Resetting Everything

Time is our most valuable resorce, and how we spend it reveals our priorities. For a few years now, I have been simmering on the back burner. Not the good kind either, but the sort where the food is burned and there's smoke coming from the pot. There's no immediate danger, but things aren't quite right. The reason for that state is that my family moved. I quit my job, cashed out my retirement, sold the home, and we simply moved to another state. There was no job waiting, home, church, anything. We didn't have family or friends in the area, we didn't know anything about what opportunities there might or might not be, we simply took the risk and asked God to provide in the midst of what we were doing. No propecy, no visions, no "God told me to..." either. We wanted change, were tired of what was, and reset everything. It's been two years now since we landed. Got a job. Got a church family we are growing to know better and enjoy fellowship. Got a home to live in and develop and grow. But there was still soemthing missing. Because I wasn't managing my time and priorities. When things are difficult, it can be easy to turn around and not do anything once you've finally gotten a chance to breathe. Like being rescued from drowning, the natural instinct is not to jump right back into the water. So I haven't. I haven't created, I haven't interacted, I pulled back from all I was doing online before and just "survived". Things continued in digital space, dynamics came and go, memes are born and die, newsworthy topics dominate the feeds and then fade into obscurity. In the meantime, life continued for me without any of that being of any influence at all. What happened "here" wasn't affecting my life "out there" in meatspace. I was a consumer of content, but ntoa creator. I sat back and rested, rationalized based on what felt right. Feeling right isn't right however, and so I am slowly trying to shift back towards being a creator rather than a consumer. I have reset the context and constraints on my life and time, but I have not reset the skills and abilities and passions and desires that God has gifted me through my particular combination of personality traits. There are things that I should be doing that God would support and rejuvinate me in performing, that I simply ignored and gave reason not to partake in. There are paths set before me that I had reasonable excuses not to partake in. Maybe later. When we've got more resources. When I am not driving so much. When I have taken care of my family first. And so on and so forth. That doesn't work well and isn't sustainable. I have to sacrifice, not to my own benefit, but to the edification and growth of others. In my weakness, when I am on fumes, that is where God's strength, and wisdom, and power, is truly made manifest. When it's clear that it's not from me, but from Him, that's when I can fulfill what God wants from me in this life. I have reset many things, but not God's plans or purpose. If anything, the reset has made it very clear that few things ever happen by pure coincidence. There are few things that don't have a role and a purpose, no matter how small. Years ago, I coined the term "chronoblip" to describe a brief moment whose significance is found in a greater context. The moment itself isn't distinct or special, the contents therein, but once place in the canvas of "the rest of life"? Even a brief moment can change everything. I want to be part of those moments with others, in their pursuit of truth, and in followng Jesus Christ. I can't do that if I am consuming. If I have good reason to rest. If I am too tired and just want to go back to sleep. Everyone's life is tough, albeit for different reasons, and I am now trying to grapple with mine so that I can mature and grow as necessary to serve as God calls. Please pray for me to venture forth in humility, trusting in God to be the strength and support. What can I be praying for you about?

I am on YouTube now

I have posted a couple videos to my YouTube channel now. This first one is a copy of the sermon I gave on December 15th. My next sermon will be later this month on the 29th.

I have also been setting up a little studio to record video and audio as a means of trying out vlogging as a medium instead of blogging. A good friend of mine at work chided me constantly about my ranting over IMs, and how I needed an outlet that wasn't him. Blogging can help with that, but the written medium doesn't really promote a lot of interaction nowadays and what's the good of discovering truth, or what I think might be truth, and not trying to share it?

If I have an idea and it can't be tested in any way, how do I know if it's any good or not?


If written or spoken, I at least have evidence outside myself that I am trying, that I am creating, that I am not just passively consuming and wasting time with vanity.

There is value in anonymity for some, but I am going in the opposite direction. Since our culture is not merciful or concerned with truth, I'd at least prefer to be damned for who I really am and what I am really doing, than to end up victim of a complete fabrication. I don't get to choose how others would remember me, but what I do does play a role.

An example is that I recently started playing bass guitar again on Sunday mornings at church as part of the band. The other videos I have posted fall into two categories that will eventually grow. The first is "practice music" pulled from the roster of songs we perform at church but I don't have a good recording in the key we play at to practice with in my own free time. Below is an example of a recreation of one of those songs to serve that purpose.

I don't have any vocals on it yet because I am a bit lazy and a bit scared, but the track works to practice with, and I could provide my other band members renders of the track with their portion muted so that on their own they could also practice their part and be better prepared for Sunday.

The second category is "jam session" background tracks. The drummer in our band showed me Evan Marien's work, as an inspiration for something that we could do together:

Essentially, Evan does some production work and then he and Dana Hawkins add in live performances of bass guitar and drums to "finish" the song out. Inspired by this, I created the first ambient/background track for us to experiment with that ourselves:

Now, what this has done is drove me to do a few things. First, I dusted off my license to Ableton and got it updated and started playing with it again. I also installed Shotcut to take these audio tracks and marry them with some random image from the internet to then upload a video to YouTube. The whole thing is still amateur because I am new and inexperienced, but it's much more active than playing video games or watching a favorite TV show yet again.

I am also having to learn things, often through watching YouTube videos. There are few things as humbling as learning, to admit that I don't know or I can't do something, and then submit my mind to the instruction of someone else for a time, so these things have all been positive.

Next Tuesday the drummer and I will be getting together for our first jam session, and I hope to have at least one more track of my own prepared by that time.

Preaching, playing, creating, and then trying to remember to share that and encourage others to join in as well or to pursue their own versions of it. What are you doing to be active and creative?

Stick, dead horse, you know the drill.

Things have been busy, and activities like blogging which are on the fringe of my priorities end up demonstrating just how incompetent I can be. Being reminded of faults is never a bad thing if one uses it to highlight new areas to grow or develop.

One thing I want to ask for, if anyone is actually reading this, is to let me know how I can pray for you. I have an email listed up and to the right, and I think the comment section still works, but if there's something you need prayer for, please let me know and I'll pray for you.

Now, a few months ago, we joined a newer local church that was struggling, and due to my particular set of skills and abilities, and the natural desperation that can come from a church struggling to get its footing, both myself and my wife have been quickly accepted into the family and tasked with serious responsibilities. For example, I'll be preaching a sermon on the 15th, I am working with the head pastor to develop our membership classes, and I lead a small group out of my home. My wife is helping administrate and develop the childcare offered on Sunday morning.

My wife is also pregnant, so should God bless us with this child, we'll be well into the "you have how many?" territory, given the fertility rate for our state. We've never had to struggle with the loss of miscarriage, but we're praying that God's plan for our lives is that the struggles we face are oriented towards raising this new child, and not in learning to live with having lost one. A selfish desire, certainly, but this isn't a new boat or a bigger house or a fancier smart phone, we're praying that God would trust us with the burden of raising this child that has been conceived.

Thanksgiving was a mess. The event itself went well enough, I created a new green bean casserole dish on a whim and it turned out good enough that folks didn't like it as part of the overall meal because it didn't mesh well with other traditional dishes that were prepared. I made a good dish, but it didn't fit with thanksgiving, and so that's why people didn't like it as much as my more traditional green bean casserole.

These same folks then pressed my wife and I later on in the evening to explain why we don't celebrate Christmas anymore. I explained that we don't celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25th, or participate in the various rituals and symbols that have become common with Christmas, in large part because none of it is actually "Christian" in nature, and so little good can come of participating in it. At best, it's a vain and frivolous celebration at face value, and Christians are supposed to be worshiping God with everything.

Somehow, for some folks, there's something left over from "everything" where fruitless tasks can still dictate their behavior and somehow this still makes sense.

Mind you, it's not that we don't celebrate anything at all. God never commanded us to never gather with family, to never feast, to never give gifts, etc.

What God did request is that we show some creativity and stop doing exactly what we did for other gods "in Jesus name" and instead worship God has he requested: in spirit and in truth.

Jesus Christ wasn't born on December 25th, year 0 AD. To act as if we need to put the "Christ back in Christmas" when people are participating in lies and deceit is not honoring to God.

December 21st, or 22nd, are the shortest days of the year in the northern hemisphere, the least amount of light and the most amount of darkness.

So what I decided was that on the 21st of December we would celebrate "the light" of the world who came and saved us from darkness. There are many different passages in the Bible which already address this symbolism and explicitly use that metaphor, so what we're remembering and honoring and celebrating is true. And, like the feasts that God declared for Israel, we are gathering family together, eating and drinking to the glory of the Lord, and sharing gifts and so forth, just like how Jesus Christ, the light of the world, has brought us the greatest gift we could ever receive.

Here's the thing: Jesus' birth was nowhere near as significant as his death. This is explained by Jesus Christ's prayer in the garden, prior to his crucifixion.

Up until that point in his life, Jesus' work on earth hadn't been completed. In the garden, beset with stress and anxiety, Jesus Christ prayed to God to "let this cup pass from my lips, but not my will, your will be done." You see, even if Jesus Christ had been born, but did not die for our sins on the cross, his birth would be entirely irrelevant. Yes he had to be born as part of the prophesies, but do we worship the fulfillment of prophecy or the God who provided such prophetic revelations in the first place?

So on the 21st of December we will gather for a meal, I will read passages relevant to how Jesus Christ is our light in darkness, and the children can be given gifts as an echo of what God did for us.

And then we can do the same thing in June during the summer solstice, because while we have much light physically, Jesus Christ is the greater light, and now folks who are in different hemispheres can be united in celebrating the same thing at different parts of the year, the thing being celebrated is true, and it's grounded in the existing symbolism that God provided without fixating on the symbols instead of the God that those symbols intended to describe something about.

The discussion didn't ever get that far on Thanksgiving.

Instead it ended up being a pathetic game of "well that's fine for you and your convictions", as if somehow the truths I was sharing were "mine" in any way.

I got an earful of subjective morality, where folks can do whatever they want, so long as they can justify it to themselves sufficiently.

I was told that because passages like Jeremiah 10 aren't specifically about Christmas tress, but idols made from wood and then decorated with silver and gold, that the fact Celtic druids used to worship trees as idols is irrelevant somehow. That going from a specific example to a broader category that the specific example still fell under somehow meant the "Christmas tree" tradition was fine, despite having roots in pagan practices.

I was told sarcastically that "I am apparently just not smart enough" on topics that are painfully simple to explain in a few sentences.

I was told that over a decade of research into the topic negated that simple truths had been missed that entire time because folks were more interested in justifying their existing behavior than in trying to align themselves with what God would desire from them.

I have never lost respect for someone so fast as I did during that conversation.

I had never seen someone trying so hard to avoid accepting that they'd been doing something inappropriate, swallowing their pride and then moving on.

Then again, these folks attend a church with a morbidly obese pastor. Gluttony is just as sinful as fornication, but hey, let's pick on the LGBTQA+P folks who want something we think is clearly icky and gross, so we're clearly more righteous than them, right?

People don't understand that judgment is applied inwardly to the church, not outwardly.

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.” - 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 (NKJV)

Of note, I won't be preaching on this on the 15th. That one will be about how "Desires forge division."

I'll try and get a copy of it and post it in various places online, and see if I can embed it here.

Till next time, take care!

Representation games

At some point, even people who are trying not to notice how frequently (((they))) show up in media and entertainment and politics are going to start looking ridiculous as well. We're not quite there yet, but if the current trends hold, then it won't be much longer.

Current President Donald Trump was said to have been antisemitic when calling out Adam Schiff, a congressman who has been trying to get Trump out of office since the day he took it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/aoc-accuses-trump-anti-semitism-over-attacks-lyin-shifty-schiff

Per the accusatory tweet:

Understand that Trump is engaged in deliberate, atrocious, targeted antisemitism towards Chairman Schiff.

Then ask yourself why no one cares to denounce it - esp when his accusation of it towards others drove full news cycles earlier this year.

The article linked then goes on to describe how almost the entirety of Trump's political opposition is Jewish. This is supposed to make it seem like Trump has it out for modern Jews, but ends up pointing out how many Jews have problems with Donald Trump.

For example:

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry on September 24, President Donald Trump and his acolytes seem to have borrowed a page from the Daily Stormer playbook. And here’s the thing: As with the president’s outrageous insistence that foreign governments dish up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, they happen to be banging their anti-Semitic drum in plain sight.

...

To be clear: More than 200 House Democrats have signed onto an impeachment inquiry and yet the president chose to target only three of them by name, two of whom are Jewish: Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The third target was — surprise! — a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shamefully, he attacked all of them as “savages.”

How is such rhetoric not racist?

Here's the thing: Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a Jewish lobbyist.

Chuck Schumer, often seen hand in hand with her, is also Jewish.

As the article would later point out, Jon Stewart is also Jewsih, but only ethnically and is "irreligious".

Why do I point this out? Well, when the article mentions that there are over 200 Democrats, Trump went after the ones who have been in the media, given the limelight. Of all the people on the list, not every one of them has national exposure in the news. Schiff and Nadler are both ranking officials in their respective political associations, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties respectively. Both of them are leaders, not simply random supporters that have been singled out. By their own actions on the political stage, they have drawn attention to themselves and what they are trying to do. And they're both Jewish.

So, were Trump to put forth any sort of criticism at all related to any of these rather well-known figures in the political and media arenas, he could be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because at some level he disagrees with or opposes people who are Jews, whether ethnically or religiously or both. Inherent in this is the implication that Jews are not capable of doing anything wrong, that to disagree with or oppose them is some moral evil, that they are above reproach.

Now, given all this, what did God say about Israel again?

When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:
“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry
And children of harlotry,
For the land has committed great harlotry
By departing from the Lord.” - Hosea 1:2 (NKJV)

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. - 1 Samuel 8:7-8 (NKJV)

Even Jesus got into it as well, the damnable anti-Semite!

For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father [a]or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” - Matthew 15:4-9 (NKJV)

It gets even better later on.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. - Matthew 23:15 (NKJV)

Why is that "great"? Well, you do know who founded Rabbinic Judaism, right?

While there have been Jewish groups whose beliefs were claimed to be based on the written text of the Torah alone (e.g., the Sadducees, and the Karaites), most Jews believed in what they call the oral law. These oral traditions were transmitted by the Pharisee sect of ancient Judaism, and were later recorded in written form and expanded upon by the rabbis.

Rabbinic Judaism (which derives from the Pharisees) has always held that the books of the Torah (called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition.

Yup, you're reading that right. The sect of the historic Hebrew faith which is responsible for modern Judaism is the same one that Jesus Christ called a "son of hell". He didn't do that just once either.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. - John 8:42-44 (NKJV)

Pointing out that Jews are like their father, and that their father is the father of lies, is anti-Semitic.

So Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite. And Donald Trump is an anti-Semite. Also those who reject the works of modern Judaism, or ethnic Jews, are anti-Semitic. Everyone who doesn't bend the knee and serve those who now call themselves Jews is anti-Semitic. It's a term that has become so ridiculously overblown and overplayed that people cannot any longer ignore the inherent supremacy implied by those who accuse others of being anti-Semitic, and thus demanding penance, if not subserviance, to Semites as a consequence.

Jews are no longer God's chosen people, by their own choices, and their resentment of all that reminds them of this is growing ever more apparent.

Like a small child whose approval of their parents relies entirely on the parents doing what the child wants, the harlot Israel is still demanding that everyone, including God, serve them on their terms. Their arrogance and hubris sheds new light on historical events where, again, they were not the majority of representatives in Germany or the Soviet Union, but they were the figureheads. They were in front of people, championing causes, and placing themselves in positions of power and influence.

So keep this in mind the next time someone whines about anti-Semitism. These are a people who rejected the God who loved them, whose hypocrisy even Jesus Christ called out plain as day, and who still to this day believe that they will someday save themselves from the damnation they are entirely responsible for in the first place. These people are not superior in any measure, they are sinners in need of a savior, and they will be crushed once again by the burdens they try to place upon their shoulders.

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9 (NKJV)

Pray for Jews to surrender their pride, to declare Jesus Christ as Lord, and to believe that God raised him from the dead, so that they can be saved. Otherwise all that awaits them is devastation, whether in this life or the next, because they are still living in the flesh, and being good children of their actual father, perfecting themselves in lies and deceit and manipulation.

Interest is not evil

You shall not charge interest to your brother—interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest. To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess. - Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (NKJV)

There's a simple rule I like to apply when trying to figure out if something is "good" or "bad": did God ever tell his people to do it or not to do it? This won't always provide the whole picture, but serves as a great starting place for the investigation. If God did not provide any sort of direction or commentary, then sometimes looking at motivations or "heart condition" can still be worthwhile.

In this case, God provided direction to Israel that they should not charge one another interest, but if loaning money outside Israel, they could charge interest. This means that interest is not evil, because God being good is not going to provide a command to his people which is not also good.

I do often see a lot of excitement around usury, which is often understood as excessive interest, but lacking a good objective measure for what is "fair", it can be difficult to have a cogent conversation. Much like with the topic of circumcision, albeit in a financial setting, I don't really ever see anyone explain why God was wrong to command something for his people. Why would God command something which was objectively detrimental for his people?

It's one thing to try and argue the pros and cons on human terms, on what we think is important, but if God thought that a particular practice or ritual or tradition was good or bad, shouldn't that be important, especially to those who claim to worship and serve God? This isn't a rhetorical either, because even if we don't know all of the why, we still have God's nature and attributes to help us understand.

And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’ - Jeremiah 32:35 (NKJV)

God had strong opinions on what Israel was to, or not to, do. Modern Christians are not under the same law as the Hebrew people, but like Israel, we are the chosen of God and should consider his commands, even those historical, given for another people, to help show the pattern of God's behaviors. I can appreciate that some smart people throughout history have held a variety of different opinions on things like interest, or usury, if they separated the two in their discussions.

Look at what God recommended for Israel, for his people, and then try to figure out why God did that. Debate with folks on human terms is not a waste of time, but nobody is smarter than God, wiser than God, or has an understanding of how things all work out like God, so why not try to learn from what God has already done?

Random thought

People mourn the loss of a legacy, but rejoice at the fall of an empire.

What is love?

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-10 (NKJV)

In our modern times, there are many efforts to create a "multicultural" community. Most of them are nominally secular, but there are many which are religious in nature as well. The secular efforts tend to revolve around the idea that because we're living in post-scarcity times, conflict is harmful and unnecessary for survival, and so we should all just learn to get along. The religious efforts tend to revolve around the idea that because the material world isn't what is most important, conflict is harmful and unnecessary for eternal survival, and so we should all just learn to get along.

Christians are not excluded from this, and while there is support for the idea that Christianity is "international" or "multi-national", Christianity creates a monoculture of its own, and a lot of folks genuinely don't understand that. To build this case, we need to start with a somewhat controversial passage where Jesus is speaking about those who would follow him.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. - Matthew 10:34-39 (NKJV)

So, right off the bat, Jesus clearly states that following him is going to cause conflict with even those who we share the most. If family is beset against family because of Jesus Christ, what is going to happen to the larger community? Family can be viewed as the smallest unit of community, and if Jesus Christ is causing disruption at the foundational level, then everything else built upon that foundation will also be impacted.

God has always desired a direct relationship with his followers, even in the Old Testament.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. - 1 Samuel 8:6-7 (NKJV)

It was not God's desire that hierarchies and systems of authority be put in place between him and his people, but their rebellious nature and "stiff necks" required a constant escalation of authoritarianism to keep them in line, up to and including being conquered by foreign enemies and having all their wealth pillaged. While God's people sought to make their own way, the promises of God were null and void, regardless of the permanence he offered through them, because his bargain with Israel was not unconditional.

Likewise, Jesus Christ explains, through various parables and analogies and whatnot, that what people naturally value in this life will not remain so. Many folks know the parable of the rich young ruler who would not give up his material possessions to follow Jesus Christ, but this theme was a common one among his teachings.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

If such things are true, it's not that the things we naturally value are bad or intrinsically wrong, but that they should not be our priority. The things we have by our own hands should not be what drives our choices and shapes our behavior.

And if we're actively implementing this in our lives, we're going to have conflicts because others may not have the same priority, even within our own families.

Recently, I had shared with my wife some materials on the nature of many popular holidays, even among Christians, and just how synthetic those traditions are. When the vast majority of holidays have no scriptural support for their practice, let alone evidence that the early church found such things worthy of celebration. A big example of this is Christmas.

Many folks are familiar with the "put Christ back in Christmas" meme, but the date for Christmas was set hundreds of years after his death by a pagan ruler of Rome. Scriptural evidence as to the timeframe for Jesus birth points to a different time of year than winter, because the traditions of the Hebrews would not have had them with their flocks out in the fields at night in the middle of winter. Even worse, people want to make the celebration of Christmas "acceptable" by treating it as a "redeemed tradition". Do folks not know of the history of the Talmud?

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. - Mark 7:5-9 (NKJV)

If traditions, if family, if the values that a Christian has are at odds with those around them, what hope is there for unity?

That's where love comes back into play.

Love as comes from God overlooks disparities on those things and brings his family together because the priority is singular in Jesus Christ, not on various traditions, families, etc. There are byproducts to the pursuit of Jesus Christ, and that is love for one another, but we cannot get that result by trying to just love one another through brute force. Nor can we ignore that there will be unity through Jesus Christ that is impossible by any other means.

Love, genuine love, as talked about in the opening passage of scripture, is something that people simply cannot summon for anyone else of their own accord. We can't afford it. We're already owing a debt we cannot ever repay, and we think we could shoulder someone else's burdens? Such thoughts are arrogant and foolish!

Genuine love is something that we need God's support in order to manifest, and if we are truly seeking after Jesus Christ and are becoming more like him, then our priorities will look like his priorities, and our sacrifices will be done in love just like his sacrifices. But we aren't the one whose sacrifices matter to others. Our works "in Jesus' name", are not the Gospel.

What is the Gospel?

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9 (NKJV)

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. - John 3:16-17 (NKJV)

And what is our greatest priority in this life? What did Jesus tell us specifically we should be doing?

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. - Matthew 28:18-20 (NKJV)

Is our priority to "put Christ back in Christmas"? No.

Is our priority to feed and clothe the homeless? No.

Is our priority to make peace between warring peoples? No.

Is our priority to bring heaven to earth? No.

Is our priority to sustain communities and traditions? No.

Our priority is to tell all nations about Jesus Christ, the good news of salvation, and then walk with them through the process of sanctification, of being disciples, of drawing closer to Jesus Christ and behaving and thinking more like him each day.

That is how we love the world. That is how we love one another. That is how "the Church" will be a multi-national entity, because we don't lose our physical bodies and our history when we are saved, but it will be a monocultural entity as well, because regardless of where we start in our relationship with Jesus Christ, we're all converging on the same focal point. We're all heading to the same place, and as we draw closer to Jesus Christ we can also find that we are drawing closer to one another at the same time.

We manifest love by tapping into God's strength and by focusing on God's priorities, because what most people think of as "love" is a weak and unreliable feeling that leaves much to be desired. Love is the glue for relationships, but we don't know how to make it or use it, and so we must look to the one who loved us when we were anything but lovely to serve as the example and guide for how we are to then love others.

Focus on Jesus Christ, his teachings, and the rest will come in time. Do not fret when your path leads you away from friends, family, communities, because if you're drawing closer to Jesus Christ, you'll never truly be alone.

Boulders of salt

In the past I enjoyed a good amount of what Vox Day produced. Lately though, there's been too many times when he's tried to have his cake and eat it too.

Vox used to curate the blog "Aplha Game", and one of its posts from back in 2011 talks about the socio-sexual hierarchy as he defined it. One interesting part of that post is as follows:

Now, it is important to keep in mind that it serves absolutely no purpose to identify yourself in some manner that you think is "better" or higher up the hierarchy. No one cares what you think you are and your opinion about your place in the social hierarchy is probably the opinion that matters least.

Now here's a shot:

If I ever run for Emperor of Man, my platform will include mandatory euthanasia for gamma males at the age of 18, with a second round at 25 just in case we missed any of them. I expect I'll win 100 percent of the female vote with that policy.

And here's a chaser:

Mama's Boys and Smart Boys are inevitably a serious challenge for any organization, because virtue-signaling on behalf of women is always their first and foremost priority.

Whose vote was locked in for his hypothetical election bid for Emperor of Man again?

How smart does Vox think he is again?

Such a waste of natural talent playing games to win the favor of people he openly resents.

Or does he expect that many folks who aren't "secret kings" are going to be interested in the escapist entertainment ventures?

Thre's a reason that certain hobbies and interests earned the social stigmas they still largely possess today.

Shepherd or Charlatan Part 4 - Perseverance in ALL Things

Rounding out the series, I want to go over some hypothetical scenarios to help explore the dynamic of shepherd or charlatan even further, by showing how they can show up anywhere.

Anywhere.

In the past, I've done a couple posts on "how to spot an r-strategist":

Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition

Spotting an r-strategist: Conflict Management

A short summary of the two is that folks who are r-strategists, or in this series referred to as charlatans, are going to be focused on status. In order to gain that status they must study and know the subject matters which are important to the social circle they want to gain influence in. The difference between them and a shepherd is what comes afterwards, in that Charlatans only learn as much as is required to gain status, where shepherds will gain understanding required to act.

With guns, for example, a charlatan will understand the specifications, ballistics charts, and slang, but won't treat firearms as a dangerous tool. They'll be the ones boasting about how good they might be, and they might even be good at the range, but then they'll tip their hand by talking about how they hope to get caught in a live-fire scenario so that they can demonstrate their prowess even further.

Most 3-gun competitions are participated in by folks like this, who see a movie like "John Wick" and want to be the badass gunman, but don't talk to hardened veterans, folks who have been shot at, and who have had to shoot and kill others. To see what I mean, reference the interview scene from the movie "Full Metal Jacket".

Full Metal Jacket - The Interviews

Some of the soldiers project an air of confidence, where others appear weak. Without the context of the rest of the film, the soldiers who were cynical or doubtful about their circumstances may come across as unpatriotic, as sissies, as men who should get out of the way of the "real" soldiers who are ready to get the job done. While the movie is fictional, the scenario isn't so much so, and I have an uncle who still struggles with nightmares and the horror of having served in Vietnam. He was not detached from reality, he wasn't there for status or to show off how great he was with a rifle, he was supposed to be there as a shepherd for people who couldn't protect their own values, their own interests. He was supposed to be there as a shepherd, and now he bears both the physical and psychological scars for his trouble.

Charlatans don't ever get that involved. They are always at a distance, always ready to jump at a moments notice, when things look like they will no longer benefit them specifically.

Locally, this was seen in the past years when a local businesswoman kept getting her apartment complex projects denied by the city. Then she got elected to the council, scared the shit out of anyone who would try to go against her, got the projects approved, and then did not seek re-election because ground had already been broken.

I started attending Mars Hill church in late 2010, and yes, that Mars Hill with Mark Driscoll. I don't know the man personally, but to give an idea of how close we were to its implosion, the man at the Everett campus who wouldn't sign the non-compete clause? He did my marriage counseling. The pastor at the Everett church who signed the letter of support for Driscoll? He had presided over my wedding. To shorten the example, Mars Hill failed to fulfill 1 Timothy 5:20, and many are still unrepentant of how they tried to protect a charlatan instead of upholding the very scriptures they claimed they adhered to.

The gun example is yet another anecdote, in talking with a co-worker who was former army but did not serve in an actual combat zone. When news of shootings popped up, his response was that he wished someone would do that when he was in a store, because then "he could play". This was also a man who would boast of his marksmanship and collection of firearms, yet also had trouble with going up stairs, smoked heavily, and was sufficiently disabled that he had an ADA parking spot. He imagined himself as some sort of heroic figure, just waiting for his opportunity, yet it was all in his head, given that he could barely walk across the factory without being in significant pain, let alone run to deal with an active shooter.

Even the church I am trying to help start now, is focused on "being international". This makes sense given, as I've talked briefly about before, Jesus Christ stated that even families would be torn apart because of following him. Family is the smallest unit of community, of a nation, and if even that is not "safe" from strife due to faith in Jesus Christ, how can anyone claim that Christianity has any sort of respect for any earthly culture or nationality? All of them are, at best, secondary in importance to Jesus Christ. If folks are truly doing this, placing no gods of heritage or blood or tradition before Jesus Christ, then the Church is naturally going to be unified through the spirit in ways which are impossible through the flesh. But if everyone is simply looking to jerk off to "look how not racist I am", because they're just paying lip service to truth, to Jesus Christ, then it will fall apart, because there are much better ways for folks to try and gain status.

The final example I'll use is with child safety seats. In 2005, a study was done which determined that children over 2 years of age saw no significant benefit to injury or survival rates because they were sitting in a car seat. So they changed the rules and said that now, in order to be "safe", they should remain rear-facing as long as possible. The most immediate impact is that the interiors of cars now needs to be gigantic even for a small family to be able to ferry their children about. Older cars that were affordable were now off-limits, everyone has to buy new cars. Oh, and the plastics that we are told in one circumstance will take thousands of years to degrade? Well the plastics they use in child safety seats degrades in five years so even if you've never been in an accident, you need to buy a new one. It's a scam from top to bottom, but it preys on the ability to "pace and lead" gullible women into spending money they don't need to, buying newer cars they don't need to, and ultimately having fewer children than they are supposed to, when their husbands cannot just keep spending spending spending to make them feel safer.

The dynamics of the shepherd and charlatan show up everywhere. In every context, in every walk of life, in every circumstance where there is someone who leads and someone who follows, there is opportunity for such leaders to be concerned with themselves or with the flock. Whether it's church, a book club, your workplace, or the political stage in front of the whole country, none are immune or inoculated to the possibility of being exploited.

We must remain vigilant. Extremists are not always our allies, even if it looks like they may share the same values. Shepherds aren't going to be a source of or seen reacting to hype. People are constantly looking at how to exploit a community, to be an opportunist, to take as much as they can while giving away as little as possible, and hoping to be far far away once the nature of the scam has fully come to light.

This whole dynamic is made even easier because of associations through the internet. People can say whatever they want, present whatever fiction they want, and it will be impossible for someone else to verify or trust that such things are true. Pictures can be faked. Videos doctored. Actors hired. Lies told. In such an environment, charlatans are more successful than ever and can reach even bigger crowds than ever.

The really good ones have also figured out how to get people's pride tied into their arbitrary online relationships. They've synthesized the feeling of "belonging", and so even when such charlatans are exposed, folks will defend them if only to sustain what they don't believe they could otherwise achieve on their own.

Yet the internet only magnifies that dynamic, it doesn't create it, because for every Vox Day or Jordan Peterson, there's a Mark Driscoll or Jim Jones to show that even in person, the same old tricks can be played, the same cons are no less effective on people, and that no area of your life is ever going to be free of people who see their own priorities as superior to yours, and will feel no shame or guilt in manipulating you so that they can achieve what they desire.

Instead, look for those around you, in meatspace, who are already taking action, who are already doing what needs to be done, who already represent the values you already hold, and then get behind and support them. Build a relationship and observe them, figure out how to help them, and see if they are protecting or sacrificing themselves. The best liars can keep it up for a while, but none can keep it up forever, especially under the pressure of performance where results are expected of them.

It's not paranoia, it's not distrust, it's simply the only honest way that someone can make their way through a world that is imperfect and filled with imperfect people.

Shepherd or Charlatan Part 3 - Policiing or Pacing

I am sorry for the lack of focus in getting this series completed.

I can't avoid sounding like bragging, but I am helping start a new church, rebuilding a pickup truck, and raising a family, so I am frequently not putting my writing at a very high priority. This is unfortunate because I've had the chance to interact with some wonderful people, but that is all through writing, and I know that if I am an inconsistent flake, then there can't ever really be a relationship that forms.

The kind of relationship where I can say something that matters to them, and vice versa. The kind of interactions where someone might actually look forward to, even if we ultimately disagreed.

So thanks to any who bother to come back and read the rest of the series.

In Parts 1 and 2 I was laying the foundation for, and then providing an example of, the difference between a shepherd and a charlatan. This part of the series will discuss one specific aspect of the difference in how the two behave with respect to leadership style as seen in the contrast between "policing the flock" and "pacing and leading". We end up with yet another binary, because ultimately a leader either reflects the values of the people they lead or they don't.

When a leader shares the values of the people he leads, there will be a natural affinity. The leader won't need to explain or motivate the people on the topics he acts on, because both he and the people already ideologically support what he is doing, and will be looking for opportunities to contribute materially as needed. For a cause that people care about, they may even volunteer their services because they are so dedicated to achieving whatever it is they want to achieve that just achieving the results they desire will be reward enough. Whether such devotees exist or not, in such circumstances the leader will not need to spend a lot of time directing "the herd", but instead protecting it from outsiders who seek to predate on their flock.

This is where the leader who does not share values comes into play. A leader that does not already share the values of a group will not naturally rise to lead it, and will not have a natural affinity for or with the people, but is either be placed there by circumstance, like being hired, or through social manipulation, which is pacing and leading. When a leader does not already align with the values of the people, but is needing to redirect where they put their efforts, he can do this through pacing their existing convictions and emotional state in order for them to recognize him as the one they should follow. He becomes a refinement, an extreme, of whatever values are already held, and since this person appears to be the epitome of such values, having the most dedication and commitment to them, he will synthetically create a dynamic where the others look to him for direction and guidance. After this relationship has been established, he then leads them to where he really wants them to go, which may end up being in a completely different direction than before, complete with compromises and dilution of the values in order to justify what has been done.

A painful example of this "pacing and leading" is seen in politics. On the campaign trail, charlatan politicians promise so many things, they talk at length about their platform and priorities, and try to garner support from the community in their bid for election. Once elected, however, they then proceed to act in a completely different manner than would have been extrapolated from what they claimed, and are often then pressured to explain why there is a disparity. The good politicians already know this is coming, and will have a host of plausible reasons ready to provide at a moments notice, flipping the tables back on the people that elected them, as if they were delusional or ignorant for expecting to get exactly what they wanted.

Shepherds on the other hand rarely ever get elected in such circumstances because instead of making wild promises and inflating their capability, they'll look meek and incompetent compared to the charlatans. Such people only end up being able to get into political positions that confer little rewards for the effort. Where a charlatan will want to get on the city council to get a property re-zoned so they can develop it privately through their own businesses, a shepherd might get into the position of the local sheriff in a rural community. It's a position of importance for that community, but it also demands a lot of work and without a lot of actual power to change the dynamics of the community, because the primary focus is to protect the community from outsiders who want to exploit the community for themselves, whether a thief or a vandal or what have you.

Leaders aligned with their flock will police it to keep it the way is already is. To protect what it already values, to sustain and enforce the existing values the community already has.

Leaders not aligned with their flock will pace and lead it to achieve what they want. To exploit the declared values, to redirect and redefine the existing values the community already has.

Embrace extremists? Embrace those who share your values, and this is most easily demonstrated through action. If a politician claims to support an ideal, look at what actions they have taken, and whether those line up. In churches, for example, this can be seen in the "holier than thou" types. They are like the Pharisees, and will hypocritically apply rules to others in a way which elevates their own standing in the group, but at the same time will prevent anyone else from doing the same to them. Such people are highly critical of others, and extremely sensitive to criticism aimed at them, even if it is accurate.

Shepherds, on the other hand, because they are already aware of the values, and the affinity they have for the people is natural and not synthetic, when they make mistakes there is grace and mercy on hand. This is seen in the "wild west" stories about the "rogue sheriff", who is forced to bend or break rules to achieve their goals. The goals, the values haven't really changed at all, but by nature of circumstance they have been forced to use means they otherwise find undesirable in order to maintain peace and order. When a shepherd is challenged, they do not try to reject the undesirable nature of what they do, but will often explain that such matters are required for the time, and that the alternatives would all be worse for everyone.

The flock may resent the means of the "rogue sheriff", and not be afraid to express it, but there is forgiveness and understanding, and an appreciation that the shepherd is willing to sacrifice themselves on both a physical and psychological level, so that their flock doesn't have to. And when such a sheriff calls out one of the townsfolk on something they are doing wrong, they know to respect and comply with the sheriff, because he has everyone's best interests in mind.

An example of this type of character would be like Kevin Kline's Paden from Silverado. Thrust into a circumstance where he has to choose between being a shepherd for people in the community he has grown to care about, or living the high-life as a charlatan exploiting those very same people to his own benefit. He ultimately chooses to be the shepherd, risk his life, and as a result, ends up in a position of very high standing in the community for actually being an embodiement of the values they cherished.

Charlatans, on the other hand, are like his former friend and rival Cobb, played by Brian Denehhy. He isn't the rogue sheriff that goes to extreme lengths to "clean up the town", but instead is the one who tries to make a deal with the bandits and the outlaws, makes his own peace in a way that benefits him and his supporters, and ends up largely ignoring the values of the people he is supposed to be protecting as sheriff.

Shepherds react without the flock's permission, because they care about the future of the flock. Charlatans need the flock's permission, because otherwise the flock simply wouldn't naturally follow them at all. The actions of the shepherd and charlatan will expose who they think they are, and what they believe the nature of their relationship is, and that takes time and opportunity, requiring patience and observation.

So look at the leaders who have placed themselves, or been placed, in the various groups and social circles you are part of. Keep track of whether their actions are geared towards action on the existing values, or on convincing people that there's more they could be doing, if only they voted/gave money/supporting them. Are the leaders already taking actions which reflect the existing values, or are they hinging their actions pending further support?

Once you've figured it out, hang the charlatans, and give the shepherds a badge and a gun.

In Part 4, I'll discuss how this dynamic is in all social circles, all circumstances where there is a power structure, and how charlatans may look to exploit any possible circumstance to their benefit.

Shepherd or Charlatan Part 2 - Jesus Christ

In Part 1, the foundation for social interactions was laid in that either our constraints are external, driven by survival, or internal, because survival is no longer a concern. While such a binary may feel wrong, or unnecessarily limiting, I would challenge folks to explore that feeling and try to see if there is a third possibility or not.

To show a parallel, look at the concept of sin. God's holiness could be reduced to the concept of perfection. Anything that is not perfect is not holy, and so that is one possible "state". The alternative "state" is "sinful", and while there are varying degrees of consequence for sin, it all can be categorized in the binary of "sinful", for all of it is "not perfect". More or less sinful doesn't change that we are not holy. With respect to the concepts of sin and holiness, there is a binary where one part of the binary is a single state of being holy or perfect, and the other side of the binary is almost infinite in the number of states that could all be adequately categorized under "sinful".

As with sin and holiness, survival and status have a similar relationship. The concept of "free will" is often abused and exaggerated to connote a level of individual sovereignty that simply does not exist. None of us exist in a vacuum, we are all existing in a world that is not beholden to us, and we clearly do not get to pick and choose the circumstances that we experience in life. We can choose what to do with the choices we have, and that is why understanding the binary of sin and holiness, and how it parallels the dynamic between survival and status, is important to understand when looking at the example found in Jesus Christ, as recorded by the Bible.

Was Jesus a shepherd, concerned with the safety of the flock? Was Jesus a charlatan, concerned with his status among the flock?

To start, was Jesus Christ popular? Did people want to see him, hear his teachings, or be associated with him?

Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Matthew 9:10-13 (NKJV)

So there are many who came and sat down, but Jesus then claims he is calling the many to repentance, which is a combination of confession and effort to change. This is counter-intuitive for someone who is interested in status, because if the first thing you do when everyone is listening is tell them "you're doing everything wrong and need to change", you're going to turn away the narcissistic and solipsistic who believe themselves to be perfect and the center of the universe.

That is no small percentage of any crowd, and is why the persuasion technique of "pace and lead" requires a would-be leader to pace the existing emotional states of those he'd like to lead. He does not contradict their current convictions, but "agrees and amplifies" them to show that he is more devoted to the same principles than even they are, hoping to synthesize the affinity that naturally grows between a people and their leaders.

Simply put, if Jesus Christ were trying to "pace and lead" sinners, he would not be telling them to change, but would instead be trying to demonstrate how he could get them more of what they already think they want, and then after he'd successfully paced the people would he start to try and redirect them to something different than what was claimed. There is always a disparity between what is claimed and what is achieved with "pace and lead", and this is by design, not incompetence or unfortunate circumstances, though blaming those possibilities helps to keep people distracted from what's actually going on.

Let's continue with another passage.

Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!” Then the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.

And when He had come into the house, His disciples asked Him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?”

So He said to them, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”- Mark 9:24-29 (NKJV)

Here again we have Jesus Christ with a crowd, healing a young boy who had been possessed and the spirit which possessed him threw him into fire and water, and shook the boy's body violently. Despite the boy calming down after Jesus' commands were issued, the reaction of the crowd was not in Jesus' favor, as many thought the boy to be dead. Jesus was demonstrating great power, and later when his disciples lament their own inability to cast out the demon from the boy, Jesus Christ replies that only prayer and fasting would produce the same result for them.

Prayer is an alignment with God, and looking at the "model prayer" in Matthew 6, we see that there is exaltation of God, confessions to God, and petitions made of God. Prayer is an inherently humble activity, where our hearts are ultimately aligned with what God desires, what God designs, and what God does. Such a practice is not something that people who are in open rebellion against God are going to adopt naturally. To pray in secret instead of in front of man? How can status be elevated among men by what is done in secret?

Further, fasting reminds us of the dynamics of survival, albeit voluntarily. Fasting is also discussed in Matthew 6 as a private matter between the person and God. To refrain from resources that are critical to our living is a way to demonstrate what our priorities are. Giving up what we could experience, consume, or enjoy as a means of trying to demonstrate to God how serious we truly are about the topic which prompted our fast to begin with, and yet doing all that in such a manner that only God knows you are doing it.

As such, neither prayer or fasting are things which confer status. While Jesus Christ had a crowd when expelling the demon, the disciples of Christ would need to labor in private and probably over some period of time before the same power over demons would be granted to them. Even worse, if such works are done in sight of man, to be recognized or to gain status, then the person already has obtained what they seek, and their petitions to God will not be considered, because their priority is quite literally their status among men.

We'll continue with one more passage.

A large crowd was following Jesus. He turned around and said to them, “If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple. - Luke 25-27 (NLT)

Surely, such devotion to a man would be inappropriate and cult-like, right? He was constantly drawing crowds to himself, preaching to crowds, and then escaping the crowds when they sought so desperately to be with him and to hear him teach. Even today, Christianity is the biggest religions in the world. The name of Jesus Christ is arguably more widely known around the world than any politician, actor, or conqueror.

Yet here is is tearing down even the bonds between family members, in that if we are loyal to and love those around us, even the closest to us, more than Jesus Christ, then we cannot be disciples of Jesus Christ. Think about that. While many will criticize the multiculturalism of globalism, a form of neo-babelism, even here we see that Jesus Christ is providing an identity, a framework for relationship where no material relationships can take precedence over the relationship between the believer and Jesus Christ.

Surely, this must be a status thing, right? Here we have Jesus focusing all the attention, and as a consequence status, on himself.

Let's look at why he claimed to do all of this and see what he intends to do with this.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. - John 5:24 (NKJV)

Jesus Christ wanted to save people from the consequence of judgment: death.

That is about as survival-oriented as possible. While not a material death, but a spiritual one, Jesus Christ was still ultimately motivated to be a messiah, a savior, to rescue people from a state that they could not rescue themselves from.

For his troubles, Jesus Christ be executed for his heresy, and for his unpopularity with both the religious elite and the masses. When a choice finally came, the crowds chose to release Barabbas instead of Jesus Christ. In a moment of truth where, had he been seeking status, he should have been able to cash in on that and save his own life, he is instead left to the care of the Romans to be scourged and crucified.

The leaders of the era even mocked his apparent weakness, taunting him with empty promises that if he could save himself then they would believe.

“He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. - Matthew 27:42 (NKJV)

And how did Jesus Christ react to all of this?

Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

And they divided His garments and cast lots. - Luke 23:34 (NKJV)

While they were divvying up his clothes, he was asking God to forgive them as they acted in ignorance. There is no bitterness, no angst or anger at how those who were supposed to be following him didn't. There were no pejorative nicknames, no dismissal of whether they were worthy or not of his leadership and guidance in the first place.

Instead of making a scene and trying to guilt trip and manipulate and scheme his way into the people's favor, he asks God to forgive them.

After his death, what did contemporaries say of the movement that was carried on by his disciples?

For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” - Acts 5:36-39 (NKJV)

So even then, they knew that if Jesus Christ was just a charlatan, if what he said was not true and what he did was simply "of man", that by natural cycle of interest the movement he started would die out, as Jesus Christ had already been rejected in favor of Barabbas, and the fickle mob would simply move on. The speaker in that passage recognized that efforts "of man" always end up failing, and that it would take supernatural involvement in order for what Jesus Christ to have started to "last". And it has lasted.

So, to finish up, we'll look at Jesus Christ's own words on the topic, with an already established pattern outside of his direct claims that while this actions did increase his status for a time, his ultimate goal was not status but the survival of people in the face of God's wrath against sin.

With that in mind, we have this final passage for this post.

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. - John 10:11-13 (NASB)

Jesus sought to be a good shepherd, claimed the title for himself, and even fulfilled the requirements of his claim by dying on the cross and having the wrath of God poured out on him so that the rest of us could be spared. Jesus died while being mocked, and it would not be till later that Christianity would take off and become what it is today. Jesus Christ did not seek status, but to bring about a path for eternal salvation from the consequences of sin.

Isn't that someone that would be worth following? If you don't, then pray to Jesus Christ, ask him to help your unbelief, ask for help to place your faith in what Jesus Christ has already done on your behalf as a "good shepherd". Accept the offer of God, made through Jesus Christ, to have life instead of death.

Believe in what Jesus Christ taught, and let him be the one that leads you.

That concludes Part 2, where we look to see if Jesus Christ was a shepherd or charlatan. In Part 3 of this series I'll explore the dynamics of "policing the flock" versus "pacing and leading the flock" in a modern context, though the example of Jesus Christ will still play a role. And finally, in Part 4, I'll finish up by discussing how all that is material could be leveraged for status, and so we must be vigilant in all aspects of life.

Stay tuned!

Shepherd or Charlatan Part 1 - Social Dynamic Foundations

Human social dynamics are complex, but are fundamentally shaped by the material world that we live in. We are finite beings that rely on consuming material resources in order to persist, and so our survival ultimately relies on our ability to procure and consume those resources.

Human reliance on resources traces back to Genesis, when Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden by God due to their disobedience.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19 (NKJV)

The reason this dynamic is important to understand is seen later on in Genesis, at the Tower of Babel.

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. - Genesis 11:4-6 (NKJV)

Humanity can grow and learn to master aspects of its circumstances. We get good at producing food, providing clean water, and even learning how to treat and cure ailments that afflict our bodies. We get so good at addressing problems that face us that we keep growing the scope and severity of the problems we try to resolve, confident that we can conquer the next as easily as the previous.

It starts with food and water, eventually graduates to elections, power distribution, and waste management systems, and eventually we reach to resolve to the ultimate problem we face: the bonds of our physical finitude.

Our natural desire is to be like God, and sin is, more often than not, when we try to do so on our own terms instead of God's, relying on our own power and perceptions and reasons instead of trusting in God's direction for our lives, even if the things we'd desire are things God would desire for us as well, like family and health, or fortune and comfort.

Reaching for godhood on our own terms was right in the first temptation.

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:4-6 (NKJV)

In advancing our power and capability, we are able to automate and obfuscate our basic needs, so much so that when civilization is advanced like it is now, individuals part of that civilization are rarely struggling just to survive.

This creates a problem, because material survival is an external constraint, and it shapes how we behave regardless of what we think about it, and in turn this also defines for us how we relate to others in the same set of circumstances. Relationships and interdependencies form, individuals specialize in skills and abilities, and together their efforts ensure the survival of all.

Nobody really has time to be ___ist, or to entertain being accused of being ___ist, when everyone might starve and die from lack of action in a matter of days or weeks.

Now, when that process has gotten so effective that resources are no longer scarce, and individuals are free to pursue other activities, the circumstantial pressures move from external to internal. If there is no need to struggle to survive, the individual must choose for themselves how to exert their efforts. If the constraints on their behavior are no longer driven externally, they choose internally to replace the lack of those constraints.

This contrast, of internal versus external struggle, creates the two motivations behind all human social dynamics: survival or status.

In survival, where resources are scarce, interactions are driven by necessity.
In status, where resources are abundant, interactions are driven by novelty.

Shepherds are concerned with the survival of the flock.
Charlatans are concerned with their status in the flock.

One example of how this could play out is from a parent's perspective, in how children frequently do not understand why they cannot or should not do something. The parent may need to constrain or direct the behavior of their child against the stated desires of the child. In such a case, the parent is concerned with the survival of the child, and not with their social status within the family, or with how other parents might judge their choice in parenting.

"I hate you!" or "But I want to!" or "You're just being mean!" and other childish objections to the firm direction of the parent indicate how their social status has suffered in the eyes of the child or their peers, but that is not the primary concern of a parent, or at least, it shouldn't be.

Many have interacted with parents who try to be the best friend of their child above all else, and are reluctant to "say no" or provide discipline or guidance to their children, and they are almost never shy about telling other parents about how much better a parent they are then others who must resort to more barbaric means. These parents are placing their social status as a higher priority than the survival of their children. They want to be seen in a good light by others, whether their children or their peers, even if they are sacrificing the future well being of their children to do so.

When the Bible states "no man can serve two masters" in Matthew 6:24, we in an advanced civilization have to choose whether survival or status will be what motivates us. It is not difficult to see how those motivated by status are so dangerous, because the ones most effective at manipulating the emotional states of others that rise to prominence, and to get good at such manipulation requires a narcissistic solipsism that ignores any consequences outside the impact to status.

In contrast, those who prioritize survival may not be the most popular or likable folks to interact with, but there is an inherent trust and reliability that exists because their motivations are not inherently selfish in nature. We see these types of characters in fictional media all the time, the gruff and brutish man who decisively solves problems, even for people who may have mocked or maligned him as a means of gaining social leverage.

So, again, the foundation for social interaction is a binary, driven by whether we exist in resource abundance or scarcity. Our interactions are either framed for us by external constraints, because we are finite beings that require resources, or by internal constraints when there are no external constraints asserting themselves because all that we rely on is readily available. It is on this binary dynamic that leaders end up being either shepherds or charlatans, and before we get into how each of their behavior may vary in a modern context, join me in part 2 to look at Jesus Christ and see if whether scripture paints him as a shepherd or a charlatan, and gives hints on how we might differentiate the two.

In part 3, I'll look at how modern shepherds and charlatans deal with conflict that threatens the group, including a look at the difference between "policing the flock" and "pacing and leading the flock". Finishing up in part 4 will be some examples of how anything in the material realm can be abstracted and used for social leverage, as there is no social circle where this choice about motivation has to be made, even inside the church.

Right now though, it's breakfast time, and I also promised to trim, paint, and mount the body of an R/C car for my oldest.

Thank you for your time and I hope you find this topic worthy of your consideration.

Abortion is pure evil

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? - Romans 6:1-2 (NKJV)

Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Supporting abortion supports the murder of an unborn child.

There is no way to escape this simple truth. Every attempt to do so requires treating specific sinful behaviors as inevitable and inescapable.

While we cannot escape all sin, that does not mean that our actions do not reduce the frequency and severity of its manifestations.

Our choices matter, and future generations will never even begin to match the anger and rage that God already feels towards those who partake in and support the murder of unborn children.

Such is a topic that defines a hill worth dying on. The sanctity of life, let alone what all these demonic sacrifices are actually supporting, should be sufficient for people to act.

Those that don't have evidenced which God they actually serve.

Pain tolerance is entirely subjective

Yesterday I got a spliter, nasty one, from an old piece of furniture. About 1/16th or thereabouts piece of wood that I hit at just the right angle so it decided to dig in between my nail and the finger, and it was nearly long enough to go all the way to the nail bed.

Asked my wife for her tweezers, to get out a splinter, and she offered to help. Until she saw the piece of wood through my nail, which prompted an "are you kidding?!" response and I could tell that she was already starting to regret offering to help.

Now, my wife has endured labor pains, but here she was freaking out over a piece of wood jammed between my finger and the nail, and wondering why I am able to be so calm. It hurt, but by this time a minute or so had passed and the initial pain had subsided and now I just needed to get it out.

I have heard stories about how women have a higher pain tolerance. I have also heard that memories of pain are not entirely reliable under various circumstances. All that such an event had provided anecdotal evidence for is that nobody really knows anything universally applicable about the feeling of pain.

There are things like the sensation itself, the signals being sent to the brain, and trauma to tissues which starts the whole process off, but there's not much else that can be said universally. Even the same person, under different circumstances, yet experiencing the same trauma, will not feel the same.

What to take from this?

Avoid projecting your own response to pain in a particular circumstance onto someone else. Boring advice, but true nonetheless because the perception of pain is not objectively quantifiable. What is not painful to one person might be to another, or even the same person at different points in time, so when dealing with folks that are in pain of one kind or another, just know that the odds are against them reacting the way they are for the same reasons you would.

Doesn't mean they aren't, but being aware of the tendency to presume that other people act and think like us can result in awkward misunderstandings.

Hobbies are not meant to be jobs

One of my favorite hobbies is remote controlled cars. Competitively, these are driven around a track, and I've even set up rudimentary tracks on my property to drive them about in this manner. I am not racing against anyone else, nobody cares how many times I crash or have to walk over to the car to flip it back over, or even how well I painted and decorated the body shell.

Even if in a proverbial social vacuum, I love the hobby, from building a kit all the way through to driving on a track, or just in an empty baseball diamond.

It does not take much to motivate me to partake of that hobby in my free time.

With video games, another hobby I have enjoyed, it's not quite the same. Some of them I get bored of very quickly, because the input and reward mechanisms just don't work for me. The game may be well designed, but the process of hitting the button is unsatisfying and so I would have to rely on some big payoff, like an achievement or piece of loot, to keep me motivated during the parts of the game I didn't like.

What that really tells me is that I don't enjoy the game. If I am having to bank on a big dopamine hit sometime in the future to justify a boring monotony now, then more likely than not I should just quit playing altogether.

While I have that perception and modus operandi, it is not too difficult to identify when other people don't.

Video games are easy because folks will talk about "growing tired" of a game, or it not "being rewarding". What has happened is that they've burned out their pleasure centers from overexposure and now they can't feel anything doing what used to be enjoyable.

In R/C cars, that would be like not even wanting to charge the batteries, or weed the track, even once the weather is nice. Nothing has objectively changed about the hobby, but the perception of it on the part of the individual has, and so what needs to change is the individual, not the hobby.

Sometimes people get involved in a hobby due to social opportunism, something is useful because of the social opportunities that such a hobby affords. When that social leverage disappears, though, the interest in the hobby also disappears, except that now an individual is likely both monetarily and emotionally invested in the activity. The monetary connection is easy to understand, but the emotional one is not that much more complicated.

In short, when a person practices an activity, their body and mind adapt to perform that activity "better". Weight lifting is a good example of this, in that repeatedly lifting heavy weights will cause the body to adapt to a new "baseline" expectation, and then the lifter increases the weight to continue increasing the baseline expectation. Such adaptation costs the person to commit to, and so regardless of why they are committing, their actions have consequences.

In hobbies the adaptation is to the tasks that play a role in participating in that hobby. Building a model, reading a book, fly fishing, whatever the motivation for participating, there will be adaptation to that hobby, much like how to spend money on one thing, you have the opportunity cost of whatever else you could have purchased.

So when the motivations change, what happens to that adaptation? Well, nothing, because the motivation was only thematically related to the adaptation, and now you have a person who is good at doing something they don't find intrinsically rewarding. If there isn't an intrinsic reward, then they'll demand an extrinsic one so that the adaptations and investments they have made do not go to waste.

But that's not out of a love for the hobby or pastime at all, despite the superficial appearance of deep devotion and involvement, it's a way for someone to feel better about the time they had spent doing something by requiring the tasks they're doing to reward them beyond having the ability to do the task, and that's when a hobby becomes a job.

Jobs are frequently based around what is needed of us, not what we'd prefer to do, and there is an extrinsic reward that we are offered, through the paycheck, to help in motivating us to overlook misery and discontent because of the reward that comes afterwards.

We all need jobs to help pay bills, but we also need a break from what we're required to do to enjoy doing something we want to do. There needs to be a balance, and that balance isn't found by making the hobbies one participates in more rewarding, but in finding activities that one intrinsically enjoys, and spend some time on those, leaving the hobbies alone.

Not only will this help the individual grow in a healthy fashion and find better balance, but it will also ensure that hobbies are being shaped and guided by those who genuinely enjoy them, instead of being laden with responsibilities that the hobby was never meant to involve.

It is the action that counts

There is a phrase that many will have heard in their lives at one point or another: it's the thought that counts.

Often stated when actions have proven to be ill-advised or ignorant, the phrase is an attempt to try and recover face for the person who made a mistake because they projected their own desires and motivations onto someone else, and acted in a foolish manner because of it. Yet despite people understanding what is trying to be said, we know it to be fake and meaningless at a practical level.

It doesn't matter if one thought they were driving the speed limit, if they weren't, they weren't.

It doesn't matter if one thought their gift was well thought out, if it wasn't, it wasn't.

Thoughts aren't what matters, actions are. What we do outside of our own head is what people can actually interact with, observe, or react to. Our intentions do not change the nature of what we have done, and that is captured in a related: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I recently learned that an alternative phrasing is: Hell is full of good meanings, Heaven is full of good works. Looking back a couple of days at Genesis 3, the fall of Eve, she thought she was doing a good thing when eating of the fruit, her intentions were not to do evil, but that didn't change whether that was really the case or not.

A Venn diagram "shows all possible logical relations between a finite collection of different sets".

Consider the following:

What matters is not thoughts without actions. Even actions without thoughts can by chance be worthwhile, but are still largely irrelevant. It's where the two overlap that really matters, and where the "work" needs to be done with an individual who is trying to be more than they just think they are. Thoughts must bring action, and action should be the result of thoughts, and if one is struggling in either arena, or in connecting the two, that's one of three places to look and start making changes, regardless of personality type, personal history, or zodiac sign.

Of course, such a technical reduction is more like an automotive repair manual, and looking at the sales of self-help books versus repair manuals, it's easy to see why one would seek to complicate things quite a lot more if seeking to make a business of helping people help themselves.

Reality vs Fantasy

If you want to understand the current frustrations with the lore behind World of Warcraft, take a trip down memory lane to when you were a child and played pretend with other children. Often times, such games had a "good" guy and a "bad" guy, acts of heroism and evil to add dramatic tension, and a resolution where the "bad" guy loses and the hero "good" guy is triumphant.

Among groups of children where there was some semblance of parity, who played the "good" guy and "bad" guy would change in the interest of social cohesion within a group. Ultimately the children are not actually "good" or "bad", they're just playing a game of pretend. One day a child plays the hero, the next the villain.

Except it didn't always work out like that with some children, who could not understand or entertain pretending to do something outside what they themselves would ever do. These were the types that evoked responses like, "but you always play the ______". What's happening is that such children do not want to play by the rules when they don't suit them, and when confronted, would rather that nobody played pretend at all then them being left out or excluded.

That childish behavior is the foundation of the Alliance in World of Warcraft. They are the "good guy" not because that's the role they're taking on for the sake of playing a game, but because they're literally the "good guy" in every sense, and can do no wrong. They are never the villain, they are never the aggressor, but they are always the victims of barbarism aimed at them by the Horde, who they have tried to forgive and rehabilitate time and time again, repaid only with unveiled aggression.

Growing up, this would be like someone refusing to every play the Axis in Axis and Allies, because literally Hitler.

Or in Counter Strike, always quitting whenever the player was placed on the "terrorist" team.

What is "fair" is that nobody is required to pretend that they're the "good" or "bad" guy all the time, just to alleviate the existential conflict that other immature people experience because they can't accept that it's "just a game".

What makes this worse is that, while the Horde are by no means "good" guys, the main conflict between them and the Alliance is one of sustaining their existing identity, which is different from the members of the Alliance. Most of the Horde races are the traditional underdog types, downtrodden and short on luck, in a tough place circumstantially and just trying to survive. The Alliance embodies the colonial oppression that is so often criticized in the mainstream media and historical accounts, and yet the Alliance merely sees it as "civilizing savages".

It's about this time that it's worth stating that the people in charge of the lore are a diverse team, headed up by a woman, so any attempt to malign such an arrangement of the story to suit some "white supremacist" position falls entirely flat on its face, which is genuinely surprising to some people given that the leader of the Alliance is a blonde-haired blue-eyed Brad Pitt lookalike who "just wants to have peace".

The Horde, with its acts of aggression, are frequently painted as being evil, because who doesn't want peace? Evil bad guys don't want peace, that's who!

So the Horde is then put in the place of the child who, wanting to still play the game of pretend instead of playing nothing at all, resigns to yet again be the villain that the knight in shining armor vanquishes before securing the love and affection of the fair maiden. Their reluctance is reinforced by the attitude of the other child, acting as if their pretend moral superiority meant anything at all outside the game of pretend.

This is the heart of the frustration with the story, because with the acts of hostility from the Horde increasing dramatically, people who play Alliance characters are frequently expressing their hatred for fictional characters of the opposing faction with such passion and fervor that is typically reserved for actual mortal enemies. They demand justice be served to their liking, because they are "good", and if they don't get what they want, then they're going to ruin the game for everyone.

The vitriol and hatred expressed, over a game, a game, is genuinely a sight to behold.

What's really disturbing about it though is that it's clearly not just a game to those people, and those same people who can't tell reality from fiction can vote.