Universal Belief in The Creator

You wrote:

But I think there's a small corner of their being that wonders, just a little bit ...

I'm sure that you are correct. Even the most ardent objector to a creator must grant the possibility, however small, that there might be a creator. One counter argument to there being a creator - which got to me for a while - was that posited by the late Douglas Adams describing a puddle of water marvelling at how the hole it found itself laying in was such a perfect fit for it. But then I realised "OK but something maybe had to still make the hole to have the discussion about it in the first place didn't they?" Maybe not, but at least it gave me my hope back :-)

---

You asked:

I mean, would a bacteria with a mutated gene that plays a "golden rule" role think about not killing off another bacteria?

Fascinating question. The answer I think is "no" the bacteria does not think in the sense that we do, but who knows? But the fact that there are so many bacteria alive makes me think that the golden rule is somehow in everything born from natural selection, assuming my previous argument of "why populations survive" is correct, if my argument is incorrect then they don't need the golden rule gene. What about plants though - do they have the golden rule? I'll have to think about this some more !

---

Re: Pete Murphy I obviously don't read the same papers/magazines as your good self, have you been reading "Hello" again secretly? Is Kate Moss still going she must be 50 by now !

---

Spock's mind meld: Do you think ESP and suchlike is possible? Are two minds "meldable" or separated by some infinite gulf? Furthermore, what actually is a "mind" anyway ?

PS. Could we meld minds with a bacteria to see how it felt about the golden rule? :-)

Golden Rule Gene

I see what you're getting at ... a species that was entirely selfish would not last long. And I think we see throughout the animal kingdom, even where mating competition is fierce, that there appears to be some "rules" by which the competitive males play. For instance:

• They don't generally kill off competitor's females
• They don't generally kill off competitor's offspring
• They don't generally kill off each other except perhaps during mating competition. Even then it appears there's a governing force that allows injury, perhaps, but not death.

What role does consciousness play in that? I mean, would a bacteria with a mutated gene that plays a "golden rule" role think about not killing off another bacteria?

* * *
My original post about nobody really believing in randomness went askew ... what I was really trying to get at was that I don't believe anyone really believes there is no creator. Oh sure, many will claim to be atheistic, and some even convincingly so. But I think there's a small corner of their being that wonders, just a little bit ...

* * *
Pete Douherty is much in the news of late -- at least in the gossip rags -- for two things: one is his on-again/off-again relationship with Kate Moss; and the other is his seemingly incurable addiction to hard narcotics. He's been arrested it seems every week for the past half year.

Talk about a broken soul ... the behavior he exhibits is surely a sign of it.

Unpredictable

You wrote:

Okay. But would you also hold to that if you steadfastly believed there was no creator being? None whatever?

I think I would, because of the physcial evidence. However, believing in a creator makes it a whole lot easier because why would an intelligence want total unpredictability? Believing in an omnipotent creator makes it even easier, because if true randomness existed then He would not know what is going to happen which makes Him potent rather than omnipotent.

---

You wrote:

My point is that a "golden rule gene" wouldn't propagate. Selfishness is the rule.

Hmm, I really am not making my argument clear. My position is that having the golden rule gene (or whatever it is) is a requirement for propogation of a species, by my previous argument (again it's below). Without it, the species soon dwindles to one individual and dies out. The human race clearly has, not yet at least, died out. What is wrong with my previous argument? :

Two populations of proto-humans, separate from each other in their own ecological enclave

1. Population "A" is very agressive, always kills and takes what it can
2. Population "B" has the Golden Rule gene (or behaviour), it has fear of reprisal if it takes what it can always
3. Population "A" quickly kills itself off, only one is left, the strongest one (these are the guys you believe natural selection predicts humans would be)
4. Population "B" breeds and breeds and eventually takes over the world (these are the guys I believe natural selection predicts humans would be)

---

I've been listening to Pete Murphy's Babyshambles music, and while it's ok acoustically and it's nice and ballady I cannot see what all the fuss is about, the lyrics aren't great, this is the title track of the band as an example:

Babyshambles

The first news was there's Americans on the shore
maybe maybe maybe now we're on the way to war
Maybe maybe maybe you'll be running for the door
Maybe maybe maybe you'll be screaming out for more

Daisys got the tickets and a dirty nose
No one wants to help because everybody knows
Over Babyshambles good friends will come to blows
And the NME will have a touch at the shows

You don't need no one
You don't need no one who feels the same old way
Oh it's a shame, it was just getting comfy

The first news was there's Americans on the shore
Arabs on the beach,and lovers on the floor
Maybe maybe maybe now we're all going to war
Maybe maybe maybe they'll be running for the door
Half time Pats boys will score

The first news was there's Americans on the shore
Arabs on the beach, lovers on the floor
Maybe maybe maybe we are all going to war
Maybe maybe maybe...

Hmm, nothing special there. Is he in the news or something?

Randomness

You wrote:

But as I've previously suggested, my belief is that in this Universe there is no such thing as "true randomness".

Okay. But would you also hold to that if you steadfastly believed there was no creator being? None whatever?

* * *
You wrote:

So I assume that my example of a population that survived because it had a conscience (the golden rule gene) didn't move you at all?

That's not what I was getting at. Again, I was arguing from the position of those who hold that our existence and development was all based on genetic mutations and reproductive advantage -- natural selection, in other words. My point is that a "golden rule gene" wouldn't propagate. Selfishness is the rule.

* * *
You wrote:

The "knee in the population curve" - or the explosion - seemed to happen around 1700 AD ... I wonder what happened during that time? The combination of medicine plus travel perhaps?

Medicine, better hygiene, an improvement in the infant mortality rate in developed nations ... I would imagine that it wouldn't take much -- mathematically -- to produce the "knee." A slight percentage change here or there.

* * *
Just watching a TV show where they were chronicling the 10 ways the earth may end. One was a "rogue black hole" that wandered into our solar system. :-)

Shadows on Canvas

You wrote:

I just think that nobody really believes we're the product of pure random chance. I just don't believe it.

I think that ultimately you're correct but for me it's a little deeper than that. I believe that we are the product of what we call "pure random chance". But as I've previously suggested, my belief is that in this Universe there is no such thing as "true randomness". The things we think of as "pure random chance" are actually being manipulated by hidden variables. The die are loaded. The Prof Ian Stewart example of these hidden variables in three dimensions is when you toss a coin, whether it will land heads or tails is a function of a hidden variable, that variable being the angle of the coin in the spin as it lands in your hand, it's not a particularly good example because one could argue that the angle of the coin is a function of randomness, but he gets the point across nontheless. I think that events in this Universe are controlled by hidden variables from a higher spacial dimension, we do see directly observable evidence for at least one higher spacial dimension -- this evidence is seen in the results of accelerator collisions, when particles get translated in such a way that is probably due to them stepping into 4D space, rotating, and then stepping back into 3D space, well nobody has come up with a better explanation of how they change like they do.

An example that is easy to visualise: take any two scalene triangles that are exactly the same, lying on a table. Lift one of the triangles off of the table, flip it over and place it on the table again. It's impossible to get the first triangle to be the same shape as the flipped triangle unless you take the first triangle into n+1 (3) dimensions and flip it. This is maybe what happens to particles in some high energy collisions, if so it gives us direct evidence to a place where we cannot live as humans (Heaven?), but maybe someone or something can? It's suspected that our three spacial dimensions are projections of higher spacial dimensions, like shadows on a canvas, what seems random to us could well be the hand of a 4D being called "God".

---

You wrote:

If I were driven by a hardwired chemical need to procreate more effectively than you, I wouldn't do a darn thing to help you under any circumstances.

So I assume that my example of a population that survived because it had a conscience (the golden rule gene) didn't move you at all? The need that you describe is like in the movie Highlander, ie. "there can be only one", the human race is obviously not like that because there are lots of us, according to United Nations estimates the population of the Earth has gone like this:

Year	Billions
1900	1.65
1910	1.75
1920	1.86
1930	2.07
1940	2.30
1950	2.52
1960	3.02
1970	3.70
1980	4.44
1990	5.27
2000	6.06

These numbers are US (1,000,000,000) billions, not UK (1,000,000,000,000) billions :-) Clearly there must be more to us than just survival of the fittest. Also I'm left wondering how many humans the Earth can actually support ..

The "knee in the population curve" - or the explosion - seemed to happen around 1700 AD, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg for a fascinating chart. I wonder what happened during that time? The combination of medicine plus travel perhaps?

---

Still on the stack:

Pete Doherty
Spock's Mind Meld

---

PS. I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. Glad that he had those "extra" 12 years. Sometimes it's all about staying alive.

Proving Our Uniqueness ...

Is impossible, of course. There's always a counter-argument in favor of biochemical this, and genetic that. But I don't believe it. And I've always found the arguments offered with a hint of ... oh, I don't know how to express this ... inner doubt?

Of course, I can't prove that, either.

I just think that nobody really believes we're the product of pure random chance. I just don't believe it. I think everyone privately wonders why we humans are so different ... which all leads to the question of "why?" and "what's it all mean?"

That Muscle in Our Chest

When I speak of "heart" I do not mean the physical thing that pumps in our chest. I mean, as you suspected, the collective whatever-it-is that makes each of us unique; that inner whatever that forms our conscious thoughts, our subconscious stirrings, and our conscience. (I don't know the exact origin of the word "heart" to refer to this, but I'm sure it goes back to when people realized that without that thing beating in one's chest, one is dead.)

Some could argue that what I refer to as "the heart" is really nothing more than biochemical response based on genetic programming. I don't buy that argument, but I can't personally disprove it. I doubt those who argue for it can prove it. There is something quite mysterious about all this, isn't there? People have been pondering it forever.

Dallas Willard has a much more complete treatment of "the heart" (and the soul, and other aspects of our being) in "Renovation of the Heart." I doubt you'd find much in the book you'd agree with, since he makes assertions based on his experience/belief but doesn't offer proof. I'm not sure how proof can be offered in the realm of psychology and such.

My cousin had a heart transplant. He lived 12 years with it and passed away recently. He was the same person -- more or less -- before as he was after.

* * *
What I mean by "community sacrifice" is this -- taking care of the sick and the elderly; willingness to "die for a cause," providing charity and compassion. All of those are qualities and traits that run counter to the notion of "survival of the fittest." If I were driven by a hardwired chemical need to procreate more effectively than you, I wouldn't do a darn thing to help you under any circumstances. If you were injured, then all the better for me.

What I'm getting at is the fundamental question that's occupied the mind of man for all history -- what makes us different? We clearly are different from our animal bretheren. We can't simply be "just more advanced" because the gulf between us and the rest is simply too enormous. One would think that "natural selection" would have left something somewhere in the middle of the gulf ... a more graduated dispersal of life.

The answer is, of course, that bloody monolith. Damn thing was so compelling -- all black and gleaming in the early morning sun. :-)

The Heart of the Matter

If we're going to talk about stirrings in the heart then I guess we need to be clear about what we are referring to as heart. For instance, if you had to have the unfortunate happenstance of getting a heart transplant I'm guessing you would not need to get those stirrings in your (new) heart again (assuming it had not already been stirred during it's occupancy in it's previous owner!) I'm guessing the heart in this context is something to do with the brain? It could be something to do with the soul, but the soul is not detected (notice the choice of words, I'm not saying "does not exist") so I'm not sure how far we will get by introducing it to the discussion!

Note: I'm guessing that a lot of expressions like "broken hearted" etc come from a time when things such as heart transplants were not possible. Thinking about it, the English language probably does eventually get updated as new technologies and ideas appear, I recall "Rambo" being added to the OED a while back :-) The linguistic rooting of emotion in the heart has a limited lifespan I would say ... listen .. was that The Bard of Avon rolling over in his grave?

In any case, I think it's possible that God does contact each and every one of us, this contact could be the root of our conscience, as in the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action, alternatively that conscience could be caused by natural selection, take the following example:

1. Two populations of proto-humans, separate from each other in their own ecological enclave
2. Population "A" is very agressive, always kills and takes what it can
3. Population "B" has the Golden Rule gene (or behaviour), it has fear of reprisal if it takes what it can always
4. Population "A" quickly kills itself off, only one is left, the strongest one
5. Population "B" breeds and breeds and eventually takes over the world

On the face of it, did Population "B" survive due to its conscience? Who knows what actually happened, we need that time machine I was talking about, the answer is there, the past is accessible just like watching a TV show, we humans will get to it eventually assuming that we survive as a species.

---

Queen insects: communal mating in mammals ... the opposite is certainly true .. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Polygyny

But then again you asked:

Do we see there any hint of community sacrifice when it comes to mating?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "community sacrifice". Does the fact the men and women have many affairs from many children are born (unbeknownst to the husband on many occasions) count an communal mating?

Disproving God

You wrote:

If such an individual was found (who could prove it though?) then surely this would disprove that God existed. Why would God have created something that could not have a relationship with God?

I'll agree it would create a difficulty. I'm not sure it would disprove that God existed. First, I'll quibble with one word -- something -- rather than someone. There are lots of things that God created that have no relationship with him -- rocks, my computer keyboard, etc. But I'm being excessively trivial here ... I know what you meant.

I don't really know what the answer is here. I'm less a Calvinist than I sometimes let on. I'm firmly in the camp that believes that one doesn't come to faith in Christ unless God works in that person's heart to make it happen. There's no doubt in my mind that absent his workings I would be lost in sin forever. I also believe that not everyone heeds the stirrings.

So what I'm left with is this -- does God produce stirrings in everyone's hearts, or only some people's hearts? The former then produces an easy answer -- those who come to faith do so because they heeded the call; those who do not chose to ignore the call. But the latter is a dilemma -- why some and not others? What criteria, etc., etc.

All of which I am left simply groping for answers.

Altruism

I agree ... I don't think real -- meaning, complete and total -- altruism really exists at all. Well, one huge exception: Jesus. But for us lesser beings, there is always a selfish element to everything we do.

Note: which, incidentally, is why the "Golden Rule" is phrased the way it is. God could have said simply: "Do unto others as I would have you do unto them." That would in fact being a far more grounded commandment. But our understanding of what God would have us do unto them is subject to misinterpretation and corruption. So, in a shrewd move, God played upon our self-interest. Knowing that nothing is more important to us that ourselves, he flipped the equation. "Okay ... do unto others as you would have them do unto you." :-)

* * *
I suppose hypocrisy can be tied to the Golden Rule such as you suggest. If I don't want to live by the rules I tell others to live by, then I'm not "doing unto others" ...

Hypocrisy and Manners

I see what you are saying about "good" and "bad" hypocrisy. From the dinner example you gave, the former could perhaps be called "good manners" - perhaps a better definition of hyprocrisy is along the lines of what you said about certain religious folk. One question, does the religious hypocritical preacher mind at all if someone does the same thing back to him or her? Does he or she mind it if someone higher up the Church power ladder preaches down to them, whilst doing the opposite? If they mind then:

Is a hypocrite someone who treats others in a way that they themselves would not like to be treated?

If they don't mind then their moral structure is an interesting one.

On a distantly related topic you mentioned recently altruism and about whence it comes from, and we had discussed that before. I maintain that on the face of it altruism does not exist. Giving up your self interest never happens, if a parent gives his or her life for a child then that is in the parents interest, because it moves the world in a way that the parent expects the world to move in. Imagine a loving parent who deliberately decides to give up his or her self-interest and refuses to save the life of his or her child, the child dies and the parent knowingling leads the rest of his or her life in the agony of remorse, wishing that they could have died to save their child but unable to have done so due to "altruism".

The question really is where does the remorse come from? Could it come from a set of cells evolved to create more copies of itself? The fact that your child is more likely to live longer than you means that it's better the child live than you - to go on to make even more copies. My thinking is woolly here I know, but the overall requirement placed on us seems to be this:

breed.

---

Capacity for choice: I realise that the question "Could God make someone with the capacity not to come to Him?" is a non-sequitur. Perhaps it is the question that if answered could prove or disprove the existence of God? If such an individual was found (who could prove it though?) then surely this would disprove that God existed. Why would God have created something that could not have a relationship with God?

If such an individual is found, and God is disproved, then I'm left with why was that individual created? And therefore why were any of us created? Some people might argue that there is no reason we were created but then that leads to a pointless Universe and I don't like that. This is one of the big pro's for faith, it gives us a purpose.

Yes I think God gave you just enough "X" to believe, and that led you down the path you have followed to Him since.

Hypocrisy

Interesting that the definition of "Hypcrite" would have the religious angle of that featured first. While many in the realm of religion are indeed hypocrites, I didn't think of that being the primary aspect of the definition. Interesting.

You wrote:

Maybe I was born on the wrong world or something? I really can't see the point in many of my activities but I do them anyway to avoid looking out of place and to keep the peace.

I think we need to be a bit careful here ... there are many aspect of life that call for doing things that may not be entirely what we want to do. So now you have me wondering what separates good hypocrisy from bad hypocrisy. Good hypocrisy is when someone politely compliments the meal when in fact they didn't really enjoy it all that much. To criticize a meal one has been invited to as a guest would be extremely rude. (There's a matter of degree, of course -- if one fawned all over the meal that would be crossing the line, I think.) Bad hypocrisy is, I think, when one tries to force others to abide by a strict code of conduct they themselves violate. The thundering preacher man who cheats on his wife is the classic example ... and all too common, I'm afraid.

By the strictest definition of the word, we're all hypocrites. But by my reading of it, you're okay.

* * *
Your posting editing tool thing is cool. And you've avoided using Comic MS Sans. Thanks!

* * *
Santa Fe is all about art and jewelry and stuff like that. Beautiful scenery and lots of that sort of stuff. However, they have some nice microbreweries.

Final table (for now)

By no means complete !

	Faith	No faith
"Who or what created things?"	Pro	Con
Helps me to treat others as I would wish to be treated	Pro	Moot
Provides someone to always love me	Pro	Con
Provides the meaning behind life	Pro	Con
Helps with fear / pain of death and loss	Pro	Con
Need to give it money	Con	Pro
Which faith is correct?	Con	Pro
Why do bad things happen?	Con	Pro
Potential hyprocrisy	Con	Moot
Potential self-righteousness	Con	Moot

Man I looked up hypocrisy in the dictionary and it describes me to a tee, both in home and work life. Without hypocrisy I'd be a bum on the streets for sure.

hy-poc-ri-sy [hi-pok-ruh-see]

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Maybe I was born on the wrong world or something? I really can't see the point in many of my activities but I do them anyway to avoid looking out of place and to keep the peace.

---

Tombstone - a great movie which I much enjoyed - thanks for the reminder I will order it from Blockbuster rental and watch it again. Glad you had some fun in the dessert with the missus however. I had no idea that Santa Fe was some kind of artist/bohemian town an all.

On the stack for discussion is:

• Capacity for choice
• Queen insects
• Pete Doherty
• Spock's mind meld

Ever wanted to be a cyborg?

Verbosity

I used to chuckle at the "-vv" flag for the old HTTP Server -- very verbose. It's like the word verbose didn't adequately reflect the amount of output. So, not just verbose ... very verbose. :-)

You wrote:

I realize that I've been very guilty of posting too much content in a blog post to you which leads to big responses and I think I end up missing responding to you on some things - and the time to write my appends becomes excessive - so I'd like to propose that we limit the discussion to one point at a time - maybe two once we agree to move on - how does that sound?

First, that sounds fine. Second, I hope you didn't come to that conclusion based on my post. I posted the long list of responses because I wanted to signal to you that I was indeed reading your stuff and was indeed considering the specific points.

When I write of the centrality of faith, I'm thinking not so much of specific things, but rather a kind of trust that in the end -- when the dust settles -- it's Jesus and not me that will make the difference. That may be too simplistic. But for me, I think it captures the sense of what I'm getting at. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about specific points of the Christian belief system, and when it comes right down to it I'm left with this -- all I know is I can't do it, so in my helplessness I must just sit down, give up, and turn to Him.

But you can't hardly build a world-dominating religion on that, can you? :-)

Dallas Willard once said something I found compelling. He was, I think, poking a stick in the eye of those fundamentalists who insist that salvation can only occur when someone says some magic sequence of words or signs some card or something. Willard said, "Anyone can be saved ... all I know is that it'll be Jesus who does the saving."

Note: Really ... if you stop and think about it, the notion of salvation being dependent on the words some human speaks is really pretty foolish. It strips God of his sovereignty and it makes salvation really an act of man, as if Grace is in a vending machine and what we need to do is insert the right coins and pull the lever. What if, in the end, God really does save everyone, including those who flat-out deny Christ? Who are we to say that's wrong? I'm reminded of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:1-15. Don't ask me what 20:16 means. :-)

I suspect that could be controversial.

You wrote:

The reason I am looking at this table is that in my opinion it is the only way to get non-believers to even bother looking at the faith. So I'm wondering if there are any pros and cons I have missed - there must be many I am guessing.

Ah ... I see. That helps quite a bit. You're touching on something I've tought about as well. It's a rare non-believer indeed that in the matter of a few minutes flips the switch. It usually takes a more complex process ... a progression, if you will ... to get people closer to the point of decision.

With that in my mind, I now go back and review your pro/con list. It's pretty darn comprehensive. I'd add a "con" -- self-righteous and often hypocritical people who claim to be "religious."

Ultimately it comes down to "Because it is the truth," but of course you can't lead with that card. People have to come to that conclusion themselves.

* * *
My lovely bride and I went on a 200 mile adventure to Bisbee, Arizona and Tombstone, Arizona. Bisbee is this old mining town that is now an artists' enclave. It's okay ... but I'm not really into that artist/crafty thing. That's why Santa Fe doesn't much appeal to me. Tombstone is, as you may know, the site of the famous "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral." No, not the Star Trek episode where Spock has to do the Vulcan mind-meld thing to convince people beyond any doubt that the bullets are real ... but what fodder for future discussion, huh? The 1993 movie titled "Tombstone," starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer was a pretty good movie; particularly Val Kilmer. If you've got nothing else to do or watch, that might be worth a watch.

Faith vs. Faithless (in Jesus)

I realize that I've been very guilty of posting too much content in a blog post to you which leads to big responses and I think I end up missing responding to you on some things - and the time to write my appends becomes excessive - so I'd like to propose that we limit the discussion to one point at a time - maybe two once we agree to move on - how does that sound? We can base the content of the points on your last append if you like. First of all, on the points outstanding, on the pros and cons of ...

Yeah I like what you're saying about religion vs faith .. the column headings should be "Faith that the events depicted in The Bible happened just as reported in The Bible" vs. "Faith that they did not" ? or "Jesus is the Son of God - exists, loves me and will Judge me" vs "Jesus was just a human who lived 2000 years ago" - perhaps the latter comparison is better?

The reason I am looking at this table is that in my opinion it is the only way to get non-believers to even bother looking at the faith. So I'm wondering if there are any pros and cons I have missed - there must be many I am guessing.

Friday Afternoon

The Moody Blues waxed poetic about Tuesday afternoon, but it's Friday, so here goes ...

God's Hand in Nature

This is one of mankind's hardest questions, isn't it? It's an uncomfortable result on either side of that:

• If God intentionally wills each act of nature, then what are we to think when seemingly innocent people are injured or die?
• If God has no control, then what comfort can we draw by praying to a God that is powerless to affect the outcome of natural events?

Somewhere deep within the answer is, I suspect, a careful distinction between what God wills and what he permits. But those kind of thread-the-needle distinctions are fascinating to study but hardly comforting.

You touched on Job. If you recall, the message of Job really was -- don't ask questions, only trust. The message seems to be that the "ways of God" are beyond our comprehension, so trying to delve into them is a fruitless exercise.

Distinctly uncomfortable and unsatisfying, I know.

But there's a part of me that understands, I think. I don't know anything, and I certainly can't claim to possess that level of trust, but I have a deep gut sense that it's the real answer.

Pros and Cons of Religion

I'll be honest ... I'm struggling a bit to get a handle on what you're getting at here. It seems like you're trying to form a kind of "scorecard" of religion; to determine a kind of "net benefit" of the thing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to attempt. I'm just struggling to get my mind around it.

Part of me is yelling out: "Careful! Separate religion from faith." I view the two as quite distinct, with the former being utterly corrupt and the latter being the shining lamp on the hill. Even the Bible tends to cast down on religion -- time and again it condemns empty religious exercises. The key is empty, of course.

Capacity for Choice

You wrote:

I see what you are going with this -> No matter how crappy life is, whatever disability you have or chemical imbalance in the brain that makes life seem untenable, forget all that (it's really your fault after all) rejoice and follow Jesus, however bad it is now, it will be infinitely worse in Hell, so never choose to willingly die.

No, not really. Somewhat, I guess, but not completely. I was going more for the extreme metaphysical question here -- does God create people that have no capacity to come to him whatever. Some -- strict Calvinists -- might say "Yes." But this is that "predestination vs. free-will" debate all over again, and I just can't discuss it cuz I just don't know.

When it comes to possessing the natural (chemical, whatever) ability to believe and have faith, I'm woefully deficient. Truly, I must be. But here's the question -- did God give me just enough so that I'd have at least the ability to ask for more? And with more comes more faith, and then more trusting obedience, which leads to more faith, etc., etc. Isn't that what discipleship is all about?

Queen Insects

Interesting ... I hadn't thought of that angle.

I guess what I was thinking was this: as we move up the chain, to animals that appear to have the capacity for acting with some choice or intent, do we also see a corresponding capacity for selfishness. I don't see bees acting with any choice or conscious intent, rather they're entirely hard-wired ... but then what do I know about what goes on the brain of a bee? I'm operating on an assumption here that the "higher" forms of life have some increased ability to discern, to understand, and to act with deliberateness.

Let's limit the scope to the class mammalia. Do we see there any hint of community sacrifice when it comes to mating? Given that the Animal Planet network is all about showing male mammals fighting to either expand or protect their procreative opportunities, I ask again ... where in the world would the human trait of kindness and sacrifice (or altruism) come from? The easy answer is "From God" -- that is one of his "images," and we are made in His image. But if one rejects that and says we live in a purely natural world (no God anywhere), then I think the question is difficult to answer effectively.

Ordinary Matter

You'd love for me to suggest that maybe ordinary matter doesn't exist, wouldn't you? I sense a trap here ... you're ready to spring something on me. :-)

Look, my beef is purely this -- "science" is given way too much latitude to make definitive statements. If there's really a peer-review process, in today's 24-hour cable environment it has no effect because bold statements morph into "fact" long before some stodgy review process can take place. Scientists know that ... and those with an agenda -- and they are legion -- will exploit the media and the public's willingness to swallow whatever they say as truth.

There may very well be "dark matter." The mathematical models and whatnot may suggest it strongly. But the very criteria you use to reject a statement about some common aspect of human nature -- that it can't be scientifically evaluated so it's no more than an assumption -- applies to things like the question of the origin of the universe, or the existence and composition of dark matter, or parallel universes, or any of that stuff.

We will never, ever, ever know what actually happened at the start of the universe. We certainly can't know -- except by mathematically extrapolation -- that at one billionth of a second the temperature was 100 million Kelvin. And even that extrapolation is based on a ton of assumptions.

I just wish they'd admit it.

Pete Doherty

Who in the hell is he? I keep seeing these stories about him and drugs and arrests and Kate Moss ... I gather he's some kind of singer or guitarist in some band. Is the band any good, or did this guy achieve celebrity long before it was merited?

Legal Eagles

You wrote:

A tornado can kill an innocent baby as easily as a pedophile on the run, but the killing of the baby is not an injustice if indeed the natural force made no judgment whatever about the relative value of either, or both. The killing of the baby would be simply a fact, but not an injustice.

If there is a God then the baby dying rather than the paedophile is an injustice, to me. If there isn't a God then it's not an injustice as there is no higher power to appeal to for justice. In that case it's possible that a tornado is an indiscriminate non-thinking entity. If natural events are "thought out" by God then tornadoes and the tsunamis happen exactly as they do for a reason. This seems unlikey to me, but not impossible. Lately I am less inclined to infer an intelligence or reason behind happenstances of nature. Then of course I am left with which happenstances do I believe God gets involved in if not all of them -- this conundrum I would put down as a con rather than a pro for believing in God. The kind of example Joseph gave was if a judge convicted person "a" but let off person "b" for exactly the same crime - then that would be an injustice. Yes it would. I am suggesting that the feelings of injustice that I have may be borne out in any intelligent species that survives over time because they have certain traits -- and not artificially imposed on the world by only human beings -- perhaps my daughters hamster feels injustice? Perhaps the author really meant:

any feeling or idea that humans come up with is humanly imposed

?

Which may or may not be correct I guess, but is pretty short sighted, arrogant, and certainly leaves no room for God.

---

You wrote:

Personally, I can't quite fathom an existence where there is absolutely no creator being. It makes no sense whatever. I can't get over the "then who or what created things?" question.

Ok that's a pro for religion we believe that it correctly answers difficult questions.

You're also suggesting that humans are held in check in some way by religion, they don't go off raping and pillaging, because they are held in check by religion. There might be something to this because humans used to go off raping and pillaging and I think some still do. The question is "was it religion that stopped them doing this?" or would they have stopped doing it anyway as technology and society evolved? It's highly improbable that this question can be answered, because society evolved with religion in tow, so perhaps a con of not having religion is:

Without religion I suspect that I'd treat others as I wouldn't like to be treated myself

So it's not confirmed, but it's a belief. I guess my table of pros and cons for religion vs. not religion will need to say that each pro and con is relative to the beholder. I really wanted to get at the pros and cons that were agreed by both sides -- but I'm not even able to do that ! I'll still have a go at building this table over the next few weeks though, hopefully with your help, so far it's something like the following, but I'm not sure this is the best way to display the findings:

	Religious	Not religious
Answers "Who or what created things?"	Pro	Con
Helps me to treat others as I would wish to be treated	Pro	Con
Provides someone to love me always	Pro	Con
Provides the meaning behind life	Pro	Con
Helps with fear / pain of death and loss	Pro	Con
Need to give it money	Con	Pro
Which religiion is correct?	Con	Pro
Why do bad things happen?	Con	Pro

Gimme some more!

---

You asked:

Or did God create that person with the capacity, but the person chose not to desire existence?

Yes this one, I see what you are going with this -> No matter how crappy life is, whatever disability you have or chemical imbalance in the brain that makes life seem untenable, forget all that (it's really your fault after all) rejoice and follow Jesus, however bad it is now, it will be infinitely worse in Hell, so never choose to willingly die. I suppose this is connected with the challenges Job faced. Is strikes me that the Christian Religion really doesn't work without a Hell does it? Just like the British legal system, where suicide is a crime. If it were not a crime you would get the following scenario:

1. Judge passes judgement on a person
2. A person does not agree with the judgement and thinks it unjust and as a result decides life is pointless and commits suicide
3. The Judge, really knowing that his judgement was unjust but bound by the law to make it, says "tsk tsk the person has committed another crime" and goes home with a clean conscience

Shades of Pilot? Laws are built in such a way, legally.

---

You wrote:

I'm unaware of any animal social construct where mating is done communally.

Queen insects?

They may act for the preservation of the pack when threatened by intruders, but propagation within the pack will go to the aggressive and selfish.

Yeah but even wall flower dweebs and nerds get laid occasionally :-)

---

Does ordinary matter really exist? Or do we just infer strong evidence for its existence through the observation of it?

Tucson Astronomy

Yeah, UofA has a strong astronomy department. They apparently built some satellites that went into space. Maybe the proximity to Kitt's peak formed the tradition?

You wrote:

"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

We'll get into a fight over this ... but there's no way -- none whatever -- that Mr. Clowe can make such a definitive statement as "direct proof that dark matter exists." At best he took some observations, factored in a slew of assumptions, and came to a conclusion. But he still relied on assumptions. He had to.

A better phrasing of that would be: "Strong evidence that dark matter exists."

Altruism

I think we've had this discussion before ... do we believe that natural selection could ever really produce the traits of unselfishness, caring and sacrifice? I've heard various theories about the survival of the pack, but I don't buy it. For one thing, I'm unaware of any animal social construct where mating is done communally. They may act for the preservation of the pack when threatened by intruders, but propagation within the pack will go to the aggressive and selfish.

Porpoise?

Points in response:

• I agree -- saying, "We’re so constructed as both to love this world and to look beyond it" is indeed an assumption. It's an assumption with a long, long pedigree. Paul alludes to something similar in Romans 1:20. But it's still an assumption; without proof.
  
• I think the key to Knippenberg's "In a random natural world, 'justice' is a human construct and is humanly imposed" is the word "random." I see what he's getting at ... if indeed the natural forces at work are "random" -- bad word, actually: random suggest unordered, which nature is not ... a better word would have been uncaring, or perhaps indiscriminate -- then the concept of justice is indeed of human construction. A tornado can kill an innocent baby as easily as a pedophile on the run, but the killing of the baby is not an injustice if indeed the natural force made no judgment whatever about the relative value of either, or both. The killing of the baby would be simply a fact, but not an injustice.
  
• What I was getting at with my "binary condition" question was whether you allowed for any alternatives between the God of the Bible and a godless existence. I asked because if people are truly faced with only those two extremes, they seem to get very uncomfortable. They desperately want a middle ground, and that's exactly what they opt for ... a sovereign, caring God that oversees things, but one that does not really impose any obligations on us or one that won't really hold us accountable. That's the "Vending Machine Jesus" both you and I seem to rail against. But truth is, that's what the vast majority of people believe in. Just listen to them talk.
  

Personally, I can't quite fathom an existence where there is absolutely no creator being. It makes no sense whatever. I can't get over the "then who or what created things?" question.

The "pros" of that proposition are entirely selfish; the "cons" are many. Religion is the force that controls people's behavior. If we were a planet full of people that truly, sincerely believed there was no God, then we'd be a planet where anarchy and chaos reigned. Some say, "Yeah, but look at modern-day atheists ... they don't rape and pillage!" I say, "That's because they're held in check by a majority who do subscribe to societal norms based on religious beliefs."

You asked why God would create a person who did not want to exist. That's akin to the question why God would create a person that would disobey Him. Or why God allows sin. Or why God allows bad things to happen to good people. My answer ... I don't know. I have my guesses, but I don't know for certain.

The question that rattles around in my mind, relative to your question, is this: Did God create that person without the capacity to want to exist? Or did God create that person with the capacity, but the person chose not to desire existence? If the former, then I have trouble with it. If the latter, then it makes more sense within the framework of my understanding.

Purpose

I looked at the website you linked to where Joseph Knippenberg says:

We’re so constructed as both to love this world and to look beyond it

Which is an assumption. It's an assumption I am questioning in my post when I allude to "is it possible for a man to have not wanted to exist"? From the above I would expect Joseph's answer to be "yes" -- but he gives no proof. What would your answer be buddy?

He then goes on to say

In a random natural world, "justice" is a human construct and is humanly imposed.

I believe that statement to be incorrect and is again without any proof or backup. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" -- which is connected to the concept of justice -- could be a completely natural phenomenon, just like natural selection, could it not? Just like the random circuits that work out how to detect an input signal through natural selection, survival to breed of the fittest rather than by design, no-one knows for sure - but what are the pros and cons of believing that God did it ?

---

You asked:

Are you suggesting that the two propositions -- there is not God vs. the God of the Bible is true -- represent a binary condition? Either or?

I had to read this a few times because I am dim, but I'm still not sure what you're asking me ! I guess by God I am referring to the Abrahamic God if that's any help, not say "Thor" the God of Thunder. Whether there is some Uber-God somewhere above the Abrahamic God is not central to this particular question, well at least I hadn't thought it was.

Do you believe it's possible that God allows a person to be as happy or as miserable as they choose, depending on the life they lead and the choices they make?

I believe it's possible yes, if any number of criteria are met.

Deep Metaphysics

My, my ... we've been drinking a bit too much of the contemplative juice, haven't we? :-)

I started a response to your two posts, but then I stopped ... what I need is more clarification from you. Specifically:

• Are you suggesting that the two propositions -- there is not God vs. the God of the Bible is ture -- represent a binary condition? Either or?
• Do you believe it's possible that God allows a person to be as happy or as miserable as they choose, depending on the life they lead and the choices they make?

Here's something that's along the lines of what we're kicking around. This is a post in response to a debate that raged on the National Review website. This guy's take is interesting, I thought:

http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=8895

Why did God make him?

Suppose: God made a man, the man had an awful life and never wanted to live.

Why did God make that man?

Could the answer really be that such a man could not exist? I don't think so.

Those Tucson Guys

On the wire today:

"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

---

I like to imagine that Coppola took his inspiration in part from stories his Italian parents and Grandparents told him of the old country, plus it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he (and Puzo) knew a few real-life Mafioso characters. Yeah and that Rosebud movie also according to some internet sources.

---

What happens if one compares and contrasts two arbitrary positions (neither of which I would suggest is how it is, but I don't know how it is, so I'll choose these):

1. We live in a Universe where the Christian God (his name is Jahweh) exists and things are exactly as an inerrant Bible says they are

and

2. We are a set of cells shaped through survival over time and live in a random place called The Universe which has no Creator or God

So, I'm thinking of statements like ..

If 2 then what an awful merry-go-round of a place I feel pointless, what is the point? When I die that's it for me, we're all alone, but at least I don't have to choose between religions or give away 10% of my salary to a Church ..

If 1 then all the other religions got it wrong, why do bad things happen, why do I need to take out insurance, at least I am going to Heaven and will live forever, someone always loves me ..

etc etc

I'd be interested in what you see are the root main pro's and con's of each adopted position.

---

Oil that is 7 or 8 bucks a gal huh? Did you ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcyle maintenance: An Inquiry into Values"?

Synthetic Oil

I obsess over the oil for my motorcycle. It's really foolish, given I change the darn stuff about every 2000 miles. I change it that frequently more just so I feel "involved" with the maintenance of my bike. I can do little beyond changing oil. :-(

Whether the full synthetic oil makes any appreciable difference, I can't say. I at least imagine that the shifting is quieter and smoother. (My motorcycle's transmission and clutch shares the engine oil with the other components of the engine. That's different from some H-D motorcycles, which have transmissions separate from the engine, allowing oil specific to each application to be used. A shared configuration is more difficult on the oil because -- I am to understand -- there is enormous pressure and shearing forces at work in a transmission.)

The Amsoil full synthetic is not cheap -- $7/quart. I'm debating in my mind the value of that ... the "benefit" is extended change intervals, but I don't take advantage of that. I could probably get by with any decent oil. One option I read a lot about on the motorcycle forums is Shell Rotella-T heavy-duty truck oil. Apparently the requirements for oil in a big rig are surprisingly similar to a shared-transmission motorcycle. Rotella-T goes for $8/gallon.

I'm being foolish about this, of course. But it's something relatively harmless to obsess over.

Coppola

The movies "Goodfellas" and "Apocalypse Now" came after the Godfather movies -- well, one and two at any rate. What I was thinking was this: as a young Francis Ford Coppola sat down and pondered making the movie based on the Mario Puzo book, what films from the past did he draw on -- intentionally or sub-consciously -- that ended up influencing the look and feel of The Godfather?

I think it's safe to say that The Godfather movies were enormously influential on subsequent directors. Like music, movie making is really a series of developments built upon what had come before it.

I've not read much about Coppola's inspiration. Probably "Citizen Kane," among others. I was reading on Wikipedia that Paramount Pictures was uncertain of the viability of the film, so they set a low budget, forcing Coppola to use natural lighting rather than studio lighting, which, Wikipedia says, lent a feeling of reality to the movie. If so, then what a happy accident.

Arms across the sea

Wow checking his Wikipedia entry I didn't know that Coppola produced American Graffiti ! He's done a lot more that I had given him credit for. What inspiration were you thinking of that he drew from those movies? There were many similar films that merge in my brain, like Once Upon A Time In America, Goodfellas and Casino. I didn't see any gangsters running around in Apocalypse Now, although Don Vito was in evidence :-)

---

My kidney is doing ok, on the statistical charts my overall kidney function is that of an 80 year old human. After all, I only have one kidney and the nephrons in it have been severely damaged by the platinum in some of the chemo I needed to take to stay alive. I have to pee into jars for 48 hours (2 days sometime within the next three months) and they'll analyse the urine to see if I am prone to forming stones - if so they can prescribe a tablet and dietary changes. It's funny, the nurse came running out of the hospital after me saying "Whoops we forgot to put this sticker on the container ...", after placing it I read it and it says "Do not pass urine directly into this container as it has an acid lining on the inside" !! Many thanks for chasing me young nurse lady !!

---

I'm glad that your Mrs made it back safely and I trust she had a good vacation. Security seems to be settling down, they are allowing laptops on some flights again now. Some colleagues also report that they can get 1gb USB keys through check-in, so even if their laptop (if) in the hold is lost, they still have their data. I watched a movie over the weekend "Flight 93" about UA93 that was brought down by heroic passengers on 9/11 before it could crash into it's suspected target of either The White House or The Capitol Building. For me as a parent it was quite emotional, especially the scene where the following transcript of a cellphone call made from the doomed aircarft was repeated:

J: Esther Heymann received a call from a woman claiming to be her stepdaughter, Honor Elizabeth Wainio.

Caller: "Mom, we're being hijacked. I just called to say good bye."

Heymann: "Elizabeth, we don't know how this is going to turn out. I've got my arms around you."

"I've got my arms around you" seems such a natural response when you are separated from your child who is in distress and you are powerless to help her. God speed to the souls of all the 9/11 victims.

---

I hope that you are having some good bike rides buddy, how is the full synthetic working out?

Fancy Editors

You can highlight and background color all you want ... have at it. But one thing I ask. Just one. Never, ever, ever use "Comic MS Sans" font. It is the most over-used font in all creation. :-)

* * *
The scene with Michael preparing to off the police sergeant is wonderful, I will agree with you on that. I love the scene just prior to the actual shooting, when Michael is struggling to speak Italian with Bruno Tatalia. So he opts to go back to English, and through gritted teeth says, "What I want ... what I want is for you to leave my father alone." The camera frame was full-on Pacino's face, and with just his eyes, mouth and voice he conveys so much intensity and emotion.

* * *
I love Godfather II as well ... and I agree that it is probably a "better movie" than the first. My position is: "The second is a better movie; the first is a better story." I leave it at that. That said ...

• Is there any moment in filmmaking when the desired effect of leaving the audience sharing in a feeling of being shunned -- cold and isolated -- is better executed than when Fredo is killed out on the lake at dusk?
• Is there any moment of rejection so painfully portrayed as when Michael Corleone closes the door in the face of Kay, his estranged wife? The look on her face, the look on his ... and the best part -- the door was closed, not slammed. Beautiful.
• Is there any more poignant moment than the end of Godfather II when Michael Corleone has achieved domination ... and is now utterly alone? The sadness of that scene penetrates me to the bone.
  

* * *
I think it can be said that the Godfather series was enormously influential on movies that followed. But here's a question -- what inspiration did Francis Coppola draw from for those films?

* * *
The single most depressing movie I've ever watched is "The Deerhunter." I saw it once and am still shaking off the feeling of depression.

A close second is a movie called "Cal," about a lad in Ireland that falls in with the IRA and ends up being involved in the death of a police officer. Not apprehended right away, by turn of events he becomes involved with the widow of the slain officer. Justice finally gets served, and the mixture of emotions -- betrayal, loss, confusion -- all mixed with a dark color palette and constant rain left me feeling awful. Just awful.

Say what one may, if making the audience feel depressed is the goal, then these two movies achieved that objective spectacularly.

* * *
How's your kidney doing?

* * *
My lovely bride is coming home tonight. She was on a one week holiday with her mother in Greece. She called a few minutes ago to say her flight from Hamburg to Dulles was delayed, so she missed her connection. But she's at least back in the USA safe and sound. Two more flights and, the Lord willing, she'll be home.

She reports security coming to the U.S. is extraordinarily tight. Her passport was checked 7 times.

Writely so

I appreciate your degrees of intent insight pal, it's made me think a lot. Maybe you invented something here with casual intent vs deliberate intent ? Well done anyways.

---

I love all of The Godfather movies, #2 is probably my favourite, which is pretty amazing because almost always film #1 is better than the #2 film of the sequence (not including Lord of The Rings!)

My favourite scene in The Godfather is where Michael is in the restaurant about to shoot the bent copper and the other mafia boss. The buildup of tension is superb, the tram car noise in the background, you can almost see Pacino's thoughts played out on his face, the fall of man in one scene.

I agree with you about James Caan being "just wrong" also, and that Bonnie & Clyde death sequence, even The Simpsons have parodied it in a few episodes - see http://www.duffzone.co.uk/content.php?title=refgf%20

---

I went out with some friends in London last night and did some socializing, it's been at least a year since I've done anything like that, quite enjoyable but I wouldn't want to do it too often !

---

I wrote this append with writely (www.writely.com) - it's a Web 2.0 alternative to MS-Word and alledgedly supports posting to blogger. We'll see !

Test some colours and highlighting

1. Test a bulleted list
   
2. blah blah blah

Insert a table

Column heading 1	Column heading 2
Data	Data

Insert some special characters
©®£¾

Mess with the font size, this is 8 pt

It has a nice autosave feature.

Try linking to a url

The Godfather

IMDB.com rates "The Godfather" as the number one movie of all time. I agree with that assessment. I love "Moonstruck," and it's my personal favorite movie, but "The Godfather" is simply a striking piece of movie-making. Some have said that "Godfather II" is, technically, a better movie. Okay. But the first Godfather movie is mesmerizing; it's a flawlessly told story that captivates the imagination, and leaves images hanging in the mind forever.

Or is it flawless?

The IMDB.com website has a long list of various technical gaffes and anachronisms. I'll let those be. What I'm interested in are things about the movie that detract from the story, the movie, the experience.

I'm trying to come up with something about that movie I don't like -- some aspect of it I could argue with. It's hard ... but here's what I've come up:

• I think the casting of James Caan as "Sonny" is not quite right. The tempestuous nature of Sonny just doesn't seem to align itself with the controlled manner of Vito Corleone or, for that matter, Michael Corleone. I know that the hot-headedness of Sonny is central to the storyline, but still ... I can't quite shake the sense that it's a dissonant aspect of the movie.
• The scene at the tollbooth where Sonny is gunned down crossed the line of believable. I can't imagine that many bullets would allow a man to continue to get out of the car and continue to stand on two feet. It seemed somewhat cartoonish to me.
  

Let's balance that ... here's what I think is the finest aspect of the movie ... in fact, in my opinion the finest moment of film making ever: the scene where Connie's child is being baptized, with Michael serving as godfather. Intercut with that is the slow and deliciously dramatic preparations for and conducting of the killing of the heads of the five families. The organ music, the latin incantations, the sudden silences ... exquisite.

The Nature of Intent

In my last post, I wrote:

At the start my reason for focusing on that word was to differentiate deliberate intent from what I'll term casual intent.

I added emphasis to that. I'm really starting to think about the difference between the two. In reality, there's a range of intent, isn't there? I'm sitting at this computer at 11:15am my time and I'm looking out across my day. I have a series of things I'm thinking about accomplishing today. I'm "intending" to do most of them, though the seriousness of my intent differs.

This is really a fascinating topic. And if I apply this notion of "seriousness of intent" to the question of the Christian faith, it gets even more fascinating. From all I can discern from reading the Bible and reading other commentaries on the subject, the Christian faith is not something one merely drifts into and floats through. Neither you or I merely drifted into this faith -- both of us very intentionally considered the proposition and made our decision. Yet based on many things I've heard and read, there's an ocean of people out there that call themselves "Christians" that have done just that: drifted to a place where they feel the label is appropriate, so they apply it to themselves.

Note: I'm really not trying to suggest one must do some specific thing to be a Christian -- some magic sequence of words or some some mystical physical act. Nor am I suggesting that I have any personal means of knowing for certain the state of one's relationship with God simply by external observation. So please don't focus on those counter-arguments. I'm simply operating off of what the Bible makes very clear: one chooses (with intent) to follow Jesus. One does not just wake up one day and think, "I guess I'm a Christian."

Along the same lines, the Bible makes it clear that the Christian life is one of sustained intent to continue to submit to Christ, to follow him, and to be his disciple.

Note: This is the great failure of contemporary "Christianity" -- for the past 30 or so years it has focused on the conversion element and ignored the discipleship and spiritual growth towards maturity aspect. This is the "make Christians but not grow Christians" complaint. Much of the aversion you and I have expressed to "organized religion" stems from this, I think. The "I'm a member of an exclusive club and you're not!" comes from this. That's a typical symptom of a very new, immature Christian.

And this is where I come to the issue of casual intent as compared to deliberate intent. Events of the last days and weeks have made me face square-on the seriousness of my intent to follow Christ. That's my focus right now.

Without wishing to trivialize this, consider the game of golf. I don't play the game, but from what I hear it is one where even someone with a natural aptitude for the game will never be considered "really good" unless they set out to be really good. Tiger Woods is a truly gifted golfer, but he is also someone with a razor-focus on being the best. He deliberately intends to be the world's best golfer. So he works at it.

Note: No, I'm not saying the Christian faith is a competition; I'm not saying one must be "the best," nor am I saying one must approach it in some mechanized, legalistic manner. I'm merely trying to point out that Woods didn't become a mature golfer by employing a casual intent to work on his golf game. His intent was quite deliberate.

Much of my life is conducted with casual intent. I'm struggling to think of an area of my life where I've employed a focused, deliberate intent to achieve some goal. Even in the realm of my marriage, where I've previously stated my intent with Lisa is more serious than than my intent with my first wife, the nature of my intent is still closer to middle of the spectrum between casual and deliberate.

And so it is with my intent to truly follow Jesus Christ and allow him to be the Lord of my life. I have been generally aware of this issue for several years, and I have continued to struggle with it in one form or another for that entire time. I suppose I should be grateful for my awareness -- that is, I believe, straight from God himself.

So we cycle back to my original post, where I mentioned Dallas Willard's definition of love as acting with intent to do what's right and good for the object. For me, this has been a somewhat eye-opening thing. It has made me more aware of the degrees of intent, and that has acted as measuring stick for myself.

And no, I don't think I'm being too hard on myself. I think I'm looking at this with a pretty open set of eyes.

Check Out the Big Brain on Brett!

A hypocrite is someone who intentionally does something contrary to their intent. :-)

Now you've got me thinking about this. Can anyone really every say "I will" do something? How can anyone say such a thing with certainty? Who knows what may come up that will interfere with such a bold statement. Perhaps "I intend" is the strongest that can be said. So do we now need to factor in the circumstances that prevented me from following through on my intent?

• I intend to purchase a lottery ticket. I take a nap and fail to purpose one.
• I intend to purchase a lottery ticket. A meteorite crashes through my roof and kills me and I fail to purchase one.

Am I a hypocrite in the first case, but not in the second?

* * *
At the start my reason for focusing on that word was to differentiate deliberate intent from what I'll term casual intent. Much of life is conducted with casual intent, I think. The amount of energy to deliberately intend to do something prevents most from doing much with deliberately.

* * *
Yes, you're nuts. :-)

Intent is a fascinating subject

Whilst driving from seeing a renal consultant to work today, a journey of some 90 mins my brain of course decided to wander on matters other than navigating the well worn route being driven. I was looping around the issues associated with "intent".

All sorts of stuff comes out of thinking about it.

For instance, if one says something ... "I intend to do X" and then goes and does "Y" did they really intend to do "X" or did they really intend to do "Y" all along? If so, then does that define the word hypocrite ?

If I say "I intend to trust everything to God" and then go and buy insurance, then I am not trusting that God will look after me. Am I a hyprocrite? Probably.

Is a wedding vow really along the lines of "Do you intend to be faithful to spouse?" and the fact that so many marriages end with infidelity cited as the reason for divorce an example of our ingrained hypocrisy? Is it ok to not do something that you intended to do?

What is the difference between

1. "I intend to do X"

and

2. "I will do X"

??

It seems ok to break the first but not ok to break the second. Am I smoking drugs again on this? :-)

Your thoughts please on this fascinating (to me) can of worms you have opened !

In the Apollo 13 movie, as their space craft begins its uncertain journey home, Captain Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) asks his imperiled crew, “Gentlemen, what are your intentions? ...

+++

Yes I think that 4am is the quietest time in most places in the UK also. But I'm so aware that it's all relative to where you are, I think more globally now - and with God how can you ever feel lonely anyway :-) Plus, I suspect that all of our ancestors (in the human sense - not necessarily our childrens children, but anyone's childrens children) are studying us. On the drive today - once I was looped out on "intent" - it seemed natural that there will be so many googlezillion humans in the future that each of us with be a project for - I dunno - say a whole planet. This planet studies the life of Bagwell -- looking back through time at every moment of his existence - in a read-only fashion of course - like his life as we might watch a DVD, they cannot interact with you for reasons of causality. Seems obvious to me that this will happen, the maths is good to do so.

Okay so I'm nuts.

Intentionally Intent

You wrote:

Hmm interesting. Maybe this is another one of my hang-ups with organized religion, it's too intentional for my tastes, it's a good job that God is above all religions :-)

You've had a pretty bad experience with "organized religion," haven't you? I can't say I blame you ... I've not been all that impressed myself.

Frankly, I've come to dislike the term "religion," and I don't use it in reference to myself. "Religion" to me means ritual and ceremony. There's nothing inherently wrong with ceremony ... but it's just way too easy to allow a supporting actor like "ceremony" to take center stage.

That said, a completely unstructured faith is probably equally as difficult to navigate.

So what's the answer?

I haven't a clue.

Loneliest Time of Day?

I've oftened pondered this question -- what is the loneliest time of day. I suspect it varies from person to person, but for me it's between the hours of about 2:30am and 4:00am. That's when the world seems to shut down. Along about 4:00-ish the world wakes back up.

Each year, when we go to close my cottage, we drive all night long. The traffic is fairly robust until midnight or so, and then it starts to taper off. But around 3:00am is when it gets eerie. I've driven miles on Canadian freeways where I was the only one -- nobody behind me, nobody in front, nobody coming from the other direction. Then, as I said, about 4:00, 4:30am things start picking up again.

But for that hour or so it's the loneliest.

Cucumbers

I love the darn things. In the last few months I've discovered -- or rediscovered? -- how good the things are. One of my favorite snacks now is a cucumber sandwich -- sliced cucumbers, a bit of mayo and a slice of cheese. When I want more of a meal, I'll fry an egg and put it on there.

Years ago, when my family moved from the city to the country (that was 1969 for those who wish to count the years), we planted a garden on our newly acquired country land. We laid in 70 tomato plants and something like 15 or 20 cucumber plants. My, oh my, oh my ... did mother nature produce a bountiful crop. We couldn't eat the tomatoes fast enough ... many rotted on the vine. Our dog at the time loved to wade into the garden, pick a tomato, and then go eat it on the grass somewhere. But the cucumbers were the amazing thing ... bushels of them. My grandmother pickled as much as she could. We gave away tons. And still, cucumbers everywhere.

Why do I mention this? Because yesterday for lunch I had a tuna sandwhich with cucumbers.

This is serious bloggin' going on here ... serious stuff indeed.

Best Laid Plans

You wrote:

Interesting, may I ask why you are glad that you did? Maybe God intended something else for you but you used your will to thwart his plans? The point I am making is along the lines of the best made plans of man go astray -- perhaps we should not try to bend something to our will? Who knows, perhaps you and/or the Mrs would have met someone else (or not) and have been even happier? Isn't intent potentially a doubled-edged sword?

I was operating from a broader framework of Biblical understanding -- and this was before I was a professing Christian. As you know, I was divorced once before. One of the things I carried into my second marriage from the wreckage of my first was the notion that marriage is more than a convenient relationship between two people. I hadn't yet come to the understanding of it being a convenant made before God, with God. But I did have a sense -- divine insight? -- that if I were to marry Lisa that I had to first consider very carefully the gravity of the commitment. I really did do some soul searching prior to marrying her.

During our period of trouble, there were many places where I could easily have walked away and been perfectly justified in doing so. But again and again I kept coming back to a vague sense of commitment, and I don't mean to use that word in a way that conveys merely obligation. Had you asked me at that time, I wouldn't have been able to tie it directly to the notion of a convenental relationship between me, Lisa and the Lord. But perhaps that's what was given me to get us through that patch so we can be where we are now.

* * *
I took no offense to your comment about presentations. :-)

I've been thinking about my presentation style, and what I do relative to what the consultant guy the other day was talking about. I use humor, but never the "here's a joke" variety, and never to start the presentation. That's way, way too risky -- and particularly so for someone who's nervous to begin with. (Which is why I feel the consultant guy's pitch was overplaying the humor angle too much.) There is nothing worse that a failed joke, and it'll suck the lifeblood out of a speaker. The pros can shake it off, but a newbie will be rattled to the bones. Better, I think, to avoid that until the person has come to figure out what humor they can deliver comfortably.

For me, that's a measured dose of self-deprecating humor. For example, I will admit to embarrassing techncial mistakes I've done -- spending two days debugging a problem that turned out to be something really simple and trivial. But even that I measure out carefully. I sometimes crack small jokes about some shortcoming of the IBM product, but it's always about some trivial, peripheral thing ... never a core element of the product. I never joke about Microsoft or other competitors -- too risky.

The better advice for newbie presenters would be, I think, to err on the side of gracious humility. Don't try to be a rock star; don't try to be a funny-man. Just be sincere and helpful. It's a hard-hearted person who rejects that from a person.

* * *
I can't for the life of me regain my sleep patterns after being in China for a week. Ever since coming back I've been waking up at midnight and not being able to get back to sleep. Tonight was the same story -- asleep at 10:30pm ... awake at 1:00am and now it's 4:30 and I'm still up.

When you come to the U.S. for an extended stay -- one week or so -- and then go back east to the U.K, do you have trouble re-adjusting?

Intentionality :-)

You wrote:

8 years ago now I had to work very hard -- intentionally and deliberately -- to keep the marriage afloat. I'm thankful I did. It taught me the value of intentionality

Interesting, may I ask why you are glad that you did? Maybe God intended something else for you but you used your will to thwart his plans? The point I am making is along the lines of the best made plans of man go astray -- perhaps we should not try to bend something to our will? Who knows, perhaps you and/or the Mrs would have met someone else (or not) and have been even happier? Isn't intent potentially a doubled-edged sword?

Hmm interesting. Maybe this is another one of my hang-ups with organized religion, it's too intentional for my tastes, it's a good job that God is above all religions :-)

PS. In my previous post I was referring to the over-use of humour in presentations an indication that the presenter is looking for approval ("I don't know my stuff so I'll crack some jokes") - not related to your good self of course, who does know his stuff deeply.

Intent

I'm not so sure I agree with your position on "intent." The example you provided -- the person on a business trip who intended to be faithful to his wife but ended up not being faithful -- is really a failure of intent. Or, it makes me wonder if they really had the intent to begin with.

I believe what Dallas Willard is getting at with the inclusion of the word "intent" in his definition of love is akin to what Jesus was getting to in Matthew 5:46-47:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (Matthew 5:46-47, NIV)

Loving those who love you is a non-intentional, reflexive thing. Loving those who hate you is hard. It doesn't come naturally. It certainly requires intent. I can't do it ... not yet, anyway.

My point -- and I believe Willard's as well -- is this: it's possible for me to by chance act for the good of another. But it's a dicey game. Better to deliberately consider the commitment and perform intentionally than to not and hope things work out okay. Too many marriages today fail, I believe, because people go into them and operate within them without the clear intent to work to make it successful. I speak from some experience -- 8 years ago now I had to work very hard -- intentionally and deliberately -- to keep the marriage afloat. I'm thankful I did. It taught me the value of intentionality.

Is that a word? :-)

Incentivize! :-)

Presentations

I don't really like presentations, either going to them, or giving them. What ever really comes of them? Usually nothing important. A lot of good presenters are clearly (and in some cases desperately) seeking approval from their audience. I used to be like that but don't care that much anymore, I guess I found the acceptance/approval that I was looking for :-) The trouble is that on this "emperor is not butt naked" merry go round we find ourselves on we are expected to stand up and present - these days before I start I give a wink and a nod to my descendents who are about to watch me make a fool of myself.

+++

To me the problem with Mr Dallas' definition of love *is* the use of the word intent. It's a common get-out clause used by Christians and non-Christians alike

"Well I did intend to do X but I ended up doing Y".

If for example - on a business trip - you end up getting drunk and sleeping with another woman does that mean that you do not love your wife? By Dallas' definition the answer is "no" you still love your wife - because you never set out to be unfaithful, your intention was to be faithful, even though you ended up eating the chocolate cake (sorry to be mixing those metaphors!)

Whereas in actual fact I believe that it would mean that you did not love your wife, otherwise how could you do it?

I don't think I could "cheat" on my daughter under any circumstances, but have I ever met a woman where, given the right circumstances, I would not lie to her, perhaps only a white one? I doubt it.

The thing between a man and a woman, or between a man and Jesus, is a different type of "love" compared to that between a parent and a child in terms of honesty, well it is for me anyway. If we were really honest and open with Jesus would we do the things we do? No, we'd be off preaching his word to the unwashed masses.

For my attempt at defining love see my post on New Years eve 2005:

Love to me is when the other persons happiness is more important than my own, I'm not sure that love can be fully expressed when there is sex involved, which is the opposite to what most people would say. But I think physical relations detract from love rather than enhance it. Okay I know this is an unpopular view, but I think it's backed up in part by The Bible. At least that bit was innerant :-) Love is part and parcel with missing someone when they are not around. Love can be whatever you define it to be, but it's always a positive thing, positive being relative of course. Hmmm, I realise I failed to define love. It's a configuration of mind ... a welcome sensory imput ... a positive thing.

"Great Technical Presentations"

Yesterday at SHARE I attended a "personal development" session titled, "How to Give a Great Technical Presentation." It was given by a guy who apparently has a consulting business that helps people and companies be more effective speakers and such. Overall it was fairly interesting. I learned a few things. The speaker also confirmed many things I already knew about giving presentations.

One thing I picked up and will use is the tactic of turning OFF the Powerpoint display when I want to draw the attention of the audience back to me to emphasize some point. With a blank screen people have nowhere to focus but back on the speaker. He used black slides in his presentation at key points to do just that. Clever ... I like that.

I had some disagreement with his emphasis on humor. I'm all for humor in a presentation, but it has to be humor that is easy and natural for the speaker, and it has to be appropriate for the setting. Those are nuances I'm sure the speaker yesterday knew, but he didn't point them out in the presentation.

Finally, he was pointing out that non-Powerpoint things can be used for visual aids. To demonstrate, he used Lego blocks to demonstrate the architecture of the iSeries system. It was effective, I'll admit. But it's also something you do only if you're certain the audience will accept that. I've been in more than a few situations where had I broken out a set of Lego blocks I would have been kicked out of the room. Props like that can be perceived as condescending and trivial by some.