Simple Sadness ~ Why Readers Appreciate a Simply Sad Tale

      I've always wanted to write a story about a young woman who had a late night dinner with Christ. A simple tale about child love and adult regret. But time has impaired me, so I intend to give it away as an example to a greater truth. Who knows, one day another may finish it for me.

       The tale goes like this. A long time ago when America was younger, a time as C.S. Lewis described as having the most mouth watering candy around. A time where everything was a bit more beautiful because everything was a bit more central. A time Prayer was still in school and the farm-houses were still found in the rolling grasslands, but still a time not entirely worth describing because it would leave the reader too depressed to finish the story.

       In this most common setting we find an even more common situation - a most unpleasant woman. She wore dresses that were too small and shoes that were too big. Her skin was too pale, even for distress, and her eyes wore a teary shroud. But everyone knew her for her golden hair. This was perhaps the only bright and most decent thing about her.

      She would spend her days having tea with her self and spend nights cutting the memories from her arms. She loved her parents, and her love was killing her.

       The night came where she slipped a note beneath her aunt's and uncle's door, swept down the stairs, out across the lawn, to sit at a table and wish the moon and the stars farewell. Smiling to herself, she knew she would seem them again. The table was prepped, the knife glinted in her hand. But death has a way to give a last word.

      She was startled by the sound of crunching leaves. And before I describe anything more, I must say the conversation that passed between them is the only privacy allowed to my story. However, there is something I would like to share. Just before I drew the curtains on this shadowy tale, something was said. Something simple.

      He saw here wrists. Each furrow strummed to the harmony of sorrow and pain. Each rivet burrowed to the cries of the heart.

       "I just want it to stop." her eyes beginning to swell, " just for it to stop."

       And the man reached forward, laying out both of his arms, "So do I." She saw the holes and began to cry."

      Writing is a delicate matter. If you stress sadness, you only stress the readers. The truth is sad enough, there's no reason to tell anyone why it's sad.

Time, and again...

 "The greatest teacher of economics is Time."


     There are two are two images that come to mind when I think of time. First, a place. There is always a place in time. And too often people try to take it with them. Perhaps it was a moment with a child at a playground or a coversation with a friend over the phone. But when they take it, to relive again, they forget what made it beautiful is that it happend then and not now. What made it unforgettable was that it wasn't always there. And perhaps the greatest beauty is found in pain because it shows one cared. And the Second, a saturation. Time will cease to exist, but our memories will continue. Life is a gift of God, a constant revelation of His beauty and His creation. And when we remember these two things, I believe we begin to understand the Apostle Paul when he said, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain."

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;  A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

                                                                                    ~ King Solomon, Ecclesiastæs

Because I could not stop for Death,

He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.

We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
And I had put away
My labour, and my leisure too,
For his civility.

We passed the school where children played,
Their lessons scarcely done;
We passed the fields of gazing grain,
We passed the setting sun.

We paused before a house that seemed
A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible,
The cornice but a mound.

Since then 'tis centuries; but each
Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads
Were toward eternity.
 

                            ~ Emily Dickinson, Because I could not stop for Death

Prince Charming ~ A Fairy Tale

A man once proclaimed Prince Charming doesn't exist. In the act of tearing down the exotic hedonist temple, he tried to do what no man has ever done - not even Prince Charming - to salvage the man without the soul. For it never once occured that there was such a thing as Prince Charming not because he failed to exist, but that he existed so often and so wonderfully it was inevitable. What I mean to say is this: the greatest attack on human virtue has come by the abolishment of Prince Charming and the desolation of Sleeping Beauty.

At the root of a problem there is always a conundrum of storytelling too quickly disimissed. In the story of Prince Charming we find a man facing a dragon that at every twist and turn is ready to consume his flesh and strip his bones. We find a man who cannot take, but must over-come. And in the darkest hour his triumph comes from an otherworldly commitment, a sprinkle of magic we're still puzzling our puzzler to understand. Prince Charming isn't charming because he's perfect, he's perfect because he is a prince and is still charming.

However, in the destruction of our consumate temple we have lost our prize, the pinnicle of our resolution: an unfeigned woman. Our humble beginnings brings us to humble endings. In the morning twilight we find a woman. Her beauty is unbudded, her virtue is unfelt, but her life is yet complete. As the prince sits by her side, stretching out to awaken her for the first time, he can only understand that while she is yet asleep her soul is the most wonderful creature he has ever known, and when she awakes her spirit will be forevermore.

But at the heart of every fairy tale is the paradox that ruined us all - That while we were yet sinners, Christ died. A commitment was fullfilled by otherworldly powers, sprinkled by magic that has puzzled our puzzler. And as the bride of Christ we wait, unfeigned, before the sacrifice of Christ. But perhaps the greatest tale we have ever told was Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty. While we wait, we hope. And while we hope, we remember that everything worth keeping was never some thing but always virtue.

A Late Night Journal Post ~ Aug. 26th 1:34am

Several nights ago, I was sitting at my desk wondering what my life would become. It was quiet sad because life's greatest questions shouldn't come after ever other possible endeavor: I had watched all my favourite YouTube clips (which I must admit are few), my books didn't quiet hit the spot (which is rare), and nobody was on facebook (By now, I knew something was wrong). My brother was asleep and, as for all I know, the only sounds were him sawing logs and a weird cat screaming outside my bedroom window. It was a lonely night as I fiddled my hands and stared at the ceiling.
 

But then, this crazy idea stepped down into my room. So crazy, there's no way I'm writing it down. I jumped out of my chair and began piecing bits together. It was so true, but so unspeakable. So real, but so bizarre. All at once it explained, but all at once it shrouded. That night, I fell asleep wondering if my life could become something new.
 

A few weeks later, a friend skyped me late at night. We had our typical introductory remarks – jokes and what not. But suddenly, the conversation became serious. He said he had a business plan for me. And as I leaned back into my chair, my friend said, “I have this crazy idea.”

It's weird how God works.

St. Aquinas ~ Cosmological Arguement in a Nutshell

The Cosomological Argument for the Existence of GodBy St. Aquinas, The Summa Theologica Pt.1, Q.2, Art. 2-3

Trailing behind the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument by St. Aquinas, the second of the Quinquae Viae, has been the most popular defense for the existence of God. By asserting the principles of natural theology, this 13^th century argument has retained its popularity because of its simple, but empirically assisted, proofs. In this essay I would like to analyze the three parts of St. Aquinas' argument – the axiom of causes, order of causes, and the finiteness of the universe – declaring their merits and then following the analysis with an argument of St. Aquinas' shortcoming provided by Dr. Plantinga. However, though this argument has bore the scrutiny of almost seven centuries, including Dr. Plantinga's, I believe that St. Aquinas' Cosmological Argument is sufficient in proving the necessary existence of God.

Aquinas begins by demonstrating a system of efficient causes with several definitions that would eventually exclude the idea of an infinite causal loop. The first definition is an axiom of observation: the nature of causation follow a specified order labeled as causes, efficient causes, effects, and ultimate effects. The Second definition, that is inferential from the first, is that if this order stands then causes cannot be the efficient cause of themselves because, as Aquinas argues, “then the cause would have to be prior to itself... this being impossible.” To demonstrate this, we could say that by pressing the gas peddle your car will begin to move – demonstrating the relationship between efficient causes and effects – but it would be preposterous to continue the argument and say that the gas peddle is also being pushed because the car is moving. Not only does the latter create a circular, or self-substantiating argument, it supposes that the car is moving prior to the gas peddle being push AND moving because the gas peddle is being push. This definition, of course, contradicts the idea of a causal loop simply because, as already demonstrated, a Causal loop fails to have a first, or originate, cause. Aquinas has another cut at this argument, but in a different way, that I will address next. But this is his definition of the order of causes, efficient causes, and effects.

The second part that Aquinas addresses, he responds to the idea of a infinite line of causation by providing a causal chain imperative. Similar to the previous argument, he brings up empirical evidence of interlocking causes, efficient causes, effects, and ultimate effects. But since this point is in addition to his previous argument, Aquinas makes his point a bit more complex. First he identifies with the mathematical challenge of actualizing “actual infinity”, as would be later falsified by Mathematical Set Theory, by stating that an actually infinite line has no beginning and no end. Thus, in simple translation, in a stream of infinite causation you must drop the idea of a first cause and an ultimate effect (the beginning and the end). As St. Aquinas explains, “But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no fist efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect...” What Aquinas is arguing is if you take away the first cause you must also take away the last effect, and if you take away both the first cause and ultimate effect then what evidence can you provide of having an intermediate cause? Are there any justifiable reasons to argue that the entire universe is held by only intermediate causes? I would agree with Aquinas when he says, “It's impossible.”

But this is where Aquinas ends his cosmological inquiry. He identifies an empirical order of efficient causes in the universe, he discredits an infinite causal loop, argues directly against any “actual” infinity arguments, and ends not with a solution but a defined void that necessitates God – something that must have been causeless, infinite, and the necessary first cause of the universe. Or, as St. Aquinas would say, “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Though Aquinas has been merited by the physical sciences, and his use of natural theology, is it still subjected to several severe shortcomings. These shortcomings were detailed by Dr. Alvin Plantinga in his book God and Other Minds. He dedicates the first part not only to demonstrate weaknesses of the cosmological argument, but, even though outside the scope of this essay, to weaknesses of Natural Theology as a whole. His arguments contend that the Cosmological Argument fails to determine where the termination of causes resides and that the Cosmological Argument fails to attributed “God” to a specific form of Theism.

Dr. Plantinga's proposal against St. Aquinas' first part of his argument, as details in paragraph two, entails questioning where the termination of causes resides. Now for a moment, one would expect a complex array of philosophical, meta-analogical, or theological truths that have been buried in multi-translated books. However, this isn't even remotely close to the truth. Dr. Plantinga simple points out that St. Aquinas makes too large of a jump from point one to point two. Just because objects end doesn't conclude at what point they end. And so his argument is that the universe could have had an infinite past and will ultimately end some time in the future.

His second argument against St. Aquinas' involves particularity of Deity. If given all the arguments of St. Aquinas, the order of causation, the fixed point of causal termination, and the finiteness of the universe, Dr. Plantinga argues that St. Aquinas made another “leap” from point to point. How is it that an infinite, causeless, or necessary first cause entail an animate, personal, or in any form, a rational God? The case being made by Dr. Plantinga against St. Aquinas is that there are two jumps being made that ultimately cannot be made, and that since St. Aquinas' argument stands or falls upon those two points, it remains that St. Aquinas' argument must fall.

In presenting St. Aquinas' Cosmological argument, I set out to briefly attend to the analysis of the three parts of his argument, to show why perhaps I would agree with such arguments, and to do so while providing the reader with an adequate view of short comings. Though it is unfair to contain St. Aquinas and Dr. Plantinga to a few short paragraphs, I would hope that there would be instilled a schemata for further investigation, a view that nothing is entirely sealed from further human inquiry – even if has survived for eight centuries.

Classes and Glasses

It's that time again. I have survived six weeks of philosophy and government classes, turned-in and received my first wave of assignments, and now I am left in my bedroom correcting them. Though the grades were exciting, somehow this doesn't feel like the life I sign-up for.

My Ethics professor is one of a kind, and I don't mean a corny poker-line, he is one of a kind. I have never seen a person continually go out of his way to embarrass a student and protract the tenant til the end of class. I am not saying the student was innocent, but such dedication must be duly noted. I remember him speaking on a principle of Aristotle and a student began to talk. After respectfully hearing him through, the professor asked, "I am sorry, but what did that have to do with what I'm saying?" the student replied, "nothing." There is hope for the community college, at least the student understood the sporadicity of his comment. But as time continues I have been given opportunities I would not have had. On several occasions I was the only one, or one of only a few, that stood against popular opinion; Arguing in defense that Sex Requires Commitment, that Morality requires Religion, and that Social Moral Relativity is untenable. In a way, I have seen how it often takes one voice to say, "no," for a whole society to say, "what?" and then give their full attention.

My Introduction to Philosophy Professor gives Philosophy it's mystique. If a fifty year old man can walk into class with pink jeans, equally pink shirt, gray hair that billows about his shoulders with every step and nod, and has reverted to pegging his students with candy for every question ask, one could only question his sanity. Has decades of teaching community college cracked his mind? As I often wonder at this, he flippantly throws practical remarks that only confuses and cracks the minds of his students. Though he is a philosopher of the people showing disgust concerning modern socio-trends, it's entertaining to see how every philosophical concept can be reduced to either sex, drugs, or alcohol - I guess it reflects the common currency of modern society.

Then there is my Introduction to American Government Professor, and she is no exception. I believe it is worth attending her class just to see what she will wear. Today her wardrobe featured high-heeled, open toe boots, blue jeans, a red and white square-print shirt (or skirt. It's one of those "too short to be a skirt and too long to be a shirt"), a black over sweatshirt, and, to top off the menagerie, a brown broad-brimmed hat that featured a feather from one side - and yes she wore it inside class. But somehow when she teaches it's enjoyable. Maybe it's the way she talks, like old friends sitting for a conversation. She enjoys every bit of it as a pass-time and often forgets that there are students listening.

Now the sun is setting and I am still at my computer correcting. Through the blinds I see the last rays of sunshine and see that rain is on its way. Life is exciting and wonderful and unpredictable, it isn't the life I signed up for - But for that I am thankful.

Men Can't Fly - Freewill and Predestination

"A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational." - St. Aquinas

Men can't fly. For some of you this news comes with a bit of unsavory repetition as from a college professor trying to re-illustrate another thing you “can't” do. For others it comes as a challenge, to stand up to that old-witted, somewhat balding professor and contradict his beliefs that mere words will eternally align your actions to his will. But I believe one idea never darted past your sight, an idea that may have slipped your rationality: “If men can't fly, then men can't do anything else.”

In the eternally polemical discourse on Christian Theology, free-will and predestination has come full tilt again. And it is here, in predestination's artifices to weaken the resolve of the free-will position, that the argument, “since man cannot fly, it only follows that man does not have complete free-will” has been fashioned. And it is here that I believe any systematic approach to test this claim will falter at the presuppositional level.

As with all claims, they are packaged with presuppositions and I believe it is necessary to expand on this point. If I claim, “Bob is at Save-Mart” I am presupposing that “Bob is not at Bel-Air” or, in fact, Bob is at no other place but Save-Mart because man is limited to one place at one time. We could further modify the statement to be more specific, “Bob is at the Save-Mart off of 1234 Main Street and 0987 Central Avenue.” With only one Save-Mart being on the corner of Main St. and Central Ave, we know exactly where Bob is and know exactly where Bob is not (ie. At anywhere else in general or at any other Save-Mart in particular). When predestination claims, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will,” we have to do the same - Ask what the claim's presupposes and test if the answer follows.

So, what is the presuppositions to the claim, “If men can't fly, then it follows that men can't have complete free-will?” Theoretically, there are limitless presuppositions to any claim, however, there is one that I would have us concern our attention with. The presupposition of this claim is “Man cannot do something contrary to his nature.” In other words, this predestination claim is an inferential statement that draws from the intrinsic limitations of mankind through their “created nature.” Meaning, mankind, by nature, could never will himself to fly. This is a clear example of mankind's physical limitations, but does this statement concern itself with the nonphysical virtue we call will? Does this statement create a dispute about how free man's will is, or does it simply verify a well known fact, “that man can't fly?”

The only exception I know to this presupposition – that the limits of nature creates limits of free-will – is God Himself. So the answer to this dilemma inextricably resides in another question. Do all things that are limited in their nature have limited-Freewill? Depending on your theological and philosophical stand-point, most agree that God cannot act against the laws of logic (ie. Creating a square triangle) or act against His own nature of perfections and virtues (i.e. He cannot be an unjust judge). Thus the case is made that there is a contradiction in predestination's claim. If God has free-will yet is constrained by His nature, then how is it that mankind has limited free-will because he is constrained by his nature?

To address this contradiction, we are left with two horns. The first horn would say, “it follows that mankind, just as God, has limited free-will because both are limited by their nature” This horn nullifies the entire argument of free-will because it simply denies the existence of free-will at all levels. If accepted, this claim would confer a “limited free-will” upon God through inference, “that all things which are limited in their nature must have limited-Freewill.”

But I believe another idea exists. Perhaps, it would be best to acknowledge the theory that all things have limits and restrictions because of definition. That infinity could not be anything else than what it is, that perhaps God always was, always is, and always will be because God was never not, and perhaps when God said, “I am who I am” that it meant a bit more than a mystically veiled quote. The other horn is complete free-will in our decisions, and restrictions are no more inherent in mankind than they are in God. That man is supplied in creation, through the rationality of the mind and conviction of the soul, the ability to accept God for who He is and the sacrifice of His son, or to reject those claims and confer the consequences of one's own actions. To me, “it follows that mankind, created in the image or likeness of God, would have the same category of free-will. A free-will limited by their nature, but complete in their ability to choose between a moral good and a moral evil.”

Any claim can be tested, but not all claims endure the suffering. Predestination and the claim “all men cannot fly, thus man has only limited free-will,” are one of those statements that cannot endure. The first refutation is to take the claim to its utmost ramification – that all things limited have limited free-will. This cannot be the answer because it creates a God that is subjected, or lower than, His own being, creating a variation of euthyphro's dilemma. Thus it is in the latter that the answer is found. That God, creating man in His own image, created mankind with the same responsibility of action. For he who does, is he who receives.

Ron Paul and Abortion

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul
[My Response to above Source follows below:]

A couple of weeks ago I was debating a friend about Ron Paul. He turned around and said, "I would never vote for Ron Paul because he wants to legalize heroine." His response is very similar to this article because it demonstrates a general lack of knowledge about our government and its operations. As I would be willing to explain Ron Paul's position on Abortion and why this article is wrong in its presuppositions, I must first explain two points: the structure of the United States government and the difference between form and content.

Form and content is a bit more philosophical than I enjoy explaining throught text, but it will demonstrate the severity of what this article is propounding. Picture a blue box filled with teddy bears. You continue to pack these boxes into a truck where you will later take these teddy bears to some children at their homes. But here is the catch. The blue boxes that you use to fill with teddy bears are the same boxes that other people are allowed to use but can fill them with anything they desire - as long as it fits in the box. One day, as you are placing a box of teddy bears into the back of your truck, to your dismay, you find hundreds of other blue boxes but they are filled with gasoline, weapons, fishing rods, and garden hoses. You see the problem. What are the children going to do with all this other stuff? The once child friendly blue boxes filled with teady bears are now the same blue boxes filled with harmfull or useless items.

Now, knowing this "catch" and it's outcome - that anyone can use your boxes and fill them with whatever they can fit into them - you know what you need to do: design a box that fits as tightly around the teddy bear as possible; Only allowing enough room for a teddy bear to fit inside. This, in short, is what every political debate is about - jamming a law into a box that doesn't rightly fit.

Next is our governmental structure. The constitution is our box (our form) that we are able to stuff our government (contents) in, and whatever doesn't fit inside this box should be removed. But to understand why it should be removed, even if a policy has its solidarity in christian principles, could only be explained by the natural universalism of our government. As with our teddy bear boxes being filled with harmful or useless obejcts, we must be proactive in questioning the box for our govnernment. We ask, "How do we operate a government with religious freedom, founded on Christian principles, while protecting citizens from both a minority(tyranny of the powerful) and a majority (tyranny of the populace)?" The proposed answer was the constitution and its proposed legislative process.

With this information, we can address the issue of banning abortion at the Federal Level. The contents of this proposition is agreeable - we want abortion banned. But what is harrowing is the form, or the box, by which it comes. The dissappointments of this box, or form, by which it must be passed are threefold. First, it would give the government another "unnamed power." The Federal Government, constitutionally, is only allowed to prosecute for three crimes: treason, crimes on the high sea, and counterfitting. The reason the U.S. Federal government was restricted leads me to my second point: the constitution was created to allow the least ability for a U.S. Citizen to appear before the powers of our nation to defend for his crime. Instead, the constitution promotes state-side prosecution and that a U.S. citizen should stand before a "jury of peers" for defense. Passing a bill against abortion only provides another avenue, and another reason, for the Federal Government to propound the idea that they are "allowed" to prosecute individual U.S. Citizens for committed crimes. And my third point is that it provides a path for the Federal Government to pass bills that would take the same form as this bill (ie. A bill that can be passed as long has it had sufficient moral imperitive, regardless of human right or "correctness".). This is why Ron Paul has continued to be against a Federal Law for or against abortion - it violates our constitutional form. Now we may ask, "what does he stand for?"

This is where the article had it all wrong, they say he is pro-choice. But let me ask you this, is a canidate that is for repealing Roe v. Wade and pulling all Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood a pro-choice canidate? Can someone be pro-choice yet strive to repeal abortion's single most powerful legal document and strive for pulling their single greatest funding source? I would say not. But again, the question still has not been answered. What does Ron Paul stand for?

Ron Paul stands for upholding both the United States Government process and for upholding the form and content. He believes that the best option is for the states to make the decision. And that decision does have Federal Impact. How? Because states are the only entity in the U.S. Constitution that is allowed to amend the constitution without Federal approval, and the only entity that is currently allowed to prosecute such crime. What he believes is that the unnamed power of birth regulation should be give to the "peers of those who would be punished" and not given to those who represent those people. He believes that those closest to the family should have the power to regulate what goes on in the family.

At this point I will take the time to answer specific questions that were posed in the article.

1) States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder.

Honestly? Yes, states can decriminalize murder, but more specifically they can decriminalize or criminalize abortion. When Benjamin Franklin left liberty hall a woman approached and asked, "Is it a republic?" he replied very wittingly, "If you can keep it." In those five words he summed up the entire power given to those who under the constitution. That A) States can revise the constitution at will and B) that a jury can overturn any law in court.[Please Note - there is a philosophical assumption by what the writer means by "murder." By definition there is no such thing as "permissible murder"]

2) Human Rights Supersede States' Rights; "then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty."

The problem is that the passage of an anti-abortion act would create the ability to pass further laws based on a "human rights" condition. Would you consider the banning of certain foods in the name of "human health" considered a good or bad thing? There are legitamate arguments for both sides. How about banning the number of fast food resturants because people can't handle themselves? There are good arguments for both sides. How about banning certain religions or fire arms in the name of saving lives? There are historical arguements for both sides. Ultimately, if you pass a bill as a "human rights trumps all rights" card you have paved a golden path to a plethora of abuses and unjust laws by both the minorty and the majority.