Sovereign Lord,
The more time passes, the more I understand that I need You.
Every time I strive to live on my own, I fail and fall on my face.
You know my heart, and that kills me daily.
My heart is filled with despair, anguish, hopelessness, anger and things that others do not see but do not escape your eye.
Oh Father!
Oh God!
I know what I want to do and what I do not want to do. Yet, what I want not to do is what I do, but what I want to do is not what I do.
I cringe at the thought of what You think of me; but I know if I believe, I stand justified by faith alone in Christ.
In You I trust, but I show You not!
Some friend I am! Maybe, I am not a true friend to You, but You are to me.
You carried the cross and died for me. Please forgive me for taking You for granted—it’s just that I do not fully understand the grandeur of what You have done.
In the end what matters is only You and solely You. So, I plea for your pardon for failing so miserably with my life even after You came and showed us how to live.
Here I stand with only my belief in Christ, and I hope that is good enough for You.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
God and Time
What is time? Does time exist or is time an invention of man? There is no doubt we use time as a measurement of things/events of a less than greater than relationship(s). Things that we can perceive as timeless might be numbers. Time as far as I understand does not cause 1 any changes, thus we might be able to suppose that 1 has the attribute of "timelessness." Numbers then can be categorized as immaterial. We can see numbers and assume (i.e.) 1+1=2, and as time passes 1 will always be 1.
When we examine things that are material it seems that time can and does affect them. As time passes things tend to go through some sort of change. This could be tied to the entropy, but I am not sure if entropy affects everything that is material/matter. However, I am inclined to think that physical things, which are part of our perceived reality, allow us to posture time causing changes to those things.
If God does exist, can God be immaterial? If God does exist, does that mean God remains timeless? But if God is immaterial how can God relate to mankind? Can it be that God was timeless but after creation God is now enduring time? The very possibility that God is in time does not mean that God changes or has changed, but rather God endures time with God's nature remaining intact. Of course there is that possibility that there is no such thing as God. If that is true can we suppose that the universe and everything within is explainable because it is that way, or do we have to come to the understanding that we just made up concepts and presumed things are that way? I think that if there is no God then we most likely would have to take the latter position.
When we examine things that are material it seems that time can and does affect them. As time passes things tend to go through some sort of change. This could be tied to the entropy, but I am not sure if entropy affects everything that is material/matter. However, I am inclined to think that physical things, which are part of our perceived reality, allow us to posture time causing changes to those things.
If God does exist, can God be immaterial? If God does exist, does that mean God remains timeless? But if God is immaterial how can God relate to mankind? Can it be that God was timeless but after creation God is now enduring time? The very possibility that God is in time does not mean that God changes or has changed, but rather God endures time with God's nature remaining intact. Of course there is that possibility that there is no such thing as God. If that is true can we suppose that the universe and everything within is explainable because it is that way, or do we have to come to the understanding that we just made up concepts and presumed things are that way? I think that if there is no God then we most likely would have to take the latter position.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Shack Revisited
Several months ago I read the book The Shack. You can read about my opinions of the book in my previous post. At any rate, I thought the book was very good. I really liked how the author portrayed that God interacts and relates to humanity. On May 04, 2009 the author of the book was coming near to the area where I live. I had thought about going, but then decided not to go. However, my wife and sister encouraged me to go, and so I ended up going to the event.
The reason William P. Young (the author of the book) appeared at the fund raiser was to help a ministry which helps pregnant women who are abused or have no where to turn to have a place that would nurture them. So, to my mind the reason(s) for the author being there was a good one. I was hesitant to cough up $25.00 dollars, but the more I thought about it the women needed it more than I did (plus the support of my family helped my decision). So I went to see and hear about his testimony, and the evening ended up being very powerful as well as adding a more in-depth understanding of the book.
The first thing I learned about the book is that The Shack stands for the heart of the individual. The heart does not stand for the muscle that pumps blood in a person, but the inner part of self which allows one to love and produce the what is known as feelings. Mr. Young goes on to allude that people tend to build facades because life's experiences affect them in different ways. If you read the book you will notice the words The Great Sadness throughout the whole book. As one reads the book the reader will come to understand what the great sadness is, but during Mr. Young's testimony he says the great sadness in the book is a symbolism of when his innocence was lost as a child. In fact in the book the great sadness is when the protagonist's daughter gets murdered, and so I tend to think his innocence got severed/extinguished when he was a child. For a young child to lose his/her innocence at an early stage is a tremendous blow to the psyche. I can only imagine the effect such an event has on a child.
Mr. Young made some comments that made me ponder and take a step back as a member of the invisible church of Christ. He stated that his parents were busy "doing the things of God," but as they did they failed to see how he as a child was being affected by their "missionary work." The people who his parents were helping were the ones that took care of him. So what happens to a child when the people who are taking care of you sexually abuse you as a child? The child may think it's okay to sexually abuse others? The effects psychologically on a child has to be devastating to the well being of the individual. Hence, the psychological barriers put up by Mr. Young were of self-survival and that of learned behavior. Part of the problem is the learned behavior (sexual abuse) of the child is not healthy neither socially or mentally. In order to cope with the baggage (bad experiences) of the past the child more likely than not will create false assumptions on how to deal with certain situations.
Mr. Young talks about how he became a person who was good at impressions and making people think what he wanted about him. He became addicted to pornography, cheated on his wife, and was not able to deal with internal emotions. It took his wife catching him in lies and cheating on her in order for him to be able to deal with his past. His wife could see through the facade he made in order to protect his shameful past (being sexually abused). Mr. Young stated he could not forgive himself for what happened to him when he was a child (as if it was his fault anyways, which it was not since he was just a child). Since he could not forgive himself he ended up having a bad self-esteem which led him to adopt a personality that pretended to portray a person that was made of what he thought others needed to see.
Mr. Young testified that it took him ten years (give or take a few) to deal with his problems. Part of the healing process was writing the book The Shack, which neither he nor his wife expected to receive the support it has and continues to receive. Though he knows not everyone will like the book for "theological" and other reasons he welcomes the criticism. Moreover, his reason for writing the book was not to write a novel, but it was a healing process for him and something that he wanted to pass down to his kids. The journey has taken him into doing a self-published book and being transparent about his past as well as who he really is. I welcome The Shack not only as reading material but as a testament to how God works through imperfect people.
The reason William P. Young (the author of the book) appeared at the fund raiser was to help a ministry which helps pregnant women who are abused or have no where to turn to have a place that would nurture them. So, to my mind the reason(s) for the author being there was a good one. I was hesitant to cough up $25.00 dollars, but the more I thought about it the women needed it more than I did (plus the support of my family helped my decision). So I went to see and hear about his testimony, and the evening ended up being very powerful as well as adding a more in-depth understanding of the book.
The first thing I learned about the book is that The Shack stands for the heart of the individual. The heart does not stand for the muscle that pumps blood in a person, but the inner part of self which allows one to love and produce the what is known as feelings. Mr. Young goes on to allude that people tend to build facades because life's experiences affect them in different ways. If you read the book you will notice the words The Great Sadness throughout the whole book. As one reads the book the reader will come to understand what the great sadness is, but during Mr. Young's testimony he says the great sadness in the book is a symbolism of when his innocence was lost as a child. In fact in the book the great sadness is when the protagonist's daughter gets murdered, and so I tend to think his innocence got severed/extinguished when he was a child. For a young child to lose his/her innocence at an early stage is a tremendous blow to the psyche. I can only imagine the effect such an event has on a child.
Mr. Young made some comments that made me ponder and take a step back as a member of the invisible church of Christ. He stated that his parents were busy "doing the things of God," but as they did they failed to see how he as a child was being affected by their "missionary work." The people who his parents were helping were the ones that took care of him. So what happens to a child when the people who are taking care of you sexually abuse you as a child? The child may think it's okay to sexually abuse others? The effects psychologically on a child has to be devastating to the well being of the individual. Hence, the psychological barriers put up by Mr. Young were of self-survival and that of learned behavior. Part of the problem is the learned behavior (sexual abuse) of the child is not healthy neither socially or mentally. In order to cope with the baggage (bad experiences) of the past the child more likely than not will create false assumptions on how to deal with certain situations.
Mr. Young talks about how he became a person who was good at impressions and making people think what he wanted about him. He became addicted to pornography, cheated on his wife, and was not able to deal with internal emotions. It took his wife catching him in lies and cheating on her in order for him to be able to deal with his past. His wife could see through the facade he made in order to protect his shameful past (being sexually abused). Mr. Young stated he could not forgive himself for what happened to him when he was a child (as if it was his fault anyways, which it was not since he was just a child). Since he could not forgive himself he ended up having a bad self-esteem which led him to adopt a personality that pretended to portray a person that was made of what he thought others needed to see.
Mr. Young testified that it took him ten years (give or take a few) to deal with his problems. Part of the healing process was writing the book The Shack, which neither he nor his wife expected to receive the support it has and continues to receive. Though he knows not everyone will like the book for "theological" and other reasons he welcomes the criticism. Moreover, his reason for writing the book was not to write a novel, but it was a healing process for him and something that he wanted to pass down to his kids. The journey has taken him into doing a self-published book and being transparent about his past as well as who he really is. I welcome The Shack not only as reading material but as a testament to how God works through imperfect people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)