Kaine Ktisis

How We Learn - The Spiral of Knowledge

2007-06-27T15:48:00.000-07:00

This post was written while studying for my last set of university final exams.

"How do we learn? How do we take knowledge and build upon it?"

Have you ever taken a second to consider these questions? As university students, we tend to do plenty of learning. Hopefully. But we may never consider what is going on as we learn. We fail to notice the patterns that repeat themselves time after time. Becoming aware of these patterns has helped me through the long hours of studying. My hope is that it will be of some use to you as well.

During my first few years of university, I spent lots of time thinking about philosophy and religion. This went well with all the course work I was doing, eventually leading to a major in Religion (alongside Biology).

I remember I used to spend a lot of time reflecting on epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophical attempt to answer the question: "how do we know what we know". In other words, it examines the foundations and validity of our knowledge.

Of all the authors I read, a new testament scholar had the greatest impact on my epistemology. Yes, I know, he may not have the philosophical vigor of a true philosopher, but his explanation of "how we can know the world around us" seemed pretty good to me. The scholar's name is N.T. Wright.

Now, religiously, I have come a long way from Wright's position. Wright is no longer a new testament scholar; he has become the Bishop of Durham for the Church of England. But his explanation of the "spiral of knowledge" (or "hermeneutical spiral") has remained with me yet. In brief, the spiral of knowledge states that learning--the formation of knowledge--is cyclical.

We start at a point with what we think is true. We then try to learn more by examining new evidence or reexamining old evidence. In the process, our understanding is modified. Thus, we cycle between a state of having conclusions and a state of challenging conclusions.

But then, why is it called a spiral and not a circle? The reason is that every time we go through a cycle and come back to a set of conclusions, our conclusions are often different from the ones we originally held. Hopefully, with each iteration of the cycle our conclusions come closer and closer to actual reality. Thus, our knowledge metaphorically "spirals upwards".

Oddly enough, I've found this metaphor of the spiral of knowledge to be an accurate description of how I learn. For example, I start with a certain understanding of a physiological process. I then study, read, and reflect, causing my understanding to grow and change. I then end up with a new and improved understanding of the same process. As the cycle repeats, my knowledge becomes more precise, and I even understand related ideas and concepts better.

So next time you're struggling to learn something, remember the spiral.

Closing the File

2007-06-18T15:51:00.000-07:00

So the news is in, I am indeed going to become a doctor some day. I have also decided which wonderful Canadian city will have the unfortunate task of training me over the next few years. I'm going to Calgary.

So how did this whole application experience go? Although hindsight would say "not too shabby", it was full of ups and downs along the way.

Rejected - No Interview
University of British Columbia
University of Alberta (Missing prerequisite)
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
University of Ottawa
McMaster University
University of Toronto
Dalhousie University

Interview Granted..Waitlisted
Queen's University

Interview Granted...Admission Offered!
University of Calgary
University of Manitoba
University of Western Ontario

Overall, I applied to most of the English speaking medical schools in Canada - 11 in total. I only got 4 interviews. I think the biggest setback for me was not getting an interview at UBC, my home school. When I found out why, I was quite frustrated at myself. This was compounded by the realization that I might be leaving the city which was my home all these years.

I learned something about applying to medical school: patience is key. One does a lot of waiting during the application process. First, applications start around October; around February, interview offers and rejection letters are mailed out. After interviews, it's another anxiety filled two months until admission offers are released. All in all, there is a lot of waiting. Come to grips with that reality before starting the whole application process.

Fortunately, my anxiety was unnecessary, as I ended up doing just fine. Before the 15th of May, which is when admission and waitlist notices are sent, I had already made predictions. I figured that, if I got into medicine at all, then I'd definitely get into Manitoba and Western. I knew based on their admissions criteria that they were my best shots. Not to mention, my Manitoba and Western interviews went quite well. I also knew that Queen's was highly unlikely to offer me a seat. Not only was I weak based on their final admissions criteria, but I also felt like I bombed that interview.

Calgary, however, threw me off. I felt like I had a solid interview (well, interviews). Despite this, I wasn't putting much hope in Calgary because of my preinterview score. I felt like I was at the low end of the interview pool, especially for out-of-province applicants. For me to then get one of the original out-of-province admission offers on the 15th was a hell of a surprise. I wasn't even thinking about moving to Calgary. In fact, I told people time after time that I'd never go there! My oh my how things change when circumstances are different.

So then, why Calgary? After I received my admission offers, the decision came down to Calgary or Western. Manitoba has a great school and program, but I did not want to live in Winnipeg if I could avoid it. The city isn't very nice, the neighbourhood of the medical school isn't very safe, and the weather is terrible. My pros and cons lists really helped out with my decision making... with one major difference.

I learned two things about Canadian medical schools that I didn't know during my interviews. First, school prestige isn't a major factor in Canadian medicine. All the Canadian schools are excellent, and all put out exceptionally qualified doctors. Second, residency matching statistics for Calgary and Western show little difference. Six years worth of residency matching statistics are available on the CaRMS website. The differences between schools in the specialties I'm interested in are small and insignificant. In other words, no school is obviously better at pumping out surgeons and neurologists. Having these two fears of mine silenced altered my decision making process.

Whereas I would have selected Western unequivocally, I became less settled with that choice. I had thought Western was a better school; the two things I learned nullified my assumption. Furthermore, I was attracted more and more to the program at Calgary.

In summary form, the following is why I ultimately decided to go to Calgary:

Calgary is a nicer city to live in. It's urban, modern, growing, and wealthy. Of all the places I went to, it most resembles Vancouver's urban feel. You know what they say: once a city boy, always a city boy. And the fact of the matter is, deciding on medical schools is just as much about the city as it is about the school. I spend most of the week at the school, but I spend all my life in the city. When thought of that way, Calgary is clearly superior.
Calgary has a three year program. Most medical schools have four year programs, giving students 3 months of vacation in the pre-clerkship summers. Students can spend the summer doing research, observerships, working, or traveling. It's free time. Calgary's three year program gives us four weeks of vacation a year: two weeks christmas and two weeks summer. The way I think about it: Calgary gets me to a real paycheque one year sooner. That's one year less tuition, one year less loaning. As someone who is aiming to become a specialist, I have a lot of training left after medical school, so every year counts.
The program at Calgary is innovative and modern. Calgary seems to be a leader in medical education. They have pioneered the use of clinical presentations to guide and direct their pre-clerkship coursework. I'm really excited about this approach, and I think it will be a great way to learn.
The facilities at Calgary are excellent. The medical school is located at Foothills Hospital, which is separate from the main University of Calgary campus. This is something I want (at least at this point), as I don't want to spend another 3 years on a massive, sprawling, campus. The health sciences building is also very impressive. Thus, in terms of facilities, Calgary is top of my list. Not to mention, the financial situation of the province hopefully trickles down to the health industry.

So, Cowtown, see you in a few weeks!

The Ontario Trip: A Postscript

2007-06-05T15:07:00.000-07:00

I just realized that I never posted my pros/cons list from my Ontario trip to Queen's and Western. For the sake of completeness, as well as my own personal records, I'll go ahead and publish them. Who knows, maybe these lists will help someone else with their decision making someday.

Queen's University
Pros:

Strong clinical skills program
Small class size: very tight knit class
The medical school is highly integrated into the community. All the physicians in Kingston are extended members of the teaching staff, and they are all willing to take on medical students in observerships.

Cons:

Inconvenient campus: There isn't much food close to the medical sciences building, thus requiring a bit of a walk to the student building.
Medical school facilities are on the same campus as everyone else.
Very small, dinky, regional airport.
Clerkship starts midway through third year, a little late!

Unsure:

Kingston's population is mostly Queen's students, faculty, and staff. Thus, diversity is a little limited. Moreover, the city is also quite small - in both size and feel.

University of Western Ontario
Pros:

Small class size makes it easier to get to know your class well.
Convenient layout: everything to do with the medical school is in the same building complex.
Clerkship structure: All core clerkship rotations are completed in 3rd year, leaving 4th year free to pick electives that you want to pursue. Knowing what you like in 3rd year is a major bonus when deciding upon electives. This clerkship layout is great for those who need help making a career decision.
End of 4th year has a unique back to school component where you go back into the classroom environment and take advanced courses in areas of specialty.
Many areas in the medical school building are key-carded for medical students only. The lounge is great! It has a nice TV, pool table, sofas. There is also quiet study space and a large computer lab.
Local doctors seem willing to take on medical students in observership roles.
Summer online forum is available to find roommates.

Cons:

Medical school is on the main university campus, and thus shared with all other undergraduate and graduate programs.
The medical school building doesn't look or feel new. Labyrinth like hallways. It isn't a very open feel.
London isn't a large, modern, urban centre.

Unsure:

Curriculum stresses independent, self-directed learning. However, the schedule seems to include equal lecture/small group time to any other medical program. Generally, mornings from 8:30am to 12:30pm are spent in lecture. One afternoon a week is community health lecture; two other afternoons are spent in small groups or doing clinical skills.

The Good News

2007-05-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

Victory!

I've been accepted into medical school!

More details to follow...

Flown Out

2007-05-02T11:21:00.000-07:00

I did a fair bit of flying during my medical school interviews. Here's the final tally.

Time period: 4 weeks
# of days: 7
# of airports visited: 6
# of individual flights: 11

Aircraft I've been during the 4 week timespan:
Boeing 737
Boeing 767-300
Embraer 190
Canadair CRJ 705
Canadair CRJ 100
De Havilland Dash 8-100
Beech 1900D

Why didn't I collect frequent flyer points? Stupid me...

Interviews Three and Four: The Ontario Trip

2007-04-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

Finally, the last leg of my 'national tour'! This one would take me off to the less-than-stellar cities of Kingston and London in Ontario. I woke up at 4:30 AM on Friday - a cruel and horrible form of punishment. Flights at seven in the morning should be outlawed. I also tend to play it safe, rather than sorry, and end up waiting for an hour at the gate because I'm early. It's worth the cost to me, missing my flight is not something I want to go through just now.

This trip wasn't my first to the province of Ontario. I went to Ottawa in August for Dan's wedding. However, this was my first time in Toronto. Unfortunately, since I was connecting, I didn't have a chance to actually go out into the city. From the air, the city is huge. The CN tower is quite nice too. The smog on the other hand, not so attractive.

Toronto airport.

Toronto smog.

From Toronto, I took the world's smallest airline plane to Kingston. I'm not kidding. The plane sat like 14 people: two per row with an aisle down the middle. It's so small that the co-pilot had to give the preflight briefing! Yeah, not kidding. Turbulence in these things is nothing short of exhilarating. On a positive note, it was the first flight I remember where my pilot was female. Actually, both the pilots were female! Makes you wonder, how come women never get to fly the big Boeing and Airbus jets?

That thing got me to Kingston and back. I think my boat is bigger than this plane.

I arrived in Kingston late in the afternoon. It was my first time in a small regional airport. If you've never been to an airport such as this - well, your not missing out on much. When I say small, I mean the whole terminal is about the size of my house. Small plane, small terminal, I suppose it all matches in some fundamental way.

The city of Kingston lives up to its airport. It's a pretty small city (population 120,000), with a large proportion of its population being students at Queen's University. The taxi ride to my hotel took me past infamous Kingston Penitentiary, and the adjacent jail for Women. Very attractive. I also got a glimpse of the Queen's campus, but I'll hold off on that for just a sec. My hotel was right on the water: Radisson Hotel. This was perhaps the best sight in the whole city. Believe it or not, my room had a king size bed. Yes, king size. It was one of those adjustable firmness beds too. Wow! I had a great view of the lake and part of the city; the room was very spacious and the furniture was excellent. I highly recommend it to anyone who may be traveling into Kingston. I was quite tired that Friday, so I spent the rest of the night in my room. Thank God for complimentary internet access - and an accessible girlfriend! (Mad props)

What a room...check out the king size bed.

My view at sunset.

Same view, twelve hours later.

The next day, I arrived at the Queen's campus just after 11 AM. The campus is architecturally very nice, with old stone/brick style buildings. I joined an impromptu tour of the campus with a first year medical student and some interviewees from McMaster. Suffice it to say, there's a lot of walking involved in studying at Queen's.

Queen's architecture.

Another building on the Queen's campus.

Nice library on the Queen's campus.

At noon, there was an orientation and welcome session for interviewees. This included the usual "what's so great about our school" schpeel. The highlight, however, was the video. That was worth a lot of laughs. Following the orientation, I made my way to the adjacent clinical education centre where the actual interviews were held. I sat around in the waiting room and chatted with other interviewees and some first year students. It was quite relaxing. Oddly, Queen's is the only medical school interview where I wasn't made to sign a confidentiality agreement. Maybe I forgot to, or somehow magically did without knowing. If that's the case, I wasn't properly informed and thus any agreement is void. Long story short, I can talk about the interview!

Of all the interviews I did this year, I felt the most uncomfortable at the Queen's one. I'm not sure why, I think it got off to a weird start. You see, they always give you water right at the beginning of the interview. Like usual, when they started their introductions, I went for a sip of water. Normally, this is perfect timing: they're talking, and you can hear; you don't need to talk, so you can drink. But my perfectly planned water maneuver took an unexpected twist - they stopped talking and watched me drink my water. It was eerie. Was I shaking with anxiety? Were they watching my cup wondering if I'd spill. I have no idea. That threw me off for a good minute while I went into damage control mode and tried to de-weirdify the interview. It didn't take long to feel back at ease, but that weird start still haunts me.

After the interview, I made me way back to the airport to wait for my flight(s) to London. I met a fellow interviewee from SFU who was also at Queen's that day. It was nice having some company, and we finally parted ways after dinner in Toronto. Lo and behold, the same two female pilots on the same dinky little plane got us back to Toronto. It's like these poor pilots fly circles between Kingston and Toronto all day. After a short stay in Toronto, I took a respectable prop (Dash 8) down to London. Arrival time, almost midnight.

I stayed at the Spencer Leadership Centre in London. This was a conference & hotel affiliated with the Business school at the University of Western Ontario. The price was good, and the room was nice. Not as big as the Radisson in Kingston, but nice nonetheless. After some phone calls and unpacking, I collapsed into a heap of sleeping cells at about 1 AM.

My room in London. Cozy but nice.

The Spencer Leadership Centre in London had a great sitting room.

Waking up at 7 AM was brutal. I could really feel the lack of sleep getting to me. I got to the Western campus at around 10 AM in line for my 11 AM interview. After signing in, I was led into the waiting room to wait it out till my interview. The nice thing was, the number of 1st year medical students pretty much outnumbered interviewees. I spent some time chatting with students and interviewees alike.

A largely uninformative shot of the Western medical building.

Looking at part of the Western campus.

The interview itself went well, for the most part - except for the one time I caught myself staring into blank space with nothing further to say. That was kind of awkward, ahaha. But the start of the interview was great, as one of the panel members made a small slip up during the introduction and we all had a great laugh. I really think the first few minutes of the interview are crucial. First impressions, anyone?

Following the interview, I went to yet another welcome session. If I thought the Queen's video was nice, Western's was just amazing. I laughed pretty hard. Following the orientation, I asked a first year med student to show me around - which he was pleased to do. I thought that was a great touch, the first year students were really there to help us interviewees. Not to mention, this was the only school where the first years were actually dressed up too - and not walking around in slack jeans. Nice, professional, touch.

Finally, I was done! My interviews for this year's application cycle came to an end. What a feeling of relief. But, alas, karma caught up to me. My flight home had a connection in Winnipeg. On the approach and landing into Winnipeg airport, I noticed how low and thick the fog was. And it was covering everything - fog as far as the eye could see. And the eye can see plenty at thirty thousand feet. That pesky fog kept us in Winnipeg an extra two hours. Mind you, we already had to wait a few hours for our connecting flight, so any delay only added insult to injury. And the worst part was that other planes were able to land. Unfortunately, the plane that was supposed to get us to Vancouver was not certified to land in the fog. I think that fly I swatted tried to get back at me. Karma. Fortunately, I was traveling with a fellow UBC student who was also interviewing at Western. Again, traveling with someone makes the whole processes just a little bit more bearable.

The fog in Winnipeg. You can see the shadow of our plane. See the landing gear - yeah, we're that low.

Touching down in Vancouver was such an amazing feeling. I enjoy traveling and flying - but not like this. Going a different place every other week for a day or two at a time is really taxing. I was drained, and very pleased to be finished. Our plane landed at around 12 AM. My total travel time that day was a full 12 hours. All that just to cross the country. I wish I connected in Toronto.

I hope you've enjoyed my 'national tour'. I've seen a bit of Canada now, taken a few pictures, and ate a lot of room service. Let's hope I don't have to do this again till CaRMS.

Interview Two: University of Manitoba Medical School

2007-03-23T17:42:00.000-07:00

Two weeks after my trip to Calgary, I set off on the second leg of my "national tour". The destination, Winnipeg.

My flight to Winnipeg wasn't as early in the morning as my Calgary. That meant I actually got a respectable amount of sleep, and woke up at a decent hour (7 am). That weekend was a major cram time for me, as I had to finish off my take-home midterm for Endocrinology. Long story short - I wrote a lot over the weekend. You'd be amazed how productive you are when you're sitting very bored in an empty airport terminal!

Bye Vancouver, see ya soon!

Welcome to the prairies: the whole city of Regina in one shot.

Winnipeg airport.

I arrived in Winnipeg around mid-afternoon. I had given myself a few hours to explore the city centre - my first stop: McDonalds in the underground mall for some lunch. I was starving, as I hadn't had a thing to eat since 7am. Alas, Winnipeg has even less to see than Calgary. I walked in the other direction to another mall, and decided I'd had enough and wanted to get back to my hotel and rest. Total touristy time: 1 hour, 15 minutes. I made an excellent purchase, though. I picked up a copy of Freakonomics. What an exciting book to read, I highly recommend it. Part economics, part entertainment - great combo.

My hotel room..two starts at its best.

Going towards the city centre.

I thought this was a pretty cool statue.

That's it...back to my hotel.

I pretty much read the whole thing throughout the course of my trip.

My attempt to sleep was thwarted by a group of youngins. They thought it to be a great idea to party till 3am. I lost count of how many times they slammed the door. At least I could sleep in a little bit the next day. I found out later that my cheerful floormates were probably American teens on spring break. You see, legal drinking age in Manitoba is 18 - it's 21 just across the border. Case closed.

I arrived at the medical school quite a bit earlier than my 2:20 pm interview time. I had a great time sitting down and chatting with other interviewees and first year med students. Everyone was in a good mood, and the vibe was great. The interview itself went well, in my opinion. It was incredibly relaxed, and I felt that it was a very fair chance for me. After the interview, I went on a rather short tour of the building, chatted a bit with some of the first years, then got on my taxi to get to the airport and go back home.

The health sciences building from outside.

The atrium of the health sciences building.

Another angle of the health sciences building atrium.

Finally, my overall summary of the medical school at the University of Manitoba, as well as some comments about the city of Winnipeg. (Some of them may seem a bit, odd...this list is just as much for my memory as it is for public consumption).

Pros:

The medical program has a small class size. This forms a tight knit class, as well as gives a great chance to get to know instructors if one wants.
The university seems to really take care of its medical students, I was very impressed by this.
Lots of clinical exposure since the facility is the only major care centre for a very large region.
St. Boniface Hospital is in a nice place (the French Quarter of town), and it's where I'll spend a lot of time in my clerkship years.
A new Clinical Skills Centre is in the initial phases of building; unfortunately, it's uncertain whether it will be complete in time for our class.
Opportunity to do research and graduate with an MD & BSc Med. Research is conducted during Summer 1 and Summer 2. Also, we get a summer stipend of $4500. Research can be conducted in many topics and in many areas.
Lots of opportunity to get early clinical experience. Doctors are willing to take University of Manitoba med students in an observer role.
Cost of tuition is VERY low. Cost of living is VERY low.

Cons:

Health Sciences Centre & Hospital are in a shady part of town.
The city centre is full of loitering homeless people; downtown Winnipeg is depressing.
The city has no freeways?!
It's very cold during the winter.
The transit system is not highly recommended

Unsure:

Teaching is lecture focussed: starts off with basic sciences, then goes through each system studying physiology/anatomy/pharmacology/pathology/etc in the clinical context.

Cowtown - Sunday (Day 2)

2007-03-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

I woke up on Sunday feeling refreshed. Despite my trouble falling asleep, I seemed to have evaded my typical morning grogginess. I ordered up some breakfast, for some reason I thought I was really hungry. After waiting twice as long as I was told to wait, my massive stack of pancakes arrived. I learned a valuable lesson that day: anxiety suppresses my appetite. It wasn't like I was freaking out, not at all. It was more of a mixture of excitement and not knowing what to expect. Whatever it was, I think I managed to eat a single pancake (out of 3) and some fruit. I plan to switch up my traveling breakfast. From now on, I'll get a bagel and tea. Nothing too heavy.

I checked out of the hotel around 11AM and headed over to the Health Sciences Centre where the interviews were held. I got there way too early - my Vancouver-based distance/traveltime calculations are way off. These cities have no traffic (especially on Sunday!), and the distances are within eyesight. In any case, instead of looking like a complete tard, I decided to walk around the Health Sciences Centre in my own little one-man informal tour. It's an impressive building. It seems new and sleek, and I assume somewhat functional.

Just inside the entrance of the Health Sciences Centre.

I guess that means me!

Hippocrates. I like his toga.

Soon enough, my interview day started. This 4.5 hour trek lasted me from noon till near 5pm. The medical school interview at U of Calgary is pretty intense. It comes in two parts:

Part 1 is the Multiple Mini Interview. In this segment, we do a round robin interview with 9 individual judges spending 10 minutes at each station. As with all medical schools, I've signed a confidentiality agreement of some sort, so I can't give much in the way of details. Basicaly, think of it as 9 first impressions.

Following Part 1 was, you guessed it, Part 2 - the On Site Essay. We were given 50 minutes to type two essays. Again, no details. But trust me in this, it wasn't very fun or enlightening. At least we got to type it up in the computer lab.

Finally, we were done! We got the canned speech about how great the medical school program is at U of C. The faculty/doctor who spoke to us, and generally followed us around all day, was a great guy. Calgary Flames jersey aside, he seemed like a really nice guy.

With the interview day over, I waited another aeon for my taxi. First, picked up my stuff from the hotel, then off to the airport. It must be a Calgary thing - I had a great time chatting with the cab drivers in Calgary. I got to the airport way too early, but I had nothing else to do. Did you know that WestJet doesn't let you check in earlier than 5 hours before your flight? Well now you know.

That was a very, very long 5 hours. In that span of time, I ate 12 inches of sandwich and read half a book. Thank god I found some nice individual sofas right beside my gate. I bet my ass-print is permanently pressed into that sofa. I'll be sure to check on my way back from Winnipeg (as I'm stopping in Calgary).

Trying reading this book for 4 hours. I dare you.

As we were finally settling into the plane, the captain came on with some not-so-great news. Maintenance had found a large dent in the tail of the airplane, rendering it unfit to fly. Great, another hour of sitting around. Although, I suppose that's better than disintegrating mid-flight.

Almost home.

So, what did I learn through this experience?

Vancouver is an amazing city. Hands down, the scenery, the city, the shops and entertainment. I don't think there's much competition - in Canada at least. I've been to lots of places, but only now that moving away has become a very real possibility have I realized how amazing this city is.
Interviews for medical school aren't as big and bad as I thought. Just relax, be yourself, and don't worry. I don't know how well I did, but what's done is done - no need to second guess myself.

Last, but not least, my summary of studying medicine at the University of Calgary:

Pros:

Calgary isn't Vancouver, but it's still not that bad of a city. It's urban, modern, and growing fast. At least Calgary has Vancouver style condo highrise buildings going up. Also, downtown Calgary is pretty clean and safe.
Calgary has covered walkways EVERYWHERE...you could probably make it through a whole winter day without going outdoors. And trust me, for a spoiled Vancouverite, that sounds very tempting.
The medical school is nice, it looks new and modern. It's also attached to a major hospital.
Travel between Calgary and Vancouver is fast (~1 hr flight), convenient, and cheap. Thank you WestJet.

Cons:

I didn't get a very good vibe from the student body. I don't know what it is. As a point of comparison, the med students at U of Manitoba were much friendlier. Then again, Calgary goes through a lot of interviews compared to, say, Manitoba, so that might be a factor.

Unsure:

Calgary is an innovative school. Their medical curriculum is taught according to the 100 or so different ways a patient can present to physicians. Traditional anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology are integrated throughout. However, I'm not totally sure if this is a good thing. Traditional medical education has worked well for a very long time--it has a well tested track record.
The undergraduate MD program is only 3 years long, instead of the typical 4 years. On the plus side, that means I finish school and get into residency a whole year sooner. However, that also means I only get 4 weeks of vacation a year, instead of 3 months. This limits my possibility to do a research project, or to gain extra clinical experience outside of my formal training.

That's it for Calgary, check back soon for the next installment of my "national tour".

Cowtown - Saturday (Day 1)

2007-03-01T11:07:00.000-08:00

As some of you know, I have been invited for a number of interviews at out-of-province medical schools. My first stop along my 'national tour' took me to Calgary (don't worry, I don't plan to run for politics).

I left Vancouver soon after sunrise on Saturday morning. I was somewhat paranoid about how strict pre-boarding security would be with my 'Gels, Liquids, and Aerosols'. They weren't. I was within all the legal limits - everything was travel sized and in a clear, resealable, bag. I thought they would have at least looked at it. But I went through security without a single question. It makes me wonder what the hell the strict rules are for - do they even check?

My hotel in Calgary was the Sandman in downtown. It was decent for the price: nothing spectacular, nor any glaring faults. I decided to spend my afternoon walking around downtown. It's no Vancouver, that's for sure. The whole trip took 3 hours...including 1 hour sitting in a chair eating lunch. But, there are some highlights.

Calgary Tower was probably the best part. For those that don't know, Calgary Tower is, well, a tower. You pay a disproportionately large sum of money and get whisked to the top by windowless elevator. The observation deck at the top has a great view of the city. Although, I suppose that isn't much to say considering it is right in the middle of the city, and the city is completely flat. Nonetheless, it was nice! I liked the 3 or 4 glass panels you could stand on and look down from. The first time I stepped on to them was rather unnerving, but I got used to it quickly. I only wish that they would have had a glass floor all the way around the observation deck, not just in a single, 2 meter wide patch.

I went as far as the Olympic park before deciding to call it a trip and head back to my hotel. Conveniently, Calgary has a tram system that runs through downtown and stops right in front of my hotel! Oh, did I say, the tram is free in the downtown core. Sweet deal. So I hopped on for the 3 minute ride back home. Total time spent: 3 hours.

I spent the rest of the afternoon cuddled in my (uncomfortable) bed. You know, those beds where you can feel the springs whenever you dare migrate towards the center of the mattress. Lack of sleep, combined with lack of entertainment, led to a wonderfully long snooze. I ate dinner at the restaurant in the hotel lobby, and retired to my room for the rest of Saturday.

My attempt to fall asleep at 11 failed. I was too anxious looking forward to the next day - and my medical school interview. But, thank god, I eventually fell asleep - sometime after 12.

To be continued...

Diastole, systole...wait, not that heart!

2007-02-14T21:30:00.000-08:00

Happy Valentine's day, my love!

Happy New Yea..Uh..Happy February

2007-02-12T16:47:00.000-08:00

It's been a while, hasn't it. I haven't posted since-oh my-last year.

Hum, where to begin...

Christmas break was a great time to relax. Quite low key: some family, some friends. Nothing spectacular. I must say, I enjoyed my new computer.

After some initial juggling about, I've ended up with four courses for my last semester at UBC! Wow, this feels good. I haven't had a courseload this nice for a while. On top of that, I work 10 hours a week, volunteer for 2, and dance for another 2. Nonetheless, life is much better than last semester.

How about medical school applications? Well, I'm going to remain purposely vague for the next few months, until my fate is decided. All I will say for now: some disappointments mixed in with nice surprises. Oh, and I'll be doing a bit of flying/busing/taxiing/hoteling over the next couple month. I'm off to Calgary in a couple weeks; in March, I'll be dropping into Winnipeg and Toronto/Kingston. Thank God for WestJet!

As for this coming summer, I have applied for an NSERC grant to do research with one of my professors. NSERC grants are federal grants available to undergraduate science and engineering students to allow them to gain summer research experience. My professor's research field is spinal cord injury. With my GPA, I feel 75% confident that I'll be approved. Not to mention my prof has had an NSERC funded student several years in a row now. More details if I actually get approved.

I also have a few ideas for posts circulating in between my ears. I hope to get back to semi-regular blogging. So cross your fingers and check back in a few days!

Just Have Faith

2006-11-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

"Just have faith that it's true."

I've heard this quite a bit lately. People often try to meet my skepticism about the truth of the Bible or the truth of Christian doctrine with the response "just have faith". When I have difficulty accepting something in the Bible or in Christian doctrine, or if I find that I have insufficient reason to accept something, people say I should "just have faith".

I translate this as them telling me to believe a certain doctrine or statement to be true even though the rest of my mind is against it (or agnostic). As if we don't actually need to use our minds anymore, as if we should just blindly accept everything our tradition and culture teaches us.

It's funny, I'm told to "just have faith that the Bible is completely true" even though every ounce of my reason says otherwise. I'm being told to believe in Biblical inerrancy even when I can't stand it!

Somehow, I think my comforters are missing the point of "faith". The word "faith" has numerous meanings in modern English. It can mean something along the lines of assent. In this usage, to have faith is to assent that the object of faith is true or correct. What kind of objects fit this usage of "faith"? Statements. "True" applies to statements.

But there is another usage of the word "faith". Faith can also mean trust. What type of objects fit this usage of "faith"? When I use "faith" like this, I normally use it in reference to a person. I have faith--trust--in people. I have faith in my parents, of their love for me. This is a very strong faith - unlikely to ever break. I have faith in my girlfriend, that she will be there for me and be faithful towards me. Faith is personal, it's relational. Faith is trust in someone; faith is also faithful - a reciprocal trustworthiness.

Those who tell me to "just have faith" are mistaking assent for trust. They went me to assent to a statement, rather than trust in God. This is why I think they are mislead. I can't see how assenting to a statement as true has anything to do with my spirit. I don't think our beliefs are first and foremost in God's mind. I'm no prophet, but that's something I believe: that beliefs aren't primary for God's purposes.

But trust. Trust is a different animal all together. Faith which trusts in God even in the face of doubt and uncertainty - now that is real faith. A faith that stays faithful even when staring into the unknown. That's real faith. That is the kind of faith that I sorely lack - and earnestly long for.

"Just have faith."

It's not what you believe, but who.

*The writings of Marcus Borg have helped me during my struggles over the word "faith". His book The Heart of Christianity, which I previewed here, was especially useful.

Yesterday

2006-11-06T23:25:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow turned out good. So did the day after that.

So did the year after that.

Let's hope for many more.

Bible Says, Church Says, I Say

2006-11-05T16:57:00.000-08:00

The Bible says many things. It is, after all, a collection of books and letters compiled over hundreds of years. The authors, yes plural, were a varied bunch: temporally, culturally, linguistically, and theologically. So each book of the Bible, each author, says its own thing. And it's not an easy task to pick this apart. Much of the Bible has gone through redaction - modification and editing. We don't even know if we have the words of the original author! In some cases, we can be certain that we don't. So we're left with a rather complex collection of texts whose unity is a debated issue. Does it even make sense to say that 'the Bible' says such-and-such. Honest historical-critical study of the biblical texts would convince one to the contrary. There is tension in the Bible. Some books say things that make us uncomfortable. Some books ignore a theme we think is important - a theme we think should have been given more prominence! It is not an easy task to try and harmonize everything together into one, single, united viewpoint.

But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.

The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.

Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.

Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.

See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.

So when do I get bothered?

I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.

Bible says, Church says, I say.

Three different things.

Slow and Steady

2006-10-31T13:38:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed I've been involved with blogs much more lately - again.

Well, life isn't as hectic anymore. Part of it is that I reorganized my life. But another part is that, well, I'm over a big hump.

Medical school applications are pretty much finished. Medical school references are all complete. Midterms are done except for one. I don't have any essays due till the end of November (I think there are 4, I've lost count). But, I've partitioned my time, so that hopefully being organized will keep me sane.

Sunday night was the first time in 2 months that I sat at my desk and realized I didn't have to work!

What a liberating feeling.

With a massive load of stress off my shoulders, I find that I have stuff to write about yet again.

Hurrah!

Blogger Beta...eh?

2006-10-29T21:19:00.000-08:00

I have converted my blog to the new Blogger Beta style. Spiffy eh?

I even managed to code back in my 'trademark' left and right sidebars.

Still a few tweaks required...but I like it!

Google owns the world.

Paradox: Darwin vs. Hippocrates

2006-10-29T20:08:00.000-08:00

A paradox has been tugging at my mind these past months. It's all rather vague and abstract, but I'll try to present it nonetheless. It goes something like this.

Life on this earth has been driven by natural selection. Every organism alive today is only here because it, and it's many ancestors, have made it through nature's brutal selective hand. They are the ones most capable of breeding and surviving in the specific environment that they inhabit. If an organism carries a gene which makes them weak or feeble, they will die. They will not spread that gene. That's the point. That's natural selection. But more so, that species as a whole is better off with the weak individual dying. It keeps harmful genes out of the gene pool.

And such is the world of Darwin.

But we humans are odd. We defy Darwin's world - we defy nature itself. Our technology and medicine allows weakness and disease to survive. Our health industry allows weak and sick individuals to survive, reproduce, and nurture offspring - a possibility nearly impossible to every other species on this planet. We have been able to overcome natural selection. Its heavy hand no longer controls our fate. Our doctors, drugs and scientists do that now.

And I confess, I am one of those who wants to take on nature. I do, after all, want to become a Physician. It would be my sworn duty to heal others. This is my dream.

This is the world of Hippocrates.

What would Darwin and Hippocrates have to say to one another? Are physicians in some way harming humankind? Doctors are bound to do good and no harm - that is their oath. Every human life is precious. Every human life is equal. Every condition will receive the full treatment available. Pharmaceutical companies labour long and hard at designing and producing drugs. They do it for the dollar, but intentions aside, patients receive treatment. However, the unintentional consequence of health care is that bad genes might make it through, they might get passed on.

And herein lies my paradox. In defying natural selection--the very branch upon which the human species stands--are we only making our species weaker? By fighting against the weeding hand of nature, are we only doing more harm in the long run?

I for one know, if I ever make it into medicine, I would do good and no harm.

Besides, I've always had a thing for the Greeks.

Where'd You Go

2006-10-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've disappeared lately, I know. I am in fact still alive. I don't have time or motivation to say anything of significance, so I will post one of those "this is what I've been up to" blog posts.

***

Medical school applications are almost over. So far I've completed:

UBC
University of Manitoba
University of Toronto
Queens University
University of Western Ontario
McMaster University
University of Ottawa
Northern Ontario Medical School

I still have to do:

University of Alberta
University of Calgary
Dalhousie University
University of Saskatchewan

And yes, I'm applying to almost every medical school in Canada.

Chances are I'll get 12 letters of rejection. But maybe, just maybe, one school is brilliant enough to let me in. Hah!

***
A good boss makes a big difference!

My boss has kindly allowed me to drop down to 5 hours of work per week instead of 9. This may seem insignificant, but it's the difference between getting home at 3pm or 9:30pm.

***

I'm going to be volunteering at the Dr. Peter Centre. This is a residence and day centre for AIDS infected individuals. Those inside are also dealing with issues such as poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and mental problems. I'm going to be volunteering in the live-in residence, which has 24 private single-room dwellings. I'll be doing things like one-on-one chats, games, reading aloud, and taking residents to local medical appointments.

This is going to be very challenging. I've never done anything like this before. But I'm excited. This is going to give me some really valuable experiences, and probably bust a lot of my naivety.

***

I thought October would be busy, followed by a relatively low key November.

The way it looks...no chance in hell...

Challenge

2006-09-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

Do one thing a day that scares you.

It was printed on the side of a bag.

Juggling

2006-09-19T13:19:00.000-07:00

Number of hours in a week: 168

So far...
School: 18 hrs/week (21 including tutorials) **Thank God I'm done my lab courses**
Bus: 11 hrs/week
Work: 9 hrs/week
Church: 5 hrs/week
Sleep: 55 hrs/week
ESS: 10 hrs/week (East, shit, shower)

Subtotal: 107 hrs
Time remaining: 61 hrs

Soon to add...
Dance Class: 2 hrs /week
Volunteering: 3 hrs/week

New Subtotal: 112 hrs
Time remaining: 56 hrs

That's 56 hours every week to...
- Study, write papers, research assignments
- Prepare applications for medical school (very long and involved process)
- Maintain a relationship
- Try and keep friendships
- Relax and stay sane!

I'm becoming quite good at juggling.

Fourth Year Term 1 Schedule

2006-09-04T21:47:00.000-07:00

My schedule for this upcoming term:

Purpose

2006-08-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

An odd feeling came over me this morning while I was preparing my breakfast. I couldn't quite put a name to it.

At first, I thought it was loneliness. Maybe I'm just feeling a little lonely. I just got back from a very socially-stimulating vacation, and now I'm in my house all alone with no one home. Maybe I'm just lonely. But as I thought about it more, I realized that loneliness just wasn't it. I wasn't lonely.

Then it struck me. Like a tonne of bricks it came down on me. I have no purpose. I'm running around like a lab rat trying to get through medical school applications, but I have no purpose. I have a vague direction, a general feeling, some values, goals, dreams - but I have no purpose. I know what I want to do in life (I think), I know how to go about doing that (I think), but I do not know why I am doing it. That deep down, big picture, serious "why".

Perhaps it's utterly pessimistic. You live, you die. If you want to live, you need food and house and fun. None of that comes free. So get a good job, live well, then die happy.

But will I die happy? Is it possible to live and die happily without purpose? Can I be truly satisfied in life without purpose?

Is my life for more than just me?

Yes, I'm Back

2006-08-30T10:08:00.000-07:00

I'm home.

I've been home since Sunday night.

I've been really busy the past two days. Well, now I'm a certified first aid-er.

I wrote a long post on my time in Ottawa. I'll be posting it up with pictures over the next week.

I'm Back!

2006-08-23T00:22:00.000-07:00

I'm alive.

I survived my MCAT - that brutal, 10 hour long, test. I plan to do a brain dump, blog style, in the near future.

Also, I leave tomorrow morning for Ottawa for my friend's wedding. I'll be taking my laptop and digital camera with me. Maybe I can blog some of the trip? In either case, that's where I'll be till Sunday. Expect some sort of writing to come out of that trip. That and me writing my UBC med school application. Oh joy!

What else is to come? Oh yes, I got a part time job. I'll be working for Arts ISIT this coming school year. I'll be a computer lab attendant at the Buchanan computer labs. Not too shabby. Good pay too (relative, of course).

What I'm trying to say is, I'm back.

More to come.

The Last Leg

2006-08-15T23:56:00.000-07:00

Once again, blogging is on a hold for the week. I'm in last leg of studying and preparing for the MCAT exam this Saturday. I've done one full length, timed, practice exam. I did quite well. I surprised myself. I also found some weak areas which I will work on tomorrow.

Moreover, the MCAT exam includes 2x30 min essay sections. Each of the two sections is essentially identical. You are presented with a prompt - some statement that is sorta-true-sorta-not. Then you are given three tasks to write about in a coherent essay. First, explain what the statement means; second, provide a counterexample of the statement; and third, determine what decides whether the statement or the counterexample is true. It really is quite formulaic. The tasks, for example, are always the same (with appropriate modification for each of the two prompts).

So anyways, I will be doing plenty of (hand)writing over the next few days. I'm not sure if I'll have anything left for (blog)writing.

Pebbles

2006-08-10T17:23:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't posted in a while. So instead of the usual long, rambling post about something interesting, I have a few small pebbles.

***

I have been studying for the MCAT this past while. Harsh studying. For those who don't know (I don't know, maybe you live in a cave), the MCAT is a standardized exam used by many Canadian medical schools to help them judge who would make a better doctor. They even have this journal article on their website that correlates MCAT performance with success in medical school. I don't have a link. I could probably find it but (1) I'm too tired and (2) I think tens of thousands of people paying $210 US is enough to write anything in a journal. Must be a great business. I should invent a standardized test...

***

I'm flying out to Ottawa in a couple weeks for Dan's wedding. I'm excited to travel. I'm also excited to see a good friend of mine tie the knot. I will always remember his advice: happy wife, happy life.

***

This year's season for the Knights has come to its end. Yes, it is true, we did make the playoffs. But considering 6 of the 7 teams in the tier did, it wasn't exactly all that hard. And, true to form, we got our asses kicked in the first game.

Nonetheless, it was a great season. I had lots of fun, and just enjoyed playing the game - win or lose. Well, mostly lose.

***

I have finished 3 seasons of 24 so far. I'm an addict.

***

I've been reading some books by James Fowler on human development and faith development. There's a lot of stuff I've been mulling about. Future posts, no doubt.

finis

Evangelical Guilt

2006-07-07T18:25:00.000-07:00

A snippet from Slacktivist:

The failure to thus pester these people is often characterized with a misappropriated quotation from St. Paul: "You ate at Denny's without asking the waitress if she knows Jesus as her own private savior? You must be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!"

That phrase is often used to argue that Christians ought to feel really, really guilty if they are not at all times and in all places making themselves into off-putting, conversation-stealing, monomaniacal, conversion-machines.

It is also used as an all-purpose dismissal of people like me. I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality. I believe that Christians are called to be salt and light -- not to be the kinds of people that no one wants to sit next to on an airplane.

I know what he means.

Weird Computer Problem - The End!

2006-07-06T21:55:00.000-07:00

See Part I and Part II.

It's ALIVE!

The beast is alive, once again. Hear him roar!

It was the power supply. Damnit! Twenty dollar fix, that's it. Now I have an extra motherboard--socket 478--and nothing to do with it. Socket 478s are pretty useless now, especially AGP ones. Bah!

What did I learn? Always, ALWAYS go with the cheaper option first. Especially if your certainty factor isn't all that good. Also, power supplies are pieces of shit. Expect them to fail. And when they do, expect them to fail in a way that you would never assume is a power supply fault.

Oh well. Lesson learnt.

Weird Computer Problem - Part II

2006-07-05T23:50:00.000-07:00

My desk right now.

See Part I here.

So I got my new motherboard. A very similar mobo to my old one. Moved my P4 chip over to the new motherboard. That took a little work. I had to clean the thermal gunk off and reapply new gunk. That was after I used my dissecting scalpel to pry it loose from the heat sink. Then plugged in the power supply. And...NO GOOD. Still acts the same way.

Great.

135 bucks WASTED.

Now I'm thinking it's the power supply. At least power supplies are cheap.

Is God Merciful?

2006-07-04T11:23:00.000-07:00

Freethinking Faith writes a great post on whether the orthodox (traditional) understanding of God is truly merciful. Read it all here.

A few snippets:

Strict orthodoxy tells us that God will cast the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived into the fire. Millions and millions and millions feeding the ravenous appetite of gehenna, from the earliest Bronze Age hunter to the modern businessman, factory worker and mother.
...
Swarms of humanity will go into the fire having lived exemplary, unselfish lives. People who walked sacrificially according to the precepts of their religions. Physicians who worked long hours to relieve the suffering of others. Old women who cradled the village children in their arms and spoke to them kindly about their ancestors. All will wake up in ghastly torment of which they will understanding little or nothing.
...
Then there will be many, many professing Christians, those who chose theologically incorrect versions of Christianity. They were Roman Catholics or Unitarians or liberal Episcopalians. They didn't understand the nuances of justification by faith alone or the Trinity. Or they put some trust -- maybe just a particle -- in their own works. So they join heathen and infidel in the furnace.
For millions of Christians, this is the good news, glad tidings. It is sound doctrine that might even garner a Sunday school ribbon. Or a high accolade from one of the faithful: "Yes, he is theologically sound -- sound in the faith. How encouraging to hear someone speak the truth in this age of infidelity. Praise God."

Background Noise

2006-06-30T20:47:00.000-07:00

The human body is an amazing machine. Take the nervous system for example. The nervous system is our lifeline to the world we inhabit. It is constantly communicating within us - very often in ways we are not even conscious of. Our nervous system is also incredibly dynamic. Our sensory system--which provides us our sense of taste and touch, light and sound--is hardly static. Long enough exposure to a given stimulus causes many sensory systems in our body to undergo what is called 'receptor adaptation'. Our senses adapt to the information our body is constantly receiving in order to tune our senses onto the differences. When it comes to survival, it is often those differences, those changes in the environment, that are must critical to be aware of.

But I wonder, can we not undergo the same process mentally? Our minds are bombarded with loads of information: emotions, desires, fears, doubts. If our bodies tune out the background noise in order to be more sensitive to our surroundings, is it not equally valid to tune out the background noise in our minds?

The world is a shitty place for many people. Thousands die of simple, curable diseases every day; children starve, women are sold into sexual slavery, fathers fight and die for the greed of others. The information age has brought hell into our family rooms, onto our computer screens. Those of us living in our comfort are swamped daily by the barrage of pain the rest of the world experiences. It can get overbearing, it has for me.

If I decide to shut it out, and try to live my life, will I let the human race down? More importantly, will I let God down? The pain and the guilt--nothing more than the luck of being born in the right place at the right time--tears my soul apart sometimes. I don't want to turn a blind eye to the world, but at the same time I don't want to be disabled by it.

Perhaps I should take a page out of evolution's playbook.

Weird Computer Problem

2006-06-24T18:33:00.000-07:00

I have a curiously odd computer problem: my motherboard will not power down. I have stripped my system down to just the power supply, motherboard, and chip. The system will not turn off! If the power cord is in and the switch on the back of the computer is in the ON position, the computer stays in some weird, vegetative, on-like state. It is non-responsive, and has no video output - it's in some kind of computer-coma.

So, the culprit could be:
1. Power supply is screwed
2. Motherboard is screwed
3. Intel chip is screwed

Or, perhaps, it is a combination of those three. Or maybe aliens are screwing with me. As exciting as that option might be, I doubt it.

By the way, those three options are in my order of 'preference'. Power supplies are cheap; the motherboard isn't cheap but it's still not a killer; the same P4 chip, however, runs a couple hundred bucks. Ugh.

I hate it when technology fails.

Thank God the iBook is my main computer.

*knocks on wood*

Natural Selection and Mating

2006-06-11T23:37:00.000-07:00

Imagine if you will two Dingdongs: Dingdong A and Dingdong B. What species of animal a Dingdong is is irrelevant (mostly because I just pulled it out of thin air). Dingdong A and Dingdong B are completely identical in all ways except for one: Dingdong A is feisty when it comes to partnering and mating, whereas Dingdong B is indifferent. Both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have the same machinery for producing offspring; however, Dingdong A has a drive to find a mate, while Dingdong B will do it only if the opportunity arises.

Assume that the children of both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have an equal probability of growing to sexual maturity - who do you think will produce more children?

I would venture to say Dingdong A. Dingdong A will "beat out Dingdong B to potential mates. So while Dingdong B sits around and takes a mate when he/she can, Dingdong A is out and about actively seeking a mate.

So now let's say that we start with a population of 50% Dingdong A and 50% Dingdong B. What will happen to this population? Over generations, it will slowly shift to become Dingdong A heavy and Dingdong B light. Who knows, maybe Dingdong B will disappear. It isn't that Nature "desired" one over the other, or one was intrinsically better than the other. Random chance has given us two characteristics: feisty and non-feisty. Over time, one characteristic is better able at producing descendants than another. More descendants, more evolutionary success, more of your genes out in the gene pool.

This hypothetical example shows that an animal with a drive to attain a mate is going to be selected for over against an animal without a drive to attain a mate.

What's the point?

Well, twofold. First, it shows how evolution could work in simple, observable terms. Second, it shows a possible reason why we humans actually desire a partner and a mate. It just may be a parting gift from one of our ancestors.

Statistics show that Kevin is crazy

2006-06-07T20:49:00.000-07:00

There is something very wrong with me. Something very, horribly, wrong. I cannot understand it. I don't even think I know who I am anymore.

I actually like statistics.

What is wrong with me?!?

I have tried to figure out why I'm actually enjoying learning about statistical tests - goodness of fit, normal, ANOVA. Oh me oh my!

Perhaps it's because statistics is in large part trying to understand the unknown. How to go from what we do know, and applying it to what we don't know - going from sample to population. I might just be so pissed off at not 'knowing' anything that probabilistic-knowledge seems pretty appealing to me. All my learning has driven out certainty and truth. What is certain? What is true? What is true in the realm of religion, or ethics? Who can answer such questions? But with statistics, we can come to some probabilistic answer: it seems like this is the case - 5% chance we're wrong. I must admit, that's not too shabby.

Or maybe it's because for once I really look forward to using what I learn in one class (statistics) in another class (animal physiology lab). I haven't had such direct applicability for a long time. It is refreshing, to say the least.

I may never know why I like statistics. I have a feeling it's just a phase, like so many other intellectual phases that have come and gone.

It will all be over in a week, no doubt.

The Paradigm of the Cross of Jesus

2006-05-22T22:18:00.000-07:00

Evil, hatred, anger, malice - all these things require people to propagate them. When someone hurts you, attacks you, you have two choices. First, you can lash back. You can continue the chain--whether it is a closed loop of two people, or an open chain of a whole nation--by returning hatred, anger, and harshness upon another. The second choice is to stop it. You can stop the chain dead in it's tracks.

You must take the momentum of the hatred, of the anger, and absorb it upon yourself. It is an odd metaphor, I know, but it is true. You have to take it upon yourself to let all the momentum land upon you, and choose not to reflect it onto another person.

This is how I see the paradigm of the Cross of Jesus: he let evil stop at him. He didn't retort, he didn't strike back, he didn't organize a rebellion. He let it stop at him. He gave us a paradigm, an example of how to live righteously. An example of how to stop hate, and hurt, and pain. It is a paradigm for those who follow in the way of Jesus, who seek to live in the wisdom that this teacher gave us in his life and teachings.

Maybe it's the whole 'turn the other cheek' bit?

I don't know. But I do know that it is a nugget of pure gold - a godsend of wisdom upon my life. When I try to win, or try to get the upper hand, everything fucks up. When I stop trying to win, and stop the heated momentum, everything calms down.

Curiously, I see this paradigm elsewhere:

In the Matrix movies, Neo tries to fight Agent Smith over and over again. It never works, Smith only keeps getting stronger and stronger (as does Neo). But when Neo finally allows Smith to 'kill' him, only then does he finally attain victory over Smith. He absorbs it upon himself, stops it in its tracks, and is truly victorious.

I close with a U2 Lyric:

You don't have to put up a fight,
You don't have to always be right,
Let me take some of the punches
for you tonight.
(Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own)

Random Stream of Consciousness

2006-05-05T23:59:00.000-07:00

My one week of relaxation is over. Summer session begins on Monday. I have 23 hrs of school a week (17hrs of lecture, 6 hrs of lab). It lasts for 8 weeks. I'm going to be very, very glad when it's over.

* * * *

All my marks are out, finally. I will only say this - wow! It's a sad day when the highest mark you ever get in university is from Physical Chemistry. It's even more sad when it's from the course I never attended and thought would definitely fail. Oh well. University is weird like that.

* * * *

I am officially addicted to 24. This tension is killing me. Aie ya! So many hours left, I wonder oh I wonder!

Oh, and I'm interested in CSI now.

Either way. I will only go DVD seasons. I can't stand television: I want uninterrupted, commercial-free, entertainment when I want it.

* * * *

I've managed to finish another game of Civ IV. Nothing spectacular, I'm just an amateur. Noble domination win, large balanced map, a good 7 or 8 civs. I think I just beat out Hatty's spaceship. Very close call.

* * * *

I'm very relieved. My marks now are pretty much set for med-school applications. Some schools are gonna include my summer courses from this semester, some aren't. But 10 credits aren't gonna change very much. And I hope to do well...semi-well...maybe?

* * * *

I really like this rollerhockey league. Though we've gotten our arse handed to us lately, it's fun to get out and play some hockey with a few friends. Good sport, good exercise. Although, I have a feeling we'd have a much better time if we went down a tier or two. That will be decided after our game this Sunday.

The eel in the cave

2006-05-05T23:52:00.000-07:00

For all you doubters, here are some screen caps with subtitles. I told you, she was talking about her 'cave'.

Trust me, my friends, I didn't grow up watching movies on subtitles - I actually listen.

Inerrancy, so what? A career revolution

2006-04-23T00:30:00.000-07:00

I think many of you are wondering why I've thought so long and so hard about biblical inerrancy. For many, this seems like a useless case of intellectual gymnastics, having little relevance to daily life. I'm afraid that isn't so. I think that my views of the inerrancy of the Bible have had a very direct impact on my life.

During my first and second years of university, I was aiming to go into graduate studies in Christianity and become a New Testament scholar. I had always thought that my scholarship could be of service to the Church; my little bit in helping the whole 'body' move along. "The Bible is sacred text, the word of God, so we need to understand it as best we can and live by it." Or so I thought.

Soon, I came to realize that I just can't believe in biblical inerrancy. With this, came a depreciation of the value of the Bible in my life. It was no longer the very words of God, like the Christian version of the Holy Qur'an. Now it just a mish-mash of religious literature written by Jews and Christians over about a thousand year period. It became to me, in every way possible, a human text.

As this happened, I became less and less motivated to study the Bible. Now don't get me wrong, I still love the Bible, and I think it is one of the most important books ever. Personally, the Bible plays a big role in my life and in my interests. However, it no longer was about "scholarship for the Church". Losing my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was intertwined with the rise of critical attitude in me. No longer was the Bible off limits for me - "question everything", I said.

Could I really spend the rest of my life--my whole career--studying a collection of texts, supposedly authoritative for my faith, when I no longer saw much authority or certainty in them? My faith was shaky, I didn't even know if I was still going to be a Christian in 10 years. Could I still devote the rest of my life, with considerable financial and emotional hardship, to studying texts of Christian faith. No. I couldn't.

Then I found that several things started to change. All along during my undergraduate studies, I had been pursuing concurrent studies in Religious Studies and Biology. The Religious Studies was because of my initial desire to become a New Testament scholar. The Biology was--VERY long story short--because of background interest and family wisdom. (Family wisdom turned out to be so, SO true). For several years, I wasn't very interested in the Biology side of my degree. I invested a lot more time in my Religious Studies. After all, it was my first career choice. But then with my transition away from biblical inerrancy, away from a certain and strong faith, I found myself gravitating more and more towards Biology.

I began to live a simplified message of Christianity: love God and love your neighbour. Helping people in definite and concrete ways seemed much more valuable in life than throwing around ideas in towers made of ivory.

It was at this point that a career in medicine seemed to make so much sense. My reconstructed Christian faith placed much more value in helping people in their lives than trying to "save them for eternity". I was starting to regain interest in Biology. I could definitely see myself as a physician. I realized just how rewarding such a career would be. I talked to people, I did research, I did lots of thinking. I would really love to be a doctor.

In fact, this is nothing new. I once memorized some 30 major bones in the body - on a family vacation. In elementary school. Also, my goal in initially going into Engineering out of high school was to go into biomedical engineering - I really wanted to make prosthetics and devices to help injured and sick people. But the year or two that I was all wrapped up in Religious Studies had turned me aside from what was a lifelong passion. But it was back.

Giving up biblical inerrancy, and the certainty in faith that came along with it, led to a complete change in career aim: from New Testament scholar to physician.

I hope you all now see why inerrancy is such a big deal to me. It has truly changed my life.

Inerrancy Continued

2006-04-19T20:19:00.000-07:00

Dan and I have recently been exploring the notion of inerrancy, with a number of posts going back and forth between us:

Dan's initial post: Life + God
My first response: Ehrman and Inerrancy
Dan's response: Biblical Inerrancy

It's a great dialogue we've got going, and I think I can fruitfully continue it - for one more post at least. =]

I agree fully with Dan in that inerrancy isn't just something for academics to squabble about, but it is something the everyday believer must wrestle with as well:

I can see several of their points for believing that the bible is not inerrant; however, I think that the topic of biblical inerrancy and where it fits into Christianity must be examined not just for the select few, or those academic scholars, but even for the average Christian. I believe that it is naiive (sic) for Christians to completely ignore the topic and just say that the bible is inerrant without questioning anything.

This is especially true for 'Bible-believing' evangelicals, of which there are a lot around. What one thinks of inerrancy directly affects how one incorporates and uses the Bible in life, as well as in the public forum. A couple examples:

The Bible says homosexuality is wrong--see, here are the relevant passages (blah blah and blah). The Bible is inerrant, so it tells us exactly what God's laws are. Therefore, I'm going to vote for the Conservatives because they won't legalize homosexual marriage.
The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days. The Bible is inerrant. Therefore, I'm going to oppose the Theory of Evolution. A real Christians should not believe in Evolution. Also, I'm going to throw big bucks into Creationist literature and research. Why? Because I know God made the world in 6 days.

So it is clear that inerrancy isn't just for the academics. It affects our politics, our science, our relationship, our morals - everything.

Dan is also right to point out the big difference between modern historiography and ancient historiography. (Historiography is just a big fancy word for the study of the way history is/was written). The way an ancient approached "history" is very different from how a modern historian approaches "history". We need to remember this when we approach the Bible, which is composed of many very ancient pieces of literature.

At this point I want to clarify something. Though I do not believe in inerrancy, I still do believe that God uses the Bible to reach humanity. I cannot overlook the vast evidence that people all over the world, in different cultures and times, have experienced God as they read the Bible. Though the Bible is full of bias, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and errors, it is also full of a message of grace, mercy, love, and encouragement. Now this isn't an argument 'proving' the existence of God or the role of the Bible, but it does show that people have had what they thought were divine encounters while reading the Bible. I believe that this is God using the words in the Bible to touch human lives. But all the same, I don't think this is any different than God using a human to touch another human's life, or a sunset, or a walk on the beach, or a piece of music. I seem to recall the saying - the wind blows where it will.

I remember reading a book (The Heart of Christianity) by New Testament scholar and Theologian Marcus Borg. I quite liked his approach to the Bible. He says that the Bible is not primary to Christianity because of what it is: the revealed word of God; but because of what it does: its function as 'metaphor' and 'sacrament'. For Borg, the Bible is a sacred text not because it is sacred itself, but because it is a channel, a vessel, a mediator, of the Sacred. Scripture is still inspired, but inspiration isn't about how God wrote the text down. Scripture is inspired because it brings life to those who read it. It is inspired because it is a channel for humankind to encounter the Spirit of God.

Now the question I have is - what is meant by inerrancy? Dan writes:

I believe that God has spoken through His Word...God, a Holy God, STILL used imperfect humans. Therefore, when you have a perfect mouth piece (GOD), and then you have an imperfect scribe (the New Testament writers), there are bound to be mistakes, it's natural.

What is it that God has spoken through 'His Word'? How far does the imperfection of the human author reach?
(a) Grammar and spelling.
(b) Minor details of history - time and date.
(c) Contextual issues no longer relevant to today.
(d) Central narratives (e.g., exodus, monarchy, exile, Jesus)
(e) Central doctrines (sinfulness of mankind, need for Jesus as saviour)
I'm not laying down a slippery slope here. I believe that there is no guarantee that something is true just because it is in the Bible. However, just because I don't think there is a guarantee that it is true, it doesn't mean I'm saying that it's all false! I'm just saying that I can't invoke the doctrine of inerrancy and say, "that's that, it's all settled."

I think I'll end this response before it turns into a full blown essay. There is a very direct relationship between inerrancy and my life, but I'll keep that for a separate post which I'll post soon.

In the words of Paul, grace and peace.

Life Sucks Sometimes

2006-04-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

I'm sad.

31 year old woman lying on the ground: unconscious, not breathing.

6 year old daughter crying as she watches mommy die.

Mommy's partner crying as he tries to perform CPR and keep her alive.

"The patient had suffered a sudden huge and unrecoverable bleed into the brain. She would never wake up"

That's it. Life over. Thirty one years old with a six year old daughter. Completely out of the blue.

Life sucks sometimes.

I think I'm gonna cry.

Ehrman and Inerrancy

2006-04-18T23:04:00.000-07:00

Bart Ehrman, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, has been buzzing about the blogosphere as of late. I refer specifically to the following posts on blogs I frequently visit:

Maggi Dawn - When God Vanishes (II)
Scott Adams (the author of 'Dilbert') - Uh-Oh
AKMA - That's "A. K. M. Adam," Not "Scott Adams"

See also this Washington Post article which gives Ehrman's biographical background.

(The current post is also an indirect response to my good buddy Dan's reflections on the Bible.)

I find a lot of similarity between myself and Professor Ehrman. Like him, I also had a 'born-again' experience and joined the evangelical Church. Like him, I was indoctrinated in a fundamentalist style Church. And like him, I came up against major challenges when I began to academically study Christianity.

However, unlike Ehrman, I have yet to completely abandon Christian faith - at least not yet. Granted, it took him quite some time to come to realize he was a full blown agnostic. But still, I don't think I'll ever completely reject Christianity. I have come to realize that there are other ways of being Christian than I had once thought. Reading the blogs of others who have also gone through these struggles and yet held onto a Christian faith--however radically reconstructed--has shown me that there isn't just "fundamentalist evangelical" and "agnostic".

I like how Maggi Dawn puts it:

I was once a "born again" believer, and it was in part the recognition of endless intellectual dishonesty, both in biblical interpretation and in church practice, that led me to re-conceive my own faith. For me, though, the end result (so far at any rate) has not been the loss of faith, but a radical reconstruction of it. If, like Ehrman, my faith had depended on the inerrancy of the "original texts" of the Bible, I guess I would have lost my faith too.

Regulars to my blog will by now know that I do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (see Biblical Inerrancy). Yet I once was an inerrantist. In my first year of university, I tried desperately to hold on to the doctrine of inerrancy. I read all sorts of attempts to justify and support biblical inerrancy. But my scientific mind squashed those attempts. Saying that the Bible is a human text--written by regular human beings--makes much greater sense of the data (in this case, the Bible itself) than saying that it is a Divine text, revealed to the various authors by God. And so by the time second year began, I had let go of biblical inerrancy.

But I am still here. While Ehrman decided to call it quits, I decided to stick with it and see what I could do. I rebuilt my castle (see Building Castles - Part I and Part II).

I fear for those around me who hold to biblical inerrancy. I fear that someday their bubble might collapse - that reality might catch up to them. And I fear that, like Ehrman, they will give up on their faith. False dichotomies abound: it's either all completely true, or it's all completely false (see the related Slippery Slope). That's how a lot of people think, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

Good Friday Reflection

2006-04-15T00:48:00.000-07:00

A great reflection on Good Friday by Maggi Dawn. An excerpt:

For those who enjoy a degree of certainty in their faith, maybe Good Friday and Holy Saturday don't really "bite" - they are more about anticipation than devastation. But those of us who live with a fragemented faith, a faith that has had too many holes punctured in it, too much damage ever to recover a naive certainty, there is something reassuring about the rise and fall of the Church seasons. It's a relief to be honest, to acknowledge the disappearance of God and the uncertainty of the outcome.

That's not to say that there is no hope of the resurrection. But that hope doesn't forestall the depth of blackness that can descend even upon people of faith. And the recollection that the Easter faith was born in the darkness is, perhaps, a reason to hold on and not to give up.

Have a blessed Easter-time,
Kev

A Little Health Tip, Thanks Prince Charles

2006-04-08T21:51:00.000-07:00

The good Prince has some splendid health advice:

In an interview with Men's Health magazine, which specializes in advice on building muscle and flattening stomachs, the heir to the British throne discussed his sometimes controversial ideas about health and spirituality. Asked how men could be encouraged to pay more attention to their health, Charles said: "Via the ladies, I'd have thought. It's funny, the influence that women can have on getting us men sorted out is enormous,"

I tell you, the man is so right.

Amen, Prince Charles, Amen.

A Little (True) Humour

2006-04-04T12:17:00.000-07:00

Sometimes humour is the best way to get a point across.

A few snippets from a recent post by Slacktivist on a major evangelical youth rally in San Francisco.

The "spiritual warfare" metaphor was once a good one. St. Paul used it well, as did John Bunyan. But overuse and misuse have long since corrupted this metaphor, devaluing its currency to cliche status.
...
From the bogus "War on Christmas" to the fetishistic devotion to Ten Commandments markers, this territory-marking has become an obsession for many of the alleged followers of Christ. "They'll know we are Christians by our love" apparently proved too difficult, so instead we've settled for "They'll know we are Christians by our bullying dominance of the public square."

Stop it. Just stop. Stop pissing on trees. Stop "reclaiming America for Christ." Christ already has a kingdom, an upside-down, mustard-seed kingdom without a flag. And while you people are so busy trying to create an alternative kingdom called "Christian America," the prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. And so are a lot of those couples who got married there at City Hall.
...
And the bottom line here is this: $55 for two days in San Francisco is a good deal.

That $55 includes concert tickets. More importantly, it also includes two days away from home. In San Francisco. And more than likely it also includes a longish bus or van ride, possibly in the dark, with the girls from the youth group. That may amount to little more than surreptitious hand-holding, but don't knock it. For an evangelical teenager, a bit of surreptitious hand-holding on the church bus may amount to the high point of the school year.

Ahahah. Awesome!

Busted

2006-04-01T23:53:00.000-08:00

So there we were, in the library. Chatting, studying.

All of a sudden, Ren reaches across my shoulder and picks up a long, blonde, piece of hair.

She looks at me in terror.

I tell her it was from the wild, passionate sex I had with some blonde girl last night after I dropped her off at home.

Then I start laughing - hard.

At this point I'm thinking of all the dumb movies where the girlfriend finds another girl's hair on the guy's clothes. Now, if you knew as I did how incredibly far I was from snuggling with some random blonde girl, you would also be laughing - hard.

Ren gets all upset and demands I tell her where the hair came from. Who was I seeing! What was I doing?

I don't think she was pleased.

Maybe cuz I was laughing uncontrollably. In a library.

Sorry Ren, you got me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Finding Flow

2006-03-28T09:53:00.000-08:00

Came across this neat article by Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on "flow". He was the former head of the Psychology deparment at the University of Chicago, and the concept of flow is one of his main contributions to the field.

It's a long article, well worth the read. But here are a few snippets I particularly enjoyed:

These exceptional moments are what I have called "flow" experiences. The metaphor of flow is one that many people have used to describe the sense of effortless action they feel in moments that stand out as the best in their lives. Athletes refer to it as "being in the zone," religious mystics as being in "ecstasy," artists and musicians as "aesthetic rapture." It is the full involvement of flow, rather than happiness, that makes for excellence in life.
...
Flow tends to occur when a person faces a clear set of goals that require appropriate responses. It is easy to enter flow in games such as chess, tennis, or poker, because they have goals and rules that make it possible for the player to act without questioning what should be done, and how. For the duration of the game the player lives in a self-contained universe where everything is black and white. The same clarity of goals is present if you perform a religious ritual, play a musical piece, weave a rug, write a computer program, climb a mountain, or perform surgery. In contrast to normal life, these "flow activities" allow a person to focus on goals that are clear and compatible, and provide immediate feedback.

Flow also happens when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable, so it acts as a magnet for learning new skills and increasing challenges. If challenges are too low, one gets back to flow by increasing them. If challenges are too great, one can return to the flow state by learning new skills.
...
Leisure time in our society is occupied by three major sorts of activities: media consumption, conversation, and active leisure--such as hobbies, making music, going to restaurants and movies, sports, and exercise. Not all of these free-time activities are the same in their potential for flow. For example, U.S. teenagers experience flow about 13 percent of the time that they spend watching television, 34 percent of the time they do hobbies, and 44 percent of the time they are involved in sports and games. Yet these same teenagers spend at least four times more of their free hours watching TV than doing hobbies or sports. Similar ratios are true for adults.

Why would we spend four times more of our free time doing something that has less than half the chance of making us feel good? Each of the flow-producing activities requires an initial investment of attention before it begins to be enjoyable. If a person is too tired, anxious, or lacks the discipline to overcome that initial obstacle, he or she will have to settle for something that, although less enjoyable, is more accessible.

(Hat tip to Maggi Dawn)

Cheers

Runnin in circles

2006-03-24T18:28:00.000-08:00

Nobody said it was easy.

No one ever said it would be this hard.

Where oh where has Kevin been?

2006-03-23T22:04:00.000-08:00

Sick with a really nasty case of Influenza. I've been pretty much knocked out since Sunday when my fever began, and it's still around 39 or 40 C if I don't take regular doses of Advil/Tylenol. I've got about 4 hrs of sleep a night for 4 nights in a row. My head feels like it's gonna explode. My neck and back are stiff and in pain. I'm so fatigued I can't even walk straight down my hallway. My ears are under constant pressure, and any high pitch noise kills. I have no appetite, and what appetite I have is brutally suppressed by the high fever and the antibiotics. The antibiotics are so I don't get a secondary bacterial infection since I'm in such bad shape. I get chills and major shakes at night when my meds wear off since my body thinks I have hypothermia.

Fortunately, my lab work turned up negative, as did my chest x-ray. So we're pretty certain it's just Influenza. And an emergency doctor/family friend said that this isn't out of the ordinary for Influenza: high fever that takes you out of the game for 3-5 days. And right now, there's a lot of it going around.

I'm going to miss a week of school at crunch time: a week where I have no juice to do any homework. So now I'm a week behind when I really, really couldn't afford it.

So that's where Kevin has been. Not like you cared anyways.

Slippery Slope

2006-03-23T09:38:00.000-08:00

Another great post by Real Live Preacher.

Here's a snippet of a part I really enjoyed:

Once I told someone that I did not think the events described in the book of Jonah had actually occurred. The story has great spiritual value, which is why it was included in the Bible, but I felt there was no real history behind it.

An alarmed Christian person said, “Yes, but once you say that Jonah didn’t really happen, what’s to stop you from saying any or all of the Bible didn't happen?”

I’ve heard this same argument with regard to scripture a thousand times over the years. Here is the appropriate response:

“Well, let’s see. I believe that Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish and vomited up on the beach. But I believe Abraham was a real person. Further, I believe that David was a real king of a real Israel. And I believe that Jesus was also a real person, one who worked miracles and died on the cross for our sins. See now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?”

Read it all here.

My week

2006-03-17T15:18:00.000-08:00

I feel like posting. I don't know why - I don't really have anything specific to talk about. That's never stopped me before though.

I just finished the first draft of my RELG 304 paper (Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel). It's a look at laws concerning sexual behaviour in ancient Israel using sociological criticism. My thesis is something along the lines of:

As reflected in Deuteronomy 22.13-29, non-marital sex was primarily restricted for women in ancient Israel—and only secondarily for men—because it challenged the structure and stability of the society.

It wasn't a particularly difficult paper to write. Once I had a question (regulation of sexuality and society), the method came naturally (sociological criticism), and then the text was obvious (Deuteronomy 22.13-29). But, my lack of formal sociological training didn't help. Fortunately, my RELG 370 paper drew on sociology, and I've been reading up on the field throughout this semester. Sucks I'll never take a sociology course in my life. Oh well.

Now this weekend I have to start researching for my RELG 414 paper (Gospels and Jesus). I think I might change my topic. My original topic/thesis was too broad for only 15 pages. I'm now thinking of writing about the significance of Jesus' open shared meals. I have a gameplan in mind (i.e., an outline of the argument) so I think it just might work.

Oh, and I've registered for summer session.

Animal Physiology - M W F @ 9AM-12PM; M @ 12PM-2PM; M @ 2PM - 5PM. (May to end of June)
Biostatistics - T Th @ 7PM - 10PM; W @ 2PM-5PM. (May to mid June)

Then, okay wait for it...I HAVE TWO MONTHS OFF!!

Oh. My.

I haven't had two months of summer since...man...before University. Wooow!!

I'm gonna be so bored, haha!

Fin
-Kev

Biblical Inerrancy: What is it? How does it work?

2006-03-11T00:29:00.000-08:00

I have decided to write out my understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This isn't from a theological textbook, or a history textbook, but from my mind - a layman's understanding. This is partially to clarify my thoughts, but also to aid others to reflect upon their own beliefs.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Okay, great, good definition. What this really means is that the Bible is free from error. Different people consider different issues as under the category 'error-free'. I think a majority of Evangelicals that believe in inerrancy, the ones I know at least, hold on to a pretty strong version of the doctrine. That is, the Bible is free from error in issues of theology (who is God, what is God like, who is Jesus), morality (what is right, is lust bad), history (was there an exodus, did Jesus walk on water), and science (did God create the universe in 7 days, is the earth the center of the universe). However, others hold to weaker versions of this doctrine. Often, the first thing to go is scientific inerrancy, after that goes historical inerrancy, then typically moral inerrancy, and the last to go is theological inerrancy. My feeling is that many evangelicals have let go of scientific inerrancy, and some have at least softened a bit on historical inerrancy, but most do not part with moral and theological inerrancy.

Why do some believers think that the Bible is inerrant? Well, they would argue, it is divinely revealed by God. God spoke, or moved, the biblical authors to write; therefore, what they wrote is error free. Because it is divinely revealed, it has access to divine perspective, and thus would see all things truly. Moses wasn't around for creation, no problem - God told him everything. John wasn't in the room when Pilate was talking to Jesus, no worries - God revealed the conversation to him. So on, so forth.

Thus, believers who hold onto inerrancy stand defiantly with their 'biblical truth' over against the tools of scientific or historical inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and discussion has built up the modern theory of evolution. Yet biblical inerrantists still think the world was made in 7 days. This is based on a ~2500 year old text, the product of an ancient civilization. Biblical inerrantists think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are real, and all the stories in the Bible about them are real; this is based on a text written at least a thousand years after they lived. But to one who believes in biblical inerrancy, this is no problem. God revealed all truth to the biblical authors, and they wrote this down.

But the real dagger of biblical inerrancy is that those who champion it do so on basis of "faith": "I have faith in the Bible that it is true". I don't get this. Why do you have faith in an ancient collection of diverse texts? Inerrantists make it seem that if I have a "real faith" in God, I would also have faith in the Bible. This, of course, plays into the related idea that faith in God is mainly intellectual assent (believe in your mind something to be true), not fidelity, trust, or loyalty (the way we use "faith" in daily human relationships). So faith in the Bible becomes equally important as faith in God, and both are equated with intellectual belief. The result - if I don't believe the Bible is true, I'm only quasi-Christian. If the Bible isn't free from error - my oh my, how could it be relevant to our religion!?

I don't bite. Most of my life isn't based on mathematically certain truths. None of my interpersonal relationships are based on certainties. Why should the transcendent relationship be any different?

It is possible to be a Christian yet not believe the Bible to be inerrant.

The Blind Can See

2006-03-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

I was standing at the bus stop, waiting for the Vancouver bus, when an elderly gentleman got off one of the busses passing by and hobbled under the bus shelter. The man was old--but not that old--a little slow, and seemed shaky. Within seconds of seeing this man, I had judged him and formed a picture of him in my mind.

Now I'm sitting on the bus, on my way downtown. A middle aged lady gets on the bus, along with her seeing-eye dog. The bus driver seats her just in front of me in the handicap section. She's sitting beside the shaky old man.

Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be blind.

Soon enough, the shaky man and the blind lady started chatting.

To the blind lady, the man was just another voice in a sea of dark: no judgement, no prejudice.

Perhaps it's the blind who truly see - they see humans as humans, not as shaky old men.

Welcome to Lent

2006-03-01T22:40:00.000-08:00

Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the season of Lent.

I've hurt someone who means so very much to me - really hurt them.

What a great start to Lent.

God have mercy on me.

please

A Prayer of St. Francis

2006-03-01T00:35:00.000-08:00

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is discord, vision.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Amen.

Feeling Lighter

2006-02-27T23:50:00.000-08:00

I'm feeling lighter.

- I'm no longer sick.
- Our house is back to normal: peace and quiet.
- Religious space paper draft is done. I just have to sit infront of class for 45 mins and listen to criticism. I can handle that.
- Old Testament midterm is done. It was relatively straight forward.
- I'm slowly, very very slowly, catching up on all the courses I fell behind on last week. Did I mention how slowly?
- Cell group night is done with. It was a load of fun and went well. Pictures up soon.

I'm not in the clear yet.
- Greek midterm next week. This gonna be killer. I'm so far behind on my translations, and I just plain suck. Languages take me a long, long time.
- Gospels and Jesus midterm next week. I need to catch up on my readings. A whole bunch of textbook readings, and I need to read the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. I just read the Gospel of Matthew tonight, took about 2.5 hrs. Ugh, so long!
- I gotta get crackin on my other two papers: Old Testament and Gospels n Jesus. Think think think, write write write.

Adios,
Kev

Ugh

2006-02-22T09:29:00.000-08:00

Being sick sucks.

Being sick--and having to write a midterm--sucks.
Being sick--and having to entertain relatives with little kids--sucks.
Being sick--and having to write a term paper--sucks.
Being sick--and having to prepare for cell group--sucks.
Being sick--and having to study for another midterm--sucks.

Being sick, and having to write a midterm, entertain relatives with little kids, write a term paper, prepare for cell group, study for another midterm...

Mosaic

2006-02-21T00:35:00.000-08:00

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you." -Matthew's Jesus

"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." - John's Jesus

"If I have all the faith, so as to move a mountain, but have not love, then I am nothing. And if I should dole out all my possessions, and if I should give over my body so that I might boast, but hold not love, then I profit nothing." - Paul

"Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil." - A disciple of Paul

"You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " - James, the brother of Jesus

Screwed

2006-02-19T23:04:00.000-08:00

I'm screwed.

I have to submit a draft of my research paper by this weekend, probably Friday or Saturday.

Our assignment is to interpret a sacred space in the city of Vancouver.

My space is St. Helen's Catholic Church in North Burnaby.

I went to Sunday Mass last week for some hands on research.

I had a proposed theory before going in last week.

I have spent the last week realizing that my theory is vacuous bullshit.

Suffice to say, I haven't written a single word yet.

I'm screwed.

So, utterly, screwed.

God shave me.
-Kev

Telos

2006-02-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

What is the purpose of it all:

What is the purpose of religion, faith, salvation - whatever?
What is all this stuff aiming towards?

What does God want for humans?

Building Castles - Part Two

2006-02-05T23:49:00.000-08:00

In my last post, "Building Castles - Part One", I wrote about how my beliefs, and my faith itself, were challenged repeatedly. Over time, these challenges wore away my coherent package of 'Christianity' to the point where it could no longer stand, and my faith collapsed.

But what kind of challenges? Well, here's a brief, but representative, list.

Experience of God

- My experiences of God seemed complete out of the domesticated picture of God that I had in my head. The God that I experienced in life was mysterious: sometimes there and sometimes not; never doing as expected; full of love, and yet terrifying. He is the type of God that sits and watches millions of Jews be massacred in Europe, hundreds of thousands of Africans in Rwanda, and millions of others in countless acts of brutal genocide throughout human history. Yet he does nothing - he did nothing; yes they all came to an end, but not before scores of people lost their lives. He is the type of God that sometimes heals the sick and dying, but most of the time lets them die no matter how passionately people pray otherwise. He is the type of God that blesses some people with great life, and doesn't bless others - seemingly arbitrarily. God, I realized, is mysterious and unpredictable. Can a God like this really be trusted? And trusted for what? A good life - obviously not, no guarantees for that; health - nope, no certainty there; afterlife - well, maybe, probably; a constant companion - getting warmer.
- Moreover, in my own life, I went through a phase in life that really, directly, made me rethink what God was. Whatever God was, I had to reconcile his character and nature with what I myself was experiencing spiritually (or not experiencing). So the things I experienced in life, and that I read, heard, and saw others experience in their lives - I had to put God in the picture and try to make sense of everything.

The Bible

- I used to hold on to the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Biblical inspiration states that the Bible is inspired by God. Most people take this to mean that its composition was inspired, which amounts to saying that the Bible is a text supernaturally revealed by God. The texts of the Bible, in one way or another, were written by God. In light of all I had learned about the composition of these texts, I could no longer come to see them as revealed by God.
- We have no idea who wrote the vast majority of the Bible. The Pentateuch is a composite document of traditions and sources spanning half a millennia or more. Many of the historical books in the Hebrew Bible were also composed by anonymous authors over a period of time. The great scroll of the prophet Isaiah is most likely the result of three layers of prophetic authorship over a period of 300 years, by at least three authors of whom we know little about. We have no clue who wrote the Gospels, though we do have some good indications of the situation in which they wrote. Half of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul are most likely pseudonymous: that is, Paul didn't write them. A disciple, a follower, someone, wrote these letters in the name of Paul in order to give them authority and weight. All of this came as a huge blow against my doctrine of biblical inspiration.
- Historically, the Bible is troubled. For example, we have little to no archaeological evidence of a swift conquest of Canaan c. 1200 BCE. The story of Joshua and the swift conquest of the land seems to have actually occurred much different. Many think that the picture painted in the Book of Judges is more accurate: a slow settling of Hebrew people in Canaan. Not the decisive military conquest of Joshua. More hammering away at inspiration.
- The Bible is not unified. When you look at the Bible, all the authors didn't have the same theology. There are a number of different theologies in the Bible - both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Sometimes, these theologies differ and disagree with each other over religion, God, Jesus, etc... Some things even flat out contradict. With so many differing viewpoints the question is, who do we listen to? This further tore down my doctrine of inspiration.
- The Bible is so obviously a human document. It is made up of stories and tales that humans told, and retold. It shows all the marks of human composition and editing: various sources and materials being put together into a continuous scroll. Not only that, but we see the political agenda of authors showing in these texts: pro-monarchy, pro-Judah, pro-Pauline Christianity, pro-Jewish Christian Christianity. Yet another shot at inspiration.

Jesus

- When I was exposed to historical Jesus studies, I just devoured the stuff. But the more I learned about what historians have to say about Jesus, the more and more difficult it became to connect the dots between Jesus-the-guy and Jesus-the-Lord-of-the-Church. Now don't get me wrong, Jesus was religious, and his agenda was religious (and political: the two were intimately bound together back in Jesus' society). But my problem was the vast chasm I saw between Jesus' message, goals, and interests, and that of the Church which proclaims Jesus. It's as if the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospel of John is the lens the Church must look through in order to understand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This ignores the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each their own stand alone Gospel; the Jesus-story of three different communities. Three different pictures of Jesus, three different ways of following Jesus. All of it subsequently read through - and distorted by - the lens of John.
- Over time, I became more and more puzzled over the 'divinity' of Jesus. Firstly, I wondered whether the Jesus of history ever believed such a thing about himself. Read the Synoptic Gospels, you'll be hard pressed to find any indication of it. In the Gospel of John you get a number of passages, that when read in a certain way, seem to indicate that (though, as I said, when read in a certain specific way). In Paul, again, you will be hard pressed. Two passages come to my mind, both are fiercely debated. The attribute of divinity to Jesus was a development of the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of Christianity. I see attribution of divinity to Jesus as mythological, metaphorical language - not metaphysical. It is using comparison - the language of poetry - not the language of philosophy and science.

Science

- I came to accept the evolutionary explanation of life, and human origins. Evolution just makes much better sense of all the data than creationism. The universe is some 15 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, humans around 1-2 million. So then what does this make of the stories in Genesis. Creation? Adam and Eve? Noah? If this stuff wasn't science or history, then what was it? Partly this rubbed shoulders with inspiration, but it also made me rethink what the texts in the Bible are, and what they aren't.

World Religions

- Learning about the vast religious diversity in this world had a major impact on me. Ancient Judaism was just the local religion of an insignificant piece of land in a very, very large world. There were many other religious beliefs all over the ancient world. So what - were all those non-Israelites screwed? I couldn't accept that. Move forward through the centuries as Christianity spread. Christianity did spread and grow, but much of the world's population was never Christian. And today, a significant portion of this world's population is not Christian. So what - are all of them bound to an eternal punishment in hell? I couldn't accept that. How could a God of love and compassion do such a thing. Learning of the religious diversity in this world challenged whole portions of my Christian worldview. My shift towards inclusivism, and then pluralism, tore down a huge segment of my Christian understanding.

These are just some of the many, many, attacks vaulted at my fortress. Maybe, someday, I'll share some more, but I think I've said enough. You get my drift.

Thanks everyone for the grace you've shown me.

Peace,
Kev

Building Castles - Part One

2006-01-28T00:02:00.000-08:00

My Christian faith used to be a strong castle. All the beliefs and doctrines I held onto fit tightly together. Everything was coherent; within the framework, everything made sense.

But then challenges came. My first reaction was to build up my castle walls. I added to them, fortified them, and built them taller and thicker. I turned my castle into a towering fortress.

But the challenges kept coming. Bits of my fortress were slowly chipped off. A brick here, a plank there.

More challenges kept coming. Larger and larger pieces were being chipped off; massive stones were removed. The archways, the ramparts, the walls - peppered with holes all over. I was in a fortress of swiss cheese.

Finally, the castle - my fortress - collapsed. My impenetrable fortress was weakened to the point where it could no longer keep itself standing.

My faith fell apart.

I stood atop the ruins. Everything that kept me safe - that gave me meaning, direction, and purpose in life - had crumbled into a massive heap of stone, wood, and metal.

I don't know why, but I stayed. I decided to rebuild.

For the past year or so of my life I have been rebuilding. Most of the structure is new. Oddly enough, from the outside, my new home resembles my old one. However, on the inside, it is radically different. I have utilized a different construction technique for building my foundation built my foundation. The framing of the walls is altogether different. No longer have I built with stone - which does not bend and sway under pressure - but I have built with wood. Organic, able to absorb stress and pressure by bending and swaying; able to channel and redirect the energy. Alive. Dynamic.

I am in the process of rebuilding a faith, a religiosity, a spirituality that had completely and utterly collapsed. A faith that can stand strong in full view of all the challenges.

Perhaps now you all can understand why I am the way that I am.

Stay tuned for Part Two where I present a list of some of these 'challenges'.

Peace,
Kev

*EDIT: Part Two here.

Keep Your Mouth Shut

2006-01-20T14:32:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting in Scarfe, trying to translate a letter written by the Roman Emperor Claudius - tough shit, believe me.

Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.

It's about creation and evolution.

The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.

I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.

You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.

But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.

-Kev

P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?

From Gospels to the Historical Jesus

2006-01-19T11:59:00.000-08:00

I have finally begun reading (again, but much more closely) the Gospels in the New Testament as part of my course on 'The Gospels and Jesus'. Immediately, I was struck by a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. Namely, how can I go from reading this Gospel text to saying anything about the historical Jesus. I was baffled. I was stuck on the question of 'method'

But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.

I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.

In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.

Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.

-Kev

Political Reflections

2006-01-17T21:20:00.000-08:00

Democracy they say?

I vote for a man or woman to represent me in the House of Commons for approximately four years. This individual, my Member of Parliament, is affiliated with one of the major Canadian political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, etc... When I, the Canadian citizen, vote in the federal election, who do I vote for? Person or Party?
Party. Why do I vote party - because it is the party that is really in charge. See, my MP is given a seat in the House of Commons, which gives them a vote and voice in legislative proceedings. But, how does my MP decide what to vote for, or what issues to discuss? The party line. As I understand it, few of the issues voted upon in our House are free votes. That is, each MP is free to vote however they wish without the constraint of the party stance. Thus, the MP is merely an extra vote for the mythical beast - ahem, the political party. Moreover, if I write to my MP in disapproval of this-or-that-issue--which is their party's stance--guess who they'll listen to. The party.

So who will I vote for this federal election? I'm not sure yet. But this I know: I'll base my decision on the party stance, not the individual politician.

After all, what does the character of the politician have anything to do with it? Bill Clinton anyone?

(Removing my tongue from my cheek)

Take It Easy

2006-01-12T10:20:00.000-08:00

I have noticed something: my dad and I are alike in a very certain way.

A couple days ago, Dan and I were chattin' over lunch, and we came upon the topic of how people deal with stress. I told him that I didn't want to be the type of person that makes a big deal over their stress. Everyone is busy, everyone has stress, there is no need to get all down and grumpy over it. Not only that, but when you get grumpy, you tend to pull those around you down as well - which in turn feeds your grumpiness. I was telling him that I don't want to be like that if I ever get into Med school (our conversation started with how busy med students are). Not only that, I have not wanted to be like that throughout my undergraduate education.

At which point Dan tells me something he has noticed: I'm pretty easy going.

Fast forward to the next day on the bus ride to school. I was thinking about my Dad, and how he is so easy going in life. I don't recall ever hearing my dad whine or complain. Throughout all the financial woes our family has gone through, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. Throughout all the hard work he has to do to build houses, Dad hasn't ever gotten grumpy. When you hang around him, you'd never know how many things are hovering about, trying to stress him out in life.

But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

He takes it easy.

That's one thing about Dad I wanna be like.

Kev

Is Christianity True? - A Response

2006-01-07T00:20:00.000-08:00

I had the good fortune of receiving intelligent, constructive comments on certain posts of mine a few weeks ago. My post where I stood Jesus and Siddhartha (the Budda) side by side elicited a couple great comments. Both Wing and Eug left thought provoking comments (thanks guys!...this is why Blogger pwns Xanga), and both asked essentially the same question:

How do we know that what we believe in (Christianity) is true?

I don't know where to start answering such a question. I have undertaken quite a radical paradigm shift the past few years in how I approach the Bible, Jesus, God, religion, faith, etc... In fact, I know that my views are quite fringe in the Christian Church. It is a rather nice coincidence that I have been asked this question now, for I have just read three books that tackle this issue (two by Borg, one by Pagels). These books have really helped me understand where I now stand, for all three articulate the same general paradigm that I find myself coming into. In order to bring to light my thinking, I'll present my thoughts in a question-and-answer format. This recognizes the fact that much of what I need to say isn't logically linked together, but is more like a mosaic of thought-clusters and opinions. I think this is the best way to describe my thinking at this point - a messy mosaic. It is too soon to come down with a definite position; all of this is thinking-in-progress. Also, my aim is not to persuade you, my faithful readers. No, my goal is to bring to light where I stand, to share my own opinions and thoughts. Don't expect persuasive argumentation to try and convert you to my way of thinking - that is not my aim. Anyways, on to the juicy stuff.

Is there a God?

Yes - that is what I believe. However, our language about God is imperfect at best. We must take our human descriptions of God with a grain of salt.

What is the nature of God?

This is hard to answer. I think God is both personal and impersonal. That is, God is both a Sacred reality that one can be in a personal relationship with, and God is a Sacred, impersonal presence/energy/reality that permeates everything. The great religions of this world have seen God in both ways. I think they are the result of genuine encounters with the Sacred. I do not think that they were all deceived. Therefore, I take into consideration that a number of religions see the Sacred as a personal deity, while others see it as an impersonal cosmic force. Honestly though, most of my interactions with God I would classify as personal and relational. But, at the same time, God is the great mystery. Not only does our language break down when we talk about God, but the very being of God is so great, and so vast, that surely we can't possibly understand everything about God. So I remain open to the mystery that is God.

So are you a pluralist?

I guess deep down, yes. I try to be inclusive all the incredibly rich and diverse religious traditions this world has seen. I do think that these different religions traditions did, and do, have honest, genuine encounters with the Sacred reality. God did not limit itself to one, and only one, culture or religion. I think that mainline Christian thinking, acceptable to most Christians I know, does provide some resources for thinking in this way. For example, few would deny that God is active among non-believers by means of his Spirit. However, most do not go to the pluralism that I find myself in.

If you are a pluralist, then what is salvation?

Salvation. Hrmm. It can mean a bunch of things I suppose. But I think at the center of it is transformation. (Here I recognize my debt to John Hick and, to a lesser extent, Marcus Borg). Salvation is the transformation of humanity, both individually and socially. Many of the religions in the world reveal the feeling that something is out of place, something is wrong. Something needs to change. I realize my definition of salvation as transformation is very Christian. The Christian story aims for the resurrection of the dead into a new heavens and a new earth. The goal is a transformed existence. However, despite the very Christian way of seeing things, I think this theme of transformation is common throughout a number of major religions in this world. Even secular thinking hopes for transformation of that which ills society.

What about hell then?

Honestly, the concept doesn't sit well with me. That God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment is a bit much. And, as much of Christianity tends to put it, that God would condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment because they did not believe--give intellectual assent to--certain 'truths' strikes me as absurd. I cannot imagine a God that could do such a thing. Especially a God that would watch the universe create itself for billions upon billions of years. Why would he want to go through all that just to throw most of it into a pit of fire. Just doesn't make sense to me.

So does God judge us?

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I don't have an answer to this yet. I believe that human injustice must be addressed. Each of us has acted unjustly to our fellow humans, and to the world that sustains us. I don't think God will brush this injustice aside. But, at the same time, I don't think God is going to condemn most of humankind. In the end, I'm not afraid. I know God is with me: he is mine, and I am his. I do not fear judgment. And Christian tradition has always said that Jesus bore God's punishment for the world. If Jesus did indeed fulfill this role, then what is to fear? Just how it all will work out, I don't know.

Then how do you view Jesus?

A very broad question, one which I can cover only briefly. First, Jesus was most definitely an incredible human being. I stress that 'human being'. There's this quote I came across in one of the books I just read: to rob Jesus of his humanity is to rob him of his greatness. The compassion and love he showed, the barriers he broke down, his teachings, his healings, all of them are marks of a great man. Moreover, Jesus intimately encountered and experienced the Sacred. I agree with Marcus Borg in that Jesus' whole ministry and life was driven by his deep, intimate, relationship with God. And the compassion and love that he found in the presence of God, he showed to those whom he came across in life. Jesus was a person saturated by the Divine.

What about the incarnation then?

I think this is one of those areas where human language and understanding fails us. What does it mean to say that literally Jesus is God? I have no idea what to make of this language. I think Jesus shared an intimacy with God that few humans have experienced. In many ways, to look upon Jesus is to look upon the Sacred itself. This doesn't deny that other humans in history could have played similar roles. However, there is something else about Jesus - people still encounter him, to this very day. Those who are Christians personally encounter God in the figure of Jesus, they have from the very beginning. There is something about Easter, boy I tell ya.

What do you think the Bible is?

I do not think the Bible is revealed text: I don't think that God dictated the contents of the Bible to the people who wrote it. I see the Bible as a human document. Written by humans, edited by humans, compiled by humans. The Bible is a collection of texts resulting from the encounter between ancient communities and the Divine. It is a human response to Sacred experience. And so I do not see the Bible as a book about doctrine and dogma, but rather of experience and story. The Bible testifies to God and Jesus; it is the one whom the Bible speaks of that is of utmost importance to Christianity; the text itself is just a medium, a messenger, a pointer. In the words of a fellow blogger: there will be no Bible stand in heaven.

Why are you a Christian?

The question you've all been waiting for, my faithful readers. Well, there are a number of reasons. First, I think that Christianity is a valid path for bringing people to encounter God. In Christianity, in it's way of life, it's rituals, it's forms of prayer, it's stories, it's Scriptures, it's community, I am brought into a transformative relationship with God. I think I genuinely do, and will continue to, encounter the Divine within Christianity. Second, I am captivated by Jesus. I just can't get away from this guy. Trust me, I've tried. There is something about who Jesus was, and I would say, still is, that seizes me. Third, I have found a sense of community and belonging within my particular Christian community. Fourth, I think that Christianity has much to tell us about God, humanity, and the nature of the religious life; and I am willing to stick with it to listen and follow.
Here I will raise the same question that Pagels does in her book - why is being Christian today virtually synonymous with believing certain things. Why is Christianity defined by 'belief'? What about all the stories we tell? the values we hold? the rituals we perform? our church communities? our life of prayer? our life of self-giving love? the central place of Jesus in our lives? the Way of Jesus that we follow? Are none of these markers of 'being Christian'?
If Christianity is all about believing certain things to be true, then I might just be S.O.L. (Shit outta luck). But if being Christian is more than that (e.g., following the Way of Jesus the Messiah/Christ), then I'm home.

Why are you so liberal?

The question that I'm sure is in all of your minds at this point. The short answer - it's the path that my life has taken me. It is the result of my experiences, encounters, thoughts, feelings - everything. The somewhat-longer answer. I don't think Jesus would be so quick to condemn people. He offered forgiveness to people outside of the established system of ritual purity, that is, apart from the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus also associated with the people that society marginalized: the unclean, the impure, the poor, the prostitutes. He did not come to them with a message of fiery judgment, but with compassion and love. He didn't go around telling people what to believe in order to be saved; rather, he healed the sick, loved the unloved, and told them to follow in his footsteps. But his fire, oh yes his fire was reserved for those who marginalized others and condemned them to lives of misery. What would Jesus think about the Church today? We are so quick to label who is 'in' and who is 'out'. So, ironically enough, it is my view of Jesus that makes me so liberal.

This is a difficult post. It is both hard for me to write so openly and honestly about such a controversial topic - a topic that may (will?) marginalize me - and also I bet it has been difficult for some of you to read. I first drafted this post a couple weeks ago and let it sit and simmer for a while, then came back to it last week to edit it, and now finally return to publish it. I welcome and look forward to your comments. Please, don't bother yelling 'heretic' and quoting scripture at me, you'll get nowhere. But if you do, I will appreciate the fact that you are motivated by my eternal well being - in fact, I will be flattered! However, blogging is all about dialogue and discussion, so please, comment with that aim. Don't forget my warning right at the beginning: all of my thinking at this stage in my life is still 'in progress'. I have changed my mind many times over the past few years, and I don't see that process ending any time soon.

Grace and peace,
Kev

A New Semester

2006-01-05T22:52:00.000-08:00

A new year, a new term: new profs, new classes. Here's the run down:

BIOL 201 - Biochemistry:
I heard this class isn't too harsh so long as you stay on top of the material. A BIG plus is that the tutorial is drop-in, i.e., not required. Sweet. I wasn't a big fan of the BIOL 200 tutorial. This class has a midterm and a final exam.

CHEM 205 - Physical Chemistry:
Thermodynamics, kinetics, and spectroscopy. Disgusting material. I don't want to do it - I don't care about it. But it's a requirement, so I have no choice. Weekly quizzes (WebCT I think), midterm, and final exam.

GREK 325 - New Testament/Hellenistic Greek:
Continuation of a full year course. I did very well first semester. Now we are going to be reading more Hellenistic texts and less NT texts. I guess that's cool because it gives me a nice spectrum of ancient Greek. Midterm and final exam.

RELG 304 - Creation and Covenant in Ancient Israel:
This class looks like a great one. It covers the Pentateuch in depth (i.e., Genesis to Deuteronomy). We will be learning different critical approaches to the texts. The focus is on the twin themes of creation and covenant, and how they are used in the Pentateuch, and the Hebrew Bible in general. Short essay (10 pages), midterm and final exam.

RELG 414 - Gospels and the Historical Jesus:
This is one of the two main classes I want to take for my religious studies major (the other being 'Paul of Tarsus'). This class looks like it's going to be amazing. The professor (Dr. Cousland) is so jovial and funny - just a great lecturer. The textbook looks great, and the material we're going to be covering is exactly what I was looking for. One paper (15 pages), a midterm and a small midterm on the last day of class; no final exam.

RELG 370 - Theory and Method in the Study of Religion:
Continuation of last semester. Last semester, we learned different theoretical approaches to interpreting religion. This semester, we need to go to an actual sacred space in Vancouver, and analyze that space using the theoretical knowledge we learned. I already have a place in mind (the Catholic Church across the street from my Church), and I think I know which theoretical approach I want to use (Otto and phenomenology). I've taken out a couple books from the library already - I want to get an early start on this paper. One paper (12 pages) only; no exams.

So that's the outlook for this term.

Looks good, but very, very busy.

I need to get started on stuff early; there's no way I can cram all this stuff the last month. No way!

Cheers,
Kev

Getting Stepped On

2006-01-02T15:34:00.000-08:00

The way of Jesus is radical: it is the way of radical love. If someone strikes you, you don't resist; if someone takes from you, you give them more; if someone shows you evil and hate, you return goodness and love. In short, the way of Jesus is the way of getting stepped on.

But is this way sustainable? Can we humans live our lives getting stepped on all the time, and not fighting back? The way I see it, Jesus did it, and his life ended hanging on a piece of timber alongside political troublemakers.

And if the way of Jesus is the way of love and compassion, then what if our love and compassion is taken advantage of? I'm sure God gets this all time - but I'm not God and I don't have a clue how God deals with it. So whatever divine knowledge there might be, I'm not privy to it. This leaves human knowledge and wisdom to come up with an answer.

How much mercy and patience must I show before enough is enough?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my kindness before I stop?
How far should I allow others to take advantage of my giving and selflessness before it becomes unhealthy?

I wish I had an answer.
I wish Jesus wasn't so radical.
Sometimes, I wish he didn't put his money where his mouth was and actually live--and die--for his values.

Everything would be much easier that way.

Cheers,
Kev

Welcome to the Digital Age

2005-12-31T14:29:00.000-08:00

Yes, finally, the Digital Age is ushered in on the Afra family. We now have a digital camera: a nifty little 6MP Olympus.

I got my Flickr account working. You can find it here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kafra/

For those of you who don't know about Flickr (I assume 95% of you), it's a really cool, easy to use, online photo directory. It has a nice program that I've downloaded, it lets me upload batches of photos to custom photo sets; and I can add descriptions right here on my computer. Then all I need to do is click the little 'Upload' button, and it's all done. Easy to use, organized, free - cool.

/freeadvertisingoff

Have a great New Years Eve everyone,
Kev

Quoteworthy - Waiterrant

2005-12-30T11:09:00.000-08:00

I was reading through Waiterrant's post about his parking encounter with two senior ladies. He says a few things about character and virtue that I think are worth quoting:

"Dad always said virtue is its own reward."

"Suddenly I remember what my old sociology professor once taught me, 'A value doesn't become a value until you suffer for it.' He wasn't kidding."

"Now, you might think I'm being vain glorious here. You might say that people suffer, really suffer, for values everyday. Think of human rights activists imprisoned in Burma, soldiers fighting in Iraq, hunger strikers starving to protest governmental oppression. Those people are really suffering for a value.

But most of us aren't peace activists, soldiers, or revolutionaries. We're just well fed people trying to stumble through life the best we can. Its in the little struggles, like giving up your seat on the subway, writing a check to the Salvation Army instead of buying a gadget you don't need, or biting your tongue when a friend says something stupid, that we suffer for values everyday. Character is forged in the smallest of struggles. Then, when the big challenges come, we're ready. Or so I like to tell myself."

(italics are mine)

Cheers,
Kev

Do you have your towel?

2005-12-29T12:01:00.000-08:00

Free tix.

Deafening chant Go Finland, Go.

Ear shattering Boo! to team USA.

Finland - great start.

USA - great finish.

Bloody yanks won.

Oh well, I got another towel to add to my collection.

Ford Prefect would be proud of me.

-Kev

P5hng Me A*wy

2005-12-27T00:52:00.000-08:00

When I look into your eyes there’s nothing there to see
Nothing but my own mistakes staring back at me

I’ve lied to you
This is the last smile that I’ll fake for the sake of being with you
Everything falls apart
Even the people who never frown eventually break down
Everything has to end
You’ll soon find we’re out of time left to watch it all unwind
Everything falls apart
Even the people who never frown eventually break down

The sacrifice is never knowing...

Why I stay when you just push away
No matter what you see you’re still so blind to me

I’ve tried, like you, to do everything you wanted to
This is the last time
That I’ll take the blame for the sake of being with you
Everything falls apart
Even the people who never frown eventually break down
The sacrifice of hiding in a lie
Everything has to end
You’ll soon find we’re out of time left to watch it all unwind

The sacrifice is never knowing...

Why I stay when you just push away
No matter what you see you’re still so blind to me

Reverse psychology is failing miserably
It’s so hard to be left all alone
Telling you is the only chance for me
There is nothing left but to turn and face you

When I look into your eyes there’s nothing there to see
Nothing but my own mistakes staring back at me
Asking why
The sacrifice of hiding in a lie

The sacrifice is never knowing...

Why I stay when you just push away
No matter what you see you’re still so blind to me

- Linkin Park, "P5hng Me A*wy"

Christmas Eve Mass

2005-12-26T22:30:00.000-08:00

Oh yes, merry Christmas to all. A little late, but hey, Christmas day was busy - no time to blog.

I did things a bit different this year: for Christmas Eve I went to the midnight mass at Christ Church Cathedral, which is an Anglican church. It was amazing. A few of my reflections on that night:

- The cathedral itself, in its architecture and interior design, really made you think you've entered sacred space. Everything was so beautiful, so grand, so detailed. It's not like covering stained glass with shades, ahem ahem.
- The choir and musicians were out of sight. They were elevated one level up at the back of the sanctuary. The very placement of those leading the music was a wonderful reminder of what role music plays in worship and assembly.
- The choir/music was beautiful. I don't think I have heard anything so beautiful live before. Again, it stirs forth the sense of sacred presence.
- I really enjoyed the liturgy. It made me an equal participant in the whole worship service, instead of a (mostly) passive recipient.
- They did not fear the use of physical object and icons in the worship, as if objects/icons are inherently evil in themselves. So stuff like incense, chalices, bowls, robes, hats, candles, a bunch of stuff like that were incorporated and used in the service. In my mind, this recognizes the beauty and full validity of the physical world...as if everything were about the spiritual world alone!
- The prayers for the people. This part of the liturgy the church prayed for all sorts of people. Moving in circles further and further out from the church, we were led in prayer. Friends and family; politicians; police and health care professionals working during Christmas; those away from home during Christmas; our soldiers over seas; people recovering from natural disasters. Here was a church that realized it was part of a much bigger world.
- It was pretty cool being served communion by the Bishop himself. I don't have a reason really, it was just cool. Oh, and real wine and real bread is, well, better.
- The sermon was powerful. I haven't had a sermon touch heart and head in that way for quite a while now. But then again, I was one of the younger people in the crowd of 600ish, so the target audience was adults. Maybe that explains it.

All in all, it was a wonderful experience. I'm glad I went, even though I went alone. Of course, that worked out well since I got the third to last seat in the house - there were only single seats left by the time I arrived.

I have been to liturgical services before and have enjoyed them, this one was awesome as well. I do think I'll be going back again in the future.

Who knows, maybe Easter?

Cheers,
Kev

Acquainted with the Night

2005-12-24T10:40:00.000-08:00

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain--and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-by;
And further still at an unearthly height,
One luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

- Robert Frost, 1928

Happy winter solstice. Enjoy the darkest time of the year.

Four Noble Truths: Buddha and Jesus

2005-12-20T22:44:00.000-08:00

The Four Noble Truths:

1. Buddha says: Life is suffering.

Jesus says: You will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

(Paul says: For the creation was subjected to futility...we know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves.)

2. Buddha says: The cause of suffering is craving and attachment.

Jesus says: Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?' For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

3. Buddha says: The end of suffering is getting rid of craving and grasping.

Jesus says: If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the good news, will save it.

4. Buddha says: The path towards overcoming suffering is the Eightfold Path.
(Right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration)

Jesus says: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the low and the prophets.
Jesus says: Don't be angry with a brother or sister...Don't look upon a woman with lust...Don't divorce without grounds...Let your word be 'Yes', 'Yes' or 'No', 'No'...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

I have not tried to prove that Siddhartha and Jesus said the same thing, or that the religions that sprang up from them said the same thing. My aim has been to merely show that both individuals dealt with the same major issues of human existence. And their responses, though unique and different, share some eerie similarities.

Cheers,
Kev

Can't Nail Me Down

2005-12-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

The thing I love about symbols is that they can't be nailed down to one-and-only-one meaning. The same goes for rituals. (Where 'symbol' ends and 'ritual' begins, who can say; I think they overlap).

I realized this today during the celebration of communion.

What might communion mean to the others standing with me:

- I celebrate because Jesus died for my sins: he shed his blood so that I might be forgiven and be accepted before God.
- I celebrate a meal of fellowship: everyone who stands with me now is my brother and sister, someway, somehow. Through all time and in all places, everyone in history who has ever gathered at the communion table is family.
- I celebrate for hope: everytime I eat the bread and drink the wine I remember the Lord's death until he comes. I celebrate in hope for a transformed world, a transformed me.
- I celebrate for deliverance: just as the Israelites celebrated their exodus--their deliverance from oppression and bondage--with the Passover meal, so I to celebrate my deliverance from the powers (political, social, religious, psychological, spiritual, etc...) that try to oppress and control me.
- I celebrate to encounter God: as a sacrament, the bread and wine in a physical and tangible way mediate the grace and love of God to me. As I eat and drink, I encounter the loving presence of God with me.
- I celebrate for healing: as someone broken and hurt, I celebrate with the one who's body was also broken; I stand unified to the man--God's viceroy--who suffered, and was raised complete - without suffering. I am at one with the divine love that gives grace to the suffering.

And, as I'm sure, many more options as well.

I have experienced a bit of all of those at different times. One communion may have one meaning vivid in my mind and heart, the next month may have a complete different one. Or perhaps two meanings are most vivid. Rarely more - never all.

That is the beautiful thing about 'symbolic rituals' (now there's your synthesis!). They just plain refuse to be nailed down. It's going to mean different things to different people at different times. Of course, the official church version seems to be the first (and often only the first) meaning. I think this is an unfortunate reality in our church. I wish that we would explore and articulate all the rich meanings of the eucharist. And we should celebrate the fact that one (relatively) simple ritual has such depth, such power.

It's a symbol that just can't be nailed down.

All pun intended.

Cheers,
Kev

That Feeling Again

2005-12-17T23:20:00.000-08:00

Not this again.

I hate this feeling.

I've been through this before. I thought I was past it. I thought I wouldn't have to go through it again.

It's that feeling that everything is bound to crumble. Everything I am, everything I do, all my goals and aspirations, all my plans, everything will just collapse into a smoldering heap.

I hate this feeling.

Not just that, but it's the feeling that I'm bound to be a loser in life. And I don't mean 'dork', I am a dork already - that's pretty obvious. It isn't an issue with self image before others, not that kind of loser. I mean a feeling that every time I'm going to 'shoot for the stars' I'm destined to fail. That kind of loser. A person who 'loses' out in life.

Fuck.

Make it go away.

What more can I do but thank God for every day I have: every day I'm allowed to enjoy this incredibly blessed life of mine.

But still, it's a horrible feeling, this pessimism.

Make it go away.

An Idea for Christmas

2005-12-17T12:09:00.000-08:00

I was browsing through the blogosphere today and I found myself on The Homeless Guy's blog. If you haven't read this guy's blog, it's awesome. He is an ex-homeless man who started blogging years ago about his homeless experience. I rather like his site because it comes from someone who has 'been there' - really, truly experienced it. There is rarely a better source of wisdom and information to clear out misconceptions.

Anyways, I came across his post on Christmas goodie bags. Go! Read it! The moment I read it I realized that not only is this an excellent idea, but it is actually feasible. What you do is take a small paper bag and put in a bunch of stuff, which to us who are fortunately seems rather insignificant, that is greatly appreciated by the homeless. Then you head off to somewhere that the homeless congregate and hand them out.

It seems like a marvelous idea, a great way to actually show a little compassion this Christmas season. And so I ask: would anyone like to join us (me and Eug so far) in doing this? If you are seriously interested, let us know. The more people we get, the more bags we can hand out, and the more we can put into the bags.

Cheers,
Kev

Done. What's up next?

2005-12-16T12:00:00.000-08:00

Yes, I have finished all my finals - both of em =]. Christmas break, you may now begin.

My last post on gifts and Christmas sure brought on some nice responses - both in person and via comments. The discussions have been fruitful, and my thoughts have been further revised (that's what it's all about after all, isn't it!). I plan on blogging a second installment with some responses and further reflections. Thanks to all who piped in as a result of my post, your responses are greatly appreciated.

Also, I have finished The Heart of Christianity. I plan on posting a review soon with a short summary and some of my reflections.

But first. My brain needs a break.

Regularly scheduled blogging will return soon.

Cheers,
Kev

Christmas? Gifts?

2005-12-10T17:41:00.000-08:00

Hum.

I don't seem to recall Jesus ever giving gifts and presents to people.

Of course not, the guy was a poor peasant.

What did he give? Something worth much more than any material gift: compassion...care...attention.

So why is it that for one month we fuss so much about 'what to get *insert name here*'? Are we trying to avoid giving them what really matters? Are we trying to avoid actually involving ourselves in the lives of others around us? In celebrating 'Jesus' are we just avoiding everything his life stood for?

"Here, have a gift. Really, I do care about you."

Sure. As if all I needed in life were another iPod, or a nice hat.

-Kev

Book Preview - The Heart of Christianity

2005-12-08T22:28:00.000-08:00

I picked up a book from the library today that is turning into an awesome read. (Yes, I do read things for personal enjoyment and reflection during the holidays; what better time?) I picked up a book by Marcus J. Borg called The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. I have read through the first chapter so far, and I'm hooked. I've heard of Borg from my reading of Historical Jesus scholarship. He has written a fair bit on Jesus, and he is a big name aligned with the 'Jesus Seminar'.

This book is all about two different answers to the question 'What is at the heart of Christianity?'. The first he labels as the 'earlier paradigm': it is the majority approach to Christianity in the West, and it has been since the 1600s. The second he labels the 'emerging paradigm': this is a minority approach which has grown up in the past hundred or so years. He summarizes:

The Bible's Origin:
Earlier Paradigm - a divine product with divine authority
Emerging Paradigm - a human response to God

Biblical Interpretation:
Earlier Paradigm - literal-factual (truth based on literal, factual meaning)
Emerging Paradigm - historical and metaphorical (historical context of texts and metaphorical meaning)

Bible's Function:
Earlier Paradigm - revelation of doctrine and morals
Emerging Paradigm - metaphorical and sacramental (a visible vehicle of divine grace)

Christian Life Emphasis:
Earlier Paradigm - afterlife and what to believe/do to be saved
Emerging Paradigm - transformation in this life through relationship with God

And a side note - Emerging Christianity is pluralistic: it sees Christianity as one of many responses to the Divine; however, the distinctiveness and particularity of Christianity is not suppressed.

I finally have words to put on the very thing that I myself have come to see over the past year or two. Two years ago I was fully in the 'earlier paradigm' camp. Now, I find myself very much in the 'emerging paradigm' camp. And looking over the trajectory of my life this past year, I have a feeling the emerging camp is where I'll set up shop and make my home for life.

I'm curious to see what Borg has to say about all the various central elements of Christian faith, and how one particular person (Borg) approaches them from within the emerging paradigm.

It's an exciting read.

I plan on posting an in depth review once I finish the book.

As the old liturgy goes: the Lord be with you.
Kev

The Joy of Translation

2005-12-08T00:43:00.000-08:00

There is a particular joy to translation. It is a wonderful experience to translate an ancient text, in an ancient language, into English. You won't really understand exactly what it feels like unless you've actually done it. There is an incredible sense of accomplishment and fulfilment. This is all the more so when you're translating texts that have a great value to you. In my case, the New Testament.

The thing about translation is that it is a slow process. The pace forces you to look at every word, every construction. It forces you to really--truly--read the text. When you spend an hour on a single paragraph, every word has so much power - so much meaning. All of this is lost when you're speed reading through an NIV Bible. I say again: there is a particular joy to translation.

But, alas, reading closely a text with deep meaning has it's own set of challenges. Try spending hours upon hours translating the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5ff.). Try to work your way through the radical way of life that Jesus proposes, every sentence pounding away at you. Just try, I dare you. See how far you get before the you can't bear your own shortcomings any longer; see if you can even make it to: therefore you shall be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.

Yes, there is a particular joy to translation.

And, to steal a metaphor, it is double sided.

Grace and peace to you all. It's a rough time of the year,
Kev

Pleasant Surprise

2005-12-05T01:17:00.000-08:00

So I'm probably not going bald after all.

I was always under the impression that I would have a big shiny bald spot within a few years. But I have just learned of some wonderful genetic information which tells otherwise:

- Yes, my dad did start balding by the end of his 20s
But...
- My grandpa (mom's dad) had a full head of hair till his 50s
- My great grandpa (dad's grandpa) died at 62 with a full head of hair
- My uncle (dad's brother) has a full head of hair, and he is ~60.
- My brother still has a full head of hair, and he is ~30.

So, I may not be a young balder after all.

Then again, I might die from diabetes, but I'll save that for another post.

Pleasant surprise,
Kev

Archbishop John Sentamu

2005-12-01T20:29:00.000-08:00

John Sentamu, born in Uganda, has become the 97th archbishop of York - the second 'highest' position in the Church of England. I have a wonderful quote from the sermon preached by Sentamu (from the CofE site):

“But why have we in England turned this glorious Gospel of life in the Spirit into a cumbersome organisation that repels, and whose people are dull and complacent?” - words of Michael Ramsey, 1960.
And I would urge people who are judgemental and moralizing – as followers of the Prince of Peace, the friend of the poor, the marginalised, the vulnerable - I bid you, by the mercies of God, to go and find friends among them, among the young, among older people, and those in society who are demonised and dehumanised; and stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Christians, go and find friends who are Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists – not for the purpose of converting them to your beliefs, but for friendship, understanding, listening, hearing.

I like this archbishop already.

Cheers,
Kev

Forgiveness...Wow

2005-11-30T10:19:00.000-08:00

Her son was recently killed--brutally killed--in a racist attack. This is how she has responded to the conviction of the two murders:

"Why live a life sentence? Hate killed my son, so why should I be a victim too? said Mrs Walker.

"Unforgiveness makes you a victim and why should I be a victim? Anthony spent his life forgiving. His life stood for peace, love and forgiveness and I brought them up that way."

Her daughter, just lost her precious brother, said:

"I did say I forgive and I do still stand by that because you have to. That's one of the things I was raised on and what my mum taught me."

Read it all here.

Cheers,
Kev

Switch Up: Feel the Burn!

2005-11-25T22:20:00.000-08:00

I decided to try something different today at the pool. Normally, I'd just do laps for 30 mins. Today, I went for 40 laps.

Here's the run down:

14x25m breaststroke
8x25m front crawl
6x25m front crawl
2x25m breaststroke
4x25m front crawl
2x25m front crawl
4x25m breaststroke
--------
40x25m = 1000m

Unfortunately, I'm slow as hell. It took me ~37 min.

I like this method better. I think I'm going to stick with 40 laps for the next month or so. I'll see if I can shave off some time too.

At any rate, I'm feeling the burn...harsh...feels great.

Tomorrow, back to paper writing...ugh.

Cheers,
Kev

Quoteworthy - The Hospital Chaplain

2005-11-25T15:42:00.000-08:00

Slacktivist mentions Real Live Preacher's (RLP) experience as a hospital chaplain intern in this week's Left Behind Friday entry. (You'll notice both have been on my frequently travelled blog list for some time now).

I wanted to provide a few excerpts from RLP's 4 part story, especially part 3 - "dark night of the soul":

You see, people facing death don’t give a fuck about your interpretation of II Timothy.
Some take the “bloodied, but unbowed” road, but most dying people want to pray with the chaplain. And they don’t want weak-ass prayers either. They don’t want you to pray that God’s will be done.

Hell no. People want you to get down and dirty with them. They want to call down angels and the powers of the Almighty. THEY ARE DYING and the whole world should stop.

I threw myself into it. I prayed holding hands and cradling heads. I prayed with children and old men. I prayed with a man who lost his tongue to cancer. I lent him mine. I prayed my ass off. I had 50 variations of every prayer you could imagine, one hell of a repertoire.

I started noticing something. When the doctors said someone was going to die, they did. When they said 10% chance of survival, about 9 out of 10 died. The odds ran pretty much as predicted by the doctors. I mean, is this praying doing ANYTHING?

...

Then I met Jenny.

30 something. Cute. New mother with two little kids. Breast cancer. Found it too late. Spread all over. Absolutely going to die.

Jenny had only one request. “I know I’m going to die, chaplain. I need time to finish this. It's for my kids. Pray with me that God will give me the strength to finish it.”

She showed me the needlepoint pillow she was making for her children. It was an “alphabet blocks and apples” kind of thing. She knew she would not be there for them. Would not drop them off at kindergarten, would not see baseball games, would not help her daughter pick out her first bra. No weddings, no grandkids. Nothing.

She had this fantasy that her children would cherish this thing - sleep with it, snuggle it. Someday it might be lovingly put on display at her daughter’s wedding. Perhaps there would be a moment of silence. Some part of her would be there.

I was totally hooked. We prayed. We believed. Jesus, this was the kind of prayer you could believe in. We were like idiots and fools.

A couple of days later I went to see her only to find the room filled with doctors and nurses. She was having violent convulsions and terrible pain. I watched while she died hard. Real hard.

As the door shut, the last thing I saw was the unfinished needlepoint lying on the floor.

...

It’s funny, when your faith finally caves, it goes all at once. You realize you were just a shell held together with hackneyed rituals and desperate hopes. You are not strong. You do not have answers.

I don’t remember the walk back to the office. I must have had the classic, “Young chaplain just got the shit kicked out of him” look because people left me alone.

...

St. John of the Cross calls it "The Dark Night of the Soul." He says those seeking God will walk the paths of others but eventually those paths will end and there will be no path. They will be left with “Nada, Nada, Nada.” Nothing, Nothing, Nothing.

It broke my heart. I grieved in joint and marrow. My reptilian brain cried. I was sad all the way to the bottom.

Now that's real life.

-Kevin

Centennial

2005-11-22T16:12:00.000-08:00

I just noticed that my last post was my 100th blog post.

Woooo!

The End,
Kev

Bob Marley and Hermeneutics

2005-11-21T19:14:00.000-08:00

So the good Bob Marley came up on the ol' iPod today as I pulled into Park Royal on the people's limo. There's a wonderful song Mr. Marley sings entitled, "No Woman, No Cry". Let's just look at that title and have a little fun.

What does "No Woman, No Cry" mean? I see two possible ways of interpreting it:
1. "(if) no woman, (then) no cry" - a statement of result. If you don't have a woman, then you won't have reason to cry; with relationships comes pain and so on, you know the drill. Perhaps the more obvious meaning from the syntax and word choice alone.
2. "no woman - don't cry!" - an imperative. Here you're telling the woman to not cry; it is an imperative command. This one isn't as obvious - unless, like me, you've heard brown ESLers speak.

Now, if you've actually heard the song then you know that the answer to my question is obvious. But that's the key - you need to have heard the rest of the song.

Just thought this would be a fun example to show how complex interpretation of language actually is.

Cheers,
Kev

My Problem With My Methods Course

2005-11-20T00:55:00.000-08:00

I think I've pinpointed the reason why I am disappointed with my 'methods in the study of religion' course.

I was expecting a course that was going to cover various approaches to interpreting religious literature. I wanted a course to cover all the various criticisms I'd heard of: historical criticism, literary criticism, narrative criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, reader response criticism, etc... Basically, I expected a course on exegesis and hermeneutics. These were the types of courses I had seen as part of the curriculum of both graduate biblical studies programs, as well as all the undergraduate biblical studies programs in the UK, which, by the way, I spent many a day drooling over.

However, what I got was a course on how to interpret religion on the macro scale. We are talking about how various theorists have studied the phenomenon of religion. Figures such as Eliade, Marx, Durkheim, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Otto; approaches such as colonial, postcolonial, and feminist. As you can see, this is very different from what I expected, and wanted.

Although, yes, I am interested in the stuff we talk about--how do we interpret religion? how do we interpret the 'poetics'? the 'politics'?--it really isn't super interesting to me. I want a course to guide me through the various approaches to interpretation of religious documents and literature.

I guess I won't be getting that at UBC. Oh well.

Kev

God Wills It

2005-11-18T01:35:00.000-08:00

This is one of those posts where I've had something mulling about my head for some time and just needed to put it down in sentences and try to get my thoughts straight.

I often hear people talk about the "will of God". They will do so-and-so if "God wills it"; they don't know if they should do such-and-such because they don't know if God "wills it". As I hear this, I thinking to myself: God doesn't will anything. I'll explain.

I take very seriously the fact that humans are free creatures (yes, Free-Will). To qualify this, sometimes we have physical barriers to action (alcohol? illness? handicap?); sometimes we have economic barriers (no money?); sometimes we have mental barriers (fear? insecurity? shock?). But, in light of all this, I think I can still say that human beings have a free will.

The next step in my thinking is such: if we are free creatures, then we are free to make our own decisions. The fact that we are creatures capable of making our own decisions makes me think that perhaps that's the way God intended us to be. So then, God has allowed us the capacity to make our own conscious decisions in life.

One may say at this point that indeed we are free - free to choose the path that is God's will. Well, maybe that's the way it is. But I want to propose something else: God won't make the choice for us. That is the reason we are free creatures, to make our own choices. Now, we have guidance: we want to strive to build character, and we want to avoid actions that are morally wrong (e.g., murder, robbery, and other universally recognized wrongs); we have wisdom, experience, and common sense; we have the advice of others. Why would God provide us with all this if he wants us to make the choice that he himself has already made?

I think what I'm getting at is that there are two different paradigms of how to approach living the Christian life and making decisions. One approach is to try and figure out the one-and-0nly-one thing which God wills that we do. The other approach is to recognize the boundaries (don't kill, act in love, etc...) and make our decision using the heart and head which we all have.

If God made a creation which can self-create (no lies, I'm an evolutionist)--and I would think he very much enjoys watching this process--then surely he enjoys seeing created beings create their own paths through life.

I have rambled long enough. I can see a dozen loose ends and logical faults in what I've said. But I ask for your grace as you read - consider this a publicly available freewrite.

Cheers,
Kev

Rabbinic Nugget - The Short but Long Road

2005-11-14T18:01:00.000-08:00

Another great snippet from the Babylonian Talmud:

I was once on a journey when I noticed a little boy sitting at the cross-road. 'By what road,' I asked him, 'do we go to the town?' 'This one,' he replied, 'is short but long, and that one is long but short.' I proceeded along the 'short but long' road. When I approached the town I discovered that it was hedged in by gardens and orchards. Turning back I said to him, 'My son, did you not tell me that this road was short?' 'And,' he replied, 'did I not also tell you: but long?'

Wonderful!

Rabbinic Nugget - "My Sons Have Defeated Me"

2005-11-14T17:52:00.000-08:00

I want to share a wonderful quote from the Babylonian Talmud (a major text of Rabbinic Judaism):

But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' (Deut 30.12) What did he mean by this?-Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline. (Ex. 23.2)
R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour?-He laughed with joy, he replied, saying, 'My sons have defeated Me, My Sons have defeated Me.'

I must say, one thing I love about Judaism--and the Rabbis in particular--is their playfulness and their constant dialogue and reinterpretation.

Multitasking?

2005-11-12T14:04:00.000-08:00

A humourous, but true, depiction of 'multitasking':

Hats off to 43 Folders.

Cheers,
Kev

Today We Remember

2005-11-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

Today we remember

Lest we forget

The casualties of war

Take Home Midterm

2005-11-07T09:57:00.000-08:00

That...was...long.

Because of a shortage of class hours, our Ancient Jewish Law prof gave us a take-home midterm. Ugh. Nasty. He said it should take around 6 hrs. It took me more like 8. But, to redeem myself, half of that time I was only half concentrating. So, really, I'm not that stupid. Haha.

I really wish we just had an in class exam. One hour plus a few pages of writing sounds good to me. SEVENTEEN pages of typed material - Yuck.

Now I have two days to try and pick a paper topic and prepare a preliminary outline for my Jewish Law term paper. Good luck Kev, good luck.

Cheers.

A Night at Kev's - Running Blog

2005-11-04T22:06:00.000-08:00

11:15 AM

Welcome back to life Kevin. No hangover - well done! Eug and Lucas are still sleeping. King left before I got up.

That was a good night.

4:30 AM

If you want to see guys talk, get them drunk. We open up like you wouldn't believe, I swear it.

We really should sleep soon...maybe...I dunno...hopefully??

...Nothing like a good Vodka and Juice to put you to bed.

2:15 AM

We're watching Pulp Fiction, man I love this film.

And seriously, the GI Joe clips at eBaum's World had us rolling around for like 15 mins. I haven't seen Lucas laugh so hard ever in my life. Especially this one.

12:30 AM

Charles, Andrew, Dan, Wing, and Eric just left. We're down to me, Eug, Lucas, and King. Watching Lucas is...fun. Haha. Even King is awesome. Eugene just giggles all the time. As for me, I'm still good. I'm on to #3 - Sapporo. Sapporo is pretty cool, it comes in a huge 650mL metal can (like twice a regular bottle).

And Eug has dripped beer on my laptop twice now. Dork.

11:00 PM

Eugene is very Buble-ish. Dan Wong is addicted to Battlefield 2. Wing is crying and saying he wants to go home and do his midterm. I'm on to #2 - Stella Artois. I think I've noticed a general pattern: beer from the tap is way better than from the bottle.

10:10 PM

Dan and Wing have shown up. Others should be showing up within an hour. I have to say, Beck's was a disgusting beer. Seriously, it was like piss in a bottle. And Eug says that Rickards Red is not anywhere near as good as off the tap. I believe him.

9:30 PM:

We're having a party at my place to celebrate Lucas' and Roxy's birthday. After a beer, I have decided to do a running blog of the night. This is mostly so we can chronical the evolution of Lucas.
Anyways, the Canucks game ended - we won. I spent half the time trying to get F.E.A.R. working. After some initial troubles with the sound, it's all good. And man, what an awesome game. I had the lights off and the speakers turned up - it's like a horror film. Eug and I were jumping every few minutes.

Find your love

2005-11-04T13:48:00.000-08:00

If you've been around my blog for a while, you know that when I come across an awesome post out in the blog-o-sphere I love to share it. Well Maggi Dawn has found another excellent nugget. (Original here). Enjoy.

Find your love

You know that dream you carry around with you each day?
It's kinda important.
Wasn't it what you were put on planet earth to do?
They say everyone has a calling, can your still hear it?
Doesn't it eat away at you? That treadmill you are on, did it ever get too much?
Did you ever wonder what it would be like to do your thing?
Did you ever feel time was passing you by?
Just how many days have you left before your last?
Did you ever wonder about stuff like that?
Did you ask yourself 'what was stopping you?'
There is never a right time.
You will be too old. Too young. Too something or other.
When was last time you took a risk?
Did you remember how alive it made you feel?
There are no guarantees of success.
It's not called a leap of faith for nothing.
It's not too late, honest.
Jump.
You might fall.

You might fly.

Worship Dilemma

2005-11-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

I'm undecided. Is worship (in that formal sense of singing) supposed to be a. the congregation praising God, or b. the congregation being led to an experience--an encounter--with God.

Are both options mutually exclusive; in other words, can worship be both about praising God and about encountering God. One may counter: how could they possibly be exclusive? I'll explain. If your primary focus is to praise God, then the act of praise does not necessarily mean one in any way actually encounters God. Praising in no way guarantees, nor presupposes, an encouter with the Holy (yay, go Otto). Whereas, if your primary focus is to encounter God (as Otto would put it, to encounter the numinous), then that also does not require one to be praising.
But, having said this, does that mean that if your focus is to praise God then having an encouter with God is not an issue. And vice versa, if your focus is to encouter God then praising God is not an issue.

The logic is a bit fuddled, I admit, but I think the problem remains.

What is worship ultimately about: me or God?

Thesis...antithesis...now time for a creative synthesis.

By the way, I have see-sawed between both sides of the fence over the years.

-Kev

Tango

2005-11-02T22:46:00.000-08:00

Man, the Tango is hard. I'd love to get it down though, it does seem like a really cool dance.

This one is gonna take some work. I don't think I'm a natural 'tango-er'.

Kev