|
truthsynthesizer
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Jamey
Country: United States
Metro: Roanoke
Gender: Male
Interests: hermeneutics, exegesis, metaphysics, epistemology, quantum physics, motorcycles, antiquity,
Occupation: Education/training
Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me
Member Since:
10/2/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Why does Jesus come in flesh? Couldn't he have simply come in spirit? Is there something about human nature that needed something to touch? How could Jesus possibly say that it is better for him to leave as he does in John 16, if we needed something to touch? Could you imagine a husband coming home from war, only to leave soon after, and then explaining the next time that he leaves that it is best that he leaves? If the incarnation was needed and then Jesus left, does that mean the incarnation was no longer needed? In John 16, he explains that he is sending the Comforter and that is why it is better. Does this imply that the Incarnation was not about a physical presence? Was the fleshly part of Jesus not needed? Was Jesus' body only here as a sacrifice for our bodily sins and not as the physical presence of God on earth? Jesus answers this question as he continues the speech from John 16 in John 17, "this is eternal life, that you may know God and Jesus Christ whom he sent." Jesus was sent to help us know God, too, not only as a sacrifice. We are like the bride who thinks her husband might be dead from the war, he then shows up at the house. Now, we know that he is truly alive but wait he leaves us again and says that it is best this way. Was this not the same problem we had before? We have to go from trusting in a prophecy to trusting in history. The incarnation was only for a little while? In the Old Testament we had prophets and a Temple, a cloud, and several signs, then in Jesus presence we had God's presence to see, touch, smell and we are better off now? How could this be? Did God forget that we are physically sensing beings? Why is our husband leaving us and telling us that it is best? This couldn't be best!
Jesus came as a sacrament, a promise in physical form, and he instituted sacraments, promises in fleshly form. God could have healed blind people without using mud, God could have healed blind people without using ears of flesh to hear the blind man talk or eyes to see the lame walk. God comes to us in physical form for us and he continues to come to us in physical form for us. When Jesus told the disciples in John 16 that it was better that he leave, the explanation was that the Holy Spirit will not only come but the Holy Spirit will make sense of all that Jesus said. Jesus left us the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit taught us how this all makes sense: sacraments. Jesus is the husband and he did come and he did leave-ish but he left us himself, too. Whereas before we had a husband that had to be in one physical place at a time, we now have his sensed presence in multiple places at a time in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Our husband cloned himself multiple times but in order to do that he had to give us the ability to see him in the clones and this required the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter. As those who witnessed his physical body 2,000 years ago still had to choose to believe, we 2,000 year later witness his physical body and have to choose. As it was hard then to believe that God became a man, it is hard today to believe that God is bread and wine. This year I will celebrate Christ's Mass and I will celebrate it presently because my King told me it is better this way. Next year, I will sense my Lord more fully.
Dear Lord,
Thank you for meeting me,
Thank you for your sacraments,
I am a believer, help me believe,
Thy Kingdom continue to come more fully,
Thy Will be done more fully,
In Jesus' Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| I never watched the movie 'Pleasantville' but I live in a world that believes a lot of what the movie implies at least. 'Pleasantville' attempts to defeat the false world of black and white Brady Bunch/Leave it to Beaver type worlds. Pleasantville preaches the Samuel Beckett sermon. Pleasantville gives two worlds: the world of lies that says life is good and the world of reality that says life sucks. Many musicians follow this type of Pleasantville un-pleasantness. Many television shows are about nothing because that is really what life is about. We are simply realist. We admit that life is not good and that love usually fails. We acknowledge our infidelity and our lack of sincerity and then we publish it, video it, and imitate it. We now watch real television, where we used to watch false television. We no longer watch fake lives of perfect families and perfect relationships where people learn 'mother goose' type lessons. We are better than that, we are real. Really? Really? Are we so real that we are missing a more fundamental reality?
More and more each day, I learn how much of a process Jamey Sturgill is. I am like a basketball game in the second quarter. I don't know who wins. I know some of the players. I know some of the plays but there are millions of things that could still happen. I am like book only 20 pages in, perhaps the major plot is still yet to be decided. I am a process. Because I am a process, I am highly influenced. I am much more like a puddle than I am like a rock. Rain will not only affect me, it is likely to change everything about me. This reality is the reality that I believe is more fundamental than the fake reality of movies.
Our society struggles so much with historicism, a false stereotype of our history's stupidity: if they are older they must be more ignorant. We look back on our ancestor's ideas as though they came from a child. Do we really believe that the writers, producers, and directors of movies/television shows from the 50s and 60s believed that the world was perfect? Do we really believe that those that write love songs about love being wonderful believe that the world is perfect? I don't think these people believed the world was perfect but I do believe that they knew that humans are highly influential processes. They knew that if they showed television shows about nothing that people would eventually become people about nothing. They knew that if love was always criticized then eventually the people that watched the movies would become critical of love. The forefathers of television were not against realism, the were against contamination. They were real about the reality of the human process and the highly influential nature of visual stimuli.
Many times I ask kids questions about what they like. I ask if they like certain types of foods and certain types of movies, etc. When I ask these types of questions, I am setting them up. When they say, "I don't like _____." I respond with, "who doesn't like _____?" The kids usually respond with their name. I then explain that is their name but they are much more than a name. We then go into detail about how they really don't know who they are and if they don't know who it is that is liking or not liking then how could they know what they like and don't like. I do this to demonstrate the human process to children. People my age are bad at this, too, we are convinced that we like to wear black or that we like to wear sports jackets with jeans because that is simply who we are. We are convinced that we like Indy movies and hippy music because that is just us. We fail to acknowledge that we are processes. We simple think that we are who we are. I heard a young lady say this they other day in regards to her ex-husband. I didn't know the lady well enough to comment. She was talking about her divorce. She said, "if he can't like me for who I am, then he can just leave." Do you know what I wanted to ask? I was dying to say, "Oh, and do you know who you are? Who is it that he couldn't accept?" Now, I know she was saying something true but she was also saying something not true.
There is an old Greek explanation of the impossibility of knowing the self. If you knew every single thing about yourself, then you would always have to add one more thing: that you now know everything about yourself. It is actually an impossibility to completely know yourself.
Most of the modern philosophers that have made us this way were consistent. They would argue that processes don't exist because that would imply a degree of perfection and there is actually no good, no meaning, no truth. Thus, this reality, that doesn't care what effect it has, is still real. There is a huge problem with these philosopher's thinking: they imply the process in the correction. Being consistent doesn't make someone's statement true. Is it better, more true, more meaningful, to believe that there is no process because there is no good, no true, no meaning? They shouldn't argue. There would be no Pleasantville correction because what is, is what is and one couldn't and even more so, shouldn't, correct. Did you get that? They contradict themselves. If there is no truth then why are they correcting Pleasantville? Is it better to be a realist and hate life? Is it more true?
I am reminded of a very interesting time in my life. My girlfriend had broken up with me. I was very depressed. I cried for 6 months. After not seeing her for many weeks, I finally got to see her. As we drove around in my car, I explained to her that I cried like crazy, especially when I listened to these wonderful country songs. My girlfriend said, "stop listening to the songs." I got so angr,y but looking back, she was so right. Sometimes it is best for us to think on things that are better for us to think on.
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Philippians 4:8)
Much more could be said and this is not the summon bonum, however, this is a refutation of the false realism that our modern media gives us and that I witness being lived in the unpleasantville lives of so many modern people. I do not write this as an attack on these people, though. I write this as an attack on falsehood, our society's falsehood.
Help, Lord.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| The next time I attend a church service that has an alter call, I want to raise my hand but then I want to ask a question. I want to ask the pastor this, "what if my intentions in becoming a Christian are only 75% good?" Could you imagine? What would the response be? How would you respond? What if I said only 51% of my intentions are good? What if the pastor agreed? What if he said that 51% was enough and then 6 months later I had already stopped going to church, what do you think he would say then? What if I said 99.9% of my intentions were good in becoming a Christian and then I stopped going to church 6 months later, what do you think he would think then? I guess in order to get 'saved' via a quick fix prayer at an alter call service, you really have to have perfect intentions. Is it any wonder that churches with these types of services have repeat decision makers? I have heard this problem addressed over and over in church ministries. Would anyone disagree that if we stopped at any Christian school that endorses these types of services today, we would find many kids that would want to be 'saved' again? The very people who claim such depravity require perfect intentions. Is this not ironic? The churches with the 'simple' people and the 'simple' plan of salvation are actually requiring perfect intentions. The truth is so much more beautiful than what these types of churches teach, though. Why on earth would the gospel of John begin with a strong emphasis on baptism? Why would this strong emphasis continue even in John 3 when Nicodemus asks Jesus how to be born again? God is not the God of perfect intentions. God is the God of promises, incarnational promises. There is much more to this argument, I do not deny that, but I have not found someone with a reasonable answer to this alter call objection. These churches claim to believe the Bible but in reality the are primarily dummies with modern existentialism as their ventriloquist. Then these dummies make the Bible say what they want it to say. It is meta-ventriloquism.
Lord,
Help these types of churches to recognize the false gospel they preach,
Help them to realize their ventriloquist, modern existentialism,
Help them to come home,
Give me endurance as I fight against these false ideas,
Thy Kingdom Come,
Thy Will be done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| Why is it that we choose to live such complicated lives? I choose to do work in one place, spend time with family in another place, spend time with friends in another place, exercise in another place, and eat in another place. An aspect of simple life is doing one act that fulfills multiple desires. Joel, my friend and former student, and I are moving to the mountain. We are going to attempt to live a more simple life. Right now, we eat out a lot, we spend time with friends in a different town, and we exercise at a gym that takes about 15 minutes to drive to. Hopefully living on the mountain will allow us to simplify our lives. We will exercise at home as we chop wood for our wood furnace; we are going to set up the 14 stations of the cross and use them as a contemplative prayer and exercise. We will not have television or internet, and we will read more often. This will create an atmosphere for discussion and questioning in regards to what the other is reading and thus hopefully learning. We are going to attempt to simplify our lives. I write this because I find it strange how we don't even realize how we have complicated our lives. Why is it that we choose to create different places and different people to do our different acts?
I must add this: Chesterton explains that it is unhealthy to be concerned with being healthy. He says that we should get exercise from the activities that we enjoy doing, the normal daily activities and games. Exercising to be healthy is kinda like going to church to go to church; it is like physical legalism. Joel and I will attempt to stay fit but by a more natural means like chopping wood, raising a garden, devotional walks/runs, building underground things out of cobb, a natural type of concrete - look it up on youtube -, and the like. Chesterton was an advocate for the family. Joel and I are both preparing to learn how to spend time with our families by combining our purposes into fewer places and fewer acts. (I so want to add that this type of simplicity is wonderfully Godlike because God is simple. God does one act for all time, God loves. God's one act of love has many situational purposes but his one act never changes. When God destroyed Sodom it was via his one act of love. When Jesus dies on the cross, it is by his one act of love. This is very difficult to understand but I thought it couldn't hurt.)
So why did I write this? We misunderstand many aspects of the simple life. I want readers to analyze their lives and then question their acts. Let us combine our purposes into fewer places and acts. I am looking forward to living a more simple life. I am looking forward to knowing Joel more, knowing myself more, knowing nature more, knowing the Alpha and Omega, more (another side note- Alpha and Omega also means the starter and the purpose. God created the universe and the universe was also created for God. God is the start and the purpose. Omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet but in this context it means 'end' as in purpose, though it could mean 'finale' in some aspects, too.)
Lord,
Help me to learn how to be more simple.
Empower me to combine my purposes into fewer acts.
Lord prepare my family for me and prepare me for my family,
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done,
In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
| If being Christlike, Godlike, is the opposite of sin and God is a selfless Trinity; and part of being selfless is being others centered, then egotism, me centered-ness, is the opposite of God and essential to sin. To be egotistical and to be sinful are nearly synonymous. It is at the heart of sin to be egotistical. As a person, I long to be God-like, Trinitarian, others-centered. It must be difficult to live in Hollywood, to be famous, and not be egotistical. I pity people from Hollywood, they truly have it rougher than I.
Have you ever known someone to be on television and then be so excited about it? Do you watch the today show? They are so excited to be on television and yet, how many of us really care who is on and who is not? What about star high school athletes that graduate and come back to their school 6 -7 years later? Do most remember them? What about star college athletes? What about Olympians? Last year, I found out that a professional basketball player was making vlogs on youtube.com. I watched a couple and I was astounded to discover that only about 1,000 people where actually watching his vlogs. This guy averages over 20 points a game, he was a real star in college, he must have been a star in high school. He is a great basketball player and still only 1,000 people care enough to watch his vlog. Have you ever talked to a fan of a football team and realized how little they know about the people that are playing on their favorite football team? Most do not even remember how the players became a member of their team. What do you know about your favorite actress or actor? We don't really care about knowing these people and yet camera people follow them around all the time. There is obviously enough money in taking videos and pictures of celebrities that several people can make a living but almost none of us really care about them or really know them.
What if you had people taking pictures of you all the time? Wouldn't you think the world revolved around you? I am quite egocentric and nobody really takes pictures of me. I couldn't average 20 points per game in a high school league and I still have problems with being egotistical. I still look back on a play I was in when I was 9 and it makes me more egotistical, could you imagine being in even one movie? Wow, what a temptation to be egotistical, anti-God. I feel sorry for the temptations of the famous. They are so easily drawn to the dark, depressing side, the egotistical side. Their world is so easily made so horribly small.
At my job, I work with children in order to help rid them of egotism because egotism has multiple negative effects. Social skills disappear in the face of egotism. Trust disappears. When trust disappears, love also disappears. Maybe Hollywood has its so many relationship problems, drug problems, and idea problems because of the strong temptation to be egotistical. What a bummer, lets pity them, and lets pray as our Father taught us for them. Lets pray that they not be led into that temptation. May we also be thankful for not being famous and may we resist our lesser temptations to be egotistical, anti-God.
Lord,
Help Hollywood,
Deliver them from the snares of their own egotism,
Make us Trinitarian-like, God-like, Lovers (agape),
Make us truly humble (thinking less of ourselves not less about ourselves)
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done,
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
James S. Sturgill
| | |
|
