While researching NMap and some of Fyodor's articles on tools, I stumbled across an interesting little piece on nanotechnology. While the tagline seems to me a bit like futurists of the 50's thinking cars would fly a decade ago, the inherent risks are still there. The article, titled "I, NANOBOT", comes across more as a techno-goth piece mixing fantasy and the fringes of science. But, underneath the faux- motif lies a serious discussion not being mentioned in mainstream culture: assaults are being made on life at every atomic level. By atomic here I mean at the most fundamental, radical bases. Organic life, much of what we as humans, exist on and with relies on the carbon basis organic chemistry rests on. By trying to find ways to bypass this barrier nanotechologists are challenging the very physical nature of life as we know it.

The consequences of this are largely unforeseen and potentially devistating. Of course, this is a worst case scenario...doomsday highlight, but a realistic glance at where this nanotechnology might cause people to be aware of how science is potentially going to change existence. The author writes, "The fusion of nanotechnology and biotechnology, now called nanobiotechnology, will result in the complete elimination of the barrier between living and nonliving materials" This type of fusion is not the Borgian invasion we envsion via Captain Picard's strugle with the outer space cult of unity. It's not Will Smith takes on outer space with Harry Conick Jr. It's rather our bodies will betray us without us even realizing it because the barriers of defense will be breached at levels imperceptible to ordinary people.

In addition to this major power of the assault "invisible" technology has, even those who could perceive the attack would need an inhuman understanding of biology and all things related to deal with the invasion. Previously attacks on humankind have always been viral or organically based. Dealing with a species of biological intruder that does not play by normal rules suddenly throws traditional medicine out the window. You can't kill something if it doesn't live. So, how do you challenge and eliminate molecular and/or atomic level mechanisms without having to recreate medical and biological approach to well-being and human existence as we currently know it?

Old Testament books always contain so much mystery I read with them with somewhat roy tinted glasses. I never even for a moment pretend I get the full scope of what is being written. For one, I know I'm not a Biblical scholar, in terms of the culture, language, history, etc. On the other hand, I know God says so much we miss simply because we are human that I see it new so often I don't keep count anymore.

As a curiousity I noted two verses that stood out and made a little sense to me. For years I will get cases of tinitus that come out of nowhere, very strong buzzing in my ears. They usually start out really strong then the intensity of the noice dissipates over a few minutes. In Jeremiah 19:1-3, the prophet writes,

Thus says the LORD: "Go and get a potter's earthen flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests. And go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the Potsherd Gate; and proclaim there the words that I will tell you, and say, 'Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe on this place, that whoever hears of it, his ears will tingle.

The first time I read this I thought, what in the world is that. I figured it was a one off deal. Just something out there, like so much of the OT. Then, I later stumbled across 1 Samuel 3:11,

The LORD said to Samuel: "I am about to do something in Israel that will cause the ears of everyone who hears it to ring.

This time it seemed that the two times tingling in the ears is mentioned in the OT it specifically refers to the future fulfillment of prophecy. My first thought, a quiet marker to be considered over time, was that perhaps my own tingling ears were the perecption of prophecy being fulfilled. Some word was coming to pass in time. But, I just am listening and watching.

Tangential to the end of my last post the question, "What is the meaning of life?" has been a sort of intellectual joke. People who try to answer it are immediately dismissed as either lunatics or idiots. The first foolishly believe themselves capable of answering such a questions while the other answers out of limited knowledge and offers faulty advice. Despite having become a bit of a gag for philosophers and intellectuals, there lies a significant answer to this question, but it cannot be summed up in an aphoristic one-liner. Here's why...

While reading on the basic premise of truth a few years ago I stumbled across the theory of correspondence. While exploring this I felt that little tickle at the back of my brain say, "This is important". A few weeks later it clicked that meaning and signification are connected via the relationship of correspondence. At that moment, I made the connection to our party question. Meaning, that is, the basic focus of the question, rests on connectedness. In pure terms, meaning and the signification that communicates its truth or essence are bound, and only real, through a connection, one to the other.

In similar fashion, to generalize here, all meaning, connects a thing to that which is means something. Making this more real world, the meaning of life rests on the premise, the reality of connectedness to life. Only by being connected to life can it possess meaning. Thinking back to Camus Sisyphusian character, he had disconnected from life. The scene where he describes the kaleidoscopic series of events and how numb he was to the reality of those passing days reveals he was literally out of touch with the life that surrounded him.

So, refocusing on the question itself, the meaningfulness of life to anyone depends on one's connectedness with life. Many times people are disconnected as a result of anger, disappointment, boredom. You name the trauma and the coping mechanism can be found. Most "meaningless" lives are really the result of trauma and how the soul manages to survive. What unhealthy means were employed to recover from the assault of life that led them to the point where they are. Most time it is the scar that lies at the heart of the meaninglessness and at the heart of reconnection with reality. Healing and love are the ways to discover the meaning of life by addressing the woundedness of the soul, but the meaning itself is what each individual needs to be in vital relationship with their place in existence.

What I find more interesting than this observation about meaning and connectedness to life is the Christian response to this truth. As I mentioned the other day, most Christians living in materialistic society are just as trapped in the dynamic of coping with survival as are non-Christians. Disallusionment easily comes to Christians who understand and know the promise of Christ's call, but who fail to realize its effect in their own lives. But, to those Christians, I ask, being honest with themselves, have they done exactly what Christ commanded? Look at the Gospels and Acts. Christ gives very simple instructions. The challenge is actually applying those instructions to our own lives.

So, when Christians complain about a sense of meaninglessness in their lives I quietly wonder if they are truly living the life as Christ called us to live instead of the pre-packaged, neatly-labelled Christian life we can buy from the world market these days. Christian life is messy, hard, difficult, filled with pain, uncertainty and great humiliation. But, at the same time, it is beautiful, unimaginably simple, life-giving and the most gratifying experience knowable to a human being. It is only by willingly accepting and acting on this understanding that the Christian can being to connect with the life they have had placed in their spiritual DNA. Without a response to Christ on Christ's terms, meaningnless is more guaranteed for a Christian than for someone who has not been filled with the hope above all hopes.

Continuing the theme of intellectual attack and the anti-Christian approach from my last post, one of the major tricks used in arguments rests on the westernized tradition to believe that truth, as it is presented in argument, is all or nothing. You have to accept it or you are wrong. The particular approach goes back to the Greeks. We hear it in the two words either and or. Either a is true or b is true. The premise that follows it, both cannot be true, often goes unspoken. This is a major trick used in traditional argumentation.

For instance, when challenged about God's nature, Christians are often faced with the attrocities that have been done in his Name. After listing the lengthly assaults on God's loving nature, the antagonist then asks, or subtly asserts, "So how can God be a loving God an allow all these things to happen?" There are so many answers to this question that it would take books to even tru and summarize them. But, what's more important here is not how to respond to the question, but the question aims to pidgeonhole the Christian into a pre-calculated response.

By denying the horrible truth of these events the antagonist is given, through the answer, permission to attack the apologist's honesty with regards to history. They claim that denial of these facts indicates a willingness to deny other truths that portray God in a negative light and dismiss the apologist on those grounds. On the flip side of the coin defending God makes the Christian come across as a merciless, uncaring sympathizer. Either way, the result is discredidation.

Now, again, more important than trying to come up with the right answer, at least in the context here, is to point out that the expected responses take the form of an either/or scenario. Either you agree with me (that God has done horrible things and is therefore unloving) OR you disagree with me (that God has not done horrible things and dismiss yourself as being out of touch with reality). By going either route, you allow yourself to be led to the slaughter. It's only by not agreeing to the premise, that there are only two possible interpretations or answers to the question, that you can reply in a meaningfully Christian manner. This is turning the tables. You are playing the mind-game, but not on their terms. You are playing with the rules, but not within the rules. In most cases, only then can the Christian stand a chance against the intellectual.

Remember, proof is simply evdience of what is believed and accepted as true. The most powerful beliefs don't have to be accepted. You can hear an intellectuals beliefs in arguments, but you don't have accept (allow them to possess your approval) them as your own. Simply remember that argument dervives its source of power in the proof used to demonstrate it. By denying a proof (argument) demonstrates a certain premise, the proof stands meaningless in your life.

For a variety of reasons this was today's service was the first one I was able to attend in about a month. So, as God would have it, he gave me lots of little assignments to write out. Some are older, reminders as one might phrase it. Others, however, are new, more nuggets to consider. There are really not in any particular order, nor are they in any way complete. I just like to use the blog as a temporary holding place for my ideas until I get to refine and polish them into a more presentable fashion. So without further ado...

Freshman year

On one the few CD's I have with John Paul Jackson speaking, I remember him saying that he once read it takes 12 years for a prophet to be trained. I had calculated once upon a time that the first time I encountered Streams was late in 2004. So, starting the clock then, I have until 2017! Of course this is really just hypothetical musings that quietly pass through my mind. However, a few months ago I was praying about how long I would have to undergo some of my current training and character building exercises. I then had a moment where God pointed out some scripture to me. (There's a term I learned, ironically enough, from a New Age dictionary that describes when you open a book to the precise page you need. Something like fioritori...although I know that's really a philosophical phrase. It sounded like that.) In Daniel, shortly after Daniel and HMA are taken into train for three years then be released into the King's service. (See Daniel 1:5) It came across to me this morning as a my freshman assignment. Three years being 1/4th of 12. The first of four phases to train me up as I need to go. The irony is, it never is how you imagine it! And that is so true here.

Tithing by the numbers

While thinking of how my work week runs all over the map (anywhere from a slow 40 hours where time drags to a busy 90 hours) I noted that we are given one day to rest and give back to God a day of honor. Yet, what I noted there also was the fact that God took for himself 1/7th of the week for himself. When tithing, we are commanded to give one tenth. But, it seems that the numbers are significant here. 10 is a very human number (10 fingers, 10 toes, base 10 numerical system, etc). Not that Moses' recording of tithing as a 10th is human, but the idea that 10 is more human than 7 comes to mind. However, when considering that God requires 1/10th, he gave himself 1/7th in terms of the week. I think that, with 7 being a divine number, 1/7th seems a more fascinating ratio for tithing since it is giving to God as he took, not as he required.

Agree with the whole truth and nothing less, particularly 1/3rd

While recently reading an anti-Christian blog, I encountered a challenge that Christianity is ineffective intellectually (see post here). It attempted to assert that the only reason people convert to Chrisitianity is on emotional grounds by saying, "In fact, I would dare to say that there has not been one real conversion in history that can be entirely attributed to a simple, unemotional presentation of facts." First, I want to put facts to the matter, then, I want to touch on why this is faulty logic for testing the validity of Christianity on a more conceptual level.

The brilliant legal mind of William Law set to disprove Christianity on purely intellectual grounds only later to be converted to Christianity. Such a man would have undoubtedly taken every precaution to use logic as his tool of attack. Yet, in spite of his brilliance and extra caution to remain impartial, the power of the truth contained in Scripture humbled his mind and revealed not only that Law was incorrect but that he himself was to become what he set to destroy.

Another more recent example of a gifted mind set to destroy what it later was to succumb to was that of Josh McDowell. As a pre-law student McDowell took it upon himself to "write a book that would make an intellectual joke of Christianity." While building his case McDowell realized that he was unable to accomplish this. He admits, "I began to realize that I was being intellectually dishonest. My mind told me that the claims of Christ were indeed true." (xxv, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict)

In both cases there are clear examples where people set to disprove the power of Christianity using intellectual means and intellectual means alone. Yet, in both cases, this dry, purely intellectual approach was the downfall of each man. And there is clear reason why: God made each person on earth with a tri-partite soul. The mind, will and emotions work together to create the whole of inner man. When intellectuals attempt to paint Christians in a corner with the idea that only intellectual proof of God is valid...and Christians accept these terms...the enemy has already won. The boundaries of argument, under these terms, require people to put down two of three defense systems for the fight. Futhermore, intellectuals wouldn't do this unless they knew they already had a guaranteed victory since they assume themselves superior to most Christians from the start.

Yet, there is an interesting phenomenon scientists and intellectuals often fail to admit. Intellectual argument resting solely on the merit of intellectual proof ultimately requires the acceptance of such proof. Here is one major trick many Christians fall for: after an intellectual has outwitted them or simply overpowered them they then try to force the Christian to ascribe this victory to every aspect of their soul. It's a foot in the door tactic. Once they have an admitted win, they try to bind the soul in other areas of subjected truth.

Here is where Christians have to be careful. Rule 1: don't get into an intellectual argument with an intellectual. By doing so, you are already giving them authority. If they demonstrate power over you in this manner, they can, because you agreed to the terms, attempt to subject the soul to their authority. Many Christians, in their defeat, feel humiliated (emotional response) and have a will reaction (either give up or fight). If the fight is over and they have clear, undeniable intellectual authority, many Christians simply concede the point in their soul and relinquish control.

That point is the most precarious. At times, we have to engage in intellectual combat as a part of everyday existence, but we can escape after wrestling outselves free. However, if we have openly accepted the challenge (or even provoked it) the stakes are more serious. In any case, when the antagonist aims to extend intellectual authority over the soul by indirectly saying, "I have truth on intellectual grounds, therefore, I have authority over emotions and will", you have to simply declare that you do not agree. You still have power, even though you may not have won the argument, over your own soul. And, as a Christian, must submit yourself to Christ as the head of your life, not this person you are arguing with.

Agreement is the real power that comes through argumentation. By agreeing with what is said after an intellectual loss, the Christian falls victim to at least, what I feel, Paul warned about when he wrote, "that no one may decieve you by fine-sounding arguments." (Colossians 2:4) Furthermore, complete understanding, as Paul mentions in verse 2, does not compartmentalize the human experience into boxes of intellectual truth and all other experience. That premise is one of the most devious that intellectuals possess and most Christians are unaware of a need to remain alert.

I clearly have strong feelings about this, mainly because I have been around people who unwittingly stand up as authorities, yet who possess no real mantle of holding ultimate truth. As a Christian, one must not accept for anything less than ultimate truth. And that is the most common thing which happens, Christians, after being boxed into a corner, compromise without even realizing it, because of mental sleight-of-hand. Refuse to accept what is put before you, for there is truth beyond the compulsion to agree with what seems undeniable! That is where faith comes in and gives strength to the Spirit-filled mind. Agree with nothing if God does not present it as true.

While thumbing through some books on the shelf earlier this week my mind went to wheeling about postmodernism. One of the more interesting effects technology has had on postmodern generations, either of the Gen X or Gen Y populations, is the notion of relationships. Take television for instance. People have come to experience relationships not through their own lives but rather vicariously through the media. Marx made an interesting observation, though in a completely different aspect, that when seperated from the alienation from species being capitalism causes in materialistic cultures. Since we are well-along into the technologization of culture and the materialization of relationship, we are more in a position of retrospective consideration of Marx's insight. With television we relate to people through the medium of television. Most people these days are isolated from normal social interaction because of the requirements needed to survive in the materialistic world. To connect, or attempt to regain what is lost as a result of the alienation, people rely on media mechanisms in order to try and restore an innate sense of normalcy. Think about it. All across America, one of the most highly technological and materialistic societies, people have more emotional and mental interaction with the characters in television shows than the people in their own lives. It's as if the real life stories that occur, the struggle for survival and a sane exisistance are muted undercurrents of everyday life. This quiet subconscious battle between the real life people experience and the constant need to manage the stress of survival forms a quiet dynamic that marks one of today's major unspoken stresses. The anxiety strangles people and they hardly realize it because the coping mecahnism our generation formed requires most of their energy. The television dynamic of relationships connects with people in an unimagined way. Thousands, maybe even millions, of people get involved with the intimate relationships of imagined characters in a predictable fashion, daily, weekly...on some random basis. Yet,the real relationships with wives, husbands, children, family, coworkers and friends are strained, challenging dynamics with little gratification as culture promotes to signify the happiness we all seek. It's a weird dynamic and situation we live in, but we have to ask ourselves, are we supposed to try and live in this world where the power to connect is an artifice that affects the postmodern mind? The postmodern experience has been shaped by this particular issue in a way that we will not fully be able to fathom for probably at least another generation. Nonetheless, as Christians we try to mimic what the Apostles and first century Chruch goers lived. While doing that, how are we supposed to answer to the call to join in with imagined people media puts forth to mislead us? I guess kill the TV might not be such a bad slogan after all.