Probably the most frustrating thing about this book is that there actually is some good stuff in it, some good thoughts, but in the end it all comes almost to nothing. This guy isn't stupid, but right when he seems to come on the verge of something serious, he backs off, and it becomes all about 'prosperity, blessing, and the good life'.
Here's an example of something that actually is pretty good...
"Don't focus on your weaknesses, focus on your God."
...very well, no problem with that. In fact, one could look at where Paul said "in my weakness, God is made strong" and see how Paul came to rejoice in his weaknesses, and that could have given us some serious things to consider.
Osteen then does some rather unexpected--he tells the story of the three trees. I've heard variations on it, but the core story is like this; there are three trees in a forest, each has a wish of how they want to be used, and in the end they get their wish, though not as they would have hoped. One wanted to become a treasure chest, but was made into a manger that eventually held the child Christ. One wanted to be a part of a large boat carrying important people, but was made into a fishing boat that carried Jesus around. The third wanted to stand and point people to God, but was made into the cross on which Christ died.
It's an interesting story, but it seems that it runs contrary to much of Osteen's points. Simply put, none of those trees received their wish as they wanted it to be, in fact they became something else entirely. Even the author makes that point, "Your dreams may not have turned out exactly as you'd hoped, but the Bible says that God's ways are better and higher than our ways".
This is the frustration. If he weren't so wrapped up in the Word of Faith nonsense, he could have seen deeper into things. He could have seen that the man who wrote God has "blessed us with every spiritual blessing" was doing so from prison, and was probably writing to people who were not rich, some may even have been slaves, and they may have been subject to persecutions. He may have seen that the Bible tells us much about being content with what we have and cautions against pursuing wealth.
But, no, it doesn't go there. I'm almost afraid to speculate why, because I may be unfair to him. If I say something like "Well, he knows what sells, and what people want to hear", am I correct? I know I think that, but I'm not sure if it's true. It's too easy to say that those you disagree with have the worst of motives, even when it
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
LPO chess tournament--a bit of a disappointment
The past weekend was the Lipkin-Pfeffercorn Open in Winston-Salem, North carolina. Well, actually, for me it was only Saturday. It wasn't a good tourney.
The ride down here was ok, my Dad was with me. We ran into a few snarls, but got here in good time.
The first round could be played either Friday evening or Saturday morning. I chose Saturday. What I didn't notice on the on the tourney announcement was the the time controls would be different depending on if one played the first on Saturday--they would be a bit shorter. I don't think it would have made a difference.
The first was a tough game. I think that early on I had a good position, but misplayed it, and my opponent took control. I defended well, and right when I thought I had gotten even again, he played a very clever tactic that won him a pawn. The ending should still have been a draw, but for some reason I started trying to press for the win, and a justice would have it, he responded well and won.
The second was a bit cathartic. It was actually a pretty tense and complicated game, with both of us going after each other's kings. I had pinned one of his knights, and was trying to pile on to win it, and it resulted in his queen being pinned by my bishop, and so he resigned.
The third was a fight as well, though quieter and more of a maneuvering battle. I thought I had the edge on him, but he kept finding some tactics to keep me from gaining in real advantage, and I kept him from getting one on me, and in the end we drew.
So, three games, one and a half points. All of my opponents were in my same rating class, though a bit lower then I was. with that score, I was pretty effectively out of any chance of winning anything, so I withdrew and we'll head home in the morning (I'm writing this Saturday night).
There are reasons why I wanted to come here, and to try to win my section of the tournament. They are for the time being personal reasons, outside of course of sheer orneriness and wanting to compete and win.
Has my game gone backwards since a little over a month ago, when I tied for first in the Lexington tournament? None of the people I played here were a highly rated as those played that time, so it would safe to assume that my competition that time was tougher then it was here. Yet my results were worse here. Granting that I played stupidly in the first game, losing a drawn position, had I played like I did before, it may not have come to that.
It's a tough thing to know. If I have been remiss in my chess studies, it's not as if life hasn't had it's complications. Plus, what is it worth? Let's be honest, I'm not going to make any kind of master's level in chess. I take the game seriously, but not that seriously. I like the design work I do, and enjoy free time to read or watch movies when I can.
But as I said, chess at this point in time isn't just a hobby for me. It's a potential means to an end, or at least the next step to an end (or a beginning). One reason I pressed in that first game was because of that--a draw wouldn't have been disasterous, but it would have made things iffy. One time when I played here years ago, in a lower section, I had 4 1/2 out of 5 games, and wound up in a 4-way tie for first. Not bad, but splitting among so many did cut down on the funds.
Of course, it's still better then nothing. I should have been smart.
The ride down here was ok, my Dad was with me. We ran into a few snarls, but got here in good time.
The first round could be played either Friday evening or Saturday morning. I chose Saturday. What I didn't notice on the on the tourney announcement was the the time controls would be different depending on if one played the first on Saturday--they would be a bit shorter. I don't think it would have made a difference.
The first was a tough game. I think that early on I had a good position, but misplayed it, and my opponent took control. I defended well, and right when I thought I had gotten even again, he played a very clever tactic that won him a pawn. The ending should still have been a draw, but for some reason I started trying to press for the win, and a justice would have it, he responded well and won.
The second was a bit cathartic. It was actually a pretty tense and complicated game, with both of us going after each other's kings. I had pinned one of his knights, and was trying to pile on to win it, and it resulted in his queen being pinned by my bishop, and so he resigned.
The third was a fight as well, though quieter and more of a maneuvering battle. I thought I had the edge on him, but he kept finding some tactics to keep me from gaining in real advantage, and I kept him from getting one on me, and in the end we drew.
So, three games, one and a half points. All of my opponents were in my same rating class, though a bit lower then I was. with that score, I was pretty effectively out of any chance of winning anything, so I withdrew and we'll head home in the morning (I'm writing this Saturday night).
There are reasons why I wanted to come here, and to try to win my section of the tournament. They are for the time being personal reasons, outside of course of sheer orneriness and wanting to compete and win.
Has my game gone backwards since a little over a month ago, when I tied for first in the Lexington tournament? None of the people I played here were a highly rated as those played that time, so it would safe to assume that my competition that time was tougher then it was here. Yet my results were worse here. Granting that I played stupidly in the first game, losing a drawn position, had I played like I did before, it may not have come to that.
It's a tough thing to know. If I have been remiss in my chess studies, it's not as if life hasn't had it's complications. Plus, what is it worth? Let's be honest, I'm not going to make any kind of master's level in chess. I take the game seriously, but not that seriously. I like the design work I do, and enjoy free time to read or watch movies when I can.
But as I said, chess at this point in time isn't just a hobby for me. It's a potential means to an end, or at least the next step to an end (or a beginning). One reason I pressed in that first game was because of that--a draw wouldn't have been disasterous, but it would have made things iffy. One time when I played here years ago, in a lower section, I had 4 1/2 out of 5 games, and wound up in a 4-way tie for first. Not bad, but splitting among so many did cut down on the funds.
Of course, it's still better then nothing. I should have been smart.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
book review, part 2--your best life now
Let me give a counter to what Osteen seems to be teaching.
Chesterton begins the second chapter of his book 'Orthodoxy' with the recounting of a conversation he had with a friend, in which the friend commented about some that he will do well, because "he believes in himself". Chesterton tells his friend that if he wishes to see the people who truly believe in themselves, he could tell him where they could be found--in the mental hospital. When the friend disagreed, Chester pointed out that yes there were those not in those institutes who did believe in themselves--they are the people who try to succeed at things they really have no business doing, and no one can tell them otherwise. "It would be much truer to say that man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself".
I returned to tournament chess last summer, at a small unofficial tournament at a library. I did not go into it with much confidence--my last tournament had been a blitz chess one in Perm, and I had had no success worth mentioning in it. I could console myself on 'holding my own' in a few games, but that was it. My expectation were not high, but I was determined to do the best I could in each game.
At the end of that tournament, I had 5 1/2 points out of 6 games, and was first overall. I've since learned that the competition wasn't of the highest, but I was and still am happy with that result.
Why do I mention this? Because, to put it simplest, I did not go into that tournament with some kind of 'believe in myself' pep talk running around in my head that I told myself over and over. If anything, I was nervous and on edge, taking nothing for granted. I played some good chess that day, made some good combinations, but I was 'playing scared', trying to make as certain as I could of every idea I tried.
But let's do an experiment. Let's say that instead of playing against players who were not very strong, I was playing against real Masters and Grandmasters. I could name, say, Kasparov, Kramnik, Shirov, Greev, Anand, and probably others who are among the world's best, so let's say that for whatever reason, they were in Lexington and decided to drop in on the lowly little library tournament to compete.
Do I win that tournament with them in it? Not even in a fantasy world as far out a Pratchett's Discworld. In the six games I play against them, in at least half I will be either lost or in a losing game in under 20 moves, and would be quite pleased if I could make an interesting game in at least two of them, and would be tickled to death if one actually ended in a draw.
Towards the end of my time in high school, and for about a year after that, I seriously believed I could make it as a golfer. I played several times that summer, hit the practice tees, putted and chipped on the practice greens.
Not without some success. I started the summer shooting in the 150s, and a few times made it down to around 100. For those not in the know, that's not even close to a professional score. And the course I played on wasn't as difficult as even the easiest of tour courses.
The thing is, I believed I could. I could see myself wearing a Master's green jacket, of going up against the top players of that time--Greg Norman, Curtis Strange, Nick Faldo--and winning (and considering Norman's fabled bad luck, it maybe wasn't that far out of a dream).
And I was wrong. Reasons for why I failed could perhaps be found on analysis (a really bad swing was perhaps a big reason), but not all of the positive thinking and self-belief in the world could have made more then 5 strokes of difference, and I needed about 30 there at the end.
And, really, I don't regret that failure. To quote a particularly moving country song, "There's no way to know what might have been", so if I had succeeded, my life would no doubt be much different then it has been, whether better or worse may be something else. The thing is, I like how my life has been--not easy, and I doubt I've made every decision correctly, and certainly there have been crazy and even painful times. Nor am I necessarily completely satisfied with my lot right now, but that may be problems in myself.
But it's been a good life, too, and I've done a few things that I don't regret. I've met people I can admire and respect, I've made good friends from all over the world, and I've found a type of work that I have skills at and that I enjoy doing.
So, I'll take my golfing failure, thank you very much, and no amount of nice-sounding words on Osteen's part will rob me of that. And if it seems negative of me, so be it, I've rarely felt the need to live up to some kind of 'positive only' mindset. Reality is quite often negative, and even God does not blind Himself from reality.
Chesterton begins the second chapter of his book 'Orthodoxy' with the recounting of a conversation he had with a friend, in which the friend commented about some that he will do well, because "he believes in himself". Chesterton tells his friend that if he wishes to see the people who truly believe in themselves, he could tell him where they could be found--in the mental hospital. When the friend disagreed, Chester pointed out that yes there were those not in those institutes who did believe in themselves--they are the people who try to succeed at things they really have no business doing, and no one can tell them otherwise. "It would be much truer to say that man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself".
I returned to tournament chess last summer, at a small unofficial tournament at a library. I did not go into it with much confidence--my last tournament had been a blitz chess one in Perm, and I had had no success worth mentioning in it. I could console myself on 'holding my own' in a few games, but that was it. My expectation were not high, but I was determined to do the best I could in each game.
At the end of that tournament, I had 5 1/2 points out of 6 games, and was first overall. I've since learned that the competition wasn't of the highest, but I was and still am happy with that result.
Why do I mention this? Because, to put it simplest, I did not go into that tournament with some kind of 'believe in myself' pep talk running around in my head that I told myself over and over. If anything, I was nervous and on edge, taking nothing for granted. I played some good chess that day, made some good combinations, but I was 'playing scared', trying to make as certain as I could of every idea I tried.
But let's do an experiment. Let's say that instead of playing against players who were not very strong, I was playing against real Masters and Grandmasters. I could name, say, Kasparov, Kramnik, Shirov, Greev, Anand, and probably others who are among the world's best, so let's say that for whatever reason, they were in Lexington and decided to drop in on the lowly little library tournament to compete.
Do I win that tournament with them in it? Not even in a fantasy world as far out a Pratchett's Discworld. In the six games I play against them, in at least half I will be either lost or in a losing game in under 20 moves, and would be quite pleased if I could make an interesting game in at least two of them, and would be tickled to death if one actually ended in a draw.
Towards the end of my time in high school, and for about a year after that, I seriously believed I could make it as a golfer. I played several times that summer, hit the practice tees, putted and chipped on the practice greens.
Not without some success. I started the summer shooting in the 150s, and a few times made it down to around 100. For those not in the know, that's not even close to a professional score. And the course I played on wasn't as difficult as even the easiest of tour courses.
The thing is, I believed I could. I could see myself wearing a Master's green jacket, of going up against the top players of that time--Greg Norman, Curtis Strange, Nick Faldo--and winning (and considering Norman's fabled bad luck, it maybe wasn't that far out of a dream).
And I was wrong. Reasons for why I failed could perhaps be found on analysis (a really bad swing was perhaps a big reason), but not all of the positive thinking and self-belief in the world could have made more then 5 strokes of difference, and I needed about 30 there at the end.
And, really, I don't regret that failure. To quote a particularly moving country song, "There's no way to know what might have been", so if I had succeeded, my life would no doubt be much different then it has been, whether better or worse may be something else. The thing is, I like how my life has been--not easy, and I doubt I've made every decision correctly, and certainly there have been crazy and even painful times. Nor am I necessarily completely satisfied with my lot right now, but that may be problems in myself.
But it's been a good life, too, and I've done a few things that I don't regret. I've met people I can admire and respect, I've made good friends from all over the world, and I've found a type of work that I have skills at and that I enjoy doing.
So, I'll take my golfing failure, thank you very much, and no amount of nice-sounding words on Osteen's part will rob me of that. And if it seems negative of me, so be it, I've rarely felt the need to live up to some kind of 'positive only' mindset. Reality is quite often negative, and even God does not blind Himself from reality.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
book review, part 1--your best life now
Before proceeding further, I would like to point out that I am using a copy of this book that is borrowed from a library. I would hate to think that people might think that I spent good money on this.
Well, I did have to drive to the library, but along with this book, I checked out a DVD of the original "Gojira" (Godzilla) and an audiobook of stories by P.G. Wodehouse. Plus, I get to write for the blog again, so overall the time and gas money were not wasted.
But, enough less-then-subtle shots at what I'm reviewing, on with the show...
First, a note on how I'm going to try to do this. Unlike with McLaren's book, this one has shorter chapters but the book overall is divided into seven sections. So instead of doing it chapter by chapter, I'll focus more on the larger sections.
One could almost take the first page of Osteen's book, and come away with the whole of it. He begins by telling the story of a man look at a large house, and this man has a kind of mental conversation with himself about how his low expectation are what are keeping him from living in such a house, and so he decides to "start believing better of himself, and believing better of God". The rest of the section comes off more like a self-help session.
At the beginning of chapter two, he gives an example of his thinking. "The Bible says, 'Set your mind and keep it set on the higher things.' When you get up in the morning, the first thing you should do is set your mind in the right direction...Expect circumstances to change in your favor. Expect people to go out of their way to help you. Expect to be at the right place at the right time."
The first time I read that, I thought I had recognized the verse he refered to. I had to look it up to be certain, and giving some context provided an interesting take on it. Here it is, with a bit of what's around it. (To be fair to Osteen, he does give the reference as a footnote at the back of the book).
Colossians 3:1-4
If then you were reaised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Given this context, I think it's pretty clear the Paul's words had a very different meaning then what Osteen tries to make them say. When Paul says to 'set your mind on things above', he's not talking about job promotions or larger houses. I think we could relegate those things to "things on the earth", which Paul tells us to not set our minds on.
So, at best, Osteen's attempt to use that verse to refer to success on the job is a lousy job of interpretation.
Chapter 2 also has what seems to be Osteen's message...
"You must look through the 'eyes of faith' and start seeing yourself as happy, healthy, and whole."
In other words, it's the same old Word of Faith crap that we've been fed by get-rich-quick televangelist who have done more damage in recent years to the church then any other things I can think about.
Let me vent a bit--I honest expect more of the church then to throw out money for this tripe!! Haven't we learned!! Haven't we had enough examples of shysters who talk a big game but are phoneys underneath? How many more Tildens and Bakkers do we need to have thrown in our faces before we do even a modicum of thinking?
Where does Osteen's teachings fall apart? For me, it has to do with his emphases.
All of what he writes about so far is about us. One can be spiritual, even over-spiritual, and go in the opposite extreme saying that none of this is about us. I can agree with neither extreme. God does care for us, God does want to bless us, and God provides for us. It isn't a case of making Him out to be a great cosmic killjoy or miser, but not is it right to say that God only concern is for us and comfortable and prosperous our lives are.
Any outlook at would seem to even hint that Paul in prison was there for lack of faith is unacceptable. Any teachings that would tell us that those who suffered and died for the Gospel did not have enough faith or else they would have prospered cannot be taken seriously.
To say that we are successful only if our fleshly ambitions are slaked is a view of faith that is at best childish. To make promotions, wealth, and health the measures of ones faith in God simply cannot be done with any biblical support.
Osteen's views so far are extremely shallow. If all he can offer us are little Disney-esque bits like 'believe in yourself' and 'God wants you to be comfortable', then he gives us nothing, perhaps even less then nothing.
I called his view 'childish', and I mean that. It is the kind that measures a parent's love and approval one what one gets from them--if the parents gives you a toy that you want, then they must love you, while if they don't, then they must not love you. There is no room so far in his teachings for ideas such as that the parents have more in mind for their child then for it to be a parasite all it's life, but that it should learn to stand on it's own, that it should learn to not do things it is forbidden to do.
What we are dealing with here could described as priorities. If good parents punish their child, it is not because they do not love the child; quite the contrary, it is the uncaring and indifferent parents who don't care how their child behaves except insofar as they are inconvenienced by them. No, the loving parents punish the child, not because they don't care for it's happiness, but for many reasons--that the child's present happiness is at best a secondary concern to it's becoming a good and decent person, that they want it to be happy for the right reasons, that they warn and punish it now so that it will be less likely to harm itself more seriously in the future.
When the child is being punished--grounding, spanking, not seeing friends, whatever--it will likely not feel loved at that time. But the child's sight is limited, while the parent's should be broader and more far-seeing. The child sees only the now, while the parents should see how the child's behavior will effect it in the future, and so try to change it before more harm is done.
This has to do with God as disciplinarian--not a view we like to see Him as, but an important one anyway.
But there is more to it, I think. It was hinted at in the comments about he sufferings of the martyrs--that God at times allows bad things, even very bad and even more still death, to come to those who follow Him.
Obedience to God is not a one-way ticket to Candy-land. Jesus' obedience led Him to His death. The obedience of the Apostles led them to prisons, beatings, and martyrtoms.
The chapter in Hebrews about those who were faithful has a list of two different peoples--one list was of those who believed God and received what they asked for, and another list was of those who stayed faithful to God when they were oppressed and suffered and killed.
There must be both. We cannot say only those who are blessed with obvious success are the ones with faith in God. No greater injustice can be made against those whose lives have been marked with persecutions, sufferings, and martyrdoms.
Well, I did have to drive to the library, but along with this book, I checked out a DVD of the original "Gojira" (Godzilla) and an audiobook of stories by P.G. Wodehouse. Plus, I get to write for the blog again, so overall the time and gas money were not wasted.
But, enough less-then-subtle shots at what I'm reviewing, on with the show...
First, a note on how I'm going to try to do this. Unlike with McLaren's book, this one has shorter chapters but the book overall is divided into seven sections. So instead of doing it chapter by chapter, I'll focus more on the larger sections.
One could almost take the first page of Osteen's book, and come away with the whole of it. He begins by telling the story of a man look at a large house, and this man has a kind of mental conversation with himself about how his low expectation are what are keeping him from living in such a house, and so he decides to "start believing better of himself, and believing better of God". The rest of the section comes off more like a self-help session.
At the beginning of chapter two, he gives an example of his thinking. "The Bible says, 'Set your mind and keep it set on the higher things.' When you get up in the morning, the first thing you should do is set your mind in the right direction...Expect circumstances to change in your favor. Expect people to go out of their way to help you. Expect to be at the right place at the right time."
The first time I read that, I thought I had recognized the verse he refered to. I had to look it up to be certain, and giving some context provided an interesting take on it. Here it is, with a bit of what's around it. (To be fair to Osteen, he does give the reference as a footnote at the back of the book).
Colossians 3:1-4
If then you were reaised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Given this context, I think it's pretty clear the Paul's words had a very different meaning then what Osteen tries to make them say. When Paul says to 'set your mind on things above', he's not talking about job promotions or larger houses. I think we could relegate those things to "things on the earth", which Paul tells us to not set our minds on.
So, at best, Osteen's attempt to use that verse to refer to success on the job is a lousy job of interpretation.
Chapter 2 also has what seems to be Osteen's message...
"You must look through the 'eyes of faith' and start seeing yourself as happy, healthy, and whole."
In other words, it's the same old Word of Faith crap that we've been fed by get-rich-quick televangelist who have done more damage in recent years to the church then any other things I can think about.
Let me vent a bit--I honest expect more of the church then to throw out money for this tripe!! Haven't we learned!! Haven't we had enough examples of shysters who talk a big game but are phoneys underneath? How many more Tildens and Bakkers do we need to have thrown in our faces before we do even a modicum of thinking?
Where does Osteen's teachings fall apart? For me, it has to do with his emphases.
All of what he writes about so far is about us. One can be spiritual, even over-spiritual, and go in the opposite extreme saying that none of this is about us. I can agree with neither extreme. God does care for us, God does want to bless us, and God provides for us. It isn't a case of making Him out to be a great cosmic killjoy or miser, but not is it right to say that God only concern is for us and comfortable and prosperous our lives are.
Any outlook at would seem to even hint that Paul in prison was there for lack of faith is unacceptable. Any teachings that would tell us that those who suffered and died for the Gospel did not have enough faith or else they would have prospered cannot be taken seriously.
To say that we are successful only if our fleshly ambitions are slaked is a view of faith that is at best childish. To make promotions, wealth, and health the measures of ones faith in God simply cannot be done with any biblical support.
Osteen's views so far are extremely shallow. If all he can offer us are little Disney-esque bits like 'believe in yourself' and 'God wants you to be comfortable', then he gives us nothing, perhaps even less then nothing.
I called his view 'childish', and I mean that. It is the kind that measures a parent's love and approval one what one gets from them--if the parents gives you a toy that you want, then they must love you, while if they don't, then they must not love you. There is no room so far in his teachings for ideas such as that the parents have more in mind for their child then for it to be a parasite all it's life, but that it should learn to stand on it's own, that it should learn to not do things it is forbidden to do.
What we are dealing with here could described as priorities. If good parents punish their child, it is not because they do not love the child; quite the contrary, it is the uncaring and indifferent parents who don't care how their child behaves except insofar as they are inconvenienced by them. No, the loving parents punish the child, not because they don't care for it's happiness, but for many reasons--that the child's present happiness is at best a secondary concern to it's becoming a good and decent person, that they want it to be happy for the right reasons, that they warn and punish it now so that it will be less likely to harm itself more seriously in the future.
When the child is being punished--grounding, spanking, not seeing friends, whatever--it will likely not feel loved at that time. But the child's sight is limited, while the parent's should be broader and more far-seeing. The child sees only the now, while the parents should see how the child's behavior will effect it in the future, and so try to change it before more harm is done.
This has to do with God as disciplinarian--not a view we like to see Him as, but an important one anyway.
But there is more to it, I think. It was hinted at in the comments about he sufferings of the martyrs--that God at times allows bad things, even very bad and even more still death, to come to those who follow Him.
Obedience to God is not a one-way ticket to Candy-land. Jesus' obedience led Him to His death. The obedience of the Apostles led them to prisons, beatings, and martyrtoms.
The chapter in Hebrews about those who were faithful has a list of two different peoples--one list was of those who believed God and received what they asked for, and another list was of those who stayed faithful to God when they were oppressed and suffered and killed.
There must be both. We cannot say only those who are blessed with obvious success are the ones with faith in God. No greater injustice can be made against those whose lives have been marked with persecutions, sufferings, and martyrdoms.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
going over the edge
My internet presence has changed a good bit since I first became a member of an online forum, I guess almost six years ago. I don't remember those early days so very well, I admit. Nor can I remember how many different such places I have at one time or another been a member of, though I am still a pretty steady contributor at the one that the first one eventually morphed into, or was taken in to, or whatever.
There are a few things I remember from those early days. I can't remember how, but early on I got on the wrong side of one other person, and someone I could only consider a crony of his, and for a bit we were at each other. Then, in another thing in which I can't remember, he and I became friends, at least as far as is possible in such a setting. I was more then a little saddened when he got into a row with some of the board's powers-that-were, and lost his membership there.
Probably the first really big battle I got into in which I was a focus was with someone in the cult of Christian Science. This went on for several weeks, and was quite eye-opening.
After that, I kind of went over into discussions of the end times--always a crazy place. It was my first introduction to some of the non-dispensationalist end-times views, and I can't say I was impressed by much except the tenacity of those who hold other views.
Throught both of those, there were the often lively discussion on certain modern ministers or tv personalities. Trust me, if you wanted to start a nice little headed debate, all you had to do was mention Benny Hinn, and sit back and watch the sparks fly.
Things changed against after a while--one can grow weary of making the same end-times arguments over and over again, after all--and next on my main interests was what is called Current Events. Again, eye-opening. Such discussions often centered on social or political issues, and could in themselves be rather sharp at times.
There've been other, less serioius and less heated, discussions as well. Books and movies have been subjects, and good ones, too. There was a completely whacky one in a fun section that went on for quite a while.
I guess all of this is to say that I've been involved in a few tussles on-line in my time. I understand the passions that such discussions can rouse, and have myself had to more then once go back and edit something I had just posted because I on my second thoughts I figured it was too sharp or too insulting. I'm not particularly proud of that, it's just how things were at times. Nor am I still above the use of sarcasm when I figure it's called for.
I understand as well the desire many people have for their ideas. For example, I am very strongly on the 'sound doctrine over feelings ' side in debates on doctrinal issues. There have been debates over such things as the Trinity, the humanity or divinity of Christ, and the reliability of the Bible that I have been one of the main contributors to, as well as discussions on the modern prophetic and apostolic movement, and more recently some things said by those who claim to be in the Emergent/Emergin Church Movement.
I have been among fundamentalists, evangelicals, and I think among emergents, and there are some things in each I can respect, and other things in each that rub me wrong. I am one person, so making me happy is not and should not be necessarily a big deal to any particular movement, but I am also one who must make the best decisions I am able to on any particular church.
For all that I think there are things to stand up for, I do think there are things and places in which it's just not worth getting riled over. For example, there is here...
Veggie Tales and the Wonderful World of Ha’s
I can understand and respect someone not wanting their kids to watch Veggie Tales, but to go as far as this person does in trying to denigrate them is to my mind rather silly. Can I also find it a bit questionable to in one paragraph decry the 'more merchandising of Christ' while in the next there are links to purchase CDs of hymns?
I don't know how much I really want to get into this. I frankly find the rhetoric of this Veggie-blast enough of a refutation in its own rights. I think that for most of us, we are glad to see when someone is on our side, and is teaching things we can agree with. Veggie-Tales is a cartoon, with cartoon characters, and I would dare say that children know that very well. Most of the children who watch VT no doubt have already learned that in real life vegetables do not talk, do not sing silly songs, and do not act. Most probably already know that the battle of Jericho did not have veggies throwing slushies at each other, or they will learn such when they are old enough to handle the reality.
More then that, I have seen in at least one setting where VT stories were used to minister to college students.
Again, the person who wrote this tirade can dislike VT, and not show them to children, and I am fine with that--such is this person's opinions, and I can respect that. But for this person to go on and condemn those who don't mind them and do show them to children is going too far, and I cannot accept such a "My way or the highway" mentality as being good. We are not dealing with great doctrinal issues, and I think such an attitude inappropriate and out-of-proportion.
There are a few things I remember from those early days. I can't remember how, but early on I got on the wrong side of one other person, and someone I could only consider a crony of his, and for a bit we were at each other. Then, in another thing in which I can't remember, he and I became friends, at least as far as is possible in such a setting. I was more then a little saddened when he got into a row with some of the board's powers-that-were, and lost his membership there.
Probably the first really big battle I got into in which I was a focus was with someone in the cult of Christian Science. This went on for several weeks, and was quite eye-opening.
After that, I kind of went over into discussions of the end times--always a crazy place. It was my first introduction to some of the non-dispensationalist end-times views, and I can't say I was impressed by much except the tenacity of those who hold other views.
Throught both of those, there were the often lively discussion on certain modern ministers or tv personalities. Trust me, if you wanted to start a nice little headed debate, all you had to do was mention Benny Hinn, and sit back and watch the sparks fly.
Things changed against after a while--one can grow weary of making the same end-times arguments over and over again, after all--and next on my main interests was what is called Current Events. Again, eye-opening. Such discussions often centered on social or political issues, and could in themselves be rather sharp at times.
There've been other, less serioius and less heated, discussions as well. Books and movies have been subjects, and good ones, too. There was a completely whacky one in a fun section that went on for quite a while.
I guess all of this is to say that I've been involved in a few tussles on-line in my time. I understand the passions that such discussions can rouse, and have myself had to more then once go back and edit something I had just posted because I on my second thoughts I figured it was too sharp or too insulting. I'm not particularly proud of that, it's just how things were at times. Nor am I still above the use of sarcasm when I figure it's called for.
I understand as well the desire many people have for their ideas. For example, I am very strongly on the 'sound doctrine over feelings ' side in debates on doctrinal issues. There have been debates over such things as the Trinity, the humanity or divinity of Christ, and the reliability of the Bible that I have been one of the main contributors to, as well as discussions on the modern prophetic and apostolic movement, and more recently some things said by those who claim to be in the Emergent/Emergin Church Movement.
I have been among fundamentalists, evangelicals, and I think among emergents, and there are some things in each I can respect, and other things in each that rub me wrong. I am one person, so making me happy is not and should not be necessarily a big deal to any particular movement, but I am also one who must make the best decisions I am able to on any particular church.
For all that I think there are things to stand up for, I do think there are things and places in which it's just not worth getting riled over. For example, there is here...
Veggie Tales and the Wonderful World of Ha’s
I can understand and respect someone not wanting their kids to watch Veggie Tales, but to go as far as this person does in trying to denigrate them is to my mind rather silly. Can I also find it a bit questionable to in one paragraph decry the 'more merchandising of Christ' while in the next there are links to purchase CDs of hymns?
I don't know how much I really want to get into this. I frankly find the rhetoric of this Veggie-blast enough of a refutation in its own rights. I think that for most of us, we are glad to see when someone is on our side, and is teaching things we can agree with. Veggie-Tales is a cartoon, with cartoon characters, and I would dare say that children know that very well. Most of the children who watch VT no doubt have already learned that in real life vegetables do not talk, do not sing silly songs, and do not act. Most probably already know that the battle of Jericho did not have veggies throwing slushies at each other, or they will learn such when they are old enough to handle the reality.
More then that, I have seen in at least one setting where VT stories were used to minister to college students.
Again, the person who wrote this tirade can dislike VT, and not show them to children, and I am fine with that--such is this person's opinions, and I can respect that. But for this person to go on and condemn those who don't mind them and do show them to children is going too far, and I cannot accept such a "My way or the highway" mentality as being good. We are not dealing with great doctrinal issues, and I think such an attitude inappropriate and out-of-proportion.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Rod Wells Memorial chess tourney
My time in tournament chess can be divided into two periods, one was a couple of years in the early '90s between finishing high school and entering college, and the other beginning about a year ago and continuing to now. In the time back in the '90s, one of the chess club's regulars was Rod Wells. He was an older man, and quite a bit taller then myself. One thing he was known for was wearing these special types of glasses, I think they are called jeweler's glasses. He was never one of the stronger players in the club, but he was one of the club's mainstays and characters.
This tournament had a faster time control then has been normal, which also means that we played more games. We had seven rounds total, although I had a bye in the last round so only played six games.
The first game was intense. My opponent sacrificed to get a couple of passed pawns, and then I had to return the sac to get on of them, and we each wound up with passed pawns that we could almost but not quite promote. We ended up in an even rook-and-pawn endgame with time running out, so we agreed to a draw.
Game two was a win. My opponent's position acquired some defects in the pawn structure, though I'm not sure I did the best I could fighting against them. We came to another ending, but the rooks were about to be exchanged and one of my pawns was going to promote when my opponent resigned.
I lost the third game, but it was still a very intense game. Things were pretty quiet at first, but then we each made some sharp moves, and for a few moves things got crazy--pieces and pawns under attack, sacrificial possibilities came up, attack and counter-attack. But I didn't handle it right, and so wound up a piece down and, well, resigned.
The fourth game was another intense game. I had a good position, but my opponent was holding, and so I sacced a rook for his good knight and a pawn. We exchanged rooks, and so I had a bishop against his other rook, and I also had two passed pawns on the queen's side, though they were both isolated. He probably could have at least held the draw, even when he had to sac the rook for a newly created queen, but instead he let the kingside get closed and all I had to do was to bring my king over and win his pawns.
The fifth and sixth games are almost best left forgotten, though somehow the last game did end in a draw. The fifth was a good fight at first, but I missed something and dropped a piece, and he held the ending for the win. In the last game, my opponent came after me from the first, but I was able to hold. Right when I though I was evening things up, if not getting a bit ahead, I missed a tactic that I had taken into account in some previous moves, and he won a piece. The, out of the blus and on the verge of winning, he left a piece hanging, and we ended up in a rook ending, which I held for the draw.
And in the last round, I had a bye, which gave me an extra point.
So, four points in seven round. Not bad, but not great either. A few too many mistakes.
This tournament had a faster time control then has been normal, which also means that we played more games. We had seven rounds total, although I had a bye in the last round so only played six games.
The first game was intense. My opponent sacrificed to get a couple of passed pawns, and then I had to return the sac to get on of them, and we each wound up with passed pawns that we could almost but not quite promote. We ended up in an even rook-and-pawn endgame with time running out, so we agreed to a draw.
Game two was a win. My opponent's position acquired some defects in the pawn structure, though I'm not sure I did the best I could fighting against them. We came to another ending, but the rooks were about to be exchanged and one of my pawns was going to promote when my opponent resigned.
I lost the third game, but it was still a very intense game. Things were pretty quiet at first, but then we each made some sharp moves, and for a few moves things got crazy--pieces and pawns under attack, sacrificial possibilities came up, attack and counter-attack. But I didn't handle it right, and so wound up a piece down and, well, resigned.
The fourth game was another intense game. I had a good position, but my opponent was holding, and so I sacced a rook for his good knight and a pawn. We exchanged rooks, and so I had a bishop against his other rook, and I also had two passed pawns on the queen's side, though they were both isolated. He probably could have at least held the draw, even when he had to sac the rook for a newly created queen, but instead he let the kingside get closed and all I had to do was to bring my king over and win his pawns.
The fifth and sixth games are almost best left forgotten, though somehow the last game did end in a draw. The fifth was a good fight at first, but I missed something and dropped a piece, and he held the ending for the win. In the last game, my opponent came after me from the first, but I was able to hold. Right when I though I was evening things up, if not getting a bit ahead, I missed a tactic that I had taken into account in some previous moves, and he won a piece. The, out of the blus and on the verge of winning, he left a piece hanging, and we ended up in a rook ending, which I held for the draw.
And in the last round, I had a bye, which gave me an extra point.
So, four points in seven round. Not bad, but not great either. A few too many mistakes.
Friday, August 17, 2007
wackiness
Oxford professor: The Matrix is real!
Proof once again that even the strangest of fiction just can't trump reality.
From the original article, linked to in the documented linked above.
Coming next month, the theory that we all really do live in a yellow submarine.
Proof once again that even the strangest of fiction just can't trump reality.
From the original article, linked to in the documented linked above.
Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”
My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it’s highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they’d be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.
Coming next month, the theory that we all really do live in a yellow submarine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)