In an effort to get more into my space sci-fi nerd roots, I've begun watching online episodes of the show Babylon 5. Apparently it's something like a soap opera set in outer space, on a huge station named, what else, Babylon 5. That's kind of different from what I had thought it was, but honestly I'm enjoying it.
The show does something I like: it dares to ask and explore deeply philosophical questions. I'm on about episode seven right now and it's touched on things like religion and the ethics of telepathy already. It seems like xenophobia toward aliens is going to be a prevalent part of the series later on.
Episode two of the series, "Soul Hunter," is particularly mind-screwey. There is an old wives' tale among the alien race called the Minbari that if you're bad, someone from a race called the Soul Hunters will snatch your soul and prevent you from entering the Minbari afterlife. In this episode, a person from the Soul Hunter species arrives on the station, much to the fright of the Minbari ambassador there. But things are hardly as black-and-white as it seems. Soul Hunters are drawn by death. They can sense it. They believe themselves to be doing a noble duty, where they absorb the souls of dying people who are gifted in some way - intelligent, creative, crafty, and so on - and store them in little round capsules, where they can interact with the soul and preserve what made them special.
However, the Soul Hunter that comes to Babylon 5 is somewhat insane. Instead of letting the death happen by itself, he's trying to cause the death - in this case, of the Minbari ambassador herself. But his insanity ends up being his own doom, as the souls seemingly turn on him in a moment of weakness.
What makes this episode so intriguing is that there are big questions raised, but never answered. Were those really souls in the capsules, or some other form of energy? Maybe they are not really souls, just electro-chemical signals and patterns. Are the Soul Hunters really bad for wanting to preserve those who were special during their lifetime? Do the souls of the Minbari really go to some kind of afterlife, or do they just cease to exist in the absence of a body? Did the encapsuled souls turn on their possessor because he was a madman who needed to be stopped, or because they were experiencing some kind of emotional anguish by being denied passage to their afterlives? There is no clear right and wrong here.
The ending of this episode is the clincher. After the madman is neutralized, the Minbari lady gets possession of the capsules. She is shown euphorically breaking open the capsules, releasing what appeared to be actual souls. Yet as we've already established, there is no concrete answer to whether there is any kind of afterlife. So as she releases the souls, she could very well be killing the greatest minds in history, under the mistaken belief she is giving them eternal peace!
I'm watching the show at a rate of about one episode a day. The first few episodes had cheesy acting, but it's starting to pull itself together. With five seasons of storyline and seven movies, I think I'm going to like this. I know the series itself will be a pleasure to watch, I hope I can say the same about the movies.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Lutheran, Three Months Later
This is a follow up to my previous post, concerning my experiences attending a Lutheran church.
What can I say? I loved the church I attended while at college. I seem to have a liking for the "high church" style, which has elements reaching far back into the centuries. The intense symbolism, the ancient doctrines, just the general feel of it was something that was great for me. One Saturday night, after having not been to the church in a couple weeks, I actually looked forward to arriving there in the morning.
One of the hardest things for me insofar as embracing Lutheranism has been the doctrines. Keep in mind that I've spent the last four years in a type of church that has existed a scant century, although much of its doctrines have been around a lot longer. I've been approaching this from a rational perspective, because that's how my personality works. I want to understand things. Some of the hardest things for me to understand or accept thus far include things like this:
Absolution: one part of the things a Lutheran pastor says during a church service is, "As a called and ordained minister, I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wait, a human is forgiving me of my sins? That's not even Biblical! (Unless you are Catholic.) In any case, I've already had my sins forgiven at the cross! I did a little research on this and found that the pastor isn't actually attempting to forgive my sins in this statement. Rather he is acting as a mouthpiece for Christ. When he says this, what he is doing is reiterating that we have been forgiven. He is saying "Your sins are forgiven" on behalf of Jesus, which I think is acceptable for a pastor. This issue is resolved for me.
Baptism: this is the one that has given me the most pause, and it's only recently that I've come to terms with it. At first, there seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction in Lutheran theology. In works such as the Large Catechism and Book of Concord, Martin Luther writes that baptism is necessary for salvation. But hold on a second, wasn't the entire point of Luther's desire for reformation an attempt to change the "faith plus works" salvation preached by the Catholic Church? How could he then say that without baptism, a person can't be saved?
I spent a good few weeks trying to sort this out. I talked with several people about it, pastors and laymen alike, to try and get an understanding. At first it seemed like they were simply playing word games, hiding a works-based salvation behind semantics. At one point I felt like I was being BS'ed and wanted them to just spit it out plain and simple. Subsequently, however, I've come to a greater understanding of the Lutheran perspective of salvation and the role baptism plays in it.
According to the LCMS, the branch of Lutheranism I'm interested in, baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. Whether or not that means a person can knowingly forego it, I'm not sure. That said, they do believe that baptism is the way you receive salvation. Now, if you're skeptical like I was (and still am a little) you may say that they're preaching a "faith plus works" salvation, which runs counter to the thrust of the Reformation. Martin Luther once wrote something about us needing something to cling to for our faith, or something along the lines of that, but honestly unless I'm missing out on context that is an incoherent argument. Anyway, let us consider what the word "work" means in regards to salvation. It's something you do to gain salvation. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge, hold that things like baptism, the Eucharist, confession, penance, and so forth are things you do to get and maintain salvation. A work is an action done by man toward God, to get divine acceptance.
In Lutheran theology, baptism is not a work because in it we are not doing something to earn God's grace and forgiveness. It is the other way around. In the sacrament of baptism, the human is submitting to and receiving God's grace and mercy. It is an action done by God toward man, giving salvation and the other gifts with it. In a way, it's actually the opposite of a work. Now to some that may come off as a bizarre explanation. I myself am not completely sold on it either, but there is logic to it.
One of the results of me digging so hard on this topic is that I've come to have a greater appreciation for baptism. It has been, I think, unfairly downplayed in the last 400 or so years by those who would say it's merely symbolic. There are many verses that connect baptism with salvation. Two passages show Jesus telling his apostles that we are saved by faith and baptism, and in Acts, on the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter also says "Repent and be baptized" for salvation. With how heavily emphasized it is, more so than Communion or hearing the Word it seems, treating it so lightly is amiss. Thus to a believe who reads this, if you are not baptized and have the opportunity to do so, I ask - indeed implore - that you be baptized. There is no reason a follower of Christ would forego something commanded by Jesus himself and strongly emphasized by those who worked under his authority.
I also wish to add this. I believe in the concept of baptism of desire. This is where a person has faith and wishes to be baptized, but for some reason dies before they get the opportunity. Consider the thief on the cross that asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus essentially declared the man saved, even though we have no reason to think the thief was baptized.
Lastly, baptism is ineffectual if the person does not already have faith. I'm talking about people who are able to make decisions for themselves. That doesn't include infants.
What can I say? I loved the church I attended while at college. I seem to have a liking for the "high church" style, which has elements reaching far back into the centuries. The intense symbolism, the ancient doctrines, just the general feel of it was something that was great for me. One Saturday night, after having not been to the church in a couple weeks, I actually looked forward to arriving there in the morning.
One of the hardest things for me insofar as embracing Lutheranism has been the doctrines. Keep in mind that I've spent the last four years in a type of church that has existed a scant century, although much of its doctrines have been around a lot longer. I've been approaching this from a rational perspective, because that's how my personality works. I want to understand things. Some of the hardest things for me to understand or accept thus far include things like this:
Absolution: one part of the things a Lutheran pastor says during a church service is, "As a called and ordained minister, I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wait, a human is forgiving me of my sins? That's not even Biblical! (Unless you are Catholic.) In any case, I've already had my sins forgiven at the cross! I did a little research on this and found that the pastor isn't actually attempting to forgive my sins in this statement. Rather he is acting as a mouthpiece for Christ. When he says this, what he is doing is reiterating that we have been forgiven. He is saying "Your sins are forgiven" on behalf of Jesus, which I think is acceptable for a pastor. This issue is resolved for me.
Baptism: this is the one that has given me the most pause, and it's only recently that I've come to terms with it. At first, there seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction in Lutheran theology. In works such as the Large Catechism and Book of Concord, Martin Luther writes that baptism is necessary for salvation. But hold on a second, wasn't the entire point of Luther's desire for reformation an attempt to change the "faith plus works" salvation preached by the Catholic Church? How could he then say that without baptism, a person can't be saved?
I spent a good few weeks trying to sort this out. I talked with several people about it, pastors and laymen alike, to try and get an understanding. At first it seemed like they were simply playing word games, hiding a works-based salvation behind semantics. At one point I felt like I was being BS'ed and wanted them to just spit it out plain and simple. Subsequently, however, I've come to a greater understanding of the Lutheran perspective of salvation and the role baptism plays in it.
According to the LCMS, the branch of Lutheranism I'm interested in, baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. Whether or not that means a person can knowingly forego it, I'm not sure. That said, they do believe that baptism is the way you receive salvation. Now, if you're skeptical like I was (and still am a little) you may say that they're preaching a "faith plus works" salvation, which runs counter to the thrust of the Reformation. Martin Luther once wrote something about us needing something to cling to for our faith, or something along the lines of that, but honestly unless I'm missing out on context that is an incoherent argument. Anyway, let us consider what the word "work" means in regards to salvation. It's something you do to gain salvation. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge, hold that things like baptism, the Eucharist, confession, penance, and so forth are things you do to get and maintain salvation. A work is an action done by man toward God, to get divine acceptance.
In Lutheran theology, baptism is not a work because in it we are not doing something to earn God's grace and forgiveness. It is the other way around. In the sacrament of baptism, the human is submitting to and receiving God's grace and mercy. It is an action done by God toward man, giving salvation and the other gifts with it. In a way, it's actually the opposite of a work. Now to some that may come off as a bizarre explanation. I myself am not completely sold on it either, but there is logic to it.
One of the results of me digging so hard on this topic is that I've come to have a greater appreciation for baptism. It has been, I think, unfairly downplayed in the last 400 or so years by those who would say it's merely symbolic. There are many verses that connect baptism with salvation. Two passages show Jesus telling his apostles that we are saved by faith and baptism, and in Acts, on the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter also says "Repent and be baptized" for salvation. With how heavily emphasized it is, more so than Communion or hearing the Word it seems, treating it so lightly is amiss. Thus to a believe who reads this, if you are not baptized and have the opportunity to do so, I ask - indeed implore - that you be baptized. There is no reason a follower of Christ would forego something commanded by Jesus himself and strongly emphasized by those who worked under his authority.
I also wish to add this. I believe in the concept of baptism of desire. This is where a person has faith and wishes to be baptized, but for some reason dies before they get the opportunity. Consider the thief on the cross that asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus essentially declared the man saved, even though we have no reason to think the thief was baptized.
Lastly, baptism is ineffectual if the person does not already have faith. I'm talking about people who are able to make decisions for themselves. That doesn't include infants.
Infant baptism: Surprisingly, this practice was performed in the early church. I say "surprisingly" because it's often maligned. There is some weak but credible Biblical support, although I can't say I fully agree with the action or its reasoning. Nonetheless I consider it a minor issue, nothing to part ways over.
Jesus's presence in Communion: I was first taught that Communion was a symbolic act re-enacting the Last Supper and encouraging us to examine ourselves to see what sin still lie in us. Per Lutheran doctrine, it's another act that empowers us spiritually. I can understand and accept that proposition. What's bothered me is the idea that in the bread and wine used for the service, it's believed that the actual body and blood of Christ, more specifically its essence, is present in the food and drink. Physically it is not there, but in essence it is. The Lutheran theology differs slightly from the Catholic theology concerning this.
Now this sounds like blatant cannibalism. Being told to eat the flesh and blood of someone. I did some studying on this and the lines of reasoning used to defend why this is not cannibalism is a little wacky, but I suppose it does hold. It is a little disturbing, however. What surprised me was when I discovered that even the early church thought the body and blood was present in the bread and wine of Eucharist. It's not some mystical concept contrived by the Catholic church centuries after the fact - as best as we can tell, this was believed basically from the start of Christianity.
One of the many carry-overs from Catholicism that the Lutheran church keeps is the concept of closed communion. In the three months that I have attended Lutheran churches, I haven't been able to be part of the Communion service, because I'm not a member. The Bible says only people who are Christian should take Communion. I guess that in the first couple centuries of Christianity, only the people who were part of the church were the ones who could take communion. As the church grew and more formal administration was developed, some sort of records were kept to see who was and wasn't part of the Christian church. Not being a committed member of a church probably meant you weren't Christian, thus taking Communion would, as the Bible says, drinks judgment upon yourself. This evolved and became such that only a person registered as a member could take Communion, and the method was carried over into Lutheranism.
I don't necessarily begrudge the fact that, as a non-Lutheran, I'm not entitled to join their Communion. It's not like I'd lose my salvation. It may come off as a bit stringent but I don't have a quarrel with it.
Jesus's descent into Hell: My understanding has long been that Jesus went from the cross right into heaven. But one of the lines in the Apostles' Creed, which has existed in some form since the time of the early church, states that Jesus spent some period of time in Hell. I'm a bit iffy about this. At one point I would have agreed with it, but now I'm not really sure. There is some Scriptural credibility for it. And since the early church seemed to have believed this, it's even more compelling. Now normally I would just consider this a minor issue and move on. However, this isn't just any old piece of doctrine. This is something that, apparently, had been believed from the earliest days of Christian faith. I'm undecided on it, personally.
If I were to go through Confirmation in the Lutheran church, one of the things I'd be asked is if I believed what the Apostles' Creed said, including the part about Jesus descending into Hell. I want to be sure that it's true before attempting such a thing. (Edit: Ephesians 4:8-10 seem to say Jesus did indeed descend into Sheol, also called Hades, which was translated somewhat incorrectly as Hell in the Creed. This along with the verse talking about Jesus preaching to the dead seems to indicate Jesus went into the part of Hades where the righteous were awaiting redemption, spoke of what had happened, and led them into Heaven.)
To finish things off, I'd just like to say that I'll probably never agree completely with Lutheran theology. Or the theology of any denomination, for that matter. There's little details and nuances which I see differently, for example the age of the Earth (I'm an Old Earth Creationist). Nonetheless I like the beliefs of the LCMS and feel that it's pretty close to what the first followers of Christ were taught. An absolute copy? Probably not, but one of the better things we got.
To finish things off, I'd just like to say that I'll probably never agree completely with Lutheran theology. Or the theology of any denomination, for that matter. There's little details and nuances which I see differently, for example the age of the Earth (I'm an Old Earth Creationist). Nonetheless I like the beliefs of the LCMS and feel that it's pretty close to what the first followers of Christ were taught. An absolute copy? Probably not, but one of the better things we got.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Lutheran???
For the past month I have been attending a Lutheran church. That is a huge change from what I spent four years attending, an Assembly of God (Pentecostal) church. It still feels kind of strange but I really like it. The service itself is pleasant, the fellow college students have shown themselves friendly and approachable, and the pastor is an intelligent person. I go to a Lutheran church, but I don't yet consider myself a Lutheran. The doctrines and service formats are a bit different from what I'm used to.
When I was getting ready to leave for college, I had actually decided I didn't want to stay in a Pentecostal church. The reason behind this is actually a bit complex and I haven't told many people about it. In the past just thinking about it was enough to give me a headache but since I've gotten out of the Pentecostal style of worship, I've felt a lot better about it.
I want to make this disclaimer first: I am not against the Pentecostal denomination. I believe they are just as saved as any other Christian denomination that preaches salvation through Jesus. I hold no ill will toward Pentecostalism or their beliefs. I do not intend to offend or upset anyone with what I write here.
You have to understand what Pentecostal worship is like. The general belief about that denomination is that the worship tends to be exuberant, with events that are claimed to be supernatural often happening. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. In the church I spent three years attending, that was certainly true. The typical worship segment was loud and emotional. Sometimes the singing would take up the entire service, omitting the sermon. People would shake, shout, speak in tongues. During prayer times it wasn't uncommon for people to be slain in the Spirit, which was once explained to me as a person's spirit drawing so close to God that their physical body is overwhelmed. Another explanation is that the power of God, via the Holy Spirit, is coming on a person so strong they fall back from being overwhelmed by it. This practice, by the way, doesn't appear in the Bible and thus is suspicious to many. Worship was an emotional and energetic time.
For most, anyway. Then there was me. In the four years I attended an Assembly of God church, I cried twice during worship. I don't exactly remember the reason for why I teared up the first time, although it had to do with what I felt was my calling to work as a teen youth pastor. The second was at a revival event in Oklahoma my youth group was going to. I had recently gotten into a relationship and was very nervous about it - my first time dating since high school, and also the first time since becoming a Christian. I cried harder and longer than I had in a very long time. I wanted to make sure that the relationship was part of God's plan for my life, because I take them quite seriously. Relationships aren't games, my friends.
But those two events were the exception and not the norm. Usually during worship I'd sing along, even after the same verse had been repeated five times (that's not an exaggeration). I'd stop singing when the music went into the slow, quiet mode where people were "deep in worship," as some might call it. I don't care for the quiet, slow type of music, especially not for worship. Still, when so many others were having these emotional, powerful experiences happen to them, I'd just be standing there, waiting patiently for things to move on.
And honestly, it caused a feeling of - what would the word be? Inadequacy? - in me. I saw all these things happening around me and wondered, "Why isn't this happening to me? Am I not worshiping God properly?" The assumption seemed to be that if you really worshiped God, it was possible that these amazing, supernatural experiences would happen to you. That freaked me out. I didn't like the idea of me suddenly beginning to speak in some language I don't understand, or falling to the ground under a divine power. As a Bible nerd I understood the mechanics and purpose of these things, but that didn't make me any more comfortable. For an example that makes this strikingly clear: one night at the revival event my youth group mentioned, there was a period where the evangelist who was preaching would put his hand on a person's head and pray for them. This almost always led to being slain in the spirit. Everyone in my youth group (including the youth pastors) were slain - twice. Except me. I was the only one who wouldn't even go up to the guy until afterward. Even then, the most I was comfortable with him doing was shaking my hand (which he did three times, which I've found to be amusing. To this day I contend he snuck in the prayer with those handshakes).
I've been repeatedly told the addage, "God is a gentleman." He won't force us to do anything, nor will he go where he's not wanted. This means that, if I didn't feel comfortable putting myself in a position where I could suddenly break into a new language or be slain in the Spirit, God wouldn't force it to happen. I understood that, but it put me in a frustrating catch-22: if I didn't want to put myself in a position where the supernatural could happen to me then it was alright, but that would mean I would have to refrain from "properly worshiping," which defeats the purpose of even bothering to sing!
I have raised the topic up several times over the years, and the responses have generally gone in one of two ways:
When I was getting ready to leave for college, I had actually decided I didn't want to stay in a Pentecostal church. The reason behind this is actually a bit complex and I haven't told many people about it. In the past just thinking about it was enough to give me a headache but since I've gotten out of the Pentecostal style of worship, I've felt a lot better about it.
I want to make this disclaimer first: I am not against the Pentecostal denomination. I believe they are just as saved as any other Christian denomination that preaches salvation through Jesus. I hold no ill will toward Pentecostalism or their beliefs. I do not intend to offend or upset anyone with what I write here.
You have to understand what Pentecostal worship is like. The general belief about that denomination is that the worship tends to be exuberant, with events that are claimed to be supernatural often happening. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. In the church I spent three years attending, that was certainly true. The typical worship segment was loud and emotional. Sometimes the singing would take up the entire service, omitting the sermon. People would shake, shout, speak in tongues. During prayer times it wasn't uncommon for people to be slain in the Spirit, which was once explained to me as a person's spirit drawing so close to God that their physical body is overwhelmed. Another explanation is that the power of God, via the Holy Spirit, is coming on a person so strong they fall back from being overwhelmed by it. This practice, by the way, doesn't appear in the Bible and thus is suspicious to many. Worship was an emotional and energetic time.
For most, anyway. Then there was me. In the four years I attended an Assembly of God church, I cried twice during worship. I don't exactly remember the reason for why I teared up the first time, although it had to do with what I felt was my calling to work as a teen youth pastor. The second was at a revival event in Oklahoma my youth group was going to. I had recently gotten into a relationship and was very nervous about it - my first time dating since high school, and also the first time since becoming a Christian. I cried harder and longer than I had in a very long time. I wanted to make sure that the relationship was part of God's plan for my life, because I take them quite seriously. Relationships aren't games, my friends.
But those two events were the exception and not the norm. Usually during worship I'd sing along, even after the same verse had been repeated five times (that's not an exaggeration). I'd stop singing when the music went into the slow, quiet mode where people were "deep in worship," as some might call it. I don't care for the quiet, slow type of music, especially not for worship. Still, when so many others were having these emotional, powerful experiences happen to them, I'd just be standing there, waiting patiently for things to move on.
And honestly, it caused a feeling of - what would the word be? Inadequacy? - in me. I saw all these things happening around me and wondered, "Why isn't this happening to me? Am I not worshiping God properly?" The assumption seemed to be that if you really worshiped God, it was possible that these amazing, supernatural experiences would happen to you. That freaked me out. I didn't like the idea of me suddenly beginning to speak in some language I don't understand, or falling to the ground under a divine power. As a Bible nerd I understood the mechanics and purpose of these things, but that didn't make me any more comfortable. For an example that makes this strikingly clear: one night at the revival event my youth group mentioned, there was a period where the evangelist who was preaching would put his hand on a person's head and pray for them. This almost always led to being slain in the spirit. Everyone in my youth group (including the youth pastors) were slain - twice. Except me. I was the only one who wouldn't even go up to the guy until afterward. Even then, the most I was comfortable with him doing was shaking my hand (which he did three times, which I've found to be amusing. To this day I contend he snuck in the prayer with those handshakes).
I've been repeatedly told the addage, "God is a gentleman." He won't force us to do anything, nor will he go where he's not wanted. This means that, if I didn't feel comfortable putting myself in a position where I could suddenly break into a new language or be slain in the Spirit, God wouldn't force it to happen. I understood that, but it put me in a frustrating catch-22: if I didn't want to put myself in a position where the supernatural could happen to me then it was alright, but that would mean I would have to refrain from "properly worshiping," which defeats the purpose of even bothering to sing!
I have raised the topic up several times over the years, and the responses have generally gone in one of two ways:
- First, people often responded by saying "Worship isn't just about the singing, it's about how you live your life." Yes, I understand that, I promise. But that doesn't really address my issue. What was I supposed to do when the music was being played? Twiddle my thumbs? Sing along and hope nothing weird happens to me?
- Others will say that people respond to God in different ways - which is true. Some are hyperactive and emotional, others are subdued and express their faith through carrying out duty. I'm the latter. Although a valid answer, it couldn't get rid of the inadequacy I felt.
Perhaps as a result of this distress, I started studying Pentecostalism more and how it relates to other denominations. In an unusual case of me esteeming tradition, I believe that the older denominations notable for their more liturgical, structured service - Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. - are closer to the truth than younger ones, since each break may correct wrong theology but also introduces error itself. I was able to look at the approximate starting dates for several denominations. Pentecostalism can trace its beginning to Los Angeles in 1906. 1906! Barely more than 100 years ago. I don't really like "new" things when it comes to spirituality. Pentecostalism formed almost 2000 years after the resurrection of Jesus. That just doesn't sound valid to me. Plus I know it's way different in style than the more traditional church types, which causes me pause. The Baptist church fares a little better, starting around 1609.
My interest turned toward the Lutheran denomination, which formed as a result of the Protestant Reformation. It's the oldest Protestant denomination (as far as I know). Although I wanted to try something closer to what had formed out of the early church, I wasn't comfortable with Catholicism. Its theology differs from my Protestant background in more ways than I liked. What I had in mind was something antique in nature: piano-led hymnals, monotone speaking, sitting and standing at predictable times, etc. However I knew it was wise to check out several churches before deciding on a single one. I resolved that once I arrived at college I would look at some of them. And part of that resolve was to stay away from Pentecostal churches, the brand that had given me grief for so long. Methodist, being closely related to Pentecostal, were also out of my list.
There were only two churches close enough that I could walk to in under a half hour: Southern Baptist and Lutheran. I liked both of them, but after praying and soul searching I settled on the Lutheran church. I think it's been a good choice. Although the doctrines are a little bit different from what I used to, overall I really feel right at home in it. I didn't know how to describe the service format, but terms like "liturgical" and "high church" are used. Yes it has a more structured form than what I've experienced for years, and does involve sitting and standing, but it's hardly lifeless. The pastor is vigorous in his preaching, though not to the point of being excitable and shouting, and the people are kind. It's a happy place, not a mundane place. The prayers are structured, but it's not terribly different from what I've seen over the years in the AG churches. There is plenty of singing, and the contemporary service I attend does use modern music. It's not hyperactive, but also not dull and boring. Many do sing along with the musicians, including myself. I don't mind singing loud enough to be heard if I know a song - this is probably one side effect of being Pentecostal for four years!
I think there is still some adjusting to this I need to do before I can comfortably call myself "Lutheran." Right now, if asked, I would term myself "denominationless," because I don't hold to any particular one. But all in due time. This is my story so far.
Nothing in this post is intended to make any person, group, church, or denomination look bad. These are simply my personal experiences, and they do not characterize any person or group as a whole.
There were only two churches close enough that I could walk to in under a half hour: Southern Baptist and Lutheran. I liked both of them, but after praying and soul searching I settled on the Lutheran church. I think it's been a good choice. Although the doctrines are a little bit different from what I used to, overall I really feel right at home in it. I didn't know how to describe the service format, but terms like "liturgical" and "high church" are used. Yes it has a more structured form than what I've experienced for years, and does involve sitting and standing, but it's hardly lifeless. The pastor is vigorous in his preaching, though not to the point of being excitable and shouting, and the people are kind. It's a happy place, not a mundane place. The prayers are structured, but it's not terribly different from what I've seen over the years in the AG churches. There is plenty of singing, and the contemporary service I attend does use modern music. It's not hyperactive, but also not dull and boring. Many do sing along with the musicians, including myself. I don't mind singing loud enough to be heard if I know a song - this is probably one side effect of being Pentecostal for four years!
I think there is still some adjusting to this I need to do before I can comfortably call myself "Lutheran." Right now, if asked, I would term myself "denominationless," because I don't hold to any particular one. But all in due time. This is my story so far.
Nothing in this post is intended to make any person, group, church, or denomination look bad. These are simply my personal experiences, and they do not characterize any person or group as a whole.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Yep
Definitely thinking I'm a natural born Web developer, as opposed to software engineer. But at least I understand object-oriented programming.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Reconsidering Programming
The past month has been a real time of adjustment for me. I've adjusted to the flow of things a lot, but it's come at something of a cost.
My main programming course has been Data and Program Structures. We have learned about several interesting things such as stacks, queues, linked lists, trees, and other things up to now. In theory, these things aren't all that hard for me to comprehend. In practice, I'm struggling insanely to apply them as the assignments require. This is actually quite surprising, because I've never really struggled like this with programming. Sure some things have been difficult to get my brain around, but it just seems the things we are taught in this class get in my brain, but the full concept of the things take a while to really settle with me, more time than we have. I can explain most of the things we have been taught no problem, but applying them in programming assignments just eludes me. Heck, even recursion - which honestly I don't find to be a terribly hard concept - is a pain for me to implement. If it weren't for me visiting a teacher's assistant for every assignment, I probably would have lower grades than I do now. And perhaps most ironically of all, I'm still pulling a 90-something in the class.
It's to the point that I'm actually reconsidering things a little bit. Maybe pure programming isn't the thing for me. I have at least a dash of understanding of several languages: C++, Java, and Python to name a few. I can do basic things, and some advanced stuff, with them. But once you get beyond that, I'm going to look at you with a blank stare.
My personal field of expertise has always been Web programming. If asked what my native programming language was, I'd tell you JavaScript. Which, technically is a scripting language. I can also do HTML, CSS, Ajax, PHP, and some SQL. Put simply, I'm a natural born Web developer. Which is good because it's a technical field, but not so good because these days, ten year olds are learning to make websites. Seriously, web devs are becoming a dime a dozen. That's not to say they're all good at what they do, but website construction is hardly an elite skill these days. Nonetheless, there is money to be made in this profession and I don't see myself being a software developer very much anymore. Oh sure I know Java and could brush up on the languages I've already learned but there's a certain level of technical proficiency that seems to be required to use true programming languages and right now I just don't have that. I'm trying to get that in school but it's such a challenge for me that it almost doesn't make sense. How could I be barely understanding things which are what I proclaim to be my area of expertise? Either this is just part of the process of learning things, and eventually I'll catch up and shine, or it's something that I'm simply not wired for.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Another Money Ramble
There's money to be made on the Internet. I, for one, am interested in cashing in on this. There seems to be a certain level of freedom to really pursue the things that I have a passion for. I have had my go at working a standard job and although I didn't mind having a boss to answer to, it didn't really give me much change to go after my interests.
I don't delude myself into thinking that I could make enough money over the Internet to replace having a job. Although that would be nice, the optimal for me would seem to be having a part-time job done in the morning, and then in the afternoon producing the content that I would then put on the Internet, in however way it would be done. As I've mentioned in a previous post that has to do with this, I'm something of a morning person. I have that Puritanical notion of "work first, then play," and since I'm at my sharpest in the morning, that's a good time for me to work a formal job. Then once the formal work is out of the way, I feel more free to let loose and be creative, without the worry.
Apparently there's this thing out there called "passive income," where you don't really put much effort into things besides setup. You would, say, make a website, put ads on it, and then let it automatically generate income. After several years you'd be able to retire early and suck on piña coladas on some Jamaican beach for the rest of your life. Not only is that unrealistic... that's also boring, and I can't see myself ever really wanting to do that. I am not nearly materialistic or capitalistic enough to seek that sort of lifestyle. To be honest, I don't even want to be all that rich. As far as money goes, my goal is to have enough that I can make ends meet, and also be able to buy what I want without having to worry if it will put a big dent in my checkbook. But I would love to be able to do the things I am passionate about, and make money off of them. And the things that currently are my passions can actually be done on the Internet. My desire isn't to set up some automaton that makes money for me while I sleep the days away. Rather, it's to actually be involved in the content I'm making. The stuff that will eventually make revenue are, at least in some part, stuff that I put time and effort into creating.
It seems one of the easiest, and most popular, manners of making money on the Internet is with the use of advertisements. Those things that appear on the sides, top, and/or bottom of the website that most of us tend to ignore. I guess I'm not the consumerish sort of person, because I don't think I've ever seen an ad and seriously considering buying what it was showing off. But it seems people do. That's why they're so prominent. It looks like most serious websites that aren't kept alive by donation or out of the owner's expense has advertisements on it somewhere. Even Google or Yahoo searches have text-based ads on them! This is a passive system and can be integrated into other things I do. For instance, blogging (which I will mention). Put ads on the blogs. Or my personal website. As I keep refining these and adding content, more people will check them out. This may increase the number of ads getting clicked, and for each of those clicks, a little bit of money will be paid to me.
As I said before, it seems that you can make money by keeping an active blog. From what I've read, it's not so much the blog itself that generates money. Mostly it's advertisements. A related thing would be writing posts about a product, person, company, etc., that I could get paid to do. The main way to profit from this is simply having good content on the blog, stuff that makes people want to come back and see more. My Minecraft and After Adults blogs are two examples of this. Nobody else quite writes and plays like me, so there is some original content there, and I'd sure hope it's not bad.
Related to blogging is writing. Blogging helps develop my writing skills, and shows prospective employers what kind of talent they could expect from me. People will pay me to write stuff for them! It could be a product summary, a thesis about some topic, and what have you. Then there is story writing, which I have two blogs dedicated to. I could go one step further and turn them into e-books.
Freelancing is something else I've considered getting into. I kinda dislike it because it would mean I'd have a boss to be accountable to for the duration of the job, but there is a lot more leniency in who I pick as a boss. I could focus more on the fields I'm interested in, and the commitment is only as long as the assignment. Web development and writing are the things I'm good at online, so naturally the freelancing would mostly take place in these areas.
Recently, I've started getting involved in making YouTube videos. There are people out there who record themselves playing Minecraft, upload it to YouTube, and get money from it. The main ways are advertisements and donations. My style of Minecraft is a weird mix of technical and construction, with less emphasis on adventuring and more on achieving goals. There are all sorts of things I could do. The key to doing this is making myself unique. I had an idea for something called "The Ultimate City," a settlement built in Minecraft that is as automated as possible and self-sufficient. To make a video series of this being constructed and operated definitely would count as unique. If it's been done before, I certainly haven't run across it. Actually, I tried creating this City, but then university went in high gear and time just hasn't been available. Which is a shame because several people signed up to be on the team.
Then, of course, there is the idea of actually making something not related to any of those. Not just a blog or video, but an all-out project. An example of this is a game I tried developing a browser game similar to OGame. It even had a blog devoted to it. However, it seemed to be too out of my knowledge base to be accomplished, and as a result of lack of motivation it has fallen into inactivity. As well as being a magnificent test and testament of my coding skills, it would also be a possible way to make money. The three things that come to my mind are third-party ads on the sides of the pages, purchased Premium accounts that have special in-game features, and temporary upgrades which increase the efficiency of some mechanic. If the game ever comes into being as a start-up project I intend to maintain for a long time, a donate button wouldn't hurt either.
Being the leader type, I could go one step larger and start a group or company that does something. I have flirted with the idea of starting a programming company. In addition to programmers there would also be artists, a CEO, a financial officer, and probably other roles. This is something that would require a good part, if not all, of my time.
A simple Google search shows a great many ways to make money using the Internet. The possibilities abound.
This is all about creating stuff. I have a drive to create. If I could get some magical software that netted me $2,000 a month every month then hey, I'd be happy. ($2,000 does sound like a rather low goal, but I'm a single person and not terribly materialistic.) I'd still put my time into creating stuff. Realistically, though, that's not going to happen, so I will need to utilize what I'm good at doing and have a drive for. Make stuff, build community, monetize. Enjoy life.
I don't delude myself into thinking that I could make enough money over the Internet to replace having a job. Although that would be nice, the optimal for me would seem to be having a part-time job done in the morning, and then in the afternoon producing the content that I would then put on the Internet, in however way it would be done. As I've mentioned in a previous post that has to do with this, I'm something of a morning person. I have that Puritanical notion of "work first, then play," and since I'm at my sharpest in the morning, that's a good time for me to work a formal job. Then once the formal work is out of the way, I feel more free to let loose and be creative, without the worry.
Apparently there's this thing out there called "passive income," where you don't really put much effort into things besides setup. You would, say, make a website, put ads on it, and then let it automatically generate income. After several years you'd be able to retire early and suck on piña coladas on some Jamaican beach for the rest of your life. Not only is that unrealistic... that's also boring, and I can't see myself ever really wanting to do that. I am not nearly materialistic or capitalistic enough to seek that sort of lifestyle. To be honest, I don't even want to be all that rich. As far as money goes, my goal is to have enough that I can make ends meet, and also be able to buy what I want without having to worry if it will put a big dent in my checkbook. But I would love to be able to do the things I am passionate about, and make money off of them. And the things that currently are my passions can actually be done on the Internet. My desire isn't to set up some automaton that makes money for me while I sleep the days away. Rather, it's to actually be involved in the content I'm making. The stuff that will eventually make revenue are, at least in some part, stuff that I put time and effort into creating.
It seems one of the easiest, and most popular, manners of making money on the Internet is with the use of advertisements. Those things that appear on the sides, top, and/or bottom of the website that most of us tend to ignore. I guess I'm not the consumerish sort of person, because I don't think I've ever seen an ad and seriously considering buying what it was showing off. But it seems people do. That's why they're so prominent. It looks like most serious websites that aren't kept alive by donation or out of the owner's expense has advertisements on it somewhere. Even Google or Yahoo searches have text-based ads on them! This is a passive system and can be integrated into other things I do. For instance, blogging (which I will mention). Put ads on the blogs. Or my personal website. As I keep refining these and adding content, more people will check them out. This may increase the number of ads getting clicked, and for each of those clicks, a little bit of money will be paid to me.
As I said before, it seems that you can make money by keeping an active blog. From what I've read, it's not so much the blog itself that generates money. Mostly it's advertisements. A related thing would be writing posts about a product, person, company, etc., that I could get paid to do. The main way to profit from this is simply having good content on the blog, stuff that makes people want to come back and see more. My Minecraft and After Adults blogs are two examples of this. Nobody else quite writes and plays like me, so there is some original content there, and I'd sure hope it's not bad.
Related to blogging is writing. Blogging helps develop my writing skills, and shows prospective employers what kind of talent they could expect from me. People will pay me to write stuff for them! It could be a product summary, a thesis about some topic, and what have you. Then there is story writing, which I have two blogs dedicated to. I could go one step further and turn them into e-books.
Freelancing is something else I've considered getting into. I kinda dislike it because it would mean I'd have a boss to be accountable to for the duration of the job, but there is a lot more leniency in who I pick as a boss. I could focus more on the fields I'm interested in, and the commitment is only as long as the assignment. Web development and writing are the things I'm good at online, so naturally the freelancing would mostly take place in these areas.
Recently, I've started getting involved in making YouTube videos. There are people out there who record themselves playing Minecraft, upload it to YouTube, and get money from it. The main ways are advertisements and donations. My style of Minecraft is a weird mix of technical and construction, with less emphasis on adventuring and more on achieving goals. There are all sorts of things I could do. The key to doing this is making myself unique. I had an idea for something called "The Ultimate City," a settlement built in Minecraft that is as automated as possible and self-sufficient. To make a video series of this being constructed and operated definitely would count as unique. If it's been done before, I certainly haven't run across it. Actually, I tried creating this City, but then university went in high gear and time just hasn't been available. Which is a shame because several people signed up to be on the team.
Then, of course, there is the idea of actually making something not related to any of those. Not just a blog or video, but an all-out project. An example of this is a game I tried developing a browser game similar to OGame. It even had a blog devoted to it. However, it seemed to be too out of my knowledge base to be accomplished, and as a result of lack of motivation it has fallen into inactivity. As well as being a magnificent test and testament of my coding skills, it would also be a possible way to make money. The three things that come to my mind are third-party ads on the sides of the pages, purchased Premium accounts that have special in-game features, and temporary upgrades which increase the efficiency of some mechanic. If the game ever comes into being as a start-up project I intend to maintain for a long time, a donate button wouldn't hurt either.
Being the leader type, I could go one step larger and start a group or company that does something. I have flirted with the idea of starting a programming company. In addition to programmers there would also be artists, a CEO, a financial officer, and probably other roles. This is something that would require a good part, if not all, of my time.
A simple Google search shows a great many ways to make money using the Internet. The possibilities abound.
This is all about creating stuff. I have a drive to create. If I could get some magical software that netted me $2,000 a month every month then hey, I'd be happy. ($2,000 does sound like a rather low goal, but I'm a single person and not terribly materialistic.) I'd still put my time into creating stuff. Realistically, though, that's not going to happen, so I will need to utilize what I'm good at doing and have a drive for. Make stuff, build community, monetize. Enjoy life.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
College Reflections
It's been exactly one month since I moved into my campus dorm. Since I have some sort of free time, I felt I should write a bit, explaining how I've come to feel over the past month.
Starting from the first day, one thing that delighted me and continues to do so: the food! Apparently my college is ranked 14th in the nation for best food, in some list or another, and it sure does live up to the number. Before I arrived on campus, my diet consisted mostly of Ramen noodles, cereal, and Pop-Tarts. This was mostly my own choice, so as not to expend too much money. But ever since the first day, at least twice I've been able to have a meal of a variety of foods. And a lot of it, as well. Trust me when I say I'm eating well here.
One of the things that has surprised me about this place is the relatively strong Christian presence. Universities are known as places where secular thinking is prominent, and people tend to lose their faith. I anticipated the place being somewhat antagonistic to faith. What I've found is pretty much the opposite. A lot of people here are Christian, with differences in how serious they are about it. It's not uncommon to hear people playing Chris Tomlin songs on their laptops. Several campus missions exist here, of which I've hooked up with Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ). One of my teachers, who I assumed was a non-believer due to his strongly analytical nature, is actually a faculty advisor for one of the groups! I don't have to be as defensive about my faith as I thought I would, because several others here are at least somewhat open about it, and I've yet to hear them (or myself) get any crap because of it.
Something else I am discovering is that I'm lacking in the necessary levels of self-discipline and time management. Starting about a week ago, you could say I've been pretty busy with schoolwork. Seriously, all my time not spent in class is usually spent doing something related to school work. The reading and assignments take up lots of time, perhaps more than they need to. And I believe part of the reason they expend so much time is because I'm so easily distracted. When I'm working in front of my computer, I usually have Internet access. What's on the Internet? Facebook, Twitter, message boards, etc. So many things that, often, are more interesting than what I'm supposed to be doing at the moment. One of the skills I'm developing out of necessity is being able to say "No" when I need to concerning the Internet and distractions. It's strange, but my location does affect how easily I fall into this pattern. If I'm at my desk in my dorm, it's likely I'm gonna end up at twenty other Web sites instead of my homework. Yet put me in my floor's lobby, or perhaps a library, and I'll be much more focused.
Time management is also a pain. Part of the way I operate is that sometimes, I'll find something intriguing or a creative idea will pop into my head and even if I'm trying to do something, the excitement of this new thing will hijack that. Combine this with being wont to procrastinate if something isn't due for a few days and you get a little bit of a mess.
These two things may seem a bit strange coming from a type A personality person like myself. But I suppose that in the past, my natural intelligence allowed me to do well in school and other things without much hassle. Yet somehow university is different and that kind of thing isn't cutting it. It seems I need to (gasp!) put effort in order to do well. The purpose of university is to teach us how to think, and it seems that in some aspects my thinking skills haven't grown sufficient. But hey, that's why I'm here!
Something that I've repeatedly experienced here is near informational overload. Reading seventy pages for a week's worth of discussion? Needing to know things to the most minute detail? This is new for me. Having to sort all this out is quite the challenge.
As an introvert, I've been slow to integrate myself into any social circles. Beside my roommate, I can't say I've developed any quality friendships. I have plenty of acquaintances, but not really any friends. This is something I've been proactive about since just about the first day I've arrived. Knowing my pasts follies, one of my goals has been to get active in social groups. Loneliness is not fun. It seems my main method for getting to know people better is adding them on Facebook. Admittedly, this is something of a flawed technique as people aren't really the same online as in real life. I think what I need to do is start getting to know people on a personal level. To the college's credit, I have found most people to be receptive and kind. A lot of people are willing to engage, I just need to do so as well.
This post seems like more complaining than what I intended. I do enjoy being here. Being away from home in a setting where I can better shape myself and my lifestyle. Where I am better set to pursue my goals. With this kind of freedom comes responsibility and I am slowly developing the skills to utilize this freedom to its maximum.
Starting from the first day, one thing that delighted me and continues to do so: the food! Apparently my college is ranked 14th in the nation for best food, in some list or another, and it sure does live up to the number. Before I arrived on campus, my diet consisted mostly of Ramen noodles, cereal, and Pop-Tarts. This was mostly my own choice, so as not to expend too much money. But ever since the first day, at least twice I've been able to have a meal of a variety of foods. And a lot of it, as well. Trust me when I say I'm eating well here.
One of the things that has surprised me about this place is the relatively strong Christian presence. Universities are known as places where secular thinking is prominent, and people tend to lose their faith. I anticipated the place being somewhat antagonistic to faith. What I've found is pretty much the opposite. A lot of people here are Christian, with differences in how serious they are about it. It's not uncommon to hear people playing Chris Tomlin songs on their laptops. Several campus missions exist here, of which I've hooked up with Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ). One of my teachers, who I assumed was a non-believer due to his strongly analytical nature, is actually a faculty advisor for one of the groups! I don't have to be as defensive about my faith as I thought I would, because several others here are at least somewhat open about it, and I've yet to hear them (or myself) get any crap because of it.
Something else I am discovering is that I'm lacking in the necessary levels of self-discipline and time management. Starting about a week ago, you could say I've been pretty busy with schoolwork. Seriously, all my time not spent in class is usually spent doing something related to school work. The reading and assignments take up lots of time, perhaps more than they need to. And I believe part of the reason they expend so much time is because I'm so easily distracted. When I'm working in front of my computer, I usually have Internet access. What's on the Internet? Facebook, Twitter, message boards, etc. So many things that, often, are more interesting than what I'm supposed to be doing at the moment. One of the skills I'm developing out of necessity is being able to say "No" when I need to concerning the Internet and distractions. It's strange, but my location does affect how easily I fall into this pattern. If I'm at my desk in my dorm, it's likely I'm gonna end up at twenty other Web sites instead of my homework. Yet put me in my floor's lobby, or perhaps a library, and I'll be much more focused.
Time management is also a pain. Part of the way I operate is that sometimes, I'll find something intriguing or a creative idea will pop into my head and even if I'm trying to do something, the excitement of this new thing will hijack that. Combine this with being wont to procrastinate if something isn't due for a few days and you get a little bit of a mess.
These two things may seem a bit strange coming from a type A personality person like myself. But I suppose that in the past, my natural intelligence allowed me to do well in school and other things without much hassle. Yet somehow university is different and that kind of thing isn't cutting it. It seems I need to (gasp!) put effort in order to do well. The purpose of university is to teach us how to think, and it seems that in some aspects my thinking skills haven't grown sufficient. But hey, that's why I'm here!
Something that I've repeatedly experienced here is near informational overload. Reading seventy pages for a week's worth of discussion? Needing to know things to the most minute detail? This is new for me. Having to sort all this out is quite the challenge.
As an introvert, I've been slow to integrate myself into any social circles. Beside my roommate, I can't say I've developed any quality friendships. I have plenty of acquaintances, but not really any friends. This is something I've been proactive about since just about the first day I've arrived. Knowing my pasts follies, one of my goals has been to get active in social groups. Loneliness is not fun. It seems my main method for getting to know people better is adding them on Facebook. Admittedly, this is something of a flawed technique as people aren't really the same online as in real life. I think what I need to do is start getting to know people on a personal level. To the college's credit, I have found most people to be receptive and kind. A lot of people are willing to engage, I just need to do so as well.
This post seems like more complaining than what I intended. I do enjoy being here. Being away from home in a setting where I can better shape myself and my lifestyle. Where I am better set to pursue my goals. With this kind of freedom comes responsibility and I am slowly developing the skills to utilize this freedom to its maximum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
