that I missed a few points. The last post is open to some attacks because I tried to fit too much in one post, and I left out some important questions. Thus I will present the questions, and I will answer them accordingly.

                My last post ultimately stated that if one is to deny the existence of God on the basis of an evil world one would also have to explain the concept of evil without an ultimate foundation of a moral standard. This cannot be if the world is pure material because we would only bound by physical laws and that would be the ultimate truth. If one does point to a moral standard then one must recognize it as the ultimate state of being, or better yet, an ultimate being. One simply cannot have good or evil without a point of reference towards an ultimate good.

                Now if I was given this argument to be true-which I believe it is-then one can easily look at the question of evil being even more perplexing because (as Descartes demonstrated) one cannot take out more from the effect than the cause gives…Huh?...This argument works both ways when demonstrating that there is a God, and when one tries to attack Him. By analogy-if there is no God, and we have evolved, we are purely objects made of material and nothing more; we cannot get a personality from a non-personal object. We would be only physical material because our cause is only material-one cannot take out more from the effect then cause. Thus personality must come from a personal cause. And I will admit that some atheist prove their point of an impersonal cause by their own personality, or the lack thereof. Like mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski said about Richard Dawkins “…he’s a bit of a reptile…”

                But! Where do we get evil from? Once again one cannot take out more from the effect than the cause. Therefore we can easily deduce that evil must come from God. We are given personality by God and an evil personality must come out of the cause. This can easily be explained by two examples from my  last post.

                The case we have before us is a case of “less is more”. We are not taking out more from the cause but we are just taking the cause out. We really are not taking out more from the cause, but we are just abandoning it; evil is not evil for its own cause, but it is evil for a good cause. In the last post I referred to Ted Bundy (the serial killer). He didn’t consider himself to be wrong, but he murdered for pleasure. He had a good cause, yet it was perverted. Pleasure has always been good, but we as humans have perverted it. From relationships to prosperity we have abused it. If pleasure is left out of its proper framework then it will become misdirected.  We left our cause, and have less of true goodness and moved away from it. We don’t have evil for its own cause, but a perverted goodness as a substitute.

                As in light, darkness is not a fulfillment of itself, but an absence of something else. When light enters a room it fills up the room, but when it is cut off darkness enters. This is because darkness is just an absence of light. Christ had once said that we being evil know how to give good gifts. As fallen humanity we still are aware of good things, but are haunted by the absence of God-which is true goodness. That is why every evil effect has a good, but perverted, cause. God is not evil; he doesn’t have that in him. We are evil because we don’t have Him in us.