Tuesday, January 30, 2007


I just finished watching the best episode of House ever. Call it what you will, House has moments of brilliance. Specifically, tonight's episode dealt with the problem of evil, abortion, the meaning of life, existentialism, the nature of existence, and others. It was a cornucupia of introductory level analyses of issues in ethics, philosophy, theology. Dang.

This episode was especially good because it broke the House mold. Even though I love the show, every episode is...something weird happens to somebody, House and his crew try to figure it out, they think they figure it out, we find out they are wrong with 15 minutes left, then House figures it out and things resolve. But tonight, there was no medical mystery. It made me glad that the writers don't HAVE to do medical CSI every week. Also, kudos to the producers of the show for allowing the writers and director to air the show it and make it extremely dialogue-heavy. In a country that considers television exclusively entertaining, it is nice to see a show on primetime offering such a gem of thought.

It must be said that all of these exchanges in the episode remained on an introductory level. But this is the same sort of great provocation we have enjoyed over the years from the Simpsons. All in all, this episode of House perhaps left me wanting more discussing action, but for an American television program, I am seriously impressed.


Quantum physics be crazy. I've been reading this book called Leadership and the New Science and it's whacking me out. One of my favorite lines when she's talking about quantum physics is something like, "If you think this is kind of hard to understand, remember, even quantum physicists think it's strange."

I don't even know what the heck else to write right now because my mind is so blown. I have to find its pieces, that are now like Reese's Pieces, and put them back in the sack. Until then I will wander aimlessly around asking people if they know when grandpa's coming home.

The End

Sunday, January 28, 2007

No tengo nada

I was going to post some sort of "Calvin's advocate" (if you just thought, "usually 'devil' goes where Ryan put calvin, did he mean something by that?", my reply is, "you said it, not me.") response, but I knew it would come off as completely sarcastic, because it would be.

You are totally right here, Trevor. I would even take things to God cannot do whatever. There are logical impossibilities. There is the classic, "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?", but what about "can an omnibenevolent God who IS love, not just exhibits love, create creatures with free will but then determine their decisions so that they will be destined for damnation? Mine is a little longer, but here's the deal. It's equally logically inconsistent with the first one. Calvinists will say this is not the case because I don't understand true Divine love, but here's what I understand...that God is gracious and merciful with us in ways we cannot even begin to fathom and when you make eternal life into some sort of elite club, you are playing with serious fire. The good news is that that infinite grace I was talking about covers even your pompous, elitist, arrogant, misguided theology. This kind of theology makes me think that you would watch 'Day of Wrath' and 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' and pine for the good old days of the church. Here's a news flash...Romans was a letter to a Church, not Paul's systematic theology. Read the literary and historical context. Try it out. You'll be amazed at what a nice God God turns out to be. I'm glad this blog is a safe place.

Back to the point, it is true that I cannot understand Divine love. But all of us err on the side of not understanding the infinite grace wrapped up in God's love. Therefore, if a is God's nature (His infinite love), and b is an action contrary to that nature (creating conscious free-thinking beings to be damned), then modus ponens applies and you get a or b, not both. That being the case, I'm sticking with a, but my commitments are to the Word of God, not John Calvin.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

No Entiendo

I was in Isaiah's room playing a fun-filled round of "pretend everything in the room is a horse" last night and just started thinking about how thankful I am to have him. He truly is wonderful and I enjoy my time with him so much. Which led me to thinking that I don't know how anyone who has kids can be a Calvinist.

I look at my son, who I love dearly, and can not imagine any reality in which the supreme being of the universe would have created him for the purpose of damning him. I know the arguments about how we all deserve damnation and that God can do what he wants because he is God, but they just don't hold up for me. I don't see how a God who really is love (and just, I'm not even leaving that out) could not give people a chance. How he could set aside some of his creations for punishment and pain without any hope for them escaping it.

Maybe I'm just not theologically astute.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Hola Mi Hermano

I begin pecking the black keys with white letters on my laptop which I use and look forward to this outlet of writing where I may type in unintelligible ways and no one will care--because no one but my brother will read this. This reminds me of the tiger that is bound to the confines of the artificially created pseudo-habitat of the zoo. Then one day the monkey from the book "Goodnight Gorilla" creeps from the pages of the epic children's book to free said tiger. The tiger emerges and teleports to the bush of Africa where he roams free and his mind is clear with the crisp air.

I and the tiger are brothers. Not literally, as I only have one real brother, but in a metaphorical and metaphysical way that reaches beyond the realm which we inhabit. Here's to you blog, and here's to you brother. May our hours of blogging be filled with funnery and wonderfulness.