Before you read any further, check out this comic.
This comic is about having a positive attitude, but it reminded me of the idea of having faith. If you've ever been an evangelical Christian, and maybe even if you never were, I'm sure you've at least heard about people telling sick people, "If you just have enough faith, God will heal you," or maybe it's happened to you. The implication being, "If you don't get better, it's your own fault." That's where I see a parallel with this comic. I don't think most evangelicals do this, but it varies from church to church, and it happens enough that I'm sure a lot of people have been made to feel bad because of it.
We can affect our own attitudes, and we can affect our level of faith, but there are limits. And just as a positive attitude won't heal every disease, having faith in God usually doesn't result in obvious miracles. So if someone is telling you that you need to have more faith to deal with your problems (illness, depression, financial issues, relationship issues, etc.), and if that makes you feel even worse, tell them to go away. Or give them a finger. Or give them a smack. (My friend's friend's blog has some helpful tips on doing this. Directions are near the bottom of the right sidebar.) Maybe that will help you feel better. But I won't ask you to have faith that this will make you feel better. :)
I trust that God is good. I don't trust that God will act in the ways people tell me he will.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
First Tuesday of Advent
I could have called this "First Sunday of Advent" if I'd posted it a couple days ago. Oh well. I've posted these song lyrics before, but here they are again:
O come, O come Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!
O come, O come Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!
O Come Thou Dayspring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here.
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!
O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
And order all things, far and nigh;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And cause us in her ways to go.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!
O come desire of nations, bind
All peoples in one heart and mind;
Bid envy, strife, and quarrels cease;
Fill the whole world with heaven's peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel!
Monday, November 22, 2010
The obvious question
Dentist: How are you?
Me: Good. I guess the last time I was here, I wasn't married. I got married this year.
Dentist: Congratulations! Does your wife have a dentist?
Me: Good. I guess the last time I was here, I wasn't married. I got married this year.
Dentist: Congratulations! Does your wife have a dentist?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Metaphorical?
Two posts today! But this one doesn't really have original content, unlike the first one. This one is just a link to a comic:
Russell's Teapot
Russell's Teapot
Putting a price on life
I wanted to write this before Edmonton's municipal election, which happened this week, but night shifts and overtime made it difficult. Now that my schedule is more normal, I'm going to comment on one of the big issues in that election: the Edmonton City Centre Airport.
In case you're not all that familiar with Edmonton, we have two airports. The City Centre Airport (ECCA) is near downtown, and it only serves small planes including charters and air ambulances. The International Airport is outside of the city limits, about 26 km from downtown, and it serves the vast majority of people flying in and out of the Edmonton area. Last year, Edmonton's city council decided to close the ECCA, eventually. This became an issue in this year's election campaign.
Since most Edmontonians don't actually use that airport, one of the biggest arguments for keeping it open was for air ambulances. Edmonton has the closest major hospitals to many northern communities. Moving the air ambulance flights (which are typically in airplanes, not helicopters) to the International Airport would make it take longer to get to a major hospital, typically about 8 minutes longer (more in bad weather), a fairly short time compared to the hours it would take to stabilize the patient in the northern community, get them on a plane, and fly to Edmonton. Even so, 8 minutes could mean the difference between life and death for a very small number of patients.
The airport needs some upgrades to keep it open (I don't think airport revenue is enough to cover this), and if it's redeveloped into something else, the city stands to collect more taxes from that land. So is it worth the money to keep it open to save a few lives? I heard one candidate in this election say, "You can't put a price on life." I'd like to agree with that, but in practice, we put a price on life all the time. If we really don't put a price on life, why don't we build a major hospital in every northern community, so that people don't have to fly to Edmonton in emergencies? That would save far more lives than keeping the ECCA open.
Although there's not much chance of the government funding all those hospitals, maybe the money saved by shutting the ECCA down could be put toward other health care improvements, like reducing wait times in emergency rooms. Maybe that would save more lives. (Yes, I'm aware that closing the ECCA mainly affects the municipal government's revenue and expenses, and it's the provincial and federal governments that pay for health care. But their revenue all comes from the same place--us. Maybe the municipal government will be able to cut taxes a bit and the provincial government can raise taxes a bit to pay for the improvements.)
So in conclusion, instead of protesting against the government "putting a price on life," let's ask instead how the government can use our money to save the most lives and improve people's health the most.
In case you're not all that familiar with Edmonton, we have two airports. The City Centre Airport (ECCA) is near downtown, and it only serves small planes including charters and air ambulances. The International Airport is outside of the city limits, about 26 km from downtown, and it serves the vast majority of people flying in and out of the Edmonton area. Last year, Edmonton's city council decided to close the ECCA, eventually. This became an issue in this year's election campaign.
Since most Edmontonians don't actually use that airport, one of the biggest arguments for keeping it open was for air ambulances. Edmonton has the closest major hospitals to many northern communities. Moving the air ambulance flights (which are typically in airplanes, not helicopters) to the International Airport would make it take longer to get to a major hospital, typically about 8 minutes longer (more in bad weather), a fairly short time compared to the hours it would take to stabilize the patient in the northern community, get them on a plane, and fly to Edmonton. Even so, 8 minutes could mean the difference between life and death for a very small number of patients.
The airport needs some upgrades to keep it open (I don't think airport revenue is enough to cover this), and if it's redeveloped into something else, the city stands to collect more taxes from that land. So is it worth the money to keep it open to save a few lives? I heard one candidate in this election say, "You can't put a price on life." I'd like to agree with that, but in practice, we put a price on life all the time. If we really don't put a price on life, why don't we build a major hospital in every northern community, so that people don't have to fly to Edmonton in emergencies? That would save far more lives than keeping the ECCA open.
Although there's not much chance of the government funding all those hospitals, maybe the money saved by shutting the ECCA down could be put toward other health care improvements, like reducing wait times in emergency rooms. Maybe that would save more lives. (Yes, I'm aware that closing the ECCA mainly affects the municipal government's revenue and expenses, and it's the provincial and federal governments that pay for health care. But their revenue all comes from the same place--us. Maybe the municipal government will be able to cut taxes a bit and the provincial government can raise taxes a bit to pay for the improvements.)
So in conclusion, instead of protesting against the government "putting a price on life," let's ask instead how the government can use our money to save the most lives and improve people's health the most.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Lukewarm Christians
In the Bible, Revelation 3:14-16 (NIV) says:
To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:I read something that explains what a "lukewarm" Christian is in more detail. Here's what it says:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
A “lukewarm Christian” is not somebody who claims to follow Jesus but also does worldly things. It’s somebody who says “I don’t do worldly things, so I’m living in God’s will.”You can read the whole thing here. I think he makes some pretty good points. I believe in being totally committed to God (not that I always live up to that) and that it's important not to just believe everything we're told about what God wants, so I appreciate articles like this speaking out against some of the more controlling or legalistic Christians.
A “lukewarm Christian” is not somebody who claims to follow Jesus but only shows up on Sundays. It’s somebody who says, “God must be pleased with my devoted church attendance.”
A “lukewarm Christian” is not somebody who doesn’t have a quiver full of children. It’s somebody who says, “I have biblical family values, so I’m more sold out to the Lord than those feminists are.”
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Life imitating art, Part 2
My last post was about life imitating art, specifically The Simpsons. Now there's another example.
Back in 2000, there was an episode that looked into the future, when Lisa Simpson is President of the United States. In it, they make reference to Donald Trump's disastrous term as President.
Now Donald Trump is considering running for President.
My theory that we live in a world secretly ruled by Matt Groening is gaining traction.
Back in 2000, there was an episode that looked into the future, when Lisa Simpson is President of the United States. In it, they make reference to Donald Trump's disastrous term as President.
Now Donald Trump is considering running for President.
My theory that we live in a world secretly ruled by Matt Groening is gaining traction.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Life imitating art
So Fidel Castro is admitting that communism isn't working in Cuba. Didn't this happen on The Simpsons once? If a rich American and his doofus employee hand Castro a trillion-dollar bill, saving the communist system, then I'll know we're all living in The Matrix. Or a world that's secretly ruled by Matt Groening.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Investing: the importance of dividends
Today I'm going to get into a subject that so many have written so much about, and that I have relatively little experience with: investing.
Some time ago, I was listening to an episode of The Ongoing History of New Music about collectibles. The host, Alan talked about various rare, limited-edition CDs and LPs, played some music from them, and said how much they're worth now. One or two of them are worth a lot of money. Most of them are worth somewhere between 5 and 20 bucks. (It's been a while since I listened to it, so I might be a bit off on the price range.) That's not a bad price for a used CD, if you're on the selling end, but still, it's not a lot of money. The host made an important point: if you're going to buy a collectible, buy it because you want it; don't buy it as a financial investment.
That got me thinking, his advice could apply to any investment. Lots of investments go up in value a lot more reliably than collectible CDs and LPs, but something has to drive that increase. Some investments, like houses, provide something of physical value (such as shelter) while you own it. Others (like a savings account or GIC, or a house that you're renting out) pay money while you have money invested.
Which brings me to another very popular form of investment: the stock market. Some stocks pay dividends, so they're not just something you buy now to sell for more money later. Other stocks don't pay dividends. These companies want to put all of their profits into growth, for now. Some companies, like Google, have no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. I wonder when (or if) they'll pay dividends. I'd like it if they'd give some indication of when they want to start paying dividends. Even though it seems like the most stock market money can be made by buying low and selling high, not by waiting for a slow trickle of dividends, I think every company should eventually pay dividends.
It would make sense to me that every company should plan to pay dividends eventually, but apparently some people are "critics of dividends," so I'll say a bit more to defend my view.
Ultimately, I believe that the hope of future dividends should be the only thing driving stock prices. A typical dividend-paying company pays the same amount per share every quarter, occasionally changing the amount. It seems hard to believe that this could drive the fluctuations in a company's value that can happen in minutes, but I suppose things that happen during the day can affect the company's prospects years down the road. If a company's price isn't affected by the hope of future dividends, then it's only driven by the hope that someone else will pay more later. And they will only be willing to pay more because they believe someone will pay even more later. This infinite chain seems like a flimsy foundation for a company's value. Sure, shareholders own an asset while they own the shares, but it's an asset they can't use. What good is that?
Let's imagine a stock market where no companies pay dividends. Then any money you make from the stock market has to come from outside of the stock market--employment income, small business income, interest from other types of investments, and debt. The amount of money coming out of the stock market as people sell has to be less than or equal to the amount coming in from buyers. This sounds kind of like a casino. The house (in this case, the stock brokers) always wins. Some others win and some others lose, but on average, they lose.
But in real life the stock market goes up on average. People do make money from it, and not just from dividend-paying stocks. Maybe that's because more and more people are investing more of their money. If the number of investors and their wealth stops growing, the value of stocks would stop growing (again, assuming no dividends). If you can't make money off your investment without a growing number of people coming in after you, investing even more money, you're in a Ponzi scheme.
I can only see two differences between investing in a Ponzi scheme and investing in a company that will never pay dividends:
1. Ponzi schemes makes more consistent profits (for a while).
2. In a Ponzi scheme, you don't really own anything. In the stock market, you own something you can never use; you can only sell it to someone who also can never use it. Is this really a difference?
Am I missing something here? Or do all successful companies eventually pay dividends, or sell out to a company that pays dividends?
Some time ago, I was listening to an episode of The Ongoing History of New Music about collectibles. The host, Alan talked about various rare, limited-edition CDs and LPs, played some music from them, and said how much they're worth now. One or two of them are worth a lot of money. Most of them are worth somewhere between 5 and 20 bucks. (It's been a while since I listened to it, so I might be a bit off on the price range.) That's not a bad price for a used CD, if you're on the selling end, but still, it's not a lot of money. The host made an important point: if you're going to buy a collectible, buy it because you want it; don't buy it as a financial investment.
That got me thinking, his advice could apply to any investment. Lots of investments go up in value a lot more reliably than collectible CDs and LPs, but something has to drive that increase. Some investments, like houses, provide something of physical value (such as shelter) while you own it. Others (like a savings account or GIC, or a house that you're renting out) pay money while you have money invested.
Which brings me to another very popular form of investment: the stock market. Some stocks pay dividends, so they're not just something you buy now to sell for more money later. Other stocks don't pay dividends. These companies want to put all of their profits into growth, for now. Some companies, like Google, have no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. I wonder when (or if) they'll pay dividends. I'd like it if they'd give some indication of when they want to start paying dividends. Even though it seems like the most stock market money can be made by buying low and selling high, not by waiting for a slow trickle of dividends, I think every company should eventually pay dividends.
It would make sense to me that every company should plan to pay dividends eventually, but apparently some people are "critics of dividends," so I'll say a bit more to defend my view.
Ultimately, I believe that the hope of future dividends should be the only thing driving stock prices. A typical dividend-paying company pays the same amount per share every quarter, occasionally changing the amount. It seems hard to believe that this could drive the fluctuations in a company's value that can happen in minutes, but I suppose things that happen during the day can affect the company's prospects years down the road. If a company's price isn't affected by the hope of future dividends, then it's only driven by the hope that someone else will pay more later. And they will only be willing to pay more because they believe someone will pay even more later. This infinite chain seems like a flimsy foundation for a company's value. Sure, shareholders own an asset while they own the shares, but it's an asset they can't use. What good is that?
Let's imagine a stock market where no companies pay dividends. Then any money you make from the stock market has to come from outside of the stock market--employment income, small business income, interest from other types of investments, and debt. The amount of money coming out of the stock market as people sell has to be less than or equal to the amount coming in from buyers. This sounds kind of like a casino. The house (in this case, the stock brokers) always wins. Some others win and some others lose, but on average, they lose.
But in real life the stock market goes up on average. People do make money from it, and not just from dividend-paying stocks. Maybe that's because more and more people are investing more of their money. If the number of investors and their wealth stops growing, the value of stocks would stop growing (again, assuming no dividends). If you can't make money off your investment without a growing number of people coming in after you, investing even more money, you're in a Ponzi scheme.
I can only see two differences between investing in a Ponzi scheme and investing in a company that will never pay dividends:
1. Ponzi schemes makes more consistent profits (for a while).
2. In a Ponzi scheme, you don't really own anything. In the stock market, you own something you can never use; you can only sell it to someone who also can never use it. Is this really a difference?
Am I missing something here? Or do all successful companies eventually pay dividends, or sell out to a company that pays dividends?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Abolition
In 1865, the USA abolished slavery.
In 1971, Canada officially abolished nuclear weapons.
In 1973, Iceland abolished the letter z.
In 1971, Canada officially abolished nuclear weapons.
In 1973, Iceland abolished the letter z.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Videos of Iceland
No, I'm not in Iceland yet. I'm just going to share a couple of music videos I've seen that were filmed in Iceland.
The first: "Heaven" by Live. They aren't from Iceland but they filmed a video there.
The second: "Glósóli" by Sigur Ros. Saw it mentioned in a blog. This is an Icelandic song.
It just occurred to me as I was writing this that these videos have something else in common: ambiguous endings.
The first: "Heaven" by Live. They aren't from Iceland but they filmed a video there.
The second: "Glósóli" by Sigur Ros. Saw it mentioned in a blog. This is an Icelandic song.
It just occurred to me as I was writing this that these videos have something else in common: ambiguous endings.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Blog comments
I have my blog synced to my Facebook profile so that whenever I post to my blog, the post also shows up on Facebook under "Notes." (If you're reading this on Facebook, you can find my blog through the "Info" tab on my profile.) That leaves me with a problem. People can leave comments on the blog itself, or on Facebook. The comments don't show up in both places, so people who read in one place can't see the comments in the other place.
I used to use a Facebook application (Simplaris Blogcast) made by someone else to import my blog posts to my profile. With that application, when someone clicked on the title of a blog post in my profile, it would take them to my actual blog. The problem is that it updated my profile very inconsistently.
I would like to encourage people to post comments on the blog itself rather than on Facebook. But how do I do that? I could stop syncing the blog with my profile, and hope people click on the link to my blog once in a while. I could go back to Simplaris Blogcast and just get some of my posts synced to my profile. Maybe they'll improve it sometime. Or I can keep things the way they are and put up with getting comments in two places. Anyone know any other alternatives?
I used to use a Facebook application (Simplaris Blogcast) made by someone else to import my blog posts to my profile. With that application, when someone clicked on the title of a blog post in my profile, it would take them to my actual blog. The problem is that it updated my profile very inconsistently.
I would like to encourage people to post comments on the blog itself rather than on Facebook. But how do I do that? I could stop syncing the blog with my profile, and hope people click on the link to my blog once in a while. I could go back to Simplaris Blogcast and just get some of my posts synced to my profile. Maybe they'll improve it sometime. Or I can keep things the way they are and put up with getting comments in two places. Anyone know any other alternatives?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Ironically named countries
I've been married for three weeks now, and it's going well. It's an adjustment, but it's a good adjustment. But today's topic isn't about marriage. So maybe I'll share more about marriage another time. But some information will remain private.
We haven't had a chance to go on a honeymoon yet, but we have one booked. After much mind-changing, we settled on Iceland. We're excited to go there. But today's topic isn't what we're going to do on our trip. No, that would be too normal.
I just have a comment about this satellite photo.
Who named these countries? They should really trade names?
We haven't had a chance to go on a honeymoon yet, but we have one booked. After much mind-changing, we settled on Iceland. We're excited to go there. But today's topic isn't what we're going to do on our trip. No, that would be too normal.
I just have a comment about this satellite photo.
Who named these countries? They should really trade names?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
2 more days...
...until I get married. Cathy has been back in Edmonton for two weeks, and it's been great having her here. I'm really looking forward to life together.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Online wedding invitations
As the wedding draws closer, I'd like to share some comments on one aspect of wedding planning: the invitations.
We decided to go the cheaper / more environmentally friendly / possibly easier route and do online invitations. We decided to use an online invitation service rather than just sending out an email ourselves, because those services can manage RSVPs and stuff. We figured Facebook invites would be too informal for a wedding. So we tried out a few other invitation services by sending Cathy and myself invitations to a sample event.
The first one we tried was Evite, because I'd heard of it before. This turned out to be the most annoying invitation website that we tried. When we replied to our invitation, it asked us to pick a password. It seemed to want all the guests to sign up for site memberships, but I think there was a small link allowing guests not to get a membership. Maybe there's a way for the event creator to disable this option, but I didn't go searching for it. I find it annoying when I'm pressured to sign up for a website (which is part of the reason this blog is on a service where you don't need a membership to leave comments), and we didn't want to annoy our guests, so Evite was out. They also have advertising on the invitations, which seemed tacky for a wedding invitation. We're trying to keep the wedding fairly simple and inexpensive, but it is still a much more significant event than an ordinary party.
Then we tried Pingg. Their free service is a lot less annoying than Evite. Guests don't get pressured into signing up. And you have the option of paying a small fee to remove the ads from the invitations.
Finally, we tried Sendomatic. They specialize in ad-free invitations, so their free service can only invite 10 guests per event. For their paid service, you have to pay based on the number of people invited. Like Pingg, they don't pressure guests into registering for their site. Overall, I think their invitations look a bit more elegant than Pingg's. On Pingg, you choose a dominant picture for your invitation, or upload your own. On Sendomatic, you choose a background image, and you can also upload an image that will appear over the background, above the text.
We decided to use Sendomatic, but I would not hesitate to recommend Pingg too. Either option is a lot cheaper and probably a lot less work than mailing invitations. And if some people on your invite list don't have email, you could print off a copy and mail it to them.
And now the downside of using a service like this: some email services will put the invitations in the spam folder. Fortunately, these services let you see which invitees have clicked on the link in their email to view the actual invitation. Then you can contact the people who haven't seen the invitation and remind them that there's an invitation in their email somewhere. You can also re-send the invitation (without paying an extra fee) if they already cleared out their spam folder. Contacting these people was probably at least half the work of doing online invitations, but probably still less work than managing the RSVPs from paper invitations.
So overall, I give electronic wedding invitations a thumbs up, but they have their annoying traits.
And as the wedding draws near, I'm counting my blessings. I've found someone who is fun to be with, a great friend and companion, beautiful, and who brings out the best in me. (That's four, but there are plenty more.)
We decided to go the cheaper / more environmentally friendly / possibly easier route and do online invitations. We decided to use an online invitation service rather than just sending out an email ourselves, because those services can manage RSVPs and stuff. We figured Facebook invites would be too informal for a wedding. So we tried out a few other invitation services by sending Cathy and myself invitations to a sample event.
The first one we tried was Evite, because I'd heard of it before. This turned out to be the most annoying invitation website that we tried. When we replied to our invitation, it asked us to pick a password. It seemed to want all the guests to sign up for site memberships, but I think there was a small link allowing guests not to get a membership. Maybe there's a way for the event creator to disable this option, but I didn't go searching for it. I find it annoying when I'm pressured to sign up for a website (which is part of the reason this blog is on a service where you don't need a membership to leave comments), and we didn't want to annoy our guests, so Evite was out. They also have advertising on the invitations, which seemed tacky for a wedding invitation. We're trying to keep the wedding fairly simple and inexpensive, but it is still a much more significant event than an ordinary party.
Then we tried Pingg. Their free service is a lot less annoying than Evite. Guests don't get pressured into signing up. And you have the option of paying a small fee to remove the ads from the invitations.
Finally, we tried Sendomatic. They specialize in ad-free invitations, so their free service can only invite 10 guests per event. For their paid service, you have to pay based on the number of people invited. Like Pingg, they don't pressure guests into registering for their site. Overall, I think their invitations look a bit more elegant than Pingg's. On Pingg, you choose a dominant picture for your invitation, or upload your own. On Sendomatic, you choose a background image, and you can also upload an image that will appear over the background, above the text.
We decided to use Sendomatic, but I would not hesitate to recommend Pingg too. Either option is a lot cheaper and probably a lot less work than mailing invitations. And if some people on your invite list don't have email, you could print off a copy and mail it to them.
And now the downside of using a service like this: some email services will put the invitations in the spam folder. Fortunately, these services let you see which invitees have clicked on the link in their email to view the actual invitation. Then you can contact the people who haven't seen the invitation and remind them that there's an invitation in their email somewhere. You can also re-send the invitation (without paying an extra fee) if they already cleared out their spam folder. Contacting these people was probably at least half the work of doing online invitations, but probably still less work than managing the RSVPs from paper invitations.
So overall, I give electronic wedding invitations a thumbs up, but they have their annoying traits.
And as the wedding draws near, I'm counting my blessings. I've found someone who is fun to be with, a great friend and companion, beautiful, and who brings out the best in me. (That's four, but there are plenty more.)
Friday, May 07, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Gentile Passover
Last Monday I had the privilege of being a part of a combined passover and Easter celebration. Since the last supper that Jesus shared with his disciples before he died was a passover meal, combining the two makes sense for Christians.
I'm sure it wasn't the most authentic passover meal. We didn't follow all the instructions in Exodus 12, and that's not even the only source of passover instructions in the Bible. There are also traditions not found in the Bible that Jews follow at the passover.
We cooked lamb over an open fire, outdoors, and we had unleavened bread to go with it. One of the people there had made the unleavened bread, and the lamb was from a halal butcher. (Halal standards are similar to kosher standards.) Some of the conversation was about the passover and Easter, and some was casual conversation about other things. As part of the meal, we took communion together, as Jesus instructed us to do in remembrance of him. It was special to be able to recognize the death and resurrection of Jesus in a way that I'm not used to--a somewhat less ceremonial way that took more time, was more fun, and may have been more like the original Last Supper (in spirit anyway) than our typical communion celebrations.
But there was something disturbing about this too. As we read Exodus 12, verse 12 stuck out to me, in which God says, "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD." The Israelites' liberation so many years ago required other people to die, or to suffer because someone close to them died. Some of the ones who died would have had very little to do with the Israelites' suffering and oppression, and some were kids. And in the Christian remembrance of Jesus's death, we symbolically commit cannibalism, symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the one who told us to do that. Or if you follow the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, you're actually metaphysically committing cannibalism, but only because the one who gave his life for you told you to do that.
I believe it's important for religious people to wrestle with the disturbing aspects of our faith, not to just pretend they're not there, or use some semi-satisfying explanation to pretend they're not disturbing.
In both the passover and Easter stories, liberation required someone to die. Is it better that the people who died deserved it (as in some of the Egyptians at the passover), or that the one who died was willing but didn't deserve it?
I'm sure it wasn't the most authentic passover meal. We didn't follow all the instructions in Exodus 12, and that's not even the only source of passover instructions in the Bible. There are also traditions not found in the Bible that Jews follow at the passover.
We cooked lamb over an open fire, outdoors, and we had unleavened bread to go with it. One of the people there had made the unleavened bread, and the lamb was from a halal butcher. (Halal standards are similar to kosher standards.) Some of the conversation was about the passover and Easter, and some was casual conversation about other things. As part of the meal, we took communion together, as Jesus instructed us to do in remembrance of him. It was special to be able to recognize the death and resurrection of Jesus in a way that I'm not used to--a somewhat less ceremonial way that took more time, was more fun, and may have been more like the original Last Supper (in spirit anyway) than our typical communion celebrations.
But there was something disturbing about this too. As we read Exodus 12, verse 12 stuck out to me, in which God says, "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD." The Israelites' liberation so many years ago required other people to die, or to suffer because someone close to them died. Some of the ones who died would have had very little to do with the Israelites' suffering and oppression, and some were kids. And in the Christian remembrance of Jesus's death, we symbolically commit cannibalism, symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the one who told us to do that. Or if you follow the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, you're actually metaphysically committing cannibalism, but only because the one who gave his life for you told you to do that.
I believe it's important for religious people to wrestle with the disturbing aspects of our faith, not to just pretend they're not there, or use some semi-satisfying explanation to pretend they're not disturbing.
In both the passover and Easter stories, liberation required someone to die. Is it better that the people who died deserved it (as in some of the Egyptians at the passover), or that the one who died was willing but didn't deserve it?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
When the imitation is better
There are lots of cheesy or unusual cover songs out there, but have you ever heard the cover version of a song before you heard the original, and then thought the original was just cheesy? Here are some examples that I've noticed:
The Renegades of Funk
Cover: Rage Against The Machine
Cheesy Original: Afrika Bambaataa and Soulsonic Force
Mad World
Cover: Michael Andrews and Gary Jules
Cheesy Original: Tears for Fears
These original versions may have sounded pretty good when they came out, but when creative people decided to make music in the 1980s, they doomed themselves to be made fun of by the future.
I mentioned this idea for a blog post a while back to a friend, and she borrowed the idea on her blog. Can you think of any other examples of this phenomenon?
The Renegades of Funk
Cover: Rage Against The Machine
Cheesy Original: Afrika Bambaataa and Soulsonic Force
Mad World
Cover: Michael Andrews and Gary Jules
Cheesy Original: Tears for Fears
These original versions may have sounded pretty good when they came out, but when creative people decided to make music in the 1980s, they doomed themselves to be made fun of by the future.
I mentioned this idea for a blog post a while back to a friend, and she borrowed the idea on her blog. Can you think of any other examples of this phenomenon?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Olympics are over
So the Winter Olympics have ended once more. It was special to be living in the host country, but I guess it didn't make much difference in my overall Olympic experience.
When I first heard about Canada's "Own the Podium" initiative, I was skeptical about Canada's chances of winning the most medals. Canada has a relatively low population, and no matter how much money we pump into our Olympic program, we can't buy talented athletes. The USA consistently dominates Olympic medal counts, and would be very tough to beat.
So during the Olympics when criticism of "Own the Podium" got more vocal, I don't think my opinion changed much. The Canadian athletes weren't doing worse than I'd expected. Yes, I'd hoped we could win the most medals and I figured we would do better than in most Olympics, but winning the most medals always seemed unlikely.
Then Canada won the most gold medals of any country. Not only that, we won more gold medals than any country ever has in the Winter Olympics. That surprised me. When you consider how Canada didn't win any gold medals the last time we hosted the Winter Olympics (and the time we hosted the Summer Olympics for that matter), this is an even bigger accomplishment.
Congratulations to all of our athletes, whether you won gold, silver, bronze, or a participant ribbon. (Or do they give out participant ribbons in the Olympics?)
When I first heard about Canada's "Own the Podium" initiative, I was skeptical about Canada's chances of winning the most medals. Canada has a relatively low population, and no matter how much money we pump into our Olympic program, we can't buy talented athletes. The USA consistently dominates Olympic medal counts, and would be very tough to beat.
So during the Olympics when criticism of "Own the Podium" got more vocal, I don't think my opinion changed much. The Canadian athletes weren't doing worse than I'd expected. Yes, I'd hoped we could win the most medals and I figured we would do better than in most Olympics, but winning the most medals always seemed unlikely.
Then Canada won the most gold medals of any country. Not only that, we won more gold medals than any country ever has in the Winter Olympics. That surprised me. When you consider how Canada didn't win any gold medals the last time we hosted the Winter Olympics (and the time we hosted the Summer Olympics for that matter), this is an even bigger accomplishment.
Congratulations to all of our athletes, whether you won gold, silver, bronze, or a participant ribbon. (Or do they give out participant ribbons in the Olympics?)
Friday, February 19, 2010
God's revelation
Following up on my previous posts about ideas I've rejected (religious ideas in particular), I'd like to write about an idea I was raised with that I haven't rejected--the idea that God really has revealed himself to people, through prophets, the Bible, etc.
While this idea can be used to turn religion into a controlling, oppressive thing, misuse doesn't mean the idea itself is wrong. The idea of natural theology (that our ideas about God can just be based on what we perceive) is attractive, but it has its own problems. It's so subjective. Personally, I think God's characteristics are not obvious from looking at the world around us. If they were, there would be a lot less variation in the world's religions. If God actually has revealed something about himself to people, those things that he revealed would be much more accurate and beneficial than anything we could figure out ourselves.
That leaves us with a glaring question: how do we know what God has revealed and what's just made up by people? Or can faith somehow transcend this question? Is there some way we can have a devoted faith without knowing for sure, intellectually, that God revealed certain things?
While this idea can be used to turn religion into a controlling, oppressive thing, misuse doesn't mean the idea itself is wrong. The idea of natural theology (that our ideas about God can just be based on what we perceive) is attractive, but it has its own problems. It's so subjective. Personally, I think God's characteristics are not obvious from looking at the world around us. If they were, there would be a lot less variation in the world's religions. If God actually has revealed something about himself to people, those things that he revealed would be much more accurate and beneficial than anything we could figure out ourselves.
That leaves us with a glaring question: how do we know what God has revealed and what's just made up by people? Or can faith somehow transcend this question? Is there some way we can have a devoted faith without knowing for sure, intellectually, that God revealed certain things?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
