search

Subscribe

• RSS Feed
• Add to Google
• My Yahoo
• Twitter

Email:

Recommendations

« Previous Entries

Category

Christianity and Faith

• Christianity and Faith

  Freedom.

  02.23.09 | Permalink | 4 Comments

  So, I have heard it said over the pulpit recently that we Christians are no longer allowed to pray to God at work or school. I’m told that we are being restricted from praying out loud or discussing Jesus Christ at the lunch table or in front of any coworkers. Frankly, I have not encountered such things, and I am curious to hear from those who have.

  I have apparently been fortunate enough to work for some pretty large corporations who have not imposed such restrictions - as I have spoken to many on the job about my church while mentioning that we believed in Jesus along with baptism in Jesus name. I have not encounted any closed-door reprimands or uncomfortable silences; no marks in my file or phone calls from upper management.

  Maybe I’m just not making enough noise.

  Granted, I don’t pray loudly in the hallways or ask everyone to join hands in meetings for a quick prayer, but I certainly don’t feel shunned for my beliefs. I haven’t had any “sensitivity training” that outlines how my prayers should be generic or non-specific, and I wouldn’t hesitate to say “Merry Christmas” during the holidays, though I often opt for “Happy Holidays” in case a coworker is Jewish or non-celebrating. But that isn’t because I feel persecuted, I’m just trying to be polite.

  Maybe schools are different.

  Although, a while back, my niece was given permission by her school to conduct a Bible Study on school premises at a high school in the Austin area. She and her supporters spoke openly about Jesus, and were able to do so during school hours. I don’t believe she was asked to remain “generic” in her representation of God, and I believe that they ended up having a great turn out. And that was liberal Austin, mind you - not quite the Bible Belt that we are in up here.

  So what say ye? Are we the lucky ones?

  I’d be interested to hear your stories.

  Show 4 Comments | Add a Comment
   
  

• Christianity and Faith

  Default Christian

  01.15.09 | Permalink | Comment?

  A large percentage of people in the U.S. consider themselves to be Christian. I think it’s like 80-90% - or something like that. Yes, I realize I could look it up, but so can you. What am I, a statistician?

  

  Anyway.

  That sounds like a high percentage to me. But when I discuss religion or Christianity with various friends, I realize that I can pretty easily account for that number. It isn’t about denominations or behaviors or standards. It’s not about commitment level, effort or anything like that. It is a fundamental difference that makes comparing our two views of Christianity like comparing holy apples to holy oranges.

  Here it is. Is God an entity, or is he just a good set of principles?

  I think many people that consider themselves Christian don’t really believe in an all-powerful being - manifest in the form of Jesus Christ who came to earth, died, and rose again. They don’t think of him as a savior, and they don’t really acknowledge anything supernatural about the whole situation. (I realize that particular description has a Oneness slant, but I want to be clear that I am not even talking about the theological differences between Trinity and Oneness.) I am talking about God as a person versus God as a concept or a set of ideals.

  I think the philosophical difference between these two views is huge. The gulf between God as a person and God as a rulebook is not to be underestimated. I think it is pretty easy for people to accept the idea that a really nice young Jewish guy named Jesus lived 2000 years ago, and that he had a lot of great ideas about how to treat each other. People aren’t so much for this idea as much as they aren’t against it. There’s a lot of “sure, I can admire that” - enough in fact that many people might actually check off the “Christian” box on a form if asked for their religious affiliation. By the way folks, if you are ever asked this during a job interview, make sure and report them to the Texas Workforce Commission or to your state’s work force authorities. But I digress.

  The disappointing thing is how much I think these default Christians are missing out. It’s like having a set of rules with no relationship. Granted, the principles alone will make one a good citizen, but I would like to suggest that some of you that fall into this category reach farther. It is certainly a leap of faith, but it is one worth taking. If you want to know more, just ask me or someone you know who is active in their church. I’m no expert or anything, but I know enough to point you in the right direction. And I know it is worth the journey.

  No Comments Hide All Comments | Add a Comment
   
  

• Christianity and Faith

  Lunatic Fringe?

  12.05.08 | Permalink | 2 Comments

  So, there are times when I almost reconsider my faith in humanity. What I try to do, however, is convince myself that people that cockfight toddlers or kill horses with hammers are the exception and not the norm. I hear stories that just hit me in the gut and make me so angry and sad at the same time, but I try not to let myself believe that these people represent more than the fringe of society. I suppose such occurrences wouldn’t really make the news if they were common. And if they’re not common, then they must not be the norm.

  How far away is the average person from committing vile acts? With the right motivation, how far would you go? I participated in a study in school that illustrated some disturbing facts about about human psychology and how easily we can cross over into what most would consider to be abnormal and unacceptable behavior. After doing some recent searching, I found a description of the study. It is called the Milgram Experiment. Here is the experiment as stated on Wikipedia.

  The experiment

  Three people take part in the experiment: “experimentor”, “learner” (”victim”) and “teacher” (participant). Only the “teacher” is an actual participant, i.e. unaware about the actual setup, while the “learner” is a confederate of the experimenter. The role of the experimenter was played by a stern, impassive biology teacher dressed in a grey technician’s coat, and the victim (learner) was played by a 47 year old Irish-American accountant trained to act for the role. The participant and the learner were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations.

  Two slips of paper were then presented to the participant and to the “learner”. The participant was led to believe that one of the slips said “learner” and the other said “teacher,” and that he and the actor had been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said “teacher,” but the actor claimed to have the slip that read “learner,” thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the “teacher.” At this point, the “teacher” and “learner” were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.

  The “teacher” was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the “learner” would supposedly receive during the experiment. The “teacher” was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.

  The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.

  At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.

  If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:

  - Please continue.

  - The experiment requires that you continue.

  - It is absolutely essential that you continue.

  - You have no other choice, you must go on.

  If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. This experiment could be seen to raise some ethical issues as Stanley Milgram deceived his study’s subjects, and put them under more pressure than many believe was necessary.

  As you will read in the results analysis, a full 65 percent of experiment participants administered the experiment’s final 450-volt shock.

  Now, in this instance, the motivating factor had to do with authority and obedience - which has as much to say about conformity as anything, but the point is how easily the majority of people can be convinced to do something horrendous.

  What this says to me is that people aren’t necessarily mostly good or mostly bad, but rather they are easily influenced by those in authority. I find this to be indicative of our need to be led. I think these results say a lot about our nature.

  I have frequently stated my dislike for authority - particularly when it is abused. And frankly, studies like this make me even more wary. I still think most people in positions of authority shouldn’t be, and that many of them get there because of their charisma and tenacity - not because of their qualifications, character or integrity.

  But I am reassured through all of this that I do need a Leader. It is my nature to serve a higher authority. And thanks to the promises in the book of Acts, I no longer need a go-between. I don’t need a priest to relay my thoughts to Him. I don’t need a middle man.

  So how “good” are we? Maybe we are only as good as our compass. Choose wisely.

  Show 2 Comments | Add a Comment
   
  

• Christianity and Faith

  The Other Half Of Writing.

  11.12.08 | Permalink | 8 Comments

  I’m working on a script for our spring drama at ALC , and it has been an interesting process. As many of you know, I design visual presentations for a living - mostly for lawyers. While I enjoy working in that medium, I have always liked writing. More accurately, I like to “have written” more than I actually like the process of writing. At least that’s the case right now - with a few exceptions.

  

  When it comes to graphics and multimedia, I have years of tricks, techniques and experience from which to draw. I can do something half decent without much effort. But while I have been writing in short bursts for many years (eg. skits, short sketches, etc.) - I have not written anything this lengthy. I really don’t have any tricks to fall back on when writing something like this, so it is definitely work. I have to get in a zone in order to focus enough to be coherent - usually with some Beck or Coldplay running in the background. I am learning a lot about the process, and the further I get into it, the more I think I’m starting to enjoy the actual writing. The challenge is keeping my mind focused enough to keep the story flowing properly. I am trying to use tools that can assist with organizing my thoughts. For example, I’ve been trying some mind-mapping software with limited success. As a visual thinker, I see the scenes in my head as they are to be performed on stage, but without a cohesive plot line, they are just a series of scenes. So, I determined that the best way for me to work is to write the scenes as I see them - in no particular order, then add hooks to connect everything. That’s seeming to work, but I think I will be able to do that most effectively once I have all the scenes written. I still have a few to go.

  I am also interested in the idea of adding multimedia to the show. I am writing the script to integrate video, music and lights. We have a programmable lighting system and nice big video screens that will add a cool component. I am hoping to use video as another cast member - which could be cool. It will be nice to be able to add to the story with these familiar tools.

  I hope to be done with the script this week. If anyone is going to be in the Plano, TX area in March, please drop by ALC and check out the performance. Stay tuned for specific dates.

  Show 8 Comments | Add a Comment
   
  

« Previous Entries