IMPORTANT NOTICE, and Thank You To Sasha F.

Hey guys. So, a lovely person named Sasha Fierce pointed out to me that I had written on my post "Dead and Gone" the following phrase:

Funerals are not meant for the living, they are meant for the dead.

...She was understandably confused by this, as it was a horrendous typo that I should have caught. It literally goes against the ENTIRE point of the post (which is to explain how they are meant to affect the LIVING and how they should NOT focus on the dead party specifically), and should in fact read:

Funerals are not meant for the dead, they are meant for the living.

This was completely inexcusable and I'm sorry if it confused any of you. It is fixed now, and I can try and clear up any questions or what not that may have arisen from that. Thank you again to Sasha for drawing it to my attention, I will try to catch things like that in the future.

-BlackFox

(165)

The Garden Path

One step forward, two steps back,
all along the garden path.
Half a league, half a league,
find what you lack,
take one step forward,
two steps back.

One two, one two, keep the pace.
One step forward wins the race.
Onward, onward, to the past.
Two steps backward comes in last.

Few and many keep the pace,
one step, two step, about face.
Last is first, now forward back.
Take one step forward two steps back.

Those ones lost, and those who seek.
The brave, the bold,
the small and meek.
All those on the garden path,
take one step forward,
two steps back.

-BlackFox (Eh, this is just a really random song I wrote a looong time ago.)

(120)

The Thin Line Between Horror and Comedy

Hallo reader. Tis time for a random post. How lucky for you! … What? …. N-No! I am not being lazy! I am... um... broadening my topics. Yes. I am totally not just being too lazy to write serious intelligent posts. Perish the thought! … -cough- … Moving on.

Recently, a very close friend and I were intrigued by the concept of Doctor Who's weeping angels. We had never actually seen the episode, but we had seen enough to get the gist of the idea. We had always been curious, but could never bother to pull up the actual show. Today we decided to actually satisfy our curiosity and look up a clip from the episode they appear in. The results were... unexpected, and I have been inspired to take this opportunity to talk to you about horror.

For those who are unaware, the weeping angels were monsters from the episode entitled “Blink”. The idea around them was this: They are vicious creatures with the appearance of an angel, until they choose to attack wherein they acquire a more demonic facial expression. They turn to stone whenever they are looked upon by any living thing, including others of their kind. Thus, they cover their eyes before this happens whenever possible, since if they were to accidentally lock eyes with each other, they would remain stone eternally. The idea being they can not look away when turned to stone, and so would be unable the immobilizing gaze. The position of bowing their head and covering their eyes gives them the appearance of crying, thus the name “weeping angels”. They are cruel and viscous, and almost never alone.

Sounds pretty promising right? After all, the idea of being endlessly hunted by these creatures is legitimately terrifying. The idea of being cornered by one, unable to blink or look away, unsure of the location of the others and the ever pressing fear that one could appear behind you while the one in front keeps you trapped, is well... scary. But the execution of this cool concept was just awful. The expressions of the angels became so grotesque and demonic it passed the line into ridiculousness. They honestly looked more like cartoon characters than terrifying creatures of the night. They constantly had their face in a roaring position, and held their clawed hands in an almost Frankenstein manner. The entire tension of the scene was broken by these silly caricatures. When the angels were “weeping”, they were actually more intimidating. There was some thing about the sinister nature of their seemingly innocent nature. It was reminiscent of the angelic statues found in graveyards that these were no doubt modeled after. They were creepier, and created infinitely more tension then their snarling counterparts. The final straw of silliness came when they had the angels “rocking” the tardis (no I am not kidding), without actually really shifting position. It just destroyed any horror qualities they may have had.

So why did this seemingly terrifying concept fall flat? Well in essence, they were simply trying too hard. The beauty of these kinds of creatures is they don't need to look vicious. In fact the more innocuous they appear, the better. When something looks basic or bland, it appears more unearthly and in human. Just look at scp 173 or slenderman to see this kind of idea in action. If the angels had simply always covered their eyes when the characters were looking at them, it would vastly improve the effect they had. The idea of turning away, and suddenly having an angel literally in your face is terrifying. It does not need to roar, or grimace, or threaten you with claws. It just needs to be about five feet closer than it was a few minutes ago. Horror is largely about atmosphere. It is not just about monster design. It is not about fangs and claws. It is about lighting, and isolation, and music. It is the emotion and the paranoia. It is about being helpless and alone in the dark.

-BlackFox

(680)

Crime is Pride

Hallo reader, assigned post time again. Yet again, I must valiantly spar with a forced topic for the sake of academics. Yes, yes I know, tis a terrifying fate indeed. But thou, reader, can support me in my endeavorous pursuit of this mission, from which I may not return. Today I have to react, either by refutation or confirmation, to this little gem:

In the following excerpt from Antigone, by the classical Greek playwright Sophocles, the wise Teiresias observes:

Think: all men make mistakes
But a good man yeilds when he
Knows his course is wrong,
And repairs the evil: The only
Crime is pride.

 

…Let us pause and think about this for a moment, shall we? If this quote is valid, and I mean universally valid, in the apparent context of the commission of a crime, then it raises serious implications. Are we to say then, that as long as someone recognizes their offense, repents of it, and at least attempts to reconcile as best their situation allows them, they  have essentially done nothing wrong? Does this mean then, that I can inflict torture, or pain, or even death upon another without warranting any moral fault as long as I simply apologize and attempt to console the victim? Surely this seems a ludicrous assertion. Apologizing does not erase the past or ease the souls of those still living. Perhaps such acts as murder are an exception, since reconciliation would be impossible. What could I possibly do, say, or offer as repayment for a life? There is nothing that holds such value, nothing that could ever atone. Any pitiful attempt on my part would in fact be insulting, as it would devalue the one I have taken away. A grieving family wants nothing from the one who destroyed their parent or child, except maybe their death. If this is the case, then mayhap my own life would be expected as payment for my sins. If it is thus, then would offering this up absolve me? Would that heal the pain of the family left behind? Does it erase that which I have committed? No. Of course it erases nothing. My death would not bring back the dead. It would not make the family feel their loss any less. It would not change the emptiness which I have inflicted upon them. Repentance changes nothing. It cannot absolve you. A murder is guilty of far more than simple pride.

Yet, even now I can hear some of you. I can hear the cries of extreme examples and unfairness to the context. I can hear the insistence that something as severe as murder was not what the author had foremost in their mind. Well then, I do suppose we should at least try to attribute some credibility to this statement, through use of a more minor example. A petty thief perhaps, can serve the spirit of this ideology. If a man, on impulse, steals an object from a store, but later repents of this act and willingly returns it to the store, has he truly committed a crime? After all, the man is compensating the owner of the object, and offering himself up to any form of retribution they might desire. Does he truly warrant moral fault in this situation? The answer of course, is a resounding yes. Repentance does not erase the act morally. A crime has still been committed. He has still done something wrong. The shopkeeper may show mercy, and forgive the thief. He may choose to forget the experience, and reward the man for his honesty and repentance. But in the end, he has still done something wrong, that warrants forgiveness. We do not need to forgive a man who has committed no crime. Yes, we all make mistakes, but they are still in essence mistakes. The mercy or altruism of the injured party does not absolve the thief of his actions. He must still answer to them in the end. He must still face the things he has done, and possibly live with this shadow looming in his past for the rest of his life. Crime is not just about punishment, or refusing to admit mistakes. Crime is not just about forgiveness or the spirit of right and wrong. Crime is not just about rewarding good actions for being good actions, even if they follow bad ones. The thief that repents may truly reform, he may truly repent or reconcile, but that does not mean he was never a thief.

-BlackFox

(711)

Life

No one helps another,

and hunger shadows every door.

Liars betray brothers,

and rich men quickly join the poor.

Sorrow wanders everywhere,

not one alive has seen no pain.

Cheaters tell you to play fair,

and dreams are crushed in pouring rain.

Debt builds up a mighty bill,

and cruelty throws you on your face.

It never changes, never will,

the world is an uncaring place.

Everyone's somehow a crook,

and failure comes with every try.

I see this everywhere I look,

life sucks, and then you die.

-BlackFox (Boredom and cynicism were ne'r a good combination. Also, yay for optimism!)

(101)

Irreducible Creation

Now, for once let us return to the actual topic of the blog shall we? I am well aware that many argue that there is no scientific evidence of a creator, and that what is supported by evidence is evolution. But, why don't we pause for a moment and look at one of the more interesting examples that seem to do the opposite.

We can look at the example of any irreducible complexities in nature. I irreducible complexities are things that can not be built up piece by piece. They function only when they are all present and correctly assembled. For instance, we can see objects like these in small, single celled organisms. Many contain motor like flagella that they use to move. If any part of this structure is removed, it ceases to work. Now we may ask, how does such a thing evolve over time? It does not serve its function without all of its parts. So, either the irreducible machine literally evolved into being completely assembled all at once or, it simply evolved piece by piece. Both have their own problems. Obviously, the odds of it simply coming into existence ready made by pure chance borders on ridiculous. It is virtually impossible for such a thing to happen. If it were to evolve piece by piece, that would mean the organism would evolve over time with a useless lump attached to it until the motor was fully assembled. This idea seems to go against the principles of evolution, where the fittest survive and multiply while those with deformities, or unhelpful mutations die out. The same idea can be seen in the concept of an eye, and other areas. If these things are said to happen by chance, than we must burden ourselves with the sister assertion that such astronomical odds continuously saw themselves through. On the other hand, if a creator is behind this, then the idea of such a machine existing becomes logical. It is now irreducible because it was designed with an intelligent mind, not because a cell won the genetic lottery.

-BlackFox

(348)

Perceptions

For those of you that actually read this blog, you may remember my assigned poem called “The Grave”. It was part of a project where everyone in my class had to write a poem and analysis to go with it. Well, my teacher felt that a lot of the poems were really very good, and collaborated with the literary magazine Plain Brown Wrapper to extend the deadline so people could submit their creation. Pretty much my entire class wanted me to send mine in, and even a few people outside it told me to submit as well. In some sense, I did not really want to let people down, and thought about submitting it. But, much to the confusion of my incredulous class mates... I simply could not do it. In the end I just could not bring myself to fill out the form. A big problem for me I could not send in anonymously. It was just too intimidating.

So, one might ask, why am I rambling on about this? Well, I have found that I am not the only one who feels that way. And, unfortunately, they are also met with a sense of “Why wont you just submit it already? What is the big deal?”. It seems that people find it hard to understand why doing this is so frightening for some people. I want to try and explain what the big deal is. To many, submitting is nothing more than filling out a form and taking a shot at it. For them, the worst thing that can happen is not getting in, and that is not such a big deal. It does not really affect you right?

For someone like me, that is far from right. Submitting is not such a simple matter. When we send our work in, especially with a name on it, we are sending it to be judged by other people. We are opening ourselves up to rejection. This experience can be extremely nerve racking, especially if you dislike your own work. Some people are their own worst critics. They look at their creations and see all the little flaws. They see all the problems in flow, and diction, and sentence structure. They find all the instances of triteness and unnecessary repetition. And when someone else looks over their piece, all those flaws suddenly appear a lot bigger and more evident. Even a paper conference with a draft can be beyond stressful. It can feel as though the work is so awful, they have done something morally wrong by burdening the reader with it. This can be especially true with a panel of judges. Let us create a writer who has these elements in his disposition, and have him send in his work. He now faces two possible outcomes. If they were to reject the piece, it would confirm the worst fears of the writer. That his writing was not good enough, it never was. That he was a fool for ever sending it in when clearly it was not worth the paper he wrote it on. That his hope of its value and success were naive and in vain, and he should never have believed otherwise. Worse yet, his name was on it. Now everyone who judged the poem might connect it to him. They will connect the failure to him. Suddenly they are no longer judging poetry, they are judging the poet behind it as well. Their opinions of the writing become their opinions of the writer, and this thought can become more than one can bear. Or the other path, god forbid, if it would be accepted somehow by some miracle or oversight, then he feels as if it is on display for the whole world to see. That everyone will now read it and form opinions about him. They will connect it with his name, and now the feeling of dread and anxiety is even worse because it goes beyond the room of judges. Now, people everywhere will see it. And suddenly those flaws, so obvious to him, become even more glaring and painful. They become so evident that he feels as if everyone must, simply must, see them. And now, now he can not remove it. He can not take it down, or make it go away. It is there forever, for everyone to see, and there is nothing he can do. In the end, he regrets ever touching the form in the first place. And the worst thing is this experience will follow him all of his life. He will constantly remember this day, and wince whenever he does. The anxiety and stress may even reoccur.

I know for those of you out there who do not see it this way, that this may not make much sense. It may seem unreasonable. It may seem paranoid. It may seem like making a mountain out of a mole hill. But in the end, there are many of us who do feel that way. Who do feel that anxiety and that fear. Who do face this stress. And even if you do not fully understand, I hope this will help explain to you why so many people are paralyzed by the thought of sending in their works. Sometimes the worse that can happen is getting rejected, and sometimes that is only the beginning.

-BlackFox

(898)

... :D

HIP HOORAY A FILLER POST!

THIS IS ALMOST AS GOOD AS TOAST!

-BlackFox (Yeeeah.... I can't justify this one as part of class. Also, this is an inside joke. You don't want to know. Trust me.)

(36)

Looking Ahead

So lately I have been hearing a lot of people complain about school work as being unnecessary and boring and, this one is my personal favorite, completely unrelated to their future job. They also talk about their future as if it will just fall into place for them. Normally I ignore this, but I have heard it so much lately that it is starting to get on my nerves. For those who would say this, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how real life works.

First off all, when considering your studies, those skills you learn do in fact travel over to real life. For instance, virtually every job on the planet involves math in some form. Construction for example, uses geometry heavily for scaling and calculations. It is highly unlikely that you will find a job that does not require math in at least some form or fashion, and an inability to perform means you are seriously handicapped in that area. Language arts, another supposedly useless class, is also important. In the real world, people judge you on your ability to spell and speak. When you hand in a resume or a report, if it does not look and sound professional it can really hurt your stature in most fields. Also, for those of you who want to be singers and want to write your own lyrics, the knowledge of poetry your teachers are trying to impart on you will be invaluable. Even you dislike poetry, it is still important to have that knowledge. Almost every single class you can take will useful to you in the real world, thus school is not something you can just blow off.

And speaking of the real world, it is important to have a plan for what you will do after school. You can not get your living for nothing. People are not going to pay you to breathe. You need something that is marketable to make any real money. Chances are, you will not start out making the kind of the money your parents made. They most likely worked up to where they are, and you will almost assuredly need to also. This is not a guaranteed thing either. You need skills that will allow you to move up the ladder in your own field. It is not simply going to happen. You also need to find a skill that will be viable in the long run. The odds of becoming a world famous singer or a star foot ball player in the NFL or a model for Cover Girl are extremely low. If this your dream, then more power to you, shoot for it. You are not automatically going to fail by any means, but you should have a backup plan in case that dream does not pan out. And you should also be aware that these careers tend to be very short lived. The bottom line is having a plan is essential for life, and is not something you should just wing.

-BlackFox

(508)

The Grave

1 Look to the grave, that sits over yonder,

2 a young man who lived a long life.

3 And next to the stone, stands a young daughter,

4 her mother no longer a wife.

5 Now if we listen, we may hear her calling,

6 "Oh daddy, how can it be true?"

7 "Lazarus rose, when he had fallen,

8 so please daddy, please why not you?"

9 Embittered tears, leave flesh raw and scaled,

10 they wont cleanse her sorrow her pain.

11 Broken and lonely, she finds the world faulted,

12 and embittered tears fall like rain.

13 Oh cruel life, malicious and mocking,

14 where is thy comfort I pray?

15 When a young man lives, in an old mans home,

16 and a widow has hair not of gray?

17 As the young mother leads, her child to the car,

18 and looks to the future in fear.

19 I find myself thinking, that death is not far,

20 and in fact is especially near.

21 All must wither, that which will grow,

22 no matter how strong or how tall.

23 For a gravestone leaves a dark shadow,

24 and that shadow it shadows us all.

(Some of the) Devices used:

Line one contains an instance of archaic diction. "Yonder" is a largely dead word. Yet, words like these often give a feel of wisdom and age. It gives the poem a feel as if it were a parable, or a story from olden days meant to impart a life lesson, which is useful considering that is the goal of this piece.

Line two is an example of a paradox. A young man does not live a long life. However, because death is associated closely with old age, having "lived a long life" is one of the most common phrases heard in a eulogy. The apparent contradiction catches the attention of the reader (listener), and emphasizes the fact the man died, shall we say, before his time. This is important since the reality of death for all of us, regardless of age, is the focus of the poem.

Line seven is an allusion. Lazarus is a biblical figure that was raised from the dead as miracle. The daughter is, in essence asking again for a like miracle to occur with her father. However, we know this will not happen, thus emphasizing the finality of her fathers death.

Line thirteen is personification, as I am imparting the human traits of cruelty, maliciousness, and the act of mocking unto the concept of life. This emphasizes the uncaring nature of the world and life in general. Emphasizing that life does not concern itself with our hardships, nor does it take into account factors such as age and family. If you die, you die. "Life" will not spare you because you are young.

Lines thirteen through fourteen contain an apostrophe, as I am speaking to the abstract entity of life. This serves a similar purpose as the personification. By addressing life as cruel, and demanding of it comfort in a situation where none will be given, it emphasizes the implication that life offers no consolation for death, even the death of one that is young.

Line fifteen is a metaphor. Here, the phrase "old man's home" is used in reference to a grave. This is because we often associate death with old age, and do not often consider a young man occupying what would normally house the elderly. By combining this metaphor with the idea of a young man occupying it, it emphasizes the disparity between what we expect death to be, and what it is. This is also an example of irony, when considering the concept of "living" in a grave.

Line twenty four is also an example of homophone, because the word "shadow" is used as both a noun and a verb. The word shadow has connotations with it that make it apt here. We associate it with the unknown, dishonesty, mystery, sinister, and other like words. By using it twice, I not only associate death with something that looks sinister, but something that acts sinister as well. The shadow itself symbolizes death, in that it is the dark figure that follows us all. These devices emphasize the idea of death as a dark lurking force that is indiscriminate in its victims.

-BlackFox

(742)












(Ha! This is not just me being lazy! This one was assigned! Whoo hoo!)

Onward

Step by step,

we forward go.

Life does not make,

it optional.

We shall go on,

indeed we must.

Though cities fall,

and turn to dust.

Onward, onward,

through wind and rain.

Despite the cold,

despite the pain.

For if we stop,

the shadows creep.

They smother us,

and make us sleep.

We hide in them,

and we pretend.

That nothing matters,

nothing ends.

But end it shall,

as end it must.

And every morning,

follows dusk.

For shadows hide,

but not for long.

And our pretend,

is proven wrong.

Though burdens come,

and paths are crossed.

We must go on,

lest we be lost.

-BlackFox (Whose laziness has become strangely addicting.)

(113)

Calvin... and Hobbes?

Well reader, once again I am going to indulge myself in a random post. Today, we are going to talk about one of the greatest comic strips ever, Calvin and Hobbes.

*WARNING* If you like Calvin and Hobbes, and are sensitive to darker or more serious issues, please refrain from reading further as it may distress you. This blog not responsible for any ruined childhoods or emotional trauma cause by its content. Thank you.

I do not know how many of you have read, or even know about this dynamic duo, so allow me to give you a brief description. Calvin is a little boy trying to get through life despite his temper and a somewhat twisted sense of humor and morality. His companion (and conscience in a way) is his stuffed tiger Hobbes, who is brought to life by Calvin's limitless imagination. Together, they go on adventures in the world around them.

I was remembering some of the old strips I used to read, and one of them stuck out in my mind. It was one of those philosophical discussion the two tended to have. Calvin and Hobbes are sitting beneath a tree on a fall afternoon. Calvin begins discussing friendships, and how we interact with others. His logic was this: If you get most people to leave you alone, then you are doing pretty well in life. If you can somehow find someone who you can tolerate, that means you are lucky. This is especially true if they tolerate you in return. When Hobbes asks him what it means to have a friend who you can talk with and eat apples with on a fall afternoon, Calvin replies “Yeah well... I guess there's no sense in getting greedy is there?”

Now obviously this made me laugh when I first read it. After all, that is literally what they are doing. But after a minute, I realized that Calvin really was alone. Hobbes is a creation of Calvin, he is born from imagination. He is not really there. Calvin does not have a friend to sit with on a fall afternoon. He in fact, has no friends in the cannon of the story beyond Hobbes, who is alive only in his imagination. This really made me think about the strip in a different way. It is not so much about Calvin and his best friend Hobbes, as it about Calvin and Calvin's world. Calvin creates persona's that he can experience adventure and new worlds with. Spaceman Spiff for example, is a space explorer that travels the universe. Calvin often sees the world though his imagination in the strip, and that experience he has becomes the content of the story. It becomes the story of a weird little boy, too different to be accepted. His own personality and interests turn off the people around him, leaving him without friends because he refuses to alter them. In the end, he is left with only his own world, that has become safer than the real tangible one around him. The story becomes very altered in this light, and we begin to see Calvin differently than when it was merely himself and his best friend.

When I thought about the strip like this, it made me realize why I liked it so much. That underlying story appealed to me in a way I did not even realize I saw. I wont go into that here, but it made me wonder something. How often do we go through life and miss the story behind the story? How often do we over look the more powerful, or the more serious themes that become buried beneath the surface? What about other similar stories, like Winnie the Pooh? Can we see other hidden elements in these as well? I guess what I want to say is, sometimes it pays to look deeper than the surface. Sometimes we find things we never knew existed.

-BlackFox

(658)

Dead and Gone

Recently, I accompanied my parents to the funeral of a man whom I believe was my second cousin once removed. I did not know him, and felt largely out of place there. The service consisted mainly of people recounting how wonderful he was and the memories they had of him. I felt like an intruder sitting so high up in the pews meant for family, while close friends sat in the back or in overflow seating. Afterwords, my dad took me home a little early to work on a research paper, and we spent most of the time talking about funerals. Some of it got pretty interesting, and I thought I would share the highlights with you.

Funerals are not meant for the dead, they are meant for the living. Most people take this as a way to say goodbye to the person, to remember them or talk about their life. But this is actually not the purpose of a funeral. The purpose of a funeral is to confront our own mortality, and what happens to us after we die. This is especially important today, when modern medicine pushes death farther and farther away to the edges of our lives. In the past, people died young. They lost children and parents and siblings. Death was a reality, it was there, it was a close and deeply personal thing. It was not such an alien experience as it is today. Funerals were a way of confronting the reality of death and sin, and the reality of the cross. The service did not focus on the greatness of the life of the individual, it focused on the finality of the death and on the importance of the gospel and the afterlife. Today however, that focus has drastically changed. The hard painful subjects are avoided and pushed neatly aside in favor of the person themselves. So often the message of the funeral can be boiled down to, “Be like John Smith, and you will be ok.” Spiritual connections tend to be tacked on or superficial. And as much as we want it to be this way, it is simply ignoring reality. Sin is real, death is real, and we are no more untouched by them than that man is in his grave. We can not run away from this forever. Funerals should make us stop and contemplate that reality. They are meant to make us look upward to God, not backward to the past. By making it solely about the memories of the person, it can make the funeral empty and without spiritual substance. It becomes a bunch of meaningless stories that hold no real content, especially for those who can not share them. It also tends to separate anyone under 60 from this future. Death becomes something that happens when you are old and have lived your life. But the honest truth is, it is not just something that you face when your hair begins to gray. It is something that waits beside you and can strike at any moment. This relative of mine that passed away was forty six. He had just gotten through a serious bought of illness, and had believe he was recovering when an infection took his life away. He left behind a daughter who was only three years younger than me. The image of that young girl standing in front of her fathers casket is very, very impacting, and a funeral is there to make you look at it. It there to say, “You are mortal. You are going to die. This could just as easily be you. This is reality. This is why you need God.” It is not there to give an empty speech, it is there to remind you of what is to come, and what will be.

-BlackFox

(637)

Everyone's A Winner

Everyone's a winner,

they say to you and me.

Everyone's a winner,

just look around and see.

Everyone's a winner,

and no one ever fails.

No one really feels a loss,

or the pain that it entails.

Everyone's a winner,

be it silver bronze or gold.

Everyone's a winner,

no one's left out in the cold.

Everyone's a winner,

even those way down the line.

They may get no recognition,

but they did their best this time.

Everyone's a winner,

no matter where they place.

Everyone's a winner,

after all, they ran a race.

Everyone's a winner,

when they've done the best they could.

They may not have a trophy,

but some paper's just as good.

Everyone's a winner,

that's what I hear them say.

Everyone's a winner,

at the end of the day.

Everyone's a winner,

sometimes is hard to hear.

When only three stand up above,

and the rest stand way down here.

Everyone's a winner,

persistently they cry.

Everyone's a winner,

as long as they just try.

Everyone's a winner,

can sound of bitter pain.

When you're the one who fell behind,

and never held a gain.

Yes, everyone's a winner,
they shout it loud and fast.

Everyone's a winner,

but the guy who came in last.

-BlackFox (who was feeling cynical today with her short post).

(220)

Salvation

For many, Easter is about joy, laughter, colorful eggs, and chocolate. And also Chocolate. Especially chocolate. It is a day of fun and games. It is a day of fluffy rabbits. It is a day of punching out the nearest kid who almost got the egg that was so clearly yours. It is a day of chocolate. Did I mention chocolate? Because it really involves chocolate. But for Christians, it is more than just a day of fun (and chocolate). It is a day of rejoicing.

Easter is another extremely important holiday for Christians, and goes hand in hand with Good Friday. Easter centers around and celebrates the resurrection of Christ. While Good Friday reminds us of the sacrifice he made, Easter reminds us of the victory and salvation that came after. Whereas before we mourned his suffering, now we rejoice in his salvation. This is why Good Friday and Easter are consecutive. Good Friday reminds us of what he suffered for our sake. Easter Sunday reminds us of why he did it, and what he gained. It shows us both the pain and glory of the cross. Easter is no less important. It is meant to remind us of Christ's victory over the grave. In his resurrection, death lost its sting. When Christ rose from the grave, he rose in victory over sin and death. He paved the way for our salvation. He had paid the price for our sins, and suffered the wrath of His Father for our sake. With the resurrection of Christ, it became possible for men to be saved. We were no longer slaves to sin. We were no longer without hope or prayer. We were no longer separated from God by an insurmountable distance. Christ had paved the way for us to enter into heaven. We rejoice over his victory and his gift to us. Easter is meant to remember this day in celebration. It reminds us of the love of God, and of his power. It reminds us that nothing is greater than God. It reminds us that everything is within his power. It reminds us that we will never be forsaken. He could have left us to suffer our own punishment, and justly so. He could have turned away and forsaken us. He could have chosen not to die and suffer the pain of hell. But He did not choose to do so. He chose to give us a way to stand beside him. When Christ rose from the dead, we rose with him. Easter reminds us that because of God we are no longer dead in sin. That he chose to raise us to life in Christ. He freed us from slavery to sin. He freed us from our crushing debt that could never be paid. It reminds us that because of his sacrifice, we stand. We stand with God. We stand in victory. We stand over sin and death. We stand as free. This is why we rejoice.

You can see why it bothers me that so many people, who profess to be Christian, do not understand the importance of these sermons. They exist for a reason. These are not messages that we should vaguely know about and then forget. These are not stories that you automatically spout off without knowing what they mean. They are core messages and important to fully understand. That is why these holidays exist, to remind us of their importance and give us knowledge of them, beyond simply what we heard in Sunday school. They are invaluable. Easter and Good Friday are not simply two more days that you have to sit in Church for. They are extremely important both theologically, and instructively. So before you complain that you hate church. Before you complain that you do not want to spend all night in a pew. Before you start saying that it is just one night and it does not matter. Remember why they are there, and what they teach.

-BlackFox

(666)

Sacrifice

 Well, these posts are obviously pretty late. But I wanted to do them consecutively without a random assigned post or whatever mixed in (and without having to go way over the word requirement).

So, Good Friday has come and gone another year. For a lot of people, it's just an excuse to get off work or school early. But for Christians, it is one of the most important holidays of the year. Sadly, many people do not realize its importance. Many even expressed annoyance regarding the holiday. Even when people came from a Christian family, I would still hear them complaining about having to go or giving a blatant refusal to accompany their families. It really brought me down a little to hear that, so I decided I would take a week to write about the importance and meaning of Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Good Friday is not simply an excuse for your parents or family to drag you into church late at night. It is in remembrance of one of the most central events of the Bible, the death of Christ. Good Friday centers entirely on the death of the cross. It is there to remind us of the sacrifice of Jesus. It is meant not only as a day of remembrance, but of mourning and contemplation. It is not a happy fun holiday. The songs are not ones of joy or ones of cheerfulness. There are no happy decorations or feasts. The songs are normally ones of sorrow or a more serious nature, and the day itself was traditionally one of fasting. The service is often solemn and certainly more serious than most. Here the pastor is less apt to make a wisecrack or break the serious tone. The darker mood is meant to exist. It is meant to remain so that we may fully understand the nature of that day. The story of the crucifixion is often read from start to finish. There are no omissions. The suffering and pain of Christ is giving voice in order that we may remember what he went through. Every scorn, every wound, every moment cut away from His Father is recounted. It is meant to remind us of what he did, and why he did it. It is meant to remind us that he bore his torment willingly, suffered the fires of hell willingly, faced the utter loneliness of being forsaken by the Father willingly, for our sake and our sake alone. It is meant to recount to us the pain and suffering he endured for our sake. The focus throughout remains entirely upon what Christ did. It very rarely shifts to the congregation. It is a time to honor God, not ourselves. We are meant to contemplate the things he suffered, and why he suffered them. He endured for our sake, that we may be saved. We were not worthy. We were not deserving. But God loved us enough to literally endure the torments of Hell. This is a time to look to God with awe at the sheer magnitude of His sacrifice. This is a time for serious thought and realization of our debt to him, and how it was paid. Often times during the sermon, the church will slowly darken as symbolic candles are extinguished or certain passages have been reached. Eventually, the lights in the church will be completely off, and the sermon will end in darkness. You then leave. You do not speak to your friends. You do not make plans to go out for dinner. You leave in silence, thoughts turned above.

-BlackFox

(600)

Sola Fide (Extremely Short)

Although through faith I shall atone,

my faith is one that's not alone.

-BlackFox (...Oh hush. I hit my word requirement on the first one.)

(25)

Faithful Works

One argument I hear a lot towards Protestants, and specifically the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), is that it supposedly implies a “dead faith” or faith without works. They argue that if our only justification for being deemed righteous by God is our faith and not anything we ourselves do, then by extension our works do not matter. Therefore, we do not have to actually do anything and do not need or seek to please God with our actions. Thus, sanctification does not occur. In other words, we do not actually change or become closer to God. However, this is not what the doctrine implies at all. While sola fide does state that works do not count towards your heavenly merit, this does not mean that works are considered unimportant or unnecessary.

Firstly, I will address works and their relationship to salvation. Works are not a requirement for justification, they are a fruit of justification. When someone receives the saving grace of God, and by extension comes to a true saving faith, they are a changed person. Their nature that previously only desired sin, has now been altered to seek Christ and to glorify him. Thus, they will now desire to perform good works, and they will desire to please and obey God. Salvation leads to sanctification. However, this does not mean that the works we perform are inherently good. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Everything we do, no matter how righteous it seems on the surface, is tainted by sin. Be it substance, motive, or circumstance. Therefore, nothing we can do will ever possibly count in our favor. Works in a sense, increase our debt of sin when performed by themselves. Thus, they cannot aid us in becoming righteous. Works done through the grace of God exalt him, but they are his doing and not ours. They are not the grounds of our redemption, they are a sign of it. When we are saved through faith by the grace of God, we are saved by something outside ourselves. We are saved by something that is not tainted by sin. This salvation intrinsically transforms us to begin to grow in righteousness, albeit we cannot ever become fully righteous in of ourselves. In essence, sanctification does not beget justification, it is the product of it.

Works are a necessary and inevitable result of a true faith. Put simply, if someone has a true faith then they will perform good works. Our works do not improve our chances of gaining access to heaven, they are not the grounds by which we are declared righteous. However, it is through them that we show our faith and our salvation. We perform good works because God has drawn us to him, he has changed our nature so that we might desire good instead of evil. God does not give one and not the other. It is not possible to have a true saving faith and not perform good works. If one claims to have faith, and does not show it through works, then the faith is not a true one. Obedience and actions follow faith. Works are not meaningless. They are not pointless simply because they do not pave the way to heaven. They support and emphasize our faith. They glorify God. And they are proof of our sanctification. We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.

-BlackFox

(578)

A Different Connection

Hallo reader. I hath come to grace thee with an assigned post. Yes, yes, I know. But we all must all make sacrifices for the academic arts.

In this case, we are going to take a look at the current topic we are writing about in class. At present, we are taking a look at the concept of online relationships (And not just the romantic kind. Friendships count too), and whether that connection across screens is a real, or for that matter desirable, one. Now, I normally would advocate actually being with someone as opposed to simply chatting through a messenger or awareness of the potential dangers involved. However… I noticed that very few seemed to look at the value behind that connection. They focused on the dangers and the unknowables, and they expounded upon the hits taken by intimacy and social skills, but few seemed to mention the view on the other side of the window. And, in the interest of fairness and the fact that these relationships do actually have some merit… I, for once, am going to defend them.

To start, I would like to contest the notion that a relationship on the internet - be it friend, family, or romance oriented - is automatically insufficient or unauthentic. Just because you interact with someone consistently online does not necessarily mean that this interaction is less meaningful. Not everyone behind the screen is a serial killer or a pseudo profile. In some very real cases, you can find good close friends online. You can form real connections and real relationships with people. As an example, suppose we arbitrarily define “a real friend” as someone you trust unconditionally. Someone who you are able to lower your defensive walls and be open with. Someone you can discuss painful or personal things with, without the fear of being rejected or injured. If I have a friend online that provides this for me, are they not a “real friend”? Additionally, just because you can physically interact with a person does not automatically make the relationship stronger. People can still be shallow and cruel and unreliable or deceiving in real life. If for instance, I meet a man in real life who lies to me about his name and occupation, is that any different from using a false profile on a dating site? The validity of the relationship is not determined by the medium by which you interact, but the quality of the interactions. And yes being able to actually see or talk with this person - even better if you physically get together - is desirable, but it is not a requirement for the relationship to be genuine. I can still receive support, companionship, and joy from someone online without losing anything. I simply gain this connection in a different way. And for some, this different way is their salvation.

Not everyone is a social butterfly. Not everyone is able to open up or be themselves face to face. Some people need the protective barrier of a screen between them and whoever they are talking too. With it, they feel safe and secure enough to talk with the other person. This other person is someone they will not have to physically face every day in the hall or office. This is someone who has no idea who they are, and who will not associate their actions with their face. It offers greater protection and security from being hurt or rejected. Of course, there are some who will say: “And WHY do they need that barrier exactly? Because it exists! Since they have grown up with it, they have failed to develop any social skills at all! If the internet did not exist, then they would have to learn to interact with people the right way”! This is an argument that continues to mystify me, mainly because I do not see the logic behind it. A lack of existence does not imply a lack of need. This is the equivalent of arguing that a knight does not really need armor, and that having armor has only conditioned him to fight carelessly. If he did not have this unnecessary barrier between him and his imposing foe, he would have had to develop “real” fighting skills. If someone said this, we would call the argument foolish. While it would be true that some people may not need a barrier or that some people may misuse it and become careless, that does not negate the legitimate need for protection and security that many would require. Some of you may feel I am exaggerating here, but I assure you this is not a hyperbolic argument. For some, talking with someone can be just as intimidating as riding into battle. Especially if they have fought that battle before, and lost. There are people who have tried to interact with the “real world” the “right way”, and they have been burned.

And I don’t mean a pathetic burn that you just rinse some water on and brush away. I mean a deep scar leaving, slow healing burn. Burns that stay with you for a long, long time. The people who are burned like this simply do not get back into the social waters. They have been rejected and hurt and ridiculed to the point where they are no longer able or willing to try anymore. To create a friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, you need to have a basic sense of trust in the safety of trying to form one. You need to be secure in the fact that trying to connect with someone will not end in pain and rejection. Not just romantic wise, but in the sense of basic friendship as well. For many people, they no longer have this. I am not just talking about people with “trust issues”, or people who have been bullied or abused, or even people who are outright shunned and alone. They obviously relate to what I am saying, but the obvious or extreme cases are not the only ones that are relevant. I am talking about those people that seem fine or “normal”. People who put on a smile and allow only the socially correct parts of themselves to show. People who can’t be themselves, because their real face is considered weird, or stupid, or childish. People who have stopped reaching out and have started blending in. For them, the internet is a safe haven. It is a place where you can be yourself because you are anonymous. It is a place where you are not trapped in this cycle of interacting with the same people every day. It is a place where you can find someone who accepts you for you. And for many, it becomes the only place they feel they can ever really belong. One point of salvation on the internet is that personality matters more than appearance. You are not judged by how you look, you are judged by how you act and think. It takes away the pain of people associating your person and face with something of ridicule. It takes away the danger of facing those associations face to face. If you fail to connect with someone online, you simply never contact them again. If you fail in a “real life” setting, then you have to look that person in the eye every day you go back to that place. So yes the internet can be dangerous, but it can also be a godsend too. It depends on the perspective you look with. Not everything is as black and white as it may seem.

It is easy to tell people to get over things like this. It is easy to say they have issues. It is easy to say they need to grow up and deal with it. It is easy to say they just need better social skills. It is easy to say that if they would only do “x” then life would be so much better. It is easy to tell them the only friends or loved ones they have found are not “real” because they only speak with them online. It is easy to say these things when you have never been in that situation. But when you have been in that situation where being you means being alone, or even when you know someone who has, those things become a hell of a lot harder to say.

-BlackFox

(1420)

Model Christain

I go to church on Sunday,

I wear my smartest clothes.

My smile is bright and very gay,

and my devotion shows.

I offer up the proper tithe,

I never take His name in vain.

I tell my children not to writhe,

so from the sermon they will gain.

I know exactly when to stand,

I know when I must join in song.

I never call the sermon bland,

nor do I say it is too long.

I'm always early, never late,

And I know when to laugh and cry.

The pastor I will not debate,

for my shepherd knows more than I.

Yes I am the model Christian,

who follows my saviors law.

And I challenge you who listen,

to name even a single flaw.

What is that? What did you say?

The sermon? What was it about?

Why church has been over since yesterday,

But something quite moving no doubt.

-BlackFox (...with a short post again. *twirls flag*)

(160)  

Personally Overboard

Today, my sister shared with me the existence of the Personal Promise Bible. Apparently, you can order a personalized Bible from them. They will go through and replace words or phrases in scripture with your name (and potentially a great number of things). Granted I have never actually seen one of these, but I have learned enough about them to understand it works to make scripture more focused on the individual. For instance, you might find “For God so loved John Smith, that He gave His only son...”. Or perhaps “By which He granted to John Smith....” etc. etc. In all honesty, this appears to be a great example of why we should never let marketing near the Word. For instance, they only replace positive things. Like how God saved us, or what he has done for us, or what he has revealed to us. This shifts the focus from our own sin and mortal failings to how awesome we are and how much God loves us. Which completely downplays one of the main messages of the Bible. Now, if we had some negative sentences in there, it might be more balanced and interesting. I personally think this Bible could be very greatly improved with the additions of such gems as “And to John Smith he will say 'depart from me, I never knew you'” or possibly “If John Smith looks at a woman with lust in his heart he has committed adultery with her” or, and this is my personal favorite, “Woe to you, John Smith! It would have been better for you if you had never been born!” But that's just me.

Now, some might praise this concept. After all, we want people to have a personal connection with God yes? And the Bible is a message to each of us yes? Well, yes and no. The Bible is a message, but it is a message to all of God's children. It is the word and law of God. The message of the Bible is not, and should not, be about us. It is not centered around us. It is not solely for us. The Bible serves the purpose of spreading the Good News and the word of God. The subject, and the focus, of the Bible is God. It works to direct our attention upwards to God, to focus on him and not ourselves. This kind of trinket is an extremely narcissistic way to make it about us. Instead of showing the crucifixion and the sacrifice of the Lamb as a selfless atonement for the sins of all, it becomes an action by which to save us specifically. Not the world, not our congregation, not the neighbor down the street, but us personally. It is a way to say, God did all this for ME. God gave his life for ME. God is always there for ME. ME. ME. ME. God is still there, his works and actions and words are still noted, but it has become self-focused. It has ceased to be solely about God. By merely inserting our own name, even in what might be seen as inconsequential places (i.e. you will not see “In the beginning, John Smith created the heavens and the earth” nor will it say John Smith died for our sins.), it still shifts our thoughts and attentions inward. It takes away for the impact and distance and span of the crucifixion. It takes away from the justice and power and love displayed by God. It takes away from his sacrifice and what he has done for us. Yes the Bible is a message to all of us, even the individual. And yes, we should not be detached from scripture when we are reading it. But there is also a limit to how focused on the individual it should be. There needs to be a balance, and quite frankly the Bible currently posses an effective one. It is very possible that God did die for John Smith, but he also died for a great many others as well. We have no place as the focal point. We are nothing special. We have done nothing to deserve such attention. We have no right to steal the focus from its rightful place. There is a reason the Bible is written as it is.

-BlackFox

(727)

Rising Tide

I am going to guess that many of you have heard about the new Pope, Francis the First. At present, there are roughly two views towards him on behalf of his congregation. One side views him with relative indifference, or the same attitude they have felt towards all previous Popes of their lifetime. This is usually comprised of very casual or less strict members. However, there are also many who fear the rise of this man to power. They are worried that he might be a more liberal or modernist Pope, and thus might make “reforms” that would be considered heretical by many strict or orthodox Catholics. This is partially because he is a Jesuit, which is a sort of sub group within the church that focuses on reforming the doctrine and cannon of Catholicism. If these concerns turn out to be valid, the consequences could echo within the church for ages. A more liberal Pope could be deadly for any hardcore devoted Catholic.

Why would it be so deadly, you may ask? Because the Pope has the ability to make infallible statements. Back in history, when the Papal States were robbed of their power, the current Pope at that time feared the disintegration of the Catholic church. In order to counteract this, they made certain changes which included decreeing that a Pope could make a statement infallible, or definitively and eternally correct. Consider the implications this would have with a Pope who is in favor of more modernist reforms. What if he were to declare that a woman can become a priest? What if he were to sanction abortion? What if he were to acknowledge and allow gay marriage and practices? Such statements are directly opposed to the Catholic faith, they are instances of heresy. A Pope who would make them not only verbally, but infallible, could destroy the foundation of their faith completely. As such, you can see why so many are worried about this prospect. Their concerns may not be realized, but in the context of their faith, they are serious indeed.

However, there could come out of such a Pope, a very necessary realization in the Church. In Catholic doctrine, there are actually quite a few inconsistencies between the doctrines of today, and the doctrines of yesterday. Many points of belief are drastically different as time progresses. For instance, it used to be ruthlessly taught that the Catholic church was the only way to heaven, and I do mean the only way. If you were not a member, you would burn in hell. End of story. Today, while some still adhere to that, many take the view that we are all brothers in Christ, and do not necessarily condemn Protestants. A liberal Pope will force members of the church to confront the kinds of inconsistencies in their faith. The paradox that would be created by his decrees would shine a light on key problems that some do not even recognize. It will force a confrontation with the idea that the Pope is not able to make absolutely definitive statements, because if he were able to then heresy would become definitive. Confronting this leads to confronting other problems or inconsistencies with Church cannon. So while it may be angering or distressing for many during such a time, the scriptural benefit might outweigh any trepidation or hardship they may endure.

-BlackFox

(563)

United

We stand in defense,

of this little space.

No mighty offense,

will make us displace.

They will soon be at hand,

when we came, this we knew.

Yet still we all stand,

although we are few.

And though we all know,

that we wont stop the tide.

In this thin little row,

we will stand side by side.

Doomed is our band,

yet still we stand tall.

Together we stand,

together we fall.

-BlackFox (Who is already being lazy with a short post. Whee.)

(84)

Comedy and Tragedy

Well reader we have once again been reunited. As per halfway tradition, I will (sorta) begin the year with a random post as opposed to the usual topic. Are you not bursting with excitement? ...No? ...Well fine then reader. Be that way. I am just going to go hang out with the other readers who are actually fun.

Anyway, I would like to pose a question to all of you out there who still watch cartoons. What is your opinion on the current programs? There are a lot of factors that go into how these shows are designed, and, seeing as the producer will follow the market, I am wondering exactly why certain things have taken precedence.

For instance, compare some of the more serious animation styles like you would have seen in the older Batman cartoons, to the ones from more current shows like Adventure Time. I can see how the latter might be kind of fun, or interesting in certain ways, but it really depressed me to see that animation would fall so much. One of the things I really enjoyed about animated shows was that they could be creative and interesting, but they still held a firm grip on reality in their own way. It was still a world that looked and acted like ours did. I could see myself in that world. I could understand how it worked and how it was structured. It was not just some silly show to entertain me for thirty minutes, it was something that had a lot of effort and time that was clearly visible and meaningful. When you make animation more basic and random it loses that. It becomes this weird experience that no longer has any connection to reality. It is much harder to understand its rules and structures. It is much harder to see yourself in this world. Even when they do have a lot of effort and time put into them, it can be a lot harder to see. Yet, more and more shows are moving back towards that more unbound style. They make characters with impossible anatomy or minimal design. And often times the worlds these characters inhabit follow suit. The less serious the animation, the less realistic the world. You do not see something with anatomically correct characters regularly conversing with random objects, or riding a bus down a completely vertical cliff. So my question here would be, why would something without logic and structure be so preferable? Clearly you can have the strange, fun and unusual without abandoning all sense of reality, so why would you prefer something that makes you end with “...What did I just watch?”

The other point that confuses me is the very evident shift in plot lines. Many stories in the past could be very serious, complex, dark, interesting, creative, and most of all original. But today, we seem to simply have a series of animated sitcoms. Most of the problems revolve around ordinary situations. A test coming up, squabbles between friends or family, improving yourself in some contest, etc. Basically, all the generic problems we see in every sitcom known to man. There are no real consequences. No real development or progress. They simply do not deal with sensitive or darker issues anymore. There are few big climatic events with any real lasting meaning. And I do not simply mean within the context of the show, I mean things that leave a lasting impact on the reader. For instance, you will seldom see the death of a main character anymore. Characters are also less developed. Few shows have any characters with real pain, problems, or history that continuously develops and effects the story. They tend to be one time things, that are rarely (if ever) mentioned again. There is very little depth or power in them, and the characters can really tend to be flat as a result. Now, obviously you want some happy and comedic moments or story lines, but is it really preferable for the story to only consist of that? I understand that it is not the nicest experience to see something sad, or serious, or not lighthearted, but that by no means makes that experience a bad thing. Often times these kind of plot lines leave lasting impressions that stay with you, that spark your own thoughts and ideas and concepts. So, why is it so preferable to have the happy empty stories instead of the emotionally varying complex ones?

The world, she doth confuse me.

-BlackFox

(755)

Mechanically Disinclined Assumptions

As my final term of blogging begins, I feel a slight need to comment on the material we are currently covering in class. At present, we are looking at various works covering our food industry. Most of them can easily be summarized as, “the food industry is completely controlled by industrial systems and the health conditions of their factories are horrendous, both of which are very, very bad things”. And while I do agree that we require better standards of health, and some way to enforce those standards, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the first part of this claim.

Why is it a bad thing to have an industrialized system? Where exactly is the inherent problem here? Many people who cry out against this concept are supporting an ideal. They want the farm fresh food of their forefathers. However, as nice as it sounds to get our food from homegrown, mom and pop farms, this kind of system is not without flaws. First and foremost, there is a large problem with production. A family owned farm does not provide the kind of volume that we require today as consumers. There is a reason that all of those slaughterhouses and factories are so big, they need to be to keep up with demand. A farmer can only raise so many cattle at a time on the fat of the land, especially if he needs to prevent them from over grazing it. In the past, meat was far more expensive because of this problem. The reason it is so cheap today is because of mass production. Another bonus with industry is, if handled correctly, it is far safer than something homegrown. If proper safety precautions are in place, then we can eliminate many of the viruses and diseases that naturally occur in our food products. Food poisoning is not a new phenomenon brought on by corrupt and unsanitary industry. It has been around for decades. People simply did not have the tools to effectively treat meat and produce. Today, we do have that technology. An average farmer will find it much harder to afford the manpower and equipment needed to have that kind of safety than a factory. Also, industry does not require decades of experimentation to discover a healthier or more diverse crop. They are able to engineer a crop that contains more protein, or nutrients. Farmers in the past relied on intuition and cross pollination, not to mention time, as opposed to controlled calculated science. There are definite advantages to a more industrial system.

Now there are advantages to the pastoral farming system as well. Currently, it does not have the kind of health code problems that larger factories do. Also, this system is more economically friendly. It does not produce the same kind of gas or consume the same volume of fuel as an industrial one does. They also have a far more appealing and family friendly image to them, that I readily admit is more ascetically and fundamentally pleasing than a stockyard. There are pros and cons to both methods. My argument is not that one system is better or flawless. My argument is that neither system is inherently wrong, or for that matter right. The industrial and the pastoral systems both have good and bad points about them. They each have their own moral, environmental, and economic questions. When discussing this kind of issue, it is important not to simply discount one side or the other. Both have equally valid points that need to be addressed, and both have major problems that need to be dealt with. It is easy to say that industrial methods are killing the earth both morally and literally. It is easy to say that man is corrupting the earth and everything would be better if he just went back to his roots. But the answer here is not that simple. The lines are not black and white, and both sides are going to have very real consequences regardless of what you choose. The important thing is to address them.

-BlackFox

(683)

Modern Wedding Vows

I take you, my darling,

as my lawfully wedded wife.

As thankfully,

the law you see,

allows me room in strife.

To have and to hold,

From forward this day,

unless by chance,

some circumstance,

pulls us farther and farther away.

For better, or worse,

unless, tragically,

when older you grow,

and time starts to flow,

you lose all that youthful beauty.

For richer or poorer,

unless you see,

I have nothing with you,

and it's found to be true,

that I need currency.

In sickness and health,

unless, dare I dread,

that the sickness you've got,

makes that young body rot,

and would chain me up next to your bed.

To love and to cherish,

unless I might see,

another young sweet,

that I really must meet,

and who better than you, suits me.

From this day forward,

till death do us part.

Or else my lawyer,

for his gracious employer,

severs these bonds at the heart.

-BlackFox (...Yup. Lazy short post.)

(163)

Impact

Slightly random post today, but I want to discuss a teacher who made a large difference in my life. I might still be in high school, but her actions did mean a lot to me, and on a blog like this I want to share them.

Due to needing an elective credit, I was placed into a class called “Family and Consumer Science” ...also known as “Feelings 101”. Now, obviously someone like me groaned at this class. I had little desire to listen to someone tell me about how important my self esteem was, and how unhealthy certain thought patterns were for me. I felt like I was going to be sitting in a class, where I would be expected, and probably told, to simply shut up and do what I was told. Often times before, if I raised a question of theology or morals in a class, the teacher would shut me down. However, this teacher was entirely different. We would spent the time before and after class debating the material. She did not shut me down or insult my beliefs. We argued everything from the nature of children, to divorce, to the value of self esteem. In fact, people in my class used to ask if I was going to “argue with the teacher again today”. I know this seems like a little thing, but it was really important to me. It helped me structure my arguments and thoughts. It taught me a lot about her belief system and how to argue against it. I also learned that often times, you simply have to agree to disagree. That sometimes basic beliefs and grounds are so dissimilar, that you can not reach a unanimous conclusion. Another lesson, that it is ok to debate anyway. That defending your belief is more rewarding than winning or converting the other guy. It taught me the joy of defending my beliefs, and the joy of sparring with someone who liked to do the same. It really improved how I saw teachers and classes like hers in general.

To teachers out there, you should consider doing this as well. Instead of putting down someone for being “closed minded” talk with them. Instead of avoiding a question tackle it. Make them test the knowledge of their beliefs. In fact, test your own as well. There are a lot of benefits to doing this and it can really mean a lot to someone like me, who is used to people avoiding the subject. I'll state plainly that out of all the teachers at my school, I hold her in respect the most. She is so far the only one who has had the courage to talk with me. Who has been willing to do what few teachers would even consider. She did what no one else did, and I will always be grateful for the time she spent with me. I will always remember her and the investment she gave to our debates.

Thanks teach, you know who you are.

-BlackFox

(509)

Great Expectations

When I speak of predestination, the most common complaint I get is, “That's not fair”. They say that it is unfair that some are saved and others are damned. They say it is unfair that God chooses who goes to heaven before birth, that some will never be called. They say that since God is just, he must also be fair. He must give everyone an equal shot at heaven. He must extend his hand to everyone to accept or refuse. He must make an effort to save everyone, because that would be fair. And on this, they are unrelenting. Recently, I was talking with my father about this very subject, and he relayed to me an interesting story he once read. The story went along like this:

A professor at an upscale university taught a philosophy class. One of the major things about his course was this: “Your grade will be determined by three papers. If they are not turned in on the due date, they will be a zero”. Naturally, the due date for the first paper arrived. Almost everyone in the class was excited and prepared. Paper in hand, ready for turn in. However, a few students were nervously standing in the front of the room, without a paper. They pleaded with the professor to extend the due date just a few more days. They said that they were only freshmen, and they were not used to the work load, and they needed time to adjust, and please, oh please, could they have just a few more days. So the professor gave them a few more days. The next paper came, and this time only ninety percent of the class was prepared. Ten percent of halfway nervous people were standing without something to turn in. so they begged and pleaded with the professor. Saying that it was homecoming week, and they just did not have enough time, and that it was a difficult subject, and so on. So again, the professor gave them a few more days. Finally, the last paper came. On the due date, only half the class was prepared. The other half told the professor that they would have the paper in a few more days, and would he please give them that time? This time, the professor said no. He gave each one without a paper a zero. This instigated a resounding cry of “BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR”! To which, the professor replied, “You want fair? I'll go back and grade the other papers as a zero because you turned those in late too”! He had used this as an example of grace. About how when we receive grace, we come to expect it. We feel entitled to it. We feel it is owed to us. When, in reality, we have no right to it. And in all fairness, we should have never received it to begin with.

The grace of God operates in the same way. We have no more right to demand salvation than a murder does to demand acquittal. If we do, we are nothing more than whiny children demanding what we are not entitled to. A boy begging his teacher for an extension, and then becoming angered when it is not given. If God were to be “fair” then, by rights, we would all go straight to hell. We have all sinned. We have all failed. No one is righteous. No one deserves salvation. We all deserve to be cast into the lack of fire. No exceptions. God does not have to save anyone. God does not have to extend grace. God does not have to show his love. He chooses to save us, He does not have too. In the interest of fairness, He should not even consider it in the first place.

Do not ever demand that God be fair.

-BlackFox

(650)

To A Christian.

Abandoned and forgotten,

your own wounds left to mend.

Cast out and forsaken,

to find and face your end.

The message is rejected,

by eyes that cannot see.

And by ears that cannot hear,

the word that sets them free.

They spat at you for preaching,

those words that doth offend.

And then they left you all alone,

without kind word or friend.

They did not want to hear,

of morals and of debt.

They did not want to face,

that other worldly fret.

You stand alone in hatred,

and they offer no defense.

You stand alone berated,

for scriptures great offense.

And all the world around you,

accosts you with it's wrath.

Long is the way to heaven,

and narrow is the path.

-BlackFox (-insert short post comment here-)

(130)