The Mediocre Adventures of Supernerd

The Mediocre Adventures of Supernerd

Eowynz

[	website	\|	My Website	]
[	userinfo	\|	livejournal userinfo	]
[	archive	\|	journal archive	]

(no subject)	[Oct. 26th, 2006\|02:16 am]
So I was reading in the Bible this morning, and I was over in Mark chapter 8, where Jesus is talking to His disciples about bread. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod" is what He says at verse 15. Now, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread (except for one loaf), so they thought that's what Jesus was talking about. What's key to this passage is how Jesus reminds them about the miracle of feeding the five thousand and the four thousand. Why would God go into this right after talking about the Pharisees? The two put together don't seem to make a lot of sense. But what Jesus was talking about was metaphor. Okay, so He seems to be saying that in this metaphor, the Pharisees are leaven, or yeast, whatever you want to call it. The thing about yeast is, when you put even a little of it into bread dough, the dough will rise. But not because the yeast is adding any mass to it, all it's doing is starting a chemical reaction that will, for lack of a better word, inflate the bread. The bread will be filled with holes, not substance. So it seems clear then that the Pharisee's and Herod's attitudes about changing God's laws merely inflates and (in a way) dilutes what the real truth of the law is. For example, one of the commandments in the Bible is to honor your father and mother. But the Pharisees, perhaps trying to subvert the law, said that you could stop honoring your parents financially (like if they're too old to work for themselves) if you declared your money and possessions as Corban, that is a gift to God. So Jesus is pretty much saying not to inflate your faith with false and petty doctrine, especially if this doctrine goes against what God actually says. But the disciples didn't immediately get that, so they thought he was speaking literally. What Jesus was saying when he reminded the disciples about His miracles, pretty much goes like this, "Hey guys, I already was able to feed five thousands on five loaves and two fish, with twelve baskets left over. Do you really think we're gonna run out?" Or we could continue the metaphor. If, theoretically, the Pharisees are yeast, then doesn't that make us, the Christian church, bread dough becoming the bread? By going back to His miracles, Jesus could possibly saying that we as Christians are meant to give of ourselves generously to those around us, once we are "baked" and ready for ministry, and not worry about how much that will take from us, because God is faithful to provide more to supply us. So we need to give, and trust that God will provide in our generosity. This seems to be supported by verses in Proverbs, including Proverbs 28:22, which says (NIV) "A stingy man is eager to get rich and is unaware that poverty awaits him." Proverbs 11:24-26 "One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed. People curse the man who hoards grain, but blessing crowns him who is willing to sell." Other verses on the topic are Proverbs 22:9 and 2 Corinthians 9:6.
link	post comment

I'll just get on with it.	[Oct. 21st, 2006\|04:32 pm]
I really should do something with this blog. Hm, all my friends are over at myspace...you'd think somebody would be over here. But whatever. In any case, it occured to me that I'm just being altogether too complicated (I do that a lot) when it comes to refuting David Littler's argument about Christianity. I'm just going dive right in. But a warning. It should be noted that I am not a historian. So if you feel I am innaccurate concerning things like Josephus, Tacitus, etc, do let me know. And also, I am not trying to convince anyone to convert to Christianity, because that is purely between you and God. Alrighty... When David first mentioned to me that I should find evidence for Jesus outside the Bible, I was feeling a bit overwhelmed, because few of the sources I could find were actually anything besides biased towards his viewpoint. So I asked my dad about what he knew. This is how the conversation went, but because I don't remember the exact wording, it's paraphrased. "So dad, what can you tell me about Josephus? I'm having this debate on the internet with this Canadian atheist who is really really hardcore against God." "Hm, he must have been deeply hurt as a kid." "Oh...wow, dad..he did." Don't worry David, I didn't tell him anything specific, though perhaps you don't care especially much if you put it in your blog. Anyway, I didn't get into it. What this conversation indicates is that there is something devastating deeply rooted within David, and nothing of the debateable type will be able to remove the damage in his heart. His salvation is between him and God, and his healing is there as well. But one thing noticable in the conversation above that is noticible is my use of the phrase "Canadian atheist". I said that because all of the Canadians I've met are significantly different from the athiests in America, at least the ones where I live. American atheists are admittedly lazy. They don't believe in God (most of them), because they simply want to do what the want without having to bother with prayer, morality, and things of that nature. The Canadian ones, however, have obviously thought about what they believe for more than two seconds. They are capable of engaging in more significant conversations than their American counterparts. That is exactly why I was disappointed with you, David, for your blog comparing an 80 or 90 year old prophet with a hormone-ridden teenager devoid of a social life. There was absolutely no evidence, and everything you said wasn't even good enough to be called circumstantial. All the "proof" you presented was "Oh, John sounds like he was just predicting revenge on everybody he hated" and "I was using discernment". Did you even bother to say "This quote by John really sounds anti-social"? At the very least you could have said "Look at this part of Revelation and see how it compares to the statement of this messed up teen". But no, all you said was that you had "discernment" about it. You presented no proof, but expected that it is consequential evidence that Christianity is a cult. Well, quite frankly, Dave, you're not a historian. Nor do I trust you to have an unbiased opinion if you were to become one (it's not like you'd actually support any historical evidence that goes against what you believe). If you had actual evidence to support your claim, I might be able to consider it. But it's just conjecture. If you still have trouble understanding my viewpoint, let me give you an example. Charles Darwin was gay. That's right. Even when he was married, he was just in denial, and all his work on evolution was just so he could give himself an excuse for his gayness. Am I going to quote him on it? No. Will I look up his personal history for evidence and quote the parts that indicate his homosexuality? No, I'm just going to sit back and cite my own "discernment". Oops, I forgot to put it in a clever narrative. My bad, because everyone knows that clever narratives are ALWAYS fact. sigh David, you can do much better than that. You're darn smart, and I am very envious of the iron-jawed banter in your comics. The diction is the best part of it, and the restaurant comics are coming along swimmingly. In any case, with my next few posts I'll be disproving an author of a text that David gave me a link to. I've read through most of it...and honestly Steve Benson didn't do all that great of a job arguing against Christianity. I think he pretty much just cut and paste arguments from his sources. But unlike my statement about Darwin, I'll actually be supporting that claim. :D Actually, I don't think Darwin was gay, but I don't have any proof for that either. ;)
link	post comment

Introduction	[Oct. 6th, 2006\|01:55 pm]
"And even if you saw it yourself you wouldn't believe it, I wouldn't trust a person like me, if I were you. But I wasn't there, I swears I have an alibi I heard it from a man who knows a fellow who says it was true." - Gaelic Storm, chorus of Johnny Tarr. Okay, this blog here is a response to Dave Littler's suggestion that I find non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Sorry it took so long to post about it, but quite frankly this is a matter for historians, and well I'm not one of them. I just sling Yankee food and write fiction. When I first started to do this, and was looking in the background of the matter, I felt like i was in way over my head, mostly because it's difficult to find actually unbiased reports of what happened (and don't get me started and the subject of these mystical interpolists that people keep talking about). So I came to the decided to make this a series of three essays, each trying to make a point about Christianity. #1- The Truth about Salvation. This will be more of a cautionary measure rather than anything else, because I need to make it clear that I cannot convert anyone into Christianity. This is mainly to describe (rather than define) what salvation, personal revelation, and faith are, and why they are important. I'm not a theologist either, but I'll do my best to explain what I mean. #2- Refuting Steve Benson. This is the author of the link David provided. He has taken points from several different atheist books and used them to put up some sort of defense against Christianity. I was really disappointed in his work, however, because he really doesn't go very deeply into any particular topic, and his knowledge of the Bible is obviously quite limited, but apparently he gets most of his general points from more learned people. I'll end it with a point about the argument against Christianity that I find very funny. However, please be patient with me on this section, because I want to be sure the argument is historically sound. #3- Jesus Was because He Is. This will mainly concern my own testimony, and how I believed in God before I knew of Josephus, and the other historians that mention Him. Yes, I was raised in a Christian home, but I'm twenty, so had I wanted to that would've been plenty of time to become athiest. In any case, I think David is expecting me to try and convert him to Christianity. Well I'm not. In fact, I am not capable of that, because David's salvation is entirely between him and God, and that's the subject I intend to go through in the first essay. I was going to post it today, but I want to refine the first part, in which I use the life of C.S.Lewis as an example, and I really should get ready for work. But I will post at least some of it, either tonight or tomorrow.
link	post comment

A quick Bible verse.	[Sep. 26th, 2006\|12:13 pm]
Alrightie, David Littler of the D&V comics has challenged me to find proof that Jesus existed on earth, and was more than just hearsay. Today I have found some sources, plenty good ones at that, so I'll be posting here soon about it, just so I don't fill up his comments section and all that. I might have to buy some books on it, but hey, I like this kind of stuff. Hm...maybe I should email my brother. He's a freakin' gangster when it comes to Christian theology. It's his hobby. My brother is so cool. :D Anyway, Dave, if you're reading this (at this point, I doubt you are, but you might later), I've picked out a verse for you: Psalms 142:7. It has relevence to some dreams of yours I've read. I haven't read all of them, because it seems that your dreams are fairly consistent in thematic elements (and they're really disturbing, to say the least). Two dreams of yours are of particular interest, because they cover all your dream themes: the one where you're in this building trying to fight the beetle-monsters and you accidentally let loose a T-Rex, and the one where you are told by this weird old man to stack up his books in a certain way. If you don't mind, I'd like to analyze these dreams more thoroughly, and determine what kind of meaning they might have. I think you might say yes, because I can see you being very amused at the concept, but I won't do it unless you give permission. So let me know, k? :)
link	post comment

Music is more than we think	[Sep. 22nd, 2006\|12:09 pm]
I would like to say a few words to people who have a really dumb opinion. One of my friends told me about this pastor who told her that no song is really Christian, it's just the lyrics that make it that way. I read this also in a book called "A Purpose Driven Life". I mean seriously, what the crap is that crap? Don't they know anything about music? Everyone with a brain knows that the soul of an artist is in their work. That means when Christ is in your soul, He is likewise in your music. You can always tell a person from what they write, even without words, because music is an art and all art is indicative of the artist, it's just hard to tell sometimes. Now, the reason why they make this argument is because, as they claim, "Without lyrics, how do you tell if the music is Christian or not?" For one, if you can't tell, find more songs about the artist or search google. It ain't that hard. As an example, let me tell you a story about this one German band that my friend Christian Funkhouser (isn't that the coolest name ever? Lol) let me borrow a cd of once. I won't say the name of the band, so that I don't publicize it (not that a lot of people read my blog, but the point still stands). In any case, it was a very interesting cd, and their use of electric guitars was astounding. I will now make the same "point" that the people with that dumb opinion think they're making. How did I know the band wasn't Christian? I don't know that much German. How could I tell what kind of music it was? Anyway, I felt something in my spirit when I heard the end of the chorus, which I could make out to be "...kein Engel sein". For those of you who don't know German, the kein means "no" as pertaining to possession or personal attributes. For example, Ich habe kein Kaffee means "I have no coffee"; you wouldn't use the word nein, which would be appropriate if you were telling someone no. The word Engel (all nouns in German are capitalized) means angel. Sein means "to be" so it's pretty much the equivalent of "is" or "are" and it changes according to usage. So, in this sentence, the lyrics mean something pertaining to not being an angel. Well, Funky looked up the lyrics, and apparently the full sentence means "I don't want to be an angel", and the song was all about how angels are weak and hang onto stars and crap like that (I don't or want to remember all of it). Their other songs were similarly violent and spiritually ignorant. Now, if this band came out with an instrumental track on one cd, would this track be as demonic as their other songs? Indeed, because there is the soul of the band members in it, and it, as their song, tells the same disasterous story as the rest of their works. My point is, songs can be Christian without lyrics (just as any song can be stupid, anti-American, "spiritual" etc without lyrics), and if you can't tell, it's always easy to look up the lyrics or artist. You can learn the ability to sense in your spirit what kind of song it is, if you are tapped into God and willing to stop listening to a song if you sense it is bullcrap, whether or not the lyricless tune is good. This brings me to pop songs. They often have stupid, fluffy lyrics, but what you have to understand is that the people that made these songs have likewise bad things in their spirits, even if the lyrics hide them. For example, the song "Something about us" by Daft Punk has very few lyrics, and they seem rather pleasant and happy. However, if I listen to it, it feels like my spirit is trenching through nasty slog, because I can tell what kind of story it's trying to tell. The meaning of the song is pretty much like, "I might not be the right guy and you might not be ready, but let's sleep together anyway". One final thing. If you change the lyrics, does this change the soul of the song? This is a contestable area, and I have two examples: Weird Al and "Miss X". Weird Al, when making parodies, often uses songs that really should have their lyrics replaced. Like he made the song "Trash Day" that redoes the lyrics of the song "Hot in Herr" (is that how you spell it?). One might argue that by changing the trashy lyrics of a pop r+b song into something fun and sweet, he is improving it, and that it doesn't mean the same thing. That seems true enough to me, but it's debateable, because Weird Al, who is not Christian, is putting things that are in his soul into the music. No, I'm not bashing on Al, because he's made some really good songs that I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I don't get to be careless. What isn't debateable is what "Miss X" does. When I was talking to her on the phone once, she was listening to this song at a party, and it was Justin Timberlake's "Sexyback", which is definitely obvious bullcrap. She told me that she changes the lyrics so that the song isn't that bad. Well, what "Miss X" is actually doing is making an excuse so that she can continue to listen to what she want and not have to worry about making a stand in front of her non-Christian friends. Sure, she doesn't want to be all arrogant and try to be all "holier than thou" (which she isn't capable of doing :) ) but the point remains that she has to take a stand and purify what she listens to. Not that listening to secular stuff will send you to hell or anything, but how can you be expected to live for God when you persist in listening to things that aren't good, and encourage you to live for yourself rather than God? Pay attention to the stories your music tells, people. Music is a story that your subconscious translates, even if you don't understand it. That's why ancient Celts identified storytellers with magicians. And if the ancient Celts knew anything, they surely knew about demons, except how to fight them and resist their hold. There is a spiritual dimension here.
link	post comment

Phone Capers	[Sep. 16th, 2006\|10:21 am]
Hm, I really should put some stuff here. I dunno, not all that big on journals or anything. Nah, but for for the sake of putting something interesting on here, I'll tell you a story. A couple of nights ago, I had just gotten a cell phone and was talking to my friend from Cali while I finished up at work. I had to go in the back to settle my register, so when I went in the office, I told her that I had to go. Thing is, when we get off the phone, we always say "i love you" in really corny, stupid voices, because we're just dorky and weird like that. When I got off the phone, I told my manager "Oh, that's my girlfriend from California." You know, girlfriend as in homegirl. I didn't think any more about it til the next day, and until suddenly I thought "Wait...what is she thinks I'm gay?" Seriously, it never occured to me beforehand that it may seem that way, lol. But before that me and the manager were talking about a cute guy that came in, so maybe she just thinks I'm weird. Or bi. For the record, I'm straight, and I don't agree with homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I simply don't agree with them. Hehe, just goes to show that you really should think before you speak. And that's today moral of the story, as brought to you by supernerd. ;)
link	post comment

Greetings, all.

[Sep. 10th, 2006|09:16 pm]

[	Current Location	\|	Computer room	]
[	mood	\|	and fluffy	]
[	music	\|	None right yet	]

Hi, I'm Eowynz. This shall be my little space where I put all of my nerdiness. Yeah, not sure what I'll do with it now, except that tomorrow I'm putting up a fanfic dedicated to those that died Sept 11, 2001. After that, I'll probably do a series on writing, giving advice to those people who desire to learn a little more on the topic. Not that I'm an expert or anything, but I can pass on some stuff that will help. *sigh* I mean, there's all these noobs on fanfiction.net that think they can write, but honestly, many of them that actually do have a good plot can't get grammar down well. Some of that is due to the fact that english is the second language of some of them, but the rest have no excuse. Anyone who reads should be able to write; maybe not bestsellers, but certainly works that can be enjoyed.

link

post comment

navigation

[

viewing

most recent entries

]

Customize

Advertisement

Advertisement