Beholding the Beauty

I just read this article , and watched this video , which explain quite nicely exactly what a Ron Paul foreign policy would look like (the video), and how this is not new or strange (the article), but is in fact exactly "conservative" -- that is, old school Republican, which the party seems to have forgotten. Something that particularly stuck out was this quote by Warren Buffet's dad, Howard: Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics. Our condition at the

I am almost done reading The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom , by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I cannot recommend this book more highly! Of course, I believe it will have the most impact on Orthodox people, in affirming and renewing (again!) their faith, if only because it's written by an Orthodox priest, about the Liturgy that the Faithful experience every week.  So we have a real concrete experiential knowledge to what he's talking about. However, even for those who are not Orthodox, or even who are not liturgical or sacramental, I think it gives a masterfully woven, completely historical and solidly scriptural look into what liturgy and sacrament are really all about.  So if you don't want to begin to understand, don't read this book. ;) If you want to get a taste, Google Books has it , but with most of the book removed.  :( However, on quick review, I'm pleased to notice that there is a good portion of the first and second chapters -- definitely enough

I received a list of excellent questions from an Anonymous commenter on my last post, summarized by the first one: "How does non-intervention work in the real world?"  There are several followup questions, so I'll answer them here. You write: "If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders" So there is some discussion amongst non-interventionists as to whether or not the U.S. would keep a standing army?  This is more a dispute between Libertarians in general.  Most non-interventionists (including myself) would not go as far as to completely disband the military.  However, we would significantly reduce it's size when not in times of declared war.  The details of the reduction (which branches get cut the most, what we do with the hardware in the meanwhile, how we keep people trained in it, etc.) would be up for serious discussion. Would I be correct in assuming that “standing army” is a metaphor for all branches of the

Those conservatives who oppose Ron Paul's bid for presidency tend to do so because of his foreign policy.  The word "isolationism" is bandied about rather loosely.  To borrow a phrase from Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." The detractors accuse Mr. Paul of wanting to isolate the United States, to stop having anything to do with the rest of the world, to withdraw our entire world presence to within our borders, and "go dark", supporting ourselves and our way of life, and the rest of the world be damned.  That is isolationism. There is another concept, which actually comprises Mr. Paul's (and my) actual stance: Non-Intervention. What is Non-Intervention?  It is maintaining trade and diplomatic relations with the world, to further our national interests, while remaining free of entangling alliances and military action, as much as possible.  If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our ow

Something I've noticed recently, even among Ron Paul supporters like myself, is that people seem to have forgotten that ALL money, whether gold, paper, electronic, or moon dust, is fiat. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value". (To those reading this who already know how money basically works, feel free to skip down a bit.  The important bits that this explanation supports are marked below.) Let's examine this from a purely economic perspective first. "Value" is entirely subjective. One can only speak of the value of one quantity of a thing in terms of a certain quantity of another thing. In a barter system, you have individuals delivering goods and/or services (hereinafter, simply: "resources") in trade for other resources. The "value" of each resource is determined by the parties engaged in the transaction, and can only be understood, therefore, in terms of the other resource. For example, Ghassan the shepherd and Shari

I've noticed something. There are times when I am "in the groove", whether I'm working, or playing. Some After-Action Report observations on these moments, in no particular order. Your experiences may be different; I would love to hear about them! -- I am not aware of the "larger world": I am completely focused on what I'm doing. This is not to say that I forget about the "larger world", just that it is not important. What I do remember of it is brought to conscious thought only if it's relevant to what I'm doing, and only then for actual application. -- I am usually enjoying it. Either what I'm doing itself, or the conquering of it. -- I am usually completely fascinated by the beauty of whatever processes are involved, either physical, mental, or spiritual. (Usually, in fact, it is the unique combination of the three that is fascinating and beautiful.) I know it's hard to imagine that there is beauty in everythi

Well, it's been quite some time since I posted...a little over a month, in fact. In the mean while, I've turned 26, and also gotten a chance to visit some relatives I didn't even know (until recently) that I had, in West Virginia. I had a wonderful time with my Dad, visiting my uncle Tom, my aunt Sharon and her husband Jack, and my Great Aunt Norma! One of the neatest things about the whole experience was hanging out with Aunt Norma, who is about to turn 91 next month. She's got stories to tell, lemme tell ya! And fascinating ones, at that. She took us to a couple of unmarked family graveyards from back in the day. (The graves are marked, but the actual graveyards aren't. You have to know where they are, since they are back in the forest off the beaten paths -- you have to hike a bit.) She told stories about each of the people buried in these graveyards, some of whom she knew from when she was little, and some of whom had even fought in the Civil War!

A friend of mine sent me a link to this article , about a group of Jewish scholars who are trying to recreate the "authentic Scripture" using all the methods of textual criticism. She asked me what I thought about it. Here is my response .

In response to my previous post about the ever-virginity of Mary , a fellow on one of the forums I frequent asked: I'm wondering why Mary would choose to get married if she took that vow of virginity. Here is my response, the historical bits of which I drew from On Orthodox Veneration of Mary , by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco. I also include my own speculation about the motivations of the priests, and several other things, based on the facts of the historical bits. ----------------------------- /begin forum post answer This is a very good question, and one that is not answered in the Scriptures. It is, however, answered by the teaching of the Church. Here is the answer, as best as I understand it: According to the Tradition, Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, were aged and barren. They asked God for a child, and an angel informed them that they would bring forth a daughter. Overjoyed, they promised to consecrate their child to God, as Samuel was consecrated

DISCLAIMER: When I ran this by my priest/pastor/spiritual father for review, he said that nothing immediately jumped out at him as incorrect. However, he did say that it reads like it is my own speculation, made without reference to the teaching of the Church. In this, he is correct. So take it for what it's worth, which is to say -- it's my so-far-uninformed opinion on the matter. :) I do look forward to delving into the teaching of the Fathers (old and new) on the Liturgy, but I haven't done so yet. ------------------------------------------ Ok, this is going to wander a bit, but bear with me. I find it interesting that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, the offering is referred to as "this reasonable and unbloody service"; whereas after the invocation, they are referred to as "this reasonable service." Why the difference? Because the invocation itself calls upon the Holy Spirit

There are some (I used to be among them) who say that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of our Lord, but rather consummated her marriage with Joseph and had several other children by him. The tradition of the Church is that she was raised as a virgin in the Temple, in accordance with the Law, and was betrothed to Joseph as a protector who was much older (and had several children by a previous wife who had died), and that she preserved her virginity according to her vows even after their marriage. I converted to the Church's viewpoint on this based on the fact that I thought the Scriptures were ambiguous about it (they do have explanations for those passages that might seem to indicate that she did not remain a virgin), and it did seem to be the majority (actually, the only) viewpoint until the Reformation — there was no reason to dis believe it. But I didn't hold it dogmatically; just as a "Ok, whatever you say, as long as it's not actually contradicted

I just read this essay by Fr. John Romanides, examining the political realities that lead to the Great Schism of 1094: http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/romanorthodox.html I find this fascinating, since it explains very well how so many doctrinal issues crop(ped) up, many of which are being battled over today on various forums.

Today over at the Stuff Fundies Like blog, Pastor Jack Trieber received quite a bit of criticism for a point he made at the end of a sermon . I responded, in his defense, on the discussion board for that post. In the course of the discussion, it was asserted that Ps. 23 does not describe the job of a pastor. I disagreed, and promised to produce this blog post as proof of my counter-assertion: that each promise is made into a pastoral responsibility in the New Testament. However, I now realize that if I do this as one post, it's going to be a long one! So I'm going to break it down into it's constituent parts, as a blog series. I'll update each post with a "Table of Contents" at the top as I go. I'll also notify the forum of each one. May the Lord grant me wisdom and knowledge in the Holy Spirit as I study, and humility in my presentation. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

Life sucks. Life is awesome. Contradictory statements? Apparently not. Paradox.

I came across this article today, in which the author expresses his opinion regarding Scripture. I have to wonder, though, if this article is actually satire. It is such a fantastic example of the errors of Protestant (particularly "low-church") thought in many areas! I will do my best not to die laughing and/or get completely pissed off while I review the problems with it. In the first section, I do think he's dead on when he says, "Secularism is, more fundamentally, an utter denial of the sacred..." (So you see, I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary.) In the second, (I'm still agreeing with him), his description of what the Bible is and how it came about (his understanding of inspiration) is excellent! It's the third section that goes completely off the rails. And even it starts good. All the way through his statement, "Christianity is not merely a creed or an experience", I'm saying, "Amen!" But his next sentence is

I was over at the Stuff Fundies Like Forum , looking around, and saw a question posed by the Forum's creator : Our identities are very tied to our flaws here in this world. The "me" (or "id" if you're so inclined) that I live with is prone to all kinds of things that the Bible calls sin and yet those behaviors make up a large part of both how I see myself and how others see me. Then in Scripture we read that we will enter a sinless state in eternity. So how much of the "me" that I know now will go away? Will I still be recognizable as the person I am today or do we all enter some state of being holy clones when stripped of our battle wounds and fatal flaws? One answer is that we will enter a state of being the "me" that we were originally intended to be before the fall. But I guess some part of me kind of likes being the one I am now even while recognizing the fallen state with which I still struggle. My reply was as follows: ==========

...And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose Kingdom shall have no end. — Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed Regarding the eschaton, that's as far as the Church takes it, officially. However, it does have some definite teachings regarding the Kingdom and the End. Here is my understanding of her teaching. The Kingdom is already established and active. (Or did you miss the whole "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand" bit?) 1 Cor. 15, and Heb. 2 make it quite clear that Christ is reigning now , "for He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet." This is the Gospel of the Kingdom: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Is. 52:7) This is why Jesus said, as the foundational reason ("Go ye therefore ") for the Great Commission: &q