Re: Belief, Hypocricy

Ryston asked in his comment to Belief:

I also wanted to ask you a question that might inspire a rant of it's own. What is your position on hypocrisy?

For those of you who have memorized my entire works, you'll probably realize that my history on hypocrisy is somewhat disjointed. One post that sums this up well is Resolutions, a post I made at the beginning of the 2007 year (or, rather, the end of the 2006 year). Having gotten over my first breakup a few months prior, I was in the midst of a period of redefinition/rediscovery from which I formed the person I am today. (That statement carries much less weight once you realize that it is applicable at all points of life)

As part of these revelations, I sought to eradicate from my life all aspects of hypocricy, to reestablish myself as a source of credibility and uniformity. In reading the post you'll see that in the midst of writing it, I had a change of heart and turned it completely upside down backwards and on it's head.

I reasoned that as a leader (that's how I perceived myself at the time) I couldn't afford to be double checking and self checking every thought that crossed my mind, every word I said. As a leader (I cringe to type it) it was my job to inspire, to incite action, to put people on the pages who hadn't been there before.

It fizzled out. Life overcame my dreams and ambitions, and I was left living it (albeit happily). Of course, tragedy gives us pause, and once again I am left alone in the proverbial relationship world, left alone to my thoughts. Once again I must redefine myself, and this time, with no one left to lead, I must first find a role to fill, a person to be.

Where does that leave us with hypocricy? Well, at the moment I'd have to say that a moment of redefinition is the ABSOLUTE WORST TIME EVER to be disingenuous. With that said, there's no telling where that will leave me six months from now...

And I know Ryston was probably thinking of other things when he asked that question, but in order to enter into the debate in any further depth, I had to first establish those basics.

In a future post I will address the question perhaps a bit more literally, asking such questions as "can/should a smoker lecture against smoking? can/should a pedophile preacher spread the Word of God? can/should I and many others bother realizing "hard lines" that we ourselves do not adhere to?"

All good questions that I'm a bit too exhausted to answer right now, though the answers are there.

Thanks for reading, Ryston, and for commenting.

Re: Wishes

Quote: Raeder on Wishes

Then tell me, Matt Lund, what the point of prayer is.

To be quite honest, I haven't really nailed down the point of prayer. I mean, I know that it's our way of communicating directly with God (even though we don't have to pray to communicate with him, since we live in him etc...), but aside from that... I don't think we can know.

However, to focus on the moment at hand, I would like to differentiate between wishes and prayer. And I say this not because it was part of my plan during the composition of Wishes, but because Raeder brings a very good point to my attention.

But I would say that prayer is different than a wish. Prayer is a wish and much more; it is a wish directed to God. Even then, I haven't captured it. It is, as I said above, communication with God. The concept that people pray to God for things is a flawed misinterpretation of its actuality. Now, obviously that's the most recognizable way it is used - it's the way we see it used in movies and books and the media.

Here is a good theological essay on prayer, if you have the time. I don't want to do a copypasta, but look especially at numbers 5, 8, and 9. Note, however, that this is an LCMS Lutheran theological site, and therefore a LCMS Lutheran theological essay. In case that matters at all to you.

I can say from my Christian education that there are three main types of prayer - petitions, praise, and thanksgiving. Petitions are when you invoke the name of the Lord for whatever-it-is you need to invoke his name for (without violating the second commandment). Praise is for... well, they say that the more credit you give your readers, the more respect they will give you in turn, so I'll just say that praise is for exactly what you think it's for. Aaaand the same goes for thanksgiving.

So, altogether more than a wish, though wishes can fit under the category of petitions. As long as you a) address it to the Lord, and b) invoke the name of the Lord (i.e. call on his will, that it may or may not be done as he sees right).

Re: Pictures of Fields Without Fences

Andy Kim has a knack for making my posts deeper and more involved (Pictures of Fields Without Fences).

do we protect the land itself or what the land stands for?

america protect its citizens rights.

a farm owner protects his ideal of a farmer, an independent hardworking individual who depends on his family and small community.

a person buys a house/small parcel of land to establish that in that small area, his/her ideas of morality, truth, etc. exist there.

the issue is not about the monetary value of the land nor the ways we go about protecting it. it is WHO we are protecting it against.

You can only protect what you own. Yes, it represents the values that we defend, and it is about defending rights, but what makes one group so different than another?

I am sure that if you asked the average American, they would be opposed to being invaded by Muslim extremists. Or by anyone for that matter. We have these concepts of right and wrong, and I'm not saying that these concepts are wrong. I think that harming others is wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter who you're protecting it against - it's not yours to protect.

It's not an applicable idea. It's 100% idealogical. 100%. So I know that logistically it's impossible. I'm just saying that's the way it should be.

Re: Firsts (and a bit on change, too)

I hope that Andy doesn't mind me putting him on the spot... but he did post it publicly (Firsts), so... whatever. This is in no way directed towards him or really his idea - just me musing on what he said.

i think its important that when change is no longer forced upon people, people need to take the initiative and force change upon themselves. we deal with a lot of change during our younger years and grow up a lot (mentally). but eventually, people settle down into their job and their routines and never change again, thus never growing again. change is hard but change is good.

I have a post about change as compared to redefinition, and to be quite honest it's not very... deep. It was basically me attempt to recategorize the word change into terms I could use without fear of being misunderstood. For me, to everything there is a good and a bad. There is nothing that is anything (in this world) which can claim perfection, or absolute evil for that matter.

Everything is based on perspective. Some think change and they think opportunity. Others feel fear. Which one is right? Neither. So I took the "positive" term, called it redefinition, and took the "negative" for change. It's just semantics.

But I want to ask where we get the different ideas concerning change. Why do some fear it and others embrace? Do we eventually do both in the span of our lives?

When it's all said and done, Andy hit my point right on the head: the point I was unconsciously making in Firsts was that I'm running out of an entity that I'm all too familiar with. The first of something. It's a fear, but also a sadness. Like losing an old friend and not knowing if I'll make any new ones.

But I'm not running out of all of my firsts, just the mandatory ones. I have unlimited potential to change, to do new things, to have new firsts. First book published. First life changed. (Or maybe I've already done that one...) To change for the better. Change for the worse. Change because I go where I choose and if I choose where I go, that's the way things are.