For the next while I'm re-dedicating my blog to top 10s. Here's my personal list for movies that rock the party. Each movie is more mantastic than the last.
10. Con Air
9. Boondock Saints
8. The Rock
7. Fight Club
6. The Matrix
5. Die Hard
4. 300
3. Gladiator
2. Terminator 2
1. Braveheart
Please don't tell Chuck Norris that none of his movies made the list. Don't get me wrong, I'm scared of the guy, he just didn't make too many good movies.
I'd like to hear your top 10, or at least what you'd add to the list. The next several in my mind were Pulp Fiction, The Patriot, Terminator 1, Independence Day, Aliens, The Alamo (the one with John Wayne), Star Wars V, Rocky 1 and 3, Bourne Ultimatum,... the list goes on and on.
What do you think?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
DO SOMETHING!
It's finally here. LCM's 2008 Dinner Theatre. This is the latest play entitled, "Do Something." The story takes place in a gym where different groups hang out. The owner of the gym, a kung fu master by the name of Lucy, decides that the gym should try and conduct energy to help with the electric bill. While rivals and gangs strive for territorial dominance, characters search for identity and meaning in their lives.
This play is rated PG.
Follow the Link: DO SOMETHING! (Aprox 1hour)
This play is rated PG.
Follow the Link: DO SOMETHING! (Aprox 1hour)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
500 years ago, in a galaxy called Germany...
There was Martin Luther. This Halloween marks the 490th anniversary of Luther's 95 Thesis. That means that roughly 500 years ago, Luther was caught in a terrible storm in which he pleaded with God to spare him, and vowed to become a monk if he lived.
By way of posting a tribute to the man who started the Reformation, I'm going to prophesy what it would be like had he never existed. This is an "It's a Wonderful Life" view of Martin Luther. If you get your panties in a bunch easily, I suggest not reading this essay.
The Luther Code
I had a rather dark thought that was a slippery slope from the idea that most of us Lutherans Cling to. We believe that we are all called by the Holy Spirit. We also believe that Martin Luther asked God for help one day when he was in a terrible storm, and that the Good Lord saved him that day. Luther went on to become a monk, and later, became the revolutionary that he is known for today. I remember reading an article in school naming Luther the most important person in the past millennium. I think you can make a strong case.
So, my dark Da Vinci code cover up is- what if the story is/was inaccurate. What if the man we revere as Martin Luther really was a crazy person, like we mixed up who it was. Many people believe a similar problem with DaVinci and everything he did, and scholars can’t agree if William Shakespeare is the one who wrote the world’s best plays.
So, what if Luther never happened? What if, in that lightning storm, Luther was shot down when he proposed to God that he would join the Church? Would the reformation ever have happened? I’m not sure you realize there are tons of implications of this.
Luther's Written Influence
Luther went a little crazy toward the end of his life, and made some anti-Semitic comments that later pushed Carl Marx to write some nasty things about them, which convinced German society to elect a crazy person as a leader. He, in turn, invaded half of Europe, started a world war, which eventually led to America blowing up part of Japan, and unleashing upon the world the threat of nuclear holocaust. I know what you’re thinking, Luther didn’t and wouldn’t put Hitler in power. Perhaps not, but at the very least Luther’s message started a series of skirmishes and wars were hundreds of thousands were killed in his country perpetuating German separation between religions. Furthermore, Luther put Germany on the map. He started a movement that made Germans get into the mind set that they were superior as race. It was Luther- a German- who realized and talked out against all the evils of the Roman Catholic Church (I’m tired of writing this out, from here on, the RCC). The thinkers who came after Luther, such as Kant and Marx, were able to get notoriety impart of the reformation started by Luther.
Ok, so maybe that series of events was a little much for you. Maybe you think it is wrong for me to blame Luther for WWII. Keep in mind that I’m only suggesting that the events that follow Luther led to such a thing, not that Luther himself is to blame. In a conversation with a recent friend of mine, Martin Hesse, who is a graduate student and a native German, I was pointed in a new direction with my ridiculous theory. He claimed that without Luther, there might not have been a World War I. Germany wouldn’t have gone into recession without so much death within it’s own country, and thus, the war wouldn’t have escalated.
If you think this is such a dumb notion, why are you still reading this?
What’s also important, and I can make a stronger case for, is what would have happened in the RCC without Luther? Sure, there would have been some reform, but when? And what would it lead to? I have prepared two options for you, one involving a split.
Option A
There is no split and the RCC keeps going unimpeded by the word protestant. I think eventually they figure out that they need to change.
Quick History Lesion: The Thirty Years War
There was a lot of war in the early part of the 17th century. As I mentioned before, hundreds of thousands of Germans fought in a peasants war, sort of a way of sticking it to the man who was lord over both church and state. There were religious skirmishes all over Europe, leading to the Thirty Years war in which the Catholic Habsburgs (Austrians) verses the Protestants. Toward the end of the war, the French Catholics helped the protestants turn the tide. This was a back-breaking blow for the Roman Catholics because it was Catholics against each other. Since the Habsburgs were backed by the RCC, and since they lost, the RCC also lost, and had to sign the treaty called the Peace of Westfallia, in which the RCC had to recognize the Peace of Augsburg from 1555, that says that each prince can determine the religion that is right for them, and for their people. The head of the RCC, Pope Innocent the 10th, refused to admit defeat saying that the treaty was null and void. You’d be pissed too if you had just lost half of your membership.
Without the protestant movement, I believe this war still goes on. As an optimist, I’m going to say that without Luther in his time and place, that the RCC would have realized its bad business policies here and changed some things. So, perhaps instead of a new church there would be a revived one. If not, there would most definitely be a split among the nations. Then maybe we’d be ready for someone else to step up and lead a reformation.
Option B
Without Luther the door would be open for a new, different reformer.
Some people have suggested to me that were it not for Luther, that nearly a few years later someone else, say, John Calvin would have stepped up to the plate and started a new church. Wikipedia says this about Calvin, “While Reformers such as John Huss and Martin Luther may be seen as somewhat original thinkers that began a movement, Calvin was a great logician and systematizer of that movement, but not an innovator in doctrine.” No, I don’t believe that Calvin stands up to Papal authority in Geneva without his famous predecessor. John Huss, the other man mentioned as a reformer, lived 100 years before Luther and was excommunicated and burned at the stake. He was a pioneer, but he wasn’t the reformer that broke the camel’s back. So then, who? My guess is it would have been someone who is realitively unknown, sort of a Rosa Parks, right time, right place. My point is, without Luther nailing the 95 thesis in 1517, 2007 looks a whole lot different. Luther and Gutenberg changed the face of religion with putting the scripture in the hands on the common folk, in a language they could understand. Without Luther, there would be no King James Bible in 1611, and to this day maybe all bibles are still in dead languages. You have to understand, in Luther’s day most people considered changing the bible into a lesser language blasphemy, so someone as crazy as Luther would have to do it first. Who might that be, you ask? I’ve have an answer but you’re not going to like it.
Henry the VIII I am
Henry VIII comes into power around 1509. By 1533 (16 years after Luther’s 95 thesis) he had been excommunicated for divorcing his wife and starting the Church of England. Would he have been able to start the Church of England as easily without Luther? Absolutely not. But this man was determined to dump his wife, and Thomas Moore wasn’t going to let him without a new church. So, push comes to shove and England becomes the stronghold against the RCC, then dares the Pope to come after him.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Henry the VIII doesn’t stand up to the pope, Ann Bolyn keeps her head, and England Stays Catholic. Here’s where this disturbing “what if” hits home.
America the Beautiful?
We are a protestant stronghold. Our country was founded by religious fanatics tired of religious persecution, who were seeking a new place to practice a new religion. Without a new religion, would all those people have left Europe? I think not. The only reason that people felt compelled to come to America to find religious freedom is because of the reformation.
So, who would have come to America? I think it would be the English primarily, and eventually enough of England would be here for the people to justify actual representation in English parliament, therefore eliminating a revolutionary war. There’d be no constitution, no declaration of independence, no democracy. We’d still be under British rule. Sound ridiculous? Without a desire to get away from religious persecution, the colonies wouldn’t be so filled with visionaries and separatists. We’d all be from merry old England, and our entire country would be known as New England. Furthermore, we’d all still be catholic. The Church of England wouldn’t have happened, because there was no split from the Catholic church.
So, now as I sit in my apartment with my wife, I’m contemplating what life would be like if I was catholic and felt called to ministry. I can tell you this, I wouldn’t be married. I’d be another celibate priest. Theology wouldn’t be about asking why and how, it would be asking when the order came passed down from the pope and what I’m supposed to do about it.
America would never have become rebellious, spoiled, and capitalistic. We’d all have bad teeth and enjoy tea time. I don’t even want to think what Homer Simpson would be like with out America as we know it, my guess is he’d be like Mr. Bean. God, I hate Mr. Bean. And I love America.
Has Dan Lost His Mind?
If you’re read this far you’re wondering if I’ve gone off my nut to suggest that one well meaning man changed the face of this world so much. Perhaps what I have written here is a stretch of the imagination. But you all loved the DaVinci Code, so this shouldn’t be that hard to swallow. Luther perhaps was the most important person of the past 1000 years. Without him, I wouldn’t be Lutheran, American, Married, spoiled, sarcastic, capitalistic, protestant, defiant, or writing this essay. I would be writing a what if paper suggesting that the land I live in was it’s own country and the land of the free.
If you got nothing else out of this essay, remember that one person can make a difference. Luther wasn’t a political person, he wasn’t rich, and he wasn’t super intelligent. He was just a simple man who went a little crazy and loved God. There is only so much that one can accomplish in one’s lifetime. But we all have an impact, don’t we? Your ideas can mean the world to someone else. Make sure you have ideas worth having, because remember; the person of the next millennium is still up for grabs.
Keep in mind that Luther never intended to start a new church at all, he just wanted to shake things up. So you can’t blame me for trying to do the same.
By way of posting a tribute to the man who started the Reformation, I'm going to prophesy what it would be like had he never existed. This is an "It's a Wonderful Life" view of Martin Luther. If you get your panties in a bunch easily, I suggest not reading this essay.
The Luther Code
I had a rather dark thought that was a slippery slope from the idea that most of us Lutherans Cling to. We believe that we are all called by the Holy Spirit. We also believe that Martin Luther asked God for help one day when he was in a terrible storm, and that the Good Lord saved him that day. Luther went on to become a monk, and later, became the revolutionary that he is known for today. I remember reading an article in school naming Luther the most important person in the past millennium. I think you can make a strong case.
So, my dark Da Vinci code cover up is- what if the story is/was inaccurate. What if the man we revere as Martin Luther really was a crazy person, like we mixed up who it was. Many people believe a similar problem with DaVinci and everything he did, and scholars can’t agree if William Shakespeare is the one who wrote the world’s best plays.
So, what if Luther never happened? What if, in that lightning storm, Luther was shot down when he proposed to God that he would join the Church? Would the reformation ever have happened? I’m not sure you realize there are tons of implications of this.
Luther's Written Influence
Luther went a little crazy toward the end of his life, and made some anti-Semitic comments that later pushed Carl Marx to write some nasty things about them, which convinced German society to elect a crazy person as a leader. He, in turn, invaded half of Europe, started a world war, which eventually led to America blowing up part of Japan, and unleashing upon the world the threat of nuclear holocaust. I know what you’re thinking, Luther didn’t and wouldn’t put Hitler in power. Perhaps not, but at the very least Luther’s message started a series of skirmishes and wars were hundreds of thousands were killed in his country perpetuating German separation between religions. Furthermore, Luther put Germany on the map. He started a movement that made Germans get into the mind set that they were superior as race. It was Luther- a German- who realized and talked out against all the evils of the Roman Catholic Church (I’m tired of writing this out, from here on, the RCC). The thinkers who came after Luther, such as Kant and Marx, were able to get notoriety impart of the reformation started by Luther.
Ok, so maybe that series of events was a little much for you. Maybe you think it is wrong for me to blame Luther for WWII. Keep in mind that I’m only suggesting that the events that follow Luther led to such a thing, not that Luther himself is to blame. In a conversation with a recent friend of mine, Martin Hesse, who is a graduate student and a native German, I was pointed in a new direction with my ridiculous theory. He claimed that without Luther, there might not have been a World War I. Germany wouldn’t have gone into recession without so much death within it’s own country, and thus, the war wouldn’t have escalated.
If you think this is such a dumb notion, why are you still reading this?
What’s also important, and I can make a stronger case for, is what would have happened in the RCC without Luther? Sure, there would have been some reform, but when? And what would it lead to? I have prepared two options for you, one involving a split.
Option A
There is no split and the RCC keeps going unimpeded by the word protestant. I think eventually they figure out that they need to change.
Quick History Lesion: The Thirty Years War
There was a lot of war in the early part of the 17th century. As I mentioned before, hundreds of thousands of Germans fought in a peasants war, sort of a way of sticking it to the man who was lord over both church and state. There were religious skirmishes all over Europe, leading to the Thirty Years war in which the Catholic Habsburgs (Austrians) verses the Protestants. Toward the end of the war, the French Catholics helped the protestants turn the tide. This was a back-breaking blow for the Roman Catholics because it was Catholics against each other. Since the Habsburgs were backed by the RCC, and since they lost, the RCC also lost, and had to sign the treaty called the Peace of Westfallia, in which the RCC had to recognize the Peace of Augsburg from 1555, that says that each prince can determine the religion that is right for them, and for their people. The head of the RCC, Pope Innocent the 10th, refused to admit defeat saying that the treaty was null and void. You’d be pissed too if you had just lost half of your membership.
Without the protestant movement, I believe this war still goes on. As an optimist, I’m going to say that without Luther in his time and place, that the RCC would have realized its bad business policies here and changed some things. So, perhaps instead of a new church there would be a revived one. If not, there would most definitely be a split among the nations. Then maybe we’d be ready for someone else to step up and lead a reformation.
Option B
Without Luther the door would be open for a new, different reformer.
Some people have suggested to me that were it not for Luther, that nearly a few years later someone else, say, John Calvin would have stepped up to the plate and started a new church. Wikipedia says this about Calvin, “While Reformers such as John Huss and Martin Luther may be seen as somewhat original thinkers that began a movement, Calvin was a great logician and systematizer of that movement, but not an innovator in doctrine.” No, I don’t believe that Calvin stands up to Papal authority in Geneva without his famous predecessor. John Huss, the other man mentioned as a reformer, lived 100 years before Luther and was excommunicated and burned at the stake. He was a pioneer, but he wasn’t the reformer that broke the camel’s back. So then, who? My guess is it would have been someone who is realitively unknown, sort of a Rosa Parks, right time, right place. My point is, without Luther nailing the 95 thesis in 1517, 2007 looks a whole lot different. Luther and Gutenberg changed the face of religion with putting the scripture in the hands on the common folk, in a language they could understand. Without Luther, there would be no King James Bible in 1611, and to this day maybe all bibles are still in dead languages. You have to understand, in Luther’s day most people considered changing the bible into a lesser language blasphemy, so someone as crazy as Luther would have to do it first. Who might that be, you ask? I’ve have an answer but you’re not going to like it.
Henry the VIII I am
Henry VIII comes into power around 1509. By 1533 (16 years after Luther’s 95 thesis) he had been excommunicated for divorcing his wife and starting the Church of England. Would he have been able to start the Church of England as easily without Luther? Absolutely not. But this man was determined to dump his wife, and Thomas Moore wasn’t going to let him without a new church. So, push comes to shove and England becomes the stronghold against the RCC, then dares the Pope to come after him.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Henry the VIII doesn’t stand up to the pope, Ann Bolyn keeps her head, and England Stays Catholic. Here’s where this disturbing “what if” hits home.
America the Beautiful?
We are a protestant stronghold. Our country was founded by religious fanatics tired of religious persecution, who were seeking a new place to practice a new religion. Without a new religion, would all those people have left Europe? I think not. The only reason that people felt compelled to come to America to find religious freedom is because of the reformation.
So, who would have come to America? I think it would be the English primarily, and eventually enough of England would be here for the people to justify actual representation in English parliament, therefore eliminating a revolutionary war. There’d be no constitution, no declaration of independence, no democracy. We’d still be under British rule. Sound ridiculous? Without a desire to get away from religious persecution, the colonies wouldn’t be so filled with visionaries and separatists. We’d all be from merry old England, and our entire country would be known as New England. Furthermore, we’d all still be catholic. The Church of England wouldn’t have happened, because there was no split from the Catholic church.
So, now as I sit in my apartment with my wife, I’m contemplating what life would be like if I was catholic and felt called to ministry. I can tell you this, I wouldn’t be married. I’d be another celibate priest. Theology wouldn’t be about asking why and how, it would be asking when the order came passed down from the pope and what I’m supposed to do about it.
America would never have become rebellious, spoiled, and capitalistic. We’d all have bad teeth and enjoy tea time. I don’t even want to think what Homer Simpson would be like with out America as we know it, my guess is he’d be like Mr. Bean. God, I hate Mr. Bean. And I love America.
Has Dan Lost His Mind?
If you’re read this far you’re wondering if I’ve gone off my nut to suggest that one well meaning man changed the face of this world so much. Perhaps what I have written here is a stretch of the imagination. But you all loved the DaVinci Code, so this shouldn’t be that hard to swallow. Luther perhaps was the most important person of the past 1000 years. Without him, I wouldn’t be Lutheran, American, Married, spoiled, sarcastic, capitalistic, protestant, defiant, or writing this essay. I would be writing a what if paper suggesting that the land I live in was it’s own country and the land of the free.
If you got nothing else out of this essay, remember that one person can make a difference. Luther wasn’t a political person, he wasn’t rich, and he wasn’t super intelligent. He was just a simple man who went a little crazy and loved God. There is only so much that one can accomplish in one’s lifetime. But we all have an impact, don’t we? Your ideas can mean the world to someone else. Make sure you have ideas worth having, because remember; the person of the next millennium is still up for grabs.
Keep in mind that Luther never intended to start a new church at all, he just wanted to shake things up. So you can’t blame me for trying to do the same.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Famous, Infamous, and Lesser Known Works
I've been asked to post my plays online. For the record, I am doing so under the assumption that no one will ever read them. If I'm wrong and someone does read them, steal whatever you want.
Recently I've been thinking about the idea of being stranded on a deserted island with someone else. Having fallen off of a Cruise Boat, that is the situation that Dennis and Theresa find themselves in.
Follow the Link: Pleasure Cruise. (Aprox 10 min)
What Really Matters is about a group of college students who find out that they are quarantined and have only 10 days left to live. What would you do? Go crazy? Get married? Both?
Follow the link : What Really Matters. (Aprox. 40 min)
Here's an excellent play I wrote as my capstone project at ASU. It's not too long, and very funny. Two characters T-bone and Becca meet in a bar and begin dating. Eventually, both start stalking the other in order to find out if the person they have a crush on is a creep. Can two people learn to love each other when neither are perfect?
This play is rated R. I wouldn't suggest my mother read it.
Follow the link: Morrons from Nowhere Special. (Aprox 30 min)
Recently I've been thinking about the idea of being stranded on a deserted island with someone else. Having fallen off of a Cruise Boat, that is the situation that Dennis and Theresa find themselves in.
Follow the Link: Pleasure Cruise. (Aprox 10 min)
What Really Matters is about a group of college students who find out that they are quarantined and have only 10 days left to live. What would you do? Go crazy? Get married? Both?
Follow the link : What Really Matters. (Aprox. 40 min)
Here's an excellent play I wrote as my capstone project at ASU. It's not too long, and very funny. Two characters T-bone and Becca meet in a bar and begin dating. Eventually, both start stalking the other in order to find out if the person they have a crush on is a creep. Can two people learn to love each other when neither are perfect?
This play is rated R. I wouldn't suggest my mother read it.
Follow the link: Morrons from Nowhere Special. (Aprox 30 min)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The Pursuit of Truth and Happiness
My friend Jenni and I have been having some on-line discussions about things. I brought up the Lutheran idea that humanity is, by nature, sinful- and by grace alone we can be saved. Luther himself tied his fate to Ephesians 2:8-10, by grace you have been saved, and not by works, so that no one could boast. My stance on this is that the more I have tried to better myself in this life, the more I realize how deep my sins run, and, in turn, how I cannot make progress on being less sinful. While this sounds depressing at first, once I realized that I cannot indeed 'make myself a better person,' a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders. Jenni's question was simple, but a great one, "Why would you still do good deeds if you weren't getting anywhere. Why still try to 'make yourself a good person,' if doing so is futile? I think you'll like where this conversation led us.
Jenni:
How are you since last week?? Great, I hope. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for everything last week. Even if I seemed a little agitated with you at times, I hope you know that I always highly value your opinion, and really love deep conversation with you. I'm just not usually at my prime at 3 in the morning :)But anyways, speaking of deep, philosophical conversation, I want you to know that I have been doing some thinking lately. Mainly about our last conversation on the state of man; how you believe that man was created as sinful, that man cannot essentially become any worse or better through the things he does, because "better/worse" is merely a perception created by society. And that therefore, striving to be the best YOU you can possibly be IS the purpose of life. And all of this I can agree with, in a sense. I agree that there is no way for us to become "better/worse" people.
Jenni-I love your spiritual fervor and intellectual pursuit. There are not many who I can converse with about things of this nature Now, I want you to know that everything that I told you (minus one statement that I'll discuss in a moment) was a part of the Lutheran tradition. Luther was the king of denying one's self and talking about humanity as being sinful by nature. You can never be a better person than you are today. You will not be rewarded for being a "good person" after life, like there is some sort of moral spelling bee. So why strive to do good in this world? Simple. You still strive to be a good person, but not because God told you that you would be the greatest (Look at what Jesus says when the disciples ask him who is the greatest). You do so because it is the right thing to do. No matter what you get out of it, you try to live a good life because it's the loving thing to do. You'll find out that the nicer you are to people, the nicer they will be back to you, and that the world does have a bit if Karma in it- albeit rather ironic- but you do the right thing because it's the right thing. You believe in truth because it is truth, not because it fits your set of circumstances.
We are defined as sinners and tainted people, and there's no scale that we can look to for improvement. But one thing that you said is still kind of unsettling to me: that because of free-will, God has no real significance in our day-to-day lives. Yes, we are ultimately saved by the cross, but do you believe that God has no almighty plan for us to follow daily besides us just being ourselves?
To answer your question, I don't really want to discourage you in thinking that God doesn't play a big part in your day-to-day life. At the same time, I want to warn you against the idea that you should just sit around a wait for God to show you a sign, tell you who you should marry, and that a call to ministry involves a miraculous sense of call. God is everywhere, he/she is very subtle. God has your back, to be sure. With free will, however, God takes a step back, to let you own your life. When you were a child, your parents took care of you. They fed you, bathed you, etc. Now that you're an adult, you put childish ways behind you- and you have free will. Do you shower because you'll be blessed if you do? No! You do it because it makes sense. No doubt you'll live an easier life if you wash yourself, but its frequency is not a necessity. The point is, your parents don't tell you how to shower, when to shower, etc. You have free will. The same is true with your spiritual cleansing. Your life is up to you!
I still don't know if I agree with this thinking. It seems to me that if God is so big and loves us so dearly, wouldn't he want us to follow HIS guidelines for daily life in order for us to make the most of this time on earth? Because (correct me if I'm wrong), isn't free-will understood to be the result of God's wrath? Because when Eve ate the apple in the garden, God told her and Adam to get out and do whatever they please. He no longer wanted anything to do with them, because they chose their destiny, and it was free-will (which in this circumstance, was synonymous with "sin"). How can free-will and the development of the self be the "end-all" for human beings? Doesn't Christ in all actuality condemn the development of the self? (Matthew 10:38-39)
God doesn't tell you how to play the game, he just tells you the rules. The rules lead you to strategy, and strategy leads to self-actualization. My point is, God wants you to have freewill and joy. Since you can't make yourself a better person, you have it easier! Life isn't school, there are no grades. So, to answer your question, the end all for your life is, ultimately, playing the game right and having joy. You will not find joy by trying to cheat, or even trying to win. Joy is how you play. Not the ends, but the means. BTW, I have a book on Kant you might like.
I also wanted to inquire you on your opinion of the state of truth. Do you believe that truth is relative? Possibly to a certain degree? This is also something I've been wrestling with.
No, I do not believe that truth is relative. TRUTH IS TRUTH regardless of if I believe it or not. Truth is , by apriori definition, objective. The definition of truth, is that it is true, in all circumstances, in all places, and all objective situations. 2+2=4 is not subjective. It is, by definition of what 2 and 4 are, true. I can believe 2+2=5, or I can focus on the fact that 6-2=4 instead, but it doesn't impede on the truth of my first statement. The only sentence I can see truth and relative co-existing is in regards to what I know is relative to what you know. Knowledge can be relative, but not truth.
The Great One
Here's a conclusion I think we can draw from our conversation. The part that should be added to Luther's line of thinking is that you should try and find happiness within yourself, in order to enjoy life. While I do think that Luther gave us some wonderful ideas on how to look at God and humanity, and the differences that being broken humans have in comparision to our lord, I think Luther misses the point. God did not create us so that we could feel bad about ourselves all the time. Just like you said, we were created to experience the joy that is living with God. God is love, and living with God is Joy. It's like this: (everything can be brought back to sports)Let's say that I won a chance to play hockey with Wayne Gretzky. So, I go out on the ice, and I'm terrible. He, of course, is the great one. I have two options. I can bow down and hate myself for not being as good as he is-which I'll call the Luther way- or I can love the time I spend with him and enjoy how good he is- which I'll call the Dan way. Now let's say that I have some crippling disease where I can't ever play hockey. I'll never get better at hockey. But does that deter my time watching Gretzky play? It shouldn't. True joy is when you realize that there is happiness outside of your physical senses. We can agree that while we will never be a "better" person, that there are ways finding Joy in doing the right thing. No one should ever do anything just for a reward.
I love you, Jenni. I ain't got no answers, but I have some good ideas. We can talk about truth and knowledge a bit more later
-Dan
Jenni:
How are you since last week?? Great, I hope. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for everything last week. Even if I seemed a little agitated with you at times, I hope you know that I always highly value your opinion, and really love deep conversation with you. I'm just not usually at my prime at 3 in the morning :)But anyways, speaking of deep, philosophical conversation, I want you to know that I have been doing some thinking lately. Mainly about our last conversation on the state of man; how you believe that man was created as sinful, that man cannot essentially become any worse or better through the things he does, because "better/worse" is merely a perception created by society. And that therefore, striving to be the best YOU you can possibly be IS the purpose of life. And all of this I can agree with, in a sense. I agree that there is no way for us to become "better/worse" people.
Jenni-I love your spiritual fervor and intellectual pursuit. There are not many who I can converse with about things of this nature Now, I want you to know that everything that I told you (minus one statement that I'll discuss in a moment) was a part of the Lutheran tradition. Luther was the king of denying one's self and talking about humanity as being sinful by nature. You can never be a better person than you are today. You will not be rewarded for being a "good person" after life, like there is some sort of moral spelling bee. So why strive to do good in this world? Simple. You still strive to be a good person, but not because God told you that you would be the greatest (Look at what Jesus says when the disciples ask him who is the greatest). You do so because it is the right thing to do. No matter what you get out of it, you try to live a good life because it's the loving thing to do. You'll find out that the nicer you are to people, the nicer they will be back to you, and that the world does have a bit if Karma in it- albeit rather ironic- but you do the right thing because it's the right thing. You believe in truth because it is truth, not because it fits your set of circumstances.
We are defined as sinners and tainted people, and there's no scale that we can look to for improvement. But one thing that you said is still kind of unsettling to me: that because of free-will, God has no real significance in our day-to-day lives. Yes, we are ultimately saved by the cross, but do you believe that God has no almighty plan for us to follow daily besides us just being ourselves?
To answer your question, I don't really want to discourage you in thinking that God doesn't play a big part in your day-to-day life. At the same time, I want to warn you against the idea that you should just sit around a wait for God to show you a sign, tell you who you should marry, and that a call to ministry involves a miraculous sense of call. God is everywhere, he/she is very subtle. God has your back, to be sure. With free will, however, God takes a step back, to let you own your life. When you were a child, your parents took care of you. They fed you, bathed you, etc. Now that you're an adult, you put childish ways behind you- and you have free will. Do you shower because you'll be blessed if you do? No! You do it because it makes sense. No doubt you'll live an easier life if you wash yourself, but its frequency is not a necessity. The point is, your parents don't tell you how to shower, when to shower, etc. You have free will. The same is true with your spiritual cleansing. Your life is up to you!
I still don't know if I agree with this thinking. It seems to me that if God is so big and loves us so dearly, wouldn't he want us to follow HIS guidelines for daily life in order for us to make the most of this time on earth? Because (correct me if I'm wrong), isn't free-will understood to be the result of God's wrath? Because when Eve ate the apple in the garden, God told her and Adam to get out and do whatever they please. He no longer wanted anything to do with them, because they chose their destiny, and it was free-will (which in this circumstance, was synonymous with "sin"). How can free-will and the development of the self be the "end-all" for human beings? Doesn't Christ in all actuality condemn the development of the self? (Matthew 10:38-39)
God doesn't tell you how to play the game, he just tells you the rules. The rules lead you to strategy, and strategy leads to self-actualization. My point is, God wants you to have freewill and joy. Since you can't make yourself a better person, you have it easier! Life isn't school, there are no grades. So, to answer your question, the end all for your life is, ultimately, playing the game right and having joy. You will not find joy by trying to cheat, or even trying to win. Joy is how you play. Not the ends, but the means. BTW, I have a book on Kant you might like.
I also wanted to inquire you on your opinion of the state of truth. Do you believe that truth is relative? Possibly to a certain degree? This is also something I've been wrestling with.
No, I do not believe that truth is relative. TRUTH IS TRUTH regardless of if I believe it or not. Truth is , by apriori definition, objective. The definition of truth, is that it is true, in all circumstances, in all places, and all objective situations. 2+2=4 is not subjective. It is, by definition of what 2 and 4 are, true. I can believe 2+2=5, or I can focus on the fact that 6-2=4 instead, but it doesn't impede on the truth of my first statement. The only sentence I can see truth and relative co-existing is in regards to what I know is relative to what you know. Knowledge can be relative, but not truth.
The Great One
Here's a conclusion I think we can draw from our conversation. The part that should be added to Luther's line of thinking is that you should try and find happiness within yourself, in order to enjoy life. While I do think that Luther gave us some wonderful ideas on how to look at God and humanity, and the differences that being broken humans have in comparision to our lord, I think Luther misses the point. God did not create us so that we could feel bad about ourselves all the time. Just like you said, we were created to experience the joy that is living with God. God is love, and living with God is Joy. It's like this: (everything can be brought back to sports)Let's say that I won a chance to play hockey with Wayne Gretzky. So, I go out on the ice, and I'm terrible. He, of course, is the great one. I have two options. I can bow down and hate myself for not being as good as he is-which I'll call the Luther way- or I can love the time I spend with him and enjoy how good he is- which I'll call the Dan way. Now let's say that I have some crippling disease where I can't ever play hockey. I'll never get better at hockey. But does that deter my time watching Gretzky play? It shouldn't. True joy is when you realize that there is happiness outside of your physical senses. We can agree that while we will never be a "better" person, that there are ways finding Joy in doing the right thing. No one should ever do anything just for a reward.
I love you, Jenni. I ain't got no answers, but I have some good ideas. We can talk about truth and knowledge a bit more later
-Dan
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Simpsons and the Ten Commandments
About 2 years ago I was looking for a curriculum to use to teach high schoolers about the Ten Commandments. Then, the idea came to me like God came to Homer in a dream. Why not use a modern-day example of the commandments in action and discuss it. Thus, The Simpsons are the Ten Commandments were born. Keep in mind that I do not have express written consent from Fox, I'm just a simple bible study writer putting my ideas on the internet for novelty purposes and my own sense of self satisfaction. There is a book out called, The Gospel According to the Simpsons, as well as a bible study that goes with it. Trust me when I say that mine is better. Sorry Mark I. Pinsky. That's what you get for not returning my email. Without further ado, I give you...
The Simpsons
and the
Ten
Commandments
Commandment
*Title- Season.Disk.Episode
Description
Quote
Thou shall have no other gods before me
You should not make a false idol
*Bart's inner child 5.2.2
A book writer comes to town and tells everyone to be more like Bart.
Church Sign "Be like unto the Boy"
Do not use the lords name in vein
*Bart the Lover 3.3.4
Homer starts a swear jar when Flander's kids pick up his bad language.
"Marge, swearing is the way God made me, and I'm too old to change now" - Homer
Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy
*Homer the Heretic 4.1.3
Homer skips church and claims to have lost his faith. He starts a new religion, after meeting God in a dream, and being saved by Ned Flanders, his faith is restored.
"Don't you think the All Mighty has something better to worry about than where one guy spends one meesly hour of his week?" -Homer
Honor your Father and Mother
*Bart the Daredevil 2.2.2
After a monster truck ralley, Bart decides that he wants to be a daredevil and goes out to jumping
“Promise me boy, that you won’t go out and jump that gorge” –Homer
“Ok I promise” Bart
“Grrrr… You didn’t mean that!” -Homer
Thou Shall not Murder
*Whacking Day 4.4.4
“Barry White, will you help us save these snakes?” –Lisa
“Anything for a lady” –Barry White
Thou Shall nor commit adultry
*Colonel Homer 3.4.2
Homer meets a waitress and manages her singing career. Marge and he have some problems, but in the end Homer realizes that Marge is the only one for him despite Lurleen's advances.
"Bunk with me tonight, bunk with me tonight- I'm askin will you bunk with me tonight" -Lurleen Lumpkin
“Wow. There isn’t a man alive that wouldn’t be turned on by that. Well, goodnight” -Homer
Thou shall not steal
*Homer vs Lisa and the 8th commandment 2.3.1
After stealing cable, Lisa has a moral crisis. She learns about stealing in Sunday school and conviences the family to give it up.
"Lisa, come sit on the couch and watch TV. It won't cost you a thing- except your soul" -The devil
Thou Shall not give false testimony
*Bart gets hit by a car 2.2.4
After being hit by Mr. Burns, Bart takes the stand and tells a half truth. Mr. Burns under oath tells an even worse lie.
"Mrs Simpson do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
"I do"
Lawyer "She sounded like she was taking that awfully seriously."
Thou shall not covet your neighbors house etc.
*When
Jealous of Ned Flanders, Homer makes a wish that
"I don't care if he's the nicest guy on earth, the guy's a jerk- end of story" -Homer
Thou shall not covet your neighbors wife
*The War of the Simpsons 2.4.2
Homer gets drunk and looks down Maude Flander's dress. At a marriage retreat, Homer and Marge face their issues.
Rev. LoveJoy, “Marge, usually I don’t tell someone that the other person is completely at fault, but in this case, it is all his fault. And I'll put that on a piece of paper you can frame.”
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Humor- Daniel's Hierarchy of Needs
Before I begin my rant on what makes good humor good, let me say something about heirarchys. No one spends all their time at the top. Actually, there is something known as too much of a good thing. This is the danger that heirachys can get in. Infact, without the majority supporting the top, the top cannot exist. In Maslow's theory, as in mine, it takes having your lower needs met to be able to move on. It is, however, important to realize that one finds one's self reverting back to baser needs on occasion. While I'm a humor snob, I'm not a Robotl
Jokes made because of or inspired by bodily functions do not amuse me because I don't find them funny. They're not really even jokes. If Maslow was reading what I was writing here, he might roll over in his grave. Is he dead? Anyway, as a behavioral psychologist, I think Maslow would agree with this assessment. His famous "Hierarchy of Needs" (or satisfiers) can be applied to our motivations of all kinds- including humor.
Allow me to explain. Look at the Diagram above. Maslow has categorized our needs in the order in which they can be satisfied. We all desire to have our needs met in order to feel satisfied. What ever that end point is for you (homeostasis, self satisfaction, Nirvana), the path by which we experience satisfaction is the same. If your physical body is being attacked, you're not really worried about your self esteem at the time. Likewise, if you can sit around on your brains (like I am at the moment) contemplating the meanings of things, then you are in a place where your other needs are being met. You can apply this to anyone, in any circumstance. It is used in office situations often to determine how to boost morale and encourage motivation to increase production. When people's needs are met, they have more motivation and therefore work harder. So what, Dan- what does this have to do with Humor?
My wife Ashley frequently is disappointed when I don't think something is funny that she finds humorous. I'm not easily laugh out loud amused. And I'm not saying that one is good or bad, but one is more sophisticated at least in as much as it takes more detail to make someone laugh. I submit to you (and to Ashley) that there is the same hierarchy to humor.
For the most part, all humor is negative. By that I mean it is at someone or something's expense. Good humor is intricate and subtle. 99% of the time, I am above poop and fart jokes. I don't find Bodily humor funny. It is boring, blue-collar, low brow comedy. Think Terrance and Phillip from South Park. I could think of a better joke if I was drunk and my brain had been deprived of oxygen. The point isn't that this stuff can't be funny, it that it's predicable. It's too easy. A step above that is the slip-on-the-banana-peel-gag. This Physical comedy falls in line with the "safety" category of Maslow's hierarchy. When other people we don't feel for are unsafe, it's funny. Think Tim Taylor and tool time. This comedy too can be predictable. Especially when you've already identified a show by this type of humor, you can see what's coming.
Comedy is about timing. If the audience gets to the conclusion before the entertainment, they don't laugh. If I guess what's coming- no matter how situationally clever- I won't laugh.
Third on the humor list, is Stereotyping. This fits in line with Maslow's belonging category. We want to belong to a class of people. Think All in the Family (or Family Guy for your young'ins). A fat white American says things that you've thought before and don't say. Most comedians fall in this category. Until recently, Chris Rock never made any jokes about anything but being black. And we loved him for it. Comedian Eddie Izzard calls himself a lesbian (thanks T-bone), and we roll in the isles. When a comedian relates to real life- even if it's not a group we belong to- we laugh because they've categorized things in a new way. Family guy's shtick, "It's like that time when" is an example of how these characters exhibit a characteristic that we relate to.
Fourth- and close to the top- of my humor hierarchy is the Character defense of the stereotype. This fufills the esteem function on Maslows. Esteem is based on self-worth, not just wanting to be part of the group, but wanting to be deserving of the group's attention. In humor, it take the shape of putting into comical phrases why we do what we do, as a way of getting others to hold us in high esteem. Think Homer Simpson. "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!" or "I don't care if Ned Flanders is the nicest guy in the world, they guy's a jerk- end of story!" Since humor is mostly negative, it's turning the negativity inward and defending why we're so irrational. If life were perfect, there would be nothing to laugh at. Think about it. That's why The Simpsons are so funny, because they expose their society as a Caricature of real America. They don't need to use any real names or base anything on a true story to be closer to real life than any sitcom using actors.
The fifth and highest level in my humor hierarchy is Self Actualization. This form is hard to master, because it means finding a different result than what comes naturally. In it's truest form, self actualization is incredibly subtle. Like the fact that the Simpsons represent America with 2.3 children- as per the American average. The Simpons are the king of subtlty and self actualization. I'll give you an example that most Simpsons' buffs I know have never noticed. In the episode, "This Little Wiggy" Bart befriends Ralph Wiggum. They sneak into an abandoned prison where the sign says, "MorningWood Penitentiary" This one-off gag lasts maybe a whole second- and it might possibly be the funniest thing I've ever seen. I don't usually laugh at penis jokes- ask my best friend Steven- but the subtly and self-aware juvenile nature of this gag makes me laugh out loud. See- it's a baser joke reference reformatted as self aware. How is this joke self aware you ask? The writers knew that viewers like me are expecting something sophisticated and witty. Fans like me always pause to read the signs on the Simpsons. Most of the time they are punny. This one however, at first glance is a normal name of an institution, except cleverly placed and timed throughout a show that often is non-stop gags. I know you're thinking that this is just low brow humor- and it is. But before you start saying that I'm contradicting myself, ask if this joke is funnier than if I just said the word Penis. If this joke had been on Family Guy- the name of the show would be "Chris goes to Morning Wood Penitentiary" and every 5 seconds would have a revised penis joke based on the previous 5 seconds. If it was on South Park it would be called, "Cartman's mom's Morning Wood" and the boys would cuss until Chef told them about erections. You see my point? Subtlety is the difference.
So, call me a humor snob if you want, Ashley or anyone else. Deny that what I have described for you is an actual hierarchy of humor sophistication. But feel free to think about this and respond in kind. Climb my pyramid if you dare, and I'll see you at the top.
Humbly your humor snob,
Daniel
Friday, April 6, 2007
Welcome to what I hope is interesting
I'm starting this blog because I've been asked to try and publish some of the bible studies and plays that I've written. Since trying to get published sounds long and full or rejection- I'll just post on the internet where I know I'm qualified. Plus, I'd be infringing on any number of copyrights.
I want to start by saying that the people in my life are very important to me. If you know me then I hope you know that I love you. My philosophical, theological, and ideological rantings are all based on the notion that we -as a group of human beings- are all connected. Without that initial assumption, I see no reason to believe in anything. When you are feeling loved, I am feeling loved. When you are hurting, I am hurting. If we were not connected, then why would there be language, culture, and cities? Why would I care what happens to you, and really, why would I care what happens to me? I believe that if I can convince the world that we are all connected then we can collectively start to understand the golden rule. When business executives at fast food chains realize that their marketing strategies are making people they care about obese, then they will practice better business ethics. More to come on business ethics... The point is, next time you pass someone and smile or say hello- consider why that is. Why are movies funnier in theaters? Why are sports games better with a packed stadium, and concerts better when they're sold out? Can it be because we actually take pleasure in other people experiencing joy? I like to think so.
That's all for now. Know that I love you.
God's love,
Daniel
I want to start by saying that the people in my life are very important to me. If you know me then I hope you know that I love you. My philosophical, theological, and ideological rantings are all based on the notion that we -as a group of human beings- are all connected. Without that initial assumption, I see no reason to believe in anything. When you are feeling loved, I am feeling loved. When you are hurting, I am hurting. If we were not connected, then why would there be language, culture, and cities? Why would I care what happens to you, and really, why would I care what happens to me? I believe that if I can convince the world that we are all connected then we can collectively start to understand the golden rule. When business executives at fast food chains realize that their marketing strategies are making people they care about obese, then they will practice better business ethics. More to come on business ethics... The point is, next time you pass someone and smile or say hello- consider why that is. Why are movies funnier in theaters? Why are sports games better with a packed stadium, and concerts better when they're sold out? Can it be because we actually take pleasure in other people experiencing joy? I like to think so.
That's all for now. Know that I love you.
God's love,
Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
