Logotherapy

I'm bored.

What a horrendous utterance! But it's true. I'm completely bored. I have lots I can and should be doing, yet I'm not. I have no will to meaning right now; well, I'm not realizing that meaning currently at least.

I read a book recently called Man's Search for Meaning. I highly recommend it!

Meaning should be the driving force in our lives. Without meaning, why do we continue to live? Why do we not take our own lives? Perhaps the apathy and lethargy that has seeped into our pores is often the very thing keeping us from suicide; our lack of decisiveness to even kill ourselves. Or perhaps it's the artificial, superficial highs of life that keep us distracted from the severe lows that unavoidably follow... at. least sometimes

By comparison, most would probably say that I live a life of meaning and purpose. And I often do. But it's hard to live in a blazing house without getting burned. Naturopaths say that the acidic nature of our bodies is the underlying cause of much of the disease we encounter. That if we would just eat to properly alkalize the pH of our body, many of the health issues that ale us, would disappear.

I run into many people who know their diet is awful. They are convicted to change it, but they don't. Knowledge is of no benefit to these people. I see the same thing in life issues. I have many friends who know the lifestyle they are living is killing them physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, or all of the above, yet they continue to live this way. And I'm not excluded.

My point is, understanding meaning does nothing if you are continually surrounded by lifestyle pollution. Excessive entertainment, lack of rewarding labor, rampant sexuality, a dearth of moral absolutes, disbelief in an ultimate being (God), disregard for our physical health, consumerism, superficiality, short attention spans, great faith in politics/government, idolatry of celebrities are all examples of pollutants that make it nearly impossible to have a truly worthwhile existence.

We accomplish very little, and the things we do accomplish are often lacking significance in the big scheme of things. We are left asking the question, "Why did I work so hard on that? Was it only for pride?" Or even asking if our accomplishments are helping the world or tearing it apart. Society encourages to not ask these questions, but rather buy into the idea of having fun today! Carpe Diem!!! We do this so much that our later years our destroyed by the effects of our "fun," thus we are ill-equipped to fulfill some basics of man's purpose by the time we're middle-aged. Then we are sorry and bored, rather than vital and progressive.

Living fully requires, I believe, a mixture of interaction and separation. A person must keep oneself free from the toxic effect of society. But man also desires to be courageous, which may require diving into the vat of suffering to save one being eaten alive by despair. Suffering is sometimes not avoidable, and can teach a lot; but suffering sacrificially solidifies a reason of being and inspires the world to find that same reason.

Why so bored? Because I'm closing my eyes. I'm being apathetic today. My work is not giving me meaning because it isn't always making the world better. Because I'm busy playing with expensive toys I've bought, rather than connecting with the least of these. The truth is, the least of these don't even exist when I'm the only one who matters in my world. Today the focus is on me, so unless I'm reason enough (in and by myself) to have meaning, it just will not exist. I need an outside source.

The Bible In A Beaker

I attended a lecture at Pitt yesterday, where Bob Enick (who wrote the book Evolving in Eden) spoke about the compatibility of science's claim of The Theory of Evolution and a creationism viewpoint.

It's a claim I've thought about since my very intelligent friend Seth showed certainty of evolution (despite that he's a strong Christian) and said it could be the most beautiful means of creating. Ever since I have not had a strong foundation on whether I believe in both or with the more traditional creationist version.

It's largely a question of intention within the Bible; especially in the Genesis 1 accounts. Is the purpose to give a factual representation of the happenings and their order, or merely to show truths about how things are and that they ultimately were formed by God?

Enick explained how most evidence shows that the Earth is right around 4.5 million years old and there are signs the univers is somewhere around 16 billion years old. I have very little issue with this, believing the seven days to be most likely figuretive, rather than literal. However, when Enick began to talk about the evolution of man, I felt like something was wrong. His interpretation is that the creation of "Man in God's image" means the point of receiving a spiritual side. Before which humankind was merely another animal brought forth from evolution. I must confront myself in asking do I disagree with this just because I don't like it, or because it matters.

A few months ago I had a conversation with a parent of some of my campus life kids, who said he sees God's "breathing into the dust" as a very straightforward indication of evolution from primal elements. To believe in the evolution of man, and God graciously bestowing a spirit on him may not be too different, but at the same time I do feel like it reduces the specialness of man in relation to God's heart.

Overall it was a decent lecture. I learned a bit, but had heard a lot of the material before. I may skim through the free copy of Evolving in Eden that I received.

Then, this morning while browsing through Facebook, I saw a comment my buddy Jonathan had about a little kid with super-strength that was mentioned on the Early Show. It sounded interesting so I looked up some info on it.

Once I heard this story I immediately thought of Samson from the Bible. His agility and strength seem to resemble what could possibly come of this disorder. Was that the case? God placed a genetic disorder on Samson so he could be super-strong. It then raises the question of why would Samson's strength leave him when his hair is cut?

Interestingly enough, Samson seems a little slow, in the fact that he doesn't realize this chick, Delilah, has already tried to subdue him several times based on what he tells her his weakness is. Scientists have concerns about mental development in people with this disorder, due to the lack of fat from a high metabolism, which the brain needs for development. So maybe Samson wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed for that reason.

Even if Samson had this defect, would it give him the strength to collapse an entire temple with a push of his arms? Maybe, we don't know much aboutt his temple, but it must have been big. So is this a genetic thing or a supernatural thing? Is it a mix of both? My guess is a mix.

I have no problem with science, and I certainly have no problem with God using science. Heck, He created science. Why shouldn't he have created it to meet his purposes? There is no direct attack on the legitimacy of God in relation to science. The potential risk, is the trustworthiness of the Bible. It's a fact of Christianity to believe the Bible to be a spiritually inspired book. It's common for said Christians to believe it to be very or entirely historically accurate. There are some, but not as many who consider it to be a book of both faith and science.

I remember hearing about Newton's belief that God had written two great books, the Bible and science. He believed that the Bible wasn't a book of science (even if it contained some) and that science didn't, on its own, give a spiritual look at existence.

I'm not a scholar who has dedicated his life to deciphering between allegoric poetry and literal intent. In fact, I don't believe anyone has mastered this art/science. I think it's healthy for Christians to accept their way of reading the Bible may have been a little off, as knowledge increases, but at the same time we cannot explain away the validity of the Bible in containing Truth, especially in the areas of most important Truth.

I think with time the truth will become more evident in some ways, and completely lost in others. The bottom line is that we cannot fully know what happened before we have records for, we can merely look at evidence and come to conclusions or take by faith a book written by the Author of Life... or both.

Role Playing

I've been intrigued for the last few years at the idea of roles. Every one of us has roles that we inherently need or at least desire to be filled in our lives, whether we realize it or not (more often than not we don't).

There's a great deal I'd like to write about on this subject int he future, much of which can appear disheartening or cruel, but it really isn't.

Anyway, I'm here to request feedback from you, the people. I'm hoping to gain some insight from your answers as to what these roles are really about, and why some alter or misuse these roles.

1. What is the role(s) platonic friends of the opposite sex offer one another (male to female, female to male)?
2. What is the role(s) platonic friends of the same sex offer one another (male to male, female to female)?
3. What is the role(s) of a sexual (or non-platonic) partner (male to female, female to male, male to male, female to female)?
   
4. What is the role(s) family members of the opposite sex offer one another?
5. What is the role(s) family members of the same sex offer one another?
6. What is the role(s) of a mother to her child(to male, to female)?
7. What is the role(s) of a father to his child(to male, to female)?

I have my own thoughts and answers to these questions, but I understand that because of anyone's individual experiences, thoroughness and objectivity are hard to come by.

If you choose to answer, please try to distance yourself from the questions and as much as possible give broad, universal answers that are for the most-part not contingent on age, race, or economic status. Also I am looking for the distinguishing roles that are acquired almost exclusively from the group related to the question, not every single role they possess.

You can either leave comments on this blog or e-mail me at steve@causenfx.org.

Thanks y'all.

Time For Christians To Wake Up And Think

Sometime in the 1980s, Christians in the West began to label evangelistic techniques and reconfigure church services to reduce the message to the lowest level of cognition in the audience. As nobly intentioned as that was, the end result was the lowest level of writing and gospel preaching one could imagine. Mass media was brought to aid this purpose, and before long evangelicals were seen to be masters in entertainment and minimalists in thought. As this was happening, the intellectual arenas were being plundered and young minds gradually driven away from their “faith” in the gospel message. Christians are paying our dues today and likely will pay for an entire generation.
- Ravi Zacharias - An Apologetic for Apologetics

My friend Jamie sent me a link to a debate of atheist Richard Dawkins against Christian theologist Alister McGrath. I've seen and heard some stuff from Dawkins in the past. He certainly has become seen as a threat by orthodox Christians, but in some ways I think it's a good thing he's here to shake things up. The quote above is all to true, and maybe Dawkins will help to reignite Christian thought from its slumber. The debate is below in two parts. I think it's about an hour total.

Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 1
Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 2

A decent bit of this talk, on both sides, doesn't do much. They find themselves at a sort of standstill as far as the debate goes. I think it is largely due to the fact that they are coming from completely different frames of reference. McGrath draws attention to this in slightly different, but similar words. It's not so much that religion proves God, but religion gives a frame of reference in which to test everything you see. He illustrates this with a quote from C.S. Lewis...

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

The real criticism that I see against Dawkins, at which point his side is not proven wrong, but begins to loosen is this: at any point I can accept and understand his facts and evidences as a human being of reason, but he cannot do the same towards my faith because he is not a believer.

Dawkins assumes that he can test Christianity or even faith in God by knowing their doctrine, their beliefs, and their history. I don't believe this is true. You can test physical things without being a part of them, but you can't test things of the mind or things of the soul (if you even believe you have a soul) without being actively involved on the inside. I cannot know exactly what an aardvark is able to think or deduct or what the exact level of their awareness is since I am not one of them. In the same way, and C.S. Lewis speaks on this in Mere Christianity, I can understand human awareness or what our comprehension and thought processes look like because I am human. Now reason is something all men are capable of, and I would say a spiritual connection with God is also. I cannot relate to someone of reason if I have no experience with it. Fortunately, our whole social structure is largely, even fundamentally, formed on reason, thus I am well acquainted with it and can relate to others who reason. But if Dawkins denies a God and is unacquainted with the practice of spirituality, especially that of Christianity for this instance, how can he assume to question a Christian?

In truth he may have more knowledge, but we Christians have an entirely different dimension or vantage point to look at the situation by (according to us at least). Sure he has every right to be skeptical of our "spirituality." I am living a life of reason. Dawkins is not living a life of Christianity. If he were really desiring to scientifically test Christianity, it would require for him to partake of it to test it, not stand outside observing it without experiencing it. The truth is, Dawkins can take this in somewhat of a scientific sense if he desires, but the rules are slightly skewed from tradiational science, where he must now observe from the inside and not the outside. This becomes a bit of a mix, like psychology is, where we understand psychology from others and also incorporating that with the inside perspective of ourselves.

Once inside he would have the opportunity to give an unbiased look at what is happening, seeing as how he can look through both a frame of reason and a frame of Christian spirituality. Christians obviously don't nearly agree on what that framework shows, but it's somewhere between "spirituality is the more important and dominant frame of reference," and "Christian spirituality and reason are equal frames, but rely on each other for the most truth." I tend to side with the latter. I suppose there could be reason to suggest that there is a third option that reason is the dominant frame of reference, which would be supported by those who abandon their faith for science. Either way Dawkins has not done sufficient testing if he has not sunk himself into the Christian life to judge for himself. I'm not saying then that it will come out proving anything for sure, but I don't think it could bring means to deny the Christian points and could have unexpected results.


The other marvelous point made by a woman questioner, is that McGrath and Dawkins interchanged God and religion like it was nothing. I noticed this from the beginning and was bothered by it. As McGrath agreed with after the question, these are very different things being said. One assumes a particular doctrine or sect of people, and the other assumes any who claim God. It's important to realize the difference, that God is not religion and religion is not God! I would certainly agree that religion makes people do bad things. Religion should be an expression of our search for knowing God if it is anything; however, God does not make is do wrong, rather it is our misconception of Him within religion that makes us do wrong. At least that's my take... but I think it looks pretty good personally (pride flaring).


Hopefully this will raise some discussion. Although I won't get so hopeful as to think anyone will post comments. I know my readers don't do that!

Do We Have A Choice Other Than Regression From Depression?

I should be reading a book right now, but I'm not. Instead I'm going to try to present sense of the nonsense in my head.

I was talking to my grandfather last night on the phone for quite a while. We often get into economics in our talking. He believes, as many do, that the United States is on the border of a depression. He's frustrated with the people in Washington who keep doing things that are blatantly bad to do, but they pretend like they're right (such as printing lots of dollar bills to depreciate the value of our money).

I started to think about that thought in relation to The Great Depression. My concern was this... During the great depression we were a production society, largely. We made lots of stuff and were much more self-sufficient than we are now. At this point we have outsourced all of our production, and we consider our country a country of managers. The corporations are here, but the work and product are elsewhere, being made my third world preteens. When the economy collapsed in the 1930's we could at least produce what we needed. We still had lots of private farms, we made lots of steel, clothes were still made here a lot, etc. Times weren't great, but we got by because people knew how to produce and survive. But what about now?

How does a consumer society survive in a depression? How much harder is it going to be for us to get food from nations with a much stronger currency. At least when goods are produced within the same country the currency should maintain a relative value... outside that country it just isn't so. If our dollar drops to $3 = 1 Euro how will we trade effectively? How will we afford things to survive? Do you get what I'm saying? Depression = poor people and few jobs, little money, having just enough to survive... how do you add the relative doubling/tripling/etc of the cost of everything we import when we import almost everything? Let me admit right now, I'm not economist, but this seems common sense with the little I know.

A depression will be hard and there will much bad from it, but I ultimately think it will do more good than bad for our future. It will reset American ideologies to being less greedy and more set on the "good ol' ways." I think and hope at least that would happen.

I've been thinking about the barter economy lately. It seems to me that implementing a barter economy into our current one would be more beneficial to individuals, and more conducive to individual small businesses. Even beyond that I see it as allowing for a lower cost of final product if you trade services/products for others. This is so abstract I apologize. I'm really having trouble grasping this in my head.

My grandfather told me about how things used to be much more barter-oriented. So and so needed help, so I went and worked on their house for about 20 hours, and in a month during harvest I'll need help on my farm, so they'll help me for about 20 hours. Or I'm an electrician and he's a plumber. I do his electrical work if he does my plumbing. It really ends up working better for me that way, at least it appears that way. Instead of having to pay the for the expensive electrical work, I just spend a little of my time. Looking at this I guess it is more normalizing of wages, where no one is worth more (or much more) than another. It seems to naturally do that to some extent, although it does not negate supply and demand.

Income tax becomes a problem when you are on a barter system. So do services like broadcast television that it becomes hard to barter with. I simple enough solution would be taxes on imports or just living in an area, paying a city tax. There certainly is a question of "is there currency if there is all barter." Good question. There would have to be some kind of IOU for workers of widespread service industries, e.g. Broadcast TV workers. In that sense there would need to be a currency of sense. Where we acknowledge that these people are giving us a service, even if it seems intangible or even if we don't use it, and in response we give these people a portion of what we have as compensation. I think I just defined what money is, but hopefully I reshaped it a little.

Don't get me wrong... we won't be a cashless society ever (or at least not for a very very long time). But I do think we should start implementing barter more. We're moving that way anyway. The government will need to restructure as this gains steam. They will no doubt pull the IRS with it's Federal Income Tax, and instead it will increase a tax on raw products or imports.

As we simplify we require less money. As the government pulls back frill that we've grown accustomed to it will need less of our money. Taxes will become less demanding. People will gain more freedom. Bartering will grow, especially with the help of our technology. We will become a relational people again, instead of a people that associate with institutions and businesses bureaucratically. We will bring caring, grace, leeway, situation, and more into our transactions. Our conscience and goodwill will trump our greed for getting more and more. It seems life used to be much more like this, not even that long ago. This is a fantasy I know. I believe it is a fantasy to be further developed and continued in hope.

Like I have stated, I am no economist, but I know if we simplify we can have more freedom. I know that big business and big government have taken away life we forget is even a possibility. They are largely the secret oppressors of us, our country, and to some extent, large parts of our world. Things used to work differently in the past, why should we not be able to recreate them, but with a new flare and hopefully better than they were?

Please leave some comments if you're a smart person. I feel like I make sense, but I'm fully aware that I'm largely ignorant about this topic.

Hard Questions

People who blindly go through life, too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions as to why they believe what they do, will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of the tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic.

- Tim Keller - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Sometimes I feel comforted in knowing I'm not as alone as I thought.

I think I should read this book.

Married To God Or Married To A Hottie?

I've been thinking about myself in lines with dating/marriage stuff. The truth is, I don't really know what I think about it. Truth be told (and anyone reading this probably already knows) I am not so great with the ladies. Regardless of this, or maybe partially because of this, I don't even know if that's the lifestyle I'm being called to.

I want to follow the call of God with my all, and sometimes I wonder if a wife would hinder that. At the same time I also wonder if a wife would help that, or if I'd go crazy being single for the rest of my life.

I look at the words Jesus said in Matthew 19. It's like Jesus is saying that there is hope even without a significant other. Some have this thrust upon them because how they were born or what others have done to them, but then there are those who willingly give it up for a higher cause.

But then again Paul says that it's better to marry than to burn with passion. Now what he's referencing here might be sexual or just that desire that Adam had for a counterpart. Either way the idea seems to be that if you can't control whatever this urge is, it can be distracting and unhealthy. God has called the union between man and woman good, so if it's called good and you want it, might as well go for it. Paul says it's good to stay unmarried, like him, but that it's fine if you can't do that. Perhaps it can be much wiser for the sake of the ministry to not marry if possible.

I guess in either verse it's not a straight forward thing, it's a one or the other. Neither are wrong, but maybe one is more right than the other on a person to person basis.

To me there are certainly attractive aspects to a life in humble service to God, by being free to do whatever he can imagine for me; as well as a life in humble service to God via my bodaciously hott/fun/caring wife.

If anyone has more insight on what these scriptures are saying historically/culturally, if you have more scriptures that should be looked at, or if you just have life experience or thoughts to share, all are welcome.

This is a very open post that requires your interaction.

Does The Church Have A Complex?

I will start off this blog with a warning. I'm upset and disappointed with my church right now, so the things in this post may be unfair and/or an oversimplified stereotype.

I have heard the expression asked before "when did A CHURCH become THE CHURCH?"

Why does a denomination or a dominant interpretation about Christianity automatically deem itself the ultimate truth? At what point do we distinguish between heresy and open mindedness? Should a Christian question? Should a Christian believe blindly? Should it be a mixture where we believe certain things blindly based on other things that have proved themselves?

Would things we believe blindly change if the things we thought were "proved" showed to be inconsistent?

Would it be beneficial or destructive to show those inconsistencies?

I like questions. Questions spawn thought. I like to think. So I guess liking questions and thought compliment each other well.

I have to ask myself... does the church like questions and thought? If so, does it like all questions and all thought, or just "contained" questions and thought?

Thinking just now if questioning can be dangerous, I'm sure there is backing for that. Often times you will hear thoughts along the lines of "if you start asking those questions they'll lead you to destruction." I don't know if I've ever heard that verbatim, but certainly those ideas.

It is a thought that is backed by something. The beginning of the destruction of humankind began with a question... "Did God really say?" The beginning of humanity starts with Satan questioning what God really said. Now this might be legitimate, except in Genesis 2:16-17 God clearly states that man must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is also interesting to note, as maybe you've heard before, that Eve responds by saying they are not to touch the fruit. It's important to note that this is in no means God ordained. Some might say it is a good idea, but it is not what God says. For Eve, it may be just as sinful to touch the fruit as to eat it, for obviously there is temptation there, but to place that same law upon another could be quite pointless and burdensome.

We see questioning in another early book (chronologically). In the book of Job, Job has lots of bad stuff happen to him. First his servants are killed and livestock are stolen. Next a fireball from heaven kills his sheep and more servants. Then some raider come and kill even more servants (he must have had a lot) and steal his camels (I picture them stuffing camels into bookbags for some reason). Finally, his sons and daughters are having a big party and the house falls on them and kills them. Now all Job has is his wife, 4 messengers (that told him about these events), and his health. Oh wait... scratch that last one.

A little while later Job gets painful sores all over his body too. He's pretty bummed and says some sad stuff. His friends and wife don't do much to make things better. Job just kind of sits in his questioning misery. Job questions the justice and righteousness of God and the path he calls his righteous to. Job in essence questions if God knows what he's doing and if he's even good, if he really cares about justice.

This is very similar to the question that Eve ponders in her mind. Why would God not want me to know what he knows? Is he ripping me off? Does he even care about me? Is he even just?

God is shown to be unquestionable in these matter though. To Eve it is shown that her way has led to a spiritual death God did not desire for man. In Job's circumstance, Job becomes the one questioned. I love this verse, it makes me whither! God shows that because he is greater and has experienced all of creation, he knows more about justice than we ever could, he knows more about what's right for us than we ever could. But we "forget" that.

This was all to show that yes, questioning can be horribly wrong for man when it is an attempt to discredit God and justify ourselves. This is something that is deemed in the scripture, both where I showed and elsewhere, that questioning God's power in this manner is not good.

But there was also distortion in both of these. I mentioned about Eve not touching the fruit. That was a distortion. Also we see Job's friends accusing him of not being righteous, but Job knows himself to be righteous by God's Word. His wife calls him to forget about God for what he's doing or not doing, but he knows this to be incorrect due to God's Word.

There is both adding and taking away in these examples, which are not God's word, but man trying to reconcile himself with his situation.

Has "the Church" done the same?

Is it easier to take certain routes or justify certain paths because they fit culture better or they seem more successful? When leaders get ahold of scripture do they bow before it, or do they manipulate it to fit them? Or maybe not only leaders, but regular men.

The Crusades

The Salem Witch Trials

The Spanish Inquisition

The Ku Klux Klan

All using the name of Christianity as a dividing mechanism. One where they win and the others lose. One where they are right and those who oppose are wrong. We are looking at theological Darwinism here. Whatever version of Christianity survives is the correct version. God certainly would not let us live a faith that is not inspired by him, right?

That is seen over and over in the Bible. Israel falls away and is living by an incorrect manner. God allows them to see the punishment of what their people and leaders have chosen to believe and how they have abandoned and distorted God's call. Then God sends a prophet to bring them back to his way.

Perhaps for hundreds of years we have been astray or being led astray. The beliefs we follow are based on Jesus, but have also been crafted by the hands of men, as to what scriptures we will read. A council of men decided the canonized Bible. Scholars believe that these decisions were not solely based on the criteria cited, but also on what was popular and widely held as "the best."

William Barclay said, " It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so."

So for one to question the interpretation of man into our understanding of God is completely justifiable, I believe.

In most churches we read the same verses and ignore many. We place the Bible into the 20th and 21st centuries and expect it to fit. How can we compare our lifestyle with that of the 1st century? We have completely different lifestyles, customs, metaphors, outlooks on life, etc.

I believe we need to reexamine the Bible as it was written. See what it looks like with a shadow of empire, a brilliant reflection from simplicity, the haze of self-serving theology, all wrapped up in the culture of the day and of the people. Once you have this vivid picture in your mind, which history so greatly provides for us, you can compare it to our world and see how the Bible can and is meant to fit in our world.

I question men for God, I do not question God for men.

I would say that there are places in our theology that we are mistaken. Some I am pretty sure about, others I am exploring. Theology isn't the main problem, but it does have a barring on the main problem. Our problem is focus. What are the things God is really concerned about. If we make our theology purposed in eliminating homosexuality and abortion we lose site of problems Jesus actually addressed.

Corporate and government overgrowth and greed, lack of communication across economical gaps, lack of leveling economical gaps in a personal manner, turning religious institutions into businesses, not opening up a faith to all (really opening it, not just saying you are or having a "policy"), minimizing government/political officials and becoming a land of people governed by their God, loving, being sexual moral on a deeper level, not inciting war by hating a neighbor, embracing harmony of creation, and on and on. We don't talk about these so much, but Jesus didn't stop talking about these things.

We've become a people about theology, rather than a people of spirit. Where caring and intelligence meet with humility to retrace our steps, find our mistakes, and insert Jesus's word in all of those shortcomings.