Increa Technology Blog

Vagueness keeps you returning to God. If God wants you to keep coming to him, would he lay out a set of black and white rules and set you free to go execute them all? Would you do this with your child when she was 8 and then say good bye? No. You want them to return to you and trust you and learn from you even if they know all of today’s rules. Continued prayer. Continued searching. Continued study at His feet, asking for guidance. Continued consult with a community of believers.

In his blog, Phil Gons was puzzled about the following quote from N.T. Wright. (Wikipedia).

“I believe firmly and passionately in scripture, and even more firmly and passionately in Jesus himself.”

I respond only to this quote, not a full understanding of Wright’s theology. I would agree with what Wright wrote because Jesus himself basically advocates exactly this to scripture-followers of his time. Let me explain.

I am coming to believe that Christian life is a more rich and textured fabric than narrow readings of the Bible allow. I accept what Jesus spoke about breaking the Sabbath and calling himself God in John 15:16-40. I think the story speaks to this issue.

Why do fundamental Christians insist on obeying the Scripture? It shouldn’t be about “getting to heaven” or “being saved”. It’s shouldn’t even be about being right and Holy, per se. Those are all pieces of the journey to the destination, or something you find at the destination. But the destination of the journey – the fundamental reason to do this thing called obeying God (therefore the Scriptures) – is to Honor the Father.

Jesus gave this answer about why His behavior was not acceptable to the people of his day who staked their lives on conservative readings of their Holy Word. In John 5:23, he says the intent of the Father is “..that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”

In the same conversation, Jesus prioritizes himself, words of a great prophet, and words of the Scriptures, starting in verse 36. He puts himself at the highest priority of all three. “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Scriptures don’t give life. Jesus does.

I note that an alternative reading of the original Hebrew could lead one to translate “Diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (In other words, an imperative command to action that will take them toward eternal life.) I think it’s more likely Jesus meant to parallel the previous sentence which identifies their error. The first translation is also more consistent with Jesus next sentence which basically says, “Even though you are reading the Scripture, you refuse to accept their lead.”

Jesus wraps up the discussion again pointing out that the audience’s claim to Scriptural authority is undermined by the precise fact that they don’t believe (and act on) what it says. Remember that Scripture the audience had at the time was the books of Moses. Jesus said in verse 45 and following, “Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

If you deny Scripture, you deny Christ because you have no pointer to him. This much a narrow reader of the Scripture agrees with. Yet there is an additional step. If you pick up a lecture pointer and fail to use it to understand the content of the slide show on the screen, your pointer is useless. I see too many Christians waiving pointers around doing an excellent laser light show. Many have forgotten the content of the presentation.

Perhaps a better analogy is a long-barrel rifle. The rifle barrel can be the Scripture, which sets a believing Christian toward an answer (the bullet). Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it meets the currents, eddies, and turbulence of air (life) that would deviate it from its path to the target. Jesus is the escort through those twists and turns of life. It would be nice if the end of every barrel (God’s Word) could be placed directly against each target and the trigger pulled. It sure would be easier to hit targets. That’s not what life is about because that’s not what God has chosen life should be about. He is interested in a relationship and continued upholding and obedience – your “flight path” (you’re the bullet in my analogy) – as you move in life.

More important is the life lived in obedience to Christ’s ways, than the Scripture itself. Hence, it makes total sense that someone would write, “I believe firmly and passionately in scripture, and even more firmly and passionately in Jesus himself.”

Any identification you have, or computer record about you is not about who you are. Rather it is about who you have been. It proves what your history is: law abiding citizen, good investor, parent who dropped off child, enrolled college student. Whatever. You got the ID to prove what you were at some point in time, and by flashing the ID you prove you are connected to that history. If you want to know more about this idea, you can search the Increa Technology Blog for the word “identity” or read a prior post.

Someone stealing your identity doesn’t care who you are. What they are after is who you have been. That person with good credit. Or that person with a certain demographic. Or that person with insurance privileges. Or that person who has already accumulated money in the bank worth taking. The record of your past transactions is what gives you everything from a credit score to an eBay bid history.

Taking your history then, is, by definition, identity theft.

I was aghast recently to learn of a court-ordered identity theft. What I mean is a sitting judge ordered an entire financial history to be transfered from one person to the other. A clarification was asked in court, and the judge specifically said the account, with all it’s history, was to be transfered. Not just the dollar amount. The entire identity and history.

Traditionally, these transfers have always been done by creating a new account and transferring the balance in dollars or stock shares, or whatever. This is different. The name and social security number on the account are simply replaced.

If you work in the Internet commerce world, you can understand this is as if a judge ordered your entire eBay bid history, feedback history, and trust-factor be given to someone else. It would also include your linked Paypal account, and every transaction there. In addition to your internet user names and passwords. A history that took years of time and dollars to build instantly becomes the history and character and identity of someone else.

I have never heard of such a thing before. Is this legal? I know judges can order asset transfers to settle court cases. But never before did I know a judge can order your financial history to be switched over and now belong to another person.

The new owner, of course, has full access to account assets. This is normally what a judgment or settlement is meant to include. In a world of internet identities, controlled by the order of judges who do not understand the new financial age, a judge can unknowingly or knowingly do much more. Specifically, by transferring the account itself rather than the value in the account,

• it is as if the new owner is you, and can interact with any merchantas you through the pre-approved bank account number and username.
• the new person has full access and knowledge of every financial transaction you ever did with the account. The person has full access to your account history. Prior business dealings, prior friends, prior purchase records. Everything. When they pull their account history, it is what used to be your history. Isn’t there some privacy act law against this?
• imagine that the bank account is linked to other assets, and now the new owner has full capability to empty your other linked accounts because they have full capability to simulate YOU as an internet user. The original bank won’t un-link the secondary account upon your request because you no longer own the account! The linked bank won’t prevent the transfer because it is a “pre-approved merchant ACH” transfer, which can only be stopped by the requester.

If there is anything about this idea you think this is wrong, and you have ideas to mitigate the effect or stop such happenings, please contact me. If there is any way to legally reverse such a court order or hold appropriate parties responsible because of the identity theft involved, I would like to know how to do it.

The Gardasil vaccine protects against two types of hyman papilloma viruses, which cause cervical cancer.  These two strains of virus can be transfered only by sexual intercourse.

Cited on Page A-2 of the March 3rd, 2008 Holland Sentinel paper, “We started in the 1800s with just one vaccine - smallpox.  In 1982 it was 23 does of seven vaccines and today it’s 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.”

(copyright Peter Mayer, I believe)

We have been weighed down by sadness like a stone.
We have yearned, we have yearned.
We have sometimes felt so utterly alone — while we turn, while we turn.
We’ve been stricken by the wonder of it all — stricken down; stricken down.
We have sometimes felt so faint we want to fall — overcome, but all along

I’d say this year in flight together has been fun;
What say we make one more circle around the sun?

We have raised our fists in anger and we tried to work it out, work it out.
That we need each other we cannot deny — is no doubt, is no doubt.
Let us weave another dream in outer space while we’re turning, while we’re turning.
On this planet home that holds our human race still are learning all along.

Say this year in flight together has been fun;
What say we make one more circle around the sun?

Say this year in flight together has been a good good one.
What say we make one more circle, one more circle, one more circle around the sun?

Around the sun…

Corrections below, using http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/godisari.htm as the starting point.

ARTIST: Peter Mayer
TITLE: God Is a River
Lyrics and Chords

[ Amadd9 =  ; A7/C# =  ]

[Capo 2]

Intro: / Amadd9 Em7 C Em7 / / 

In the ever-shifting waters of the river of this life
I was swimming, seeking comfort; I was wrestling waves to find
A boulder I could cling to, a stone to hold me fast
Where I let the fretful water of this river ’round me pass

/ Amadd9 Em7 C Em7 / / / Amadd9 Em7 C A7/C# / Bm G Em7 AAsus4 A / 

And so I found an anchor, a blessed resting place
A trusty rock I called my savior, for there I would be safe
From the river and its dangers, and I proclaimed my rock divine
And I prayed to it “protect me” and the rock replied

… / Bm G Em7 A7 - - /

{Refrain}
God is a river, not just a stone
God is a wild, raging rapids
And a slow, meandering flow
God is a deep and narrow passage
A peaceful, sandy shore
God is a river, swimmer
So let go

/ D - A7 - / A7sus4 A7 / D - / G - / D Bm / G A7 A7sus4A7 / Intro / 

Still I clung to my rock tightly with conviction in my arms
Never looking at the stream to keep my mind from thoughts of harm
But the river kept on coming, kept on tugging at my legs
Till at last my fingers faltered, and I was swept away

So I’m going with the flow now, these relentless twists and bends
Acclimating to the motion, and a sense of being led
And this river’s like my body now, it carries me along
Through the ever-changing scenes and by the rocks that sing their song

{Refrain}

… / G A7 / Bm - /

God is the river, swimmer
So let go

/ G A7 A7sus4A7 / Intro /

Someone asked me the other day, “What do you want?” And my brain locked up, unable to answer. I realized that when I find myself trying to verbalize want of something, I come up woefully short. I’ve decided that is because I’m a finite creature stuck in a world of time, with a language that is woefully incomplete. I’m struggling (sorry, Jessica) to develop a language set and habits of speaking that implicitly respect time. I’d like to petition the residents of Dictionopolis to christen two new verbs “wantnow” and “wanthen”.

I’ve been fascinated by linguistics because consideration of other languages makes me aware of shortcomings of English, my native tongue. I know a tiny bit about Hebrew, with its rich nouns. Greek and its pervasive verb tenses. Chinese, with a word for every nuance, and German with its run-on nouns. One of the biggest omissions I find in languages is a complete concept of time. The concept of time has always been external to the syntax and structure. It lives as a language external - something the language can be used to speak about, but I don’t know of any structure that embeds language internally to its frame.

For you Computer Science majors, this internal/external thing is like Object Oriented Programming. Back in 1986, before there was such a thing, I used Pascal to implement an object model. It was explicit and crude and took pages of code. Later, we received new languages that had the concept and infrastructure built in the syntax. They’re smooth and implicit and we gained a vocabulary of “methods” and “instances” and “objects”. What was done externally became internal to the compiler.

Those of you who have dealt with encryption, government secrets, and intelligence gathering, you might recognize the concept of “message internals” and “message externals.” Without even reading the message, a message external already says something. Check the section titled “Support to the Pacific Fleet” in this analysis of Pearl Harbor events, any description of COMINT.

Saying nothing, you communicate a lot with message externals. Imagine you’re married, two kids, and they get into a fight. In a stern voice, you say, “Johnny, come here Dad needs to speak to you.” In context, and simply because the message exists, it already communicates something. I’ll bet Johnny didn’t even need to hear the rest of the message internals. Some guy asking you out that you’d rather not spend time with? Say nothing and return no phone calls. I’ll bet your message externals will have an effect.

Balancing interpersonal message internals and externals, BTW, is another topic rich in Christianity and grace. In short, maybe all our message internals should be loving, even if our message externals have to interface to the world.

Developing an internal structure of time into my language is important because time is an unappreciated huge parameter of life itself. Time can kill or allow to live. It has social moral implications. It can redeem lost souls.

When thinking about issues of death, a line from Princess Bride comes to mind: “Good night Wesley. Sleep well. Very likely I’ll kill you in the morning.” Indeed, expecting death perpetually tomorrow gives one a presence and immediacy and vibrancy for today. In the movie “Castaway”, Tom Hanks survives with a horizon of hours. Each day, he wakes up to breath one more time, unable to even kill himself because of the expectations and dreams of what he cannot retrieve.

Time’s moral implications on a Christian college campus such as Hope will bear down on a majority of students before they graduate. When I was a college student, a friend freely engaged in sexual relations with a girl friend because, “We love each other so much it’s as if we’re already married.” But they weren’t - not yet. Time slowly levied its wedge into their lives, and as is often the case, what we think now about tomorrow never became today. They never were married and the outcome of what they had done had large moral and social fall-out.

Lastly, implicit into the redemption message of God are forbearance and patience with time that allow each person’s soul time to respond and reply to the witnesses set before them. Romans 2:4 admonishes that human impatience to judge shows “contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance.”

THEREFORE, here are some questions to ask yourself. If you don’t intentionally do this, the limits of the English language will allow you to continue in blind terpitude. Do better for yourself. Actively think about “wantnow” and “wanthen” verbs whenever you use the word “want”.

• “I want an iPod” - When? Newer models will be out tomorrow. Internet radio sites are not enough? If you follow your wantnow desires, what are you giving up later that can’t spend the money on when you wanthen something else?
• “Do you want to supersize that?” - Uh, yea, the fries taste great. I also want to take care of the body God’s given me. Wantnow says yes. Wanthen says no.
• “I want to redeem a relationship with my family.” - There is a want that manifests itself at the setting sun, pining for what cannot be. There is also a want that drives an immediate planned act, with hope and expectation for what is not yet seen. If you wantnow to have a good relationship, maybe you’ll do something. If you wanthen, maybe you’ll quietly enjoy a few more sunsets first.
• “I want to sleep with my new boyfriend.” - Wantnow is pretty vivid, isn’t it? If you make a choice to proceed, what do you wanthen?
• “I want to get a good grade.” - I wantnow to hang out with friends and watch a movie. If you wanthen good grades, can you pull motivation from that future time into today?

I have been paralyzed into indecision too often when confronted with questions of “What do I want?” Maybe that’s because the English language didn’t give me enough words to ask the right questions. I’m experimenting with my new verbs wantnow and wantthen. Let me know if they help you!

Written by contemporary playwright Steven Dietz, THE NINA VARIATIONS arose from Dietz’s work on an adaptation of THE SEAGULL but his inability to let go of the final scene between Nina and Treplev. His play gives Nina and Treplev repeated opportunities to return to their last exchange and to express what Dietz calls “the fundamentals of life: love, loss, hope, regret, dreams, death.”

Love - wondering

Loss - not many, but large

Hope - always

Regret - pervasive

Dreams - continuous

Death - not much, yet