I'm going to take a break from certain media. No games on iphone, no games on computer, no electronic-related games. No TV shows, dramas, youtube videos, movies. No facebook and no 9gag. Anything related to emailing, texting, and school-related work is fine. Only facebook exception is messenger and to post answers to the RY Teacher page.
This is to go from 11/4/13 (Monday) to 11/27/13 (Wednesday), so 24 days total.
... I'll probably spend the first week going through some severe withdrawal symptoms. I heard a lot physical activity makes it easy to get through it.
Also...
I got a new hair straightener. There's a mode I can turn on to make the hair straightener vibrate when I use it. It works a lot better with it on, and my hair actually gets straighter and less poofy. I think it's because it un-clumps my hair as it straightens it out, and distributes the heat better. Anyways, the reason I got the new hair straightener was because my old one has been smoking everytime I use it for about two months now. First it was just smoking on its own, but recently it started to burn the ceramic part off revealing the metal underneath, slightly melting it to the point where the flat part is no longer flat, and stinking as if it was ready to explode. Yeah... it was time for a new one. Too bad the warranty ran out a year ago.
*update*
Wow I lied. A lot. I lasted about two days.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Question of the Day
askphilosophers.com has a question of the day thing:
When we say that porn is not appropriate for children aren't we implicitly or covertly saying that porn is not appropriate for anyone?
To be fair, this is way too difficult of a question for me to answer, and my answer would easily go through ten pages of writing which I wouldn't have time for anyways. But within this question there are two main assumptions we must look into.
1. Difference between adults and children
2. What is and isn't appropriate
So what makes a child and an adult different? Physically it can be the time before and after puberty. Legally it can be 18 or 21. But what about mentally? Ignoring the fact that mental illnesses exist and contribute to a whole variety of problems in itself, I know that we all know that one child that has the mind of a 40 year old and that one adult that is stuck in his or her adolescent stage. So what really makes a difference between that of a child and an adult, and why do certain restrictions apply to one and not the other should be the real question here.
So what is and isn't appropriate and who defines them? We can go back into history and see that certain religions and cultures had more influence over another which affected the laws that were formed at the time. Because of the large Christian influence that was held over the government when many of our laws were written, the morality in the United States tends to follow that of Christians (although they have been slowly changing over the years). But if Christianity wasn't the major influence, what would have been? Would porn have been deemed appropriate? There are no strict standards in this world, even among a specific religious group. So who gets to decide what is and isn't appropriate, and for what ages and why? I think that is the larger question.
When we say that porn is not appropriate for children aren't we implicitly or covertly saying that porn is not appropriate for anyone?
To be fair, this is way too difficult of a question for me to answer, and my answer would easily go through ten pages of writing which I wouldn't have time for anyways. But within this question there are two main assumptions we must look into.
1. Difference between adults and children
2. What is and isn't appropriate
So what makes a child and an adult different? Physically it can be the time before and after puberty. Legally it can be 18 or 21. But what about mentally? Ignoring the fact that mental illnesses exist and contribute to a whole variety of problems in itself, I know that we all know that one child that has the mind of a 40 year old and that one adult that is stuck in his or her adolescent stage. So what really makes a difference between that of a child and an adult, and why do certain restrictions apply to one and not the other should be the real question here.
So what is and isn't appropriate and who defines them? We can go back into history and see that certain religions and cultures had more influence over another which affected the laws that were formed at the time. Because of the large Christian influence that was held over the government when many of our laws were written, the morality in the United States tends to follow that of Christians (although they have been slowly changing over the years). But if Christianity wasn't the major influence, what would have been? Would porn have been deemed appropriate? There are no strict standards in this world, even among a specific religious group. So who gets to decide what is and isn't appropriate, and for what ages and why? I think that is the larger question.
Glad I Made This Blog
Title says all.
I'm extremely glad I made this blog. The point of making this blog was so that I could look back and remember. We humans have an extremely short memory. If I didn't write down what I remembered and what I felt, I would most definitely forget. The one thing that I don't want to forget is what Jesus does through my life.
http://jeencha.blogspot.com/2013/09/giving-up.html
So I read this one again and I remembered. And I felt good again. That my life isn't meaningless. I'm living it for God and not for myself. Blog well done.
I'm extremely glad I made this blog. The point of making this blog was so that I could look back and remember. We humans have an extremely short memory. If I didn't write down what I remembered and what I felt, I would most definitely forget. The one thing that I don't want to forget is what Jesus does through my life.
http://jeencha.blogspot.com/2013/09/giving-up.html
So I read this one again and I remembered. And I felt good again. That my life isn't meaningless. I'm living it for God and not for myself. Blog well done.
Iris II
Iris (Korean Drama) was AMAZING. It's one of my favorite dramas to date. The plot was intense, and the audience really connected with the characters. Because of this connection, the backstabbings were extremely painful, and the plot twists were extremely shocking. When characters died, I cried, and I felt a part of me died when the show ended.
So I'm finally watching Iris II. There were two spin-offs that people believed were the sequel to Iris, but I didn't realize Iris II came out. So I'm watching it now. It's a definite continuation of the plot that started with Iris, and the first minute or two is a quick summary of the overall plot from Iris.
Ten minutes in and I started doubting its ability to live up to the name. Twenty minutes in and I just knew it wasn't going to be as good. The show has so much potential... But there are so many flaws in the way the storytelling is set up.
The reason why I was able to form such a strong emotional bond with Iris I was because the way it introduced its characters. There was definitely a main character. A single main character, male. He had a love interest, female. He had supporting characters. The entire plot was seen through his eyes. Indeed, the audience knew more than the character, but the main attention was on him. The side characters did get their own screen time without the involvement of the main character, and they were no less important in their role to the plot. Enough depth was given to them so that I cared deeply for them. But they didn't take over the main character's role. The first bit of plot left me with a need to finish the show before it even started because of its abundance in mystery. It left me as confused an puzzled as the character itself, before all would be revealed. That scene was extremely important in developing the connection I had with the character.
Iris II.... All the main characters were introduced within the first twenty minutes. Not that many characters weren't introduced in the first episode of Iris I, but the way they were introduced was extremely different. There were new characters for the new show, and old characters from Iris I whom I missed. Each of them were given a near equal amount of screen time, and each of them had a plot revolving around them. Instead of a deep connection with a single main character, I was expected to form a multitude of shallow ones for the variety of characters and keep track of all the different plots going on at once. This is something that should be for an epilogue of a show, not the beginning of a new one. Car chase scene, drug dealing scene, party scene. None of them leave mysteries that I'm dying to know more of. Nothing about the first twenty minutes gets me curious about what's to come. It may be a continuation of the plot of a different show, but it's still a new show and the first episode should captivate any audience.
Alternate opening possibility... The intro was a summary of what happened in Iris I. The intro ended with the main character dying and the fiance left on her own, with a close up of the killer. There were two ways they could have done this. They could have dove into the mystery of the murder and focused the plot around the killer, bringing the audience into the mysterious organization. Or they could have focused the plot around the fiance and her continued involvement years later with the organization. Either way, there should have been a solid main character for the audience to focus its attention on, and bring back the connection they would have had with Iris I.
Honestly, I'm only halfway in to the first episode, and I can't bring myself to waste more time watching this show. I think I'll just read the spoilers online. It's fast, and I can use my imagination.
So I'm finally watching Iris II. There were two spin-offs that people believed were the sequel to Iris, but I didn't realize Iris II came out. So I'm watching it now. It's a definite continuation of the plot that started with Iris, and the first minute or two is a quick summary of the overall plot from Iris.
Ten minutes in and I started doubting its ability to live up to the name. Twenty minutes in and I just knew it wasn't going to be as good. The show has so much potential... But there are so many flaws in the way the storytelling is set up.
The reason why I was able to form such a strong emotional bond with Iris I was because the way it introduced its characters. There was definitely a main character. A single main character, male. He had a love interest, female. He had supporting characters. The entire plot was seen through his eyes. Indeed, the audience knew more than the character, but the main attention was on him. The side characters did get their own screen time without the involvement of the main character, and they were no less important in their role to the plot. Enough depth was given to them so that I cared deeply for them. But they didn't take over the main character's role. The first bit of plot left me with a need to finish the show before it even started because of its abundance in mystery. It left me as confused an puzzled as the character itself, before all would be revealed. That scene was extremely important in developing the connection I had with the character.
Iris II.... All the main characters were introduced within the first twenty minutes. Not that many characters weren't introduced in the first episode of Iris I, but the way they were introduced was extremely different. There were new characters for the new show, and old characters from Iris I whom I missed. Each of them were given a near equal amount of screen time, and each of them had a plot revolving around them. Instead of a deep connection with a single main character, I was expected to form a multitude of shallow ones for the variety of characters and keep track of all the different plots going on at once. This is something that should be for an epilogue of a show, not the beginning of a new one. Car chase scene, drug dealing scene, party scene. None of them leave mysteries that I'm dying to know more of. Nothing about the first twenty minutes gets me curious about what's to come. It may be a continuation of the plot of a different show, but it's still a new show and the first episode should captivate any audience.
Alternate opening possibility... The intro was a summary of what happened in Iris I. The intro ended with the main character dying and the fiance left on her own, with a close up of the killer. There were two ways they could have done this. They could have dove into the mystery of the murder and focused the plot around the killer, bringing the audience into the mysterious organization. Or they could have focused the plot around the fiance and her continued involvement years later with the organization. Either way, there should have been a solid main character for the audience to focus its attention on, and bring back the connection they would have had with Iris I.
Honestly, I'm only halfway in to the first episode, and I can't bring myself to waste more time watching this show. I think I'll just read the spoilers online. It's fast, and I can use my imagination.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Essays
One of the weakest academic activities for me is writing essays. I can do everything... except write essays. I have a lot of ideas, but for some reason I have an extremely difficult time organizing it into a coherent stream. Last three essays were about the creation story, Psalm 89, and the Nero Persecution. This time I'm writing about Marcion and his effects on the making of the first Christian canon.
Here's my thought process when it comes to writing: This is the literal flow of how I write.
Lessee...
Marcion was at first part of the Catholic Christian community. He was a bishop. He believed in Jesus and Jesus's authority. But he saw a difference between the behavior of the 'New Testament God' and the 'Old Testament God'. To Marcion, the New Testament God was kind, merciful, etc. The Old Testament God was strict, just, and unforgiving. He couldn't come to terms with it, and so he started his own theology called "Marcionism." He taught that there really were two separate gods, and that the new one was the real one. He taught that Jesus came from the new god, and that anything relating the old god to Jesus should be removed from teaching. That basically gets rid of the entire Old Testament and all the nativity stories. He couldn't come to terms with the idea that Jesus was a Jew. The only things he kept was most of Paul's writings and Luke. He kept Paul's writings because he believed that Paul was the chosen apostle by Jesus. Basically, "He rejected the Old Testament as the document of an alien religion; and he taught that Jesus had come to save humankind from the control of the evil Creator to whom the Old Testament witnesses." (Lee Martin McDonald, James A Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p. 354, 2002)
So that would be the intro basically. Maybe I'll have more dates and stuff in it. Like when Marcion was born, when he was claimed a heretic, when he was thrown out of the church, etc.
The next section should be... Marcion and Gnosticism?
Difference between Marcionism and Gnosticism... Dualism? Another name for dualism (the idea that spirit is good and matter is evil) is Christoplatonism. It's Platonism directed to Christianity.
Yeah... Because Marcionism is related to Gnosticism and Dualism.. so I'll talk about the similarities and differences.
Then should I talk about modern Marcionism? But it's a history paper so I should stick to just the events that happened in the past. But if I really can't come up with anything else, I could talk about modern Marcionism.
I defeinitely should talk about the first Christian canon, and how the books were solidified as a part of the canon because Marcion tried to get rid of it. Then at the very end I need to put in a blurb about even though the canon was created by groups of people, and often edited over the course of many years, and even very recently, we must remember that God works through people and through situations, and even though bad situations may occur, God can put them to good use. So I believe that God used Marcion to really help settle the books that needed to be included in the Bible. Then should I say a blurb about the Protestant reformation and the Apocrypha and how that is related, also?
Well the paper is only 3 to 4 pages double spaced so I think that should be enough.
My main point that I want to argue... Is that the Bible is the work of God, the making and creation of God through people, not of people.
- Bathroom break and lunch break -
And I'm back...
So the different heretic groups back then was Marcionism and Gnosticism (and other ones not mentioned).
First of all, Marcion is often described as a Gnostic philosopher. Similarities: they both believed that the creator of the material world and the true god were not the same. The creator of the material world was evil. The material world was a place of suffering, and therefore they both reject materialism. Nothing in this material world contributes to any good. They both believe that Jesus was a spiritual entity sent by the true god to save humanity. Jesus was not a Jewish Messiah. Jesus must have been a spiritual entity because he was good, and good cannot be material. Also, people cannot come back to life, and therefore Jesus wasn't fully human.
The main difference between the two is that Gnosticism was based on the idea that Jesus had passed down a secret knowledge to the apostles that only the Gnostics knew, and Marcion did not claim such things. Marcion based his teachings on the letters of Paul instead.
About dualism, Dualism is just a reference to the idea of there being two distinct and separate parts, and does not necessarily have to do with religion. It can be the idea of mind vs. body. Body vs. soul. and of course Material vs. Spiritual. Marcionism and Gnosticism was just a small part under the large umbrella of dualism. There's also the idea of two separate realities, consciousness and matter (mind and body). Dualism can be found in all parts of the world, in all different religions. Even in today's society the concept of dualism exists, even though it is not specifically referred to as dualism. (the whole mind vs. body thing. remember the phrase mind over matter?) There's dualism in science (wave vs. matter) So to broaden Marcionism to dualism is just misinformation. Marcionism is a form of Christian dualism. And as dualism can be seen in so many different aspects, it is not surprise that this concept would have formed, even if it wasn't through Marcion. So I guess in this particular section of the essay I want to emphasize that this aspect of dualism was inevitable (part of God's plan)
So it was at the end of July 144 CE when Marcion was excommunicated. He had a hearing in front of the clergy of the Christian congregations in Rome. Aaaah... Marcionites set up churches in each city of any importance to defy the Christian ones by the end of the 2nd century.
Reasons why Marcion thought OT god was different from NT god:
OT: eye for eye while NT: turn other cheek
OT: Elisha let children be eaten by bears while NT: 'Let the little children come to me'
OT: Joshua had stopped sun to continue killing his enemies while in NT: Paul said 'Let not the sun go down on your wrath.'
OT: Divorce and polygamy was permitted while NT: Neither divorce nor polygamy
OT: Enforcement of Sabbath and Law while NT: freedom from both
There were contradiction within OT itself:
No work done on Sabbath but Ark was carried around Jericho on Sabbath
No graven image to be made but Moses fashioned a bronze serpent
God is omniscient but asked Adam 'Where are you?'
The Marcion canon:
Luke
Galations
1 + 2 Corinthians
Romans
1 + 2 Thessalonians
Ephesians (called Laodiceans)
Colossians
Philemon
Philippians
The Christian canon was already in progress, but Marcion's canon accelerated the Church's canon. The Christian canon had already begun in the first half of 2nd cent. According to:
Grant, Robert M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. p. 126
"Marcion forced more orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to state more clearly what they already believed."
And Marcion also believed that Jesus couldn't have actually been born because Jesus was a spirit.
Even from the writings of Paul, Marcion got rid of anything that disagreed with his theology, such as Galations 3:16-4:6 because of its reference to Abraham and its descendants In fact, he made changes to every book that was included in his canon.
I think this will be enough material. I will reorganize it so that the whole chunk of what Marcionism is will come after the quick Marcion summary and the Gnosticism and Dualism thing will come after that. Yay. 3 pages here I come.
Here's my thought process when it comes to writing: This is the literal flow of how I write.
Lessee...
Marcion was at first part of the Catholic Christian community. He was a bishop. He believed in Jesus and Jesus's authority. But he saw a difference between the behavior of the 'New Testament God' and the 'Old Testament God'. To Marcion, the New Testament God was kind, merciful, etc. The Old Testament God was strict, just, and unforgiving. He couldn't come to terms with it, and so he started his own theology called "Marcionism." He taught that there really were two separate gods, and that the new one was the real one. He taught that Jesus came from the new god, and that anything relating the old god to Jesus should be removed from teaching. That basically gets rid of the entire Old Testament and all the nativity stories. He couldn't come to terms with the idea that Jesus was a Jew. The only things he kept was most of Paul's writings and Luke. He kept Paul's writings because he believed that Paul was the chosen apostle by Jesus. Basically, "He rejected the Old Testament as the document of an alien religion; and he taught that Jesus had come to save humankind from the control of the evil Creator to whom the Old Testament witnesses." (Lee Martin McDonald, James A Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p. 354, 2002)
So that would be the intro basically. Maybe I'll have more dates and stuff in it. Like when Marcion was born, when he was claimed a heretic, when he was thrown out of the church, etc.
The next section should be... Marcion and Gnosticism?
Difference between Marcionism and Gnosticism... Dualism? Another name for dualism (the idea that spirit is good and matter is evil) is Christoplatonism. It's Platonism directed to Christianity.
Yeah... Because Marcionism is related to Gnosticism and Dualism.. so I'll talk about the similarities and differences.
Then should I talk about modern Marcionism? But it's a history paper so I should stick to just the events that happened in the past. But if I really can't come up with anything else, I could talk about modern Marcionism.
I defeinitely should talk about the first Christian canon, and how the books were solidified as a part of the canon because Marcion tried to get rid of it. Then at the very end I need to put in a blurb about even though the canon was created by groups of people, and often edited over the course of many years, and even very recently, we must remember that God works through people and through situations, and even though bad situations may occur, God can put them to good use. So I believe that God used Marcion to really help settle the books that needed to be included in the Bible. Then should I say a blurb about the Protestant reformation and the Apocrypha and how that is related, also?
Well the paper is only 3 to 4 pages double spaced so I think that should be enough.
My main point that I want to argue... Is that the Bible is the work of God, the making and creation of God through people, not of people.
- Bathroom break and lunch break -
And I'm back...
So the different heretic groups back then was Marcionism and Gnosticism (and other ones not mentioned).
First of all, Marcion is often described as a Gnostic philosopher. Similarities: they both believed that the creator of the material world and the true god were not the same. The creator of the material world was evil. The material world was a place of suffering, and therefore they both reject materialism. Nothing in this material world contributes to any good. They both believe that Jesus was a spiritual entity sent by the true god to save humanity. Jesus was not a Jewish Messiah. Jesus must have been a spiritual entity because he was good, and good cannot be material. Also, people cannot come back to life, and therefore Jesus wasn't fully human.
The main difference between the two is that Gnosticism was based on the idea that Jesus had passed down a secret knowledge to the apostles that only the Gnostics knew, and Marcion did not claim such things. Marcion based his teachings on the letters of Paul instead.
About dualism, Dualism is just a reference to the idea of there being two distinct and separate parts, and does not necessarily have to do with religion. It can be the idea of mind vs. body. Body vs. soul. and of course Material vs. Spiritual. Marcionism and Gnosticism was just a small part under the large umbrella of dualism. There's also the idea of two separate realities, consciousness and matter (mind and body). Dualism can be found in all parts of the world, in all different religions. Even in today's society the concept of dualism exists, even though it is not specifically referred to as dualism. (the whole mind vs. body thing. remember the phrase mind over matter?) There's dualism in science (wave vs. matter) So to broaden Marcionism to dualism is just misinformation. Marcionism is a form of Christian dualism. And as dualism can be seen in so many different aspects, it is not surprise that this concept would have formed, even if it wasn't through Marcion. So I guess in this particular section of the essay I want to emphasize that this aspect of dualism was inevitable (part of God's plan)
So it was at the end of July 144 CE when Marcion was excommunicated. He had a hearing in front of the clergy of the Christian congregations in Rome. Aaaah... Marcionites set up churches in each city of any importance to defy the Christian ones by the end of the 2nd century.
Reasons why Marcion thought OT god was different from NT god:
OT: eye for eye while NT: turn other cheek
OT: Elisha let children be eaten by bears while NT: 'Let the little children come to me'
OT: Joshua had stopped sun to continue killing his enemies while in NT: Paul said 'Let not the sun go down on your wrath.'
OT: Divorce and polygamy was permitted while NT: Neither divorce nor polygamy
OT: Enforcement of Sabbath and Law while NT: freedom from both
There were contradiction within OT itself:
No work done on Sabbath but Ark was carried around Jericho on Sabbath
No graven image to be made but Moses fashioned a bronze serpent
God is omniscient but asked Adam 'Where are you?'
The Marcion canon:
Luke
Galations
1 + 2 Corinthians
Romans
1 + 2 Thessalonians
Ephesians (called Laodiceans)
Colossians
Philemon
Philippians
The Christian canon was already in progress, but Marcion's canon accelerated the Church's canon. The Christian canon had already begun in the first half of 2nd cent. According to:
Grant, Robert M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. p. 126
"Marcion forced more orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to state more clearly what they already believed."
And Marcion also believed that Jesus couldn't have actually been born because Jesus was a spirit.
Even from the writings of Paul, Marcion got rid of anything that disagreed with his theology, such as Galations 3:16-4:6 because of its reference to Abraham and its descendants In fact, he made changes to every book that was included in his canon.
I think this will be enough material. I will reorganize it so that the whole chunk of what Marcionism is will come after the quick Marcion summary and the Gnosticism and Dualism thing will come after that. Yay. 3 pages here I come.
Hold My Heart
Hold My Heart by Tenth Avenue North
The lyrics really tells what I've been feeling for the past couple weeks.
"How long must I pray
Must I pray to You
How long must I wait
How long til I see Your face
See You shining through
I'm on my knees
Begging You to notice me
I'm on my knees
Father, will you turn to me
One tear in the driving rain
One voice in a sea of pain
Could the maker of the stars
Hear the sound of my breaking heart
One life, that's all I am
Right now I can barely stand
If You're everything You say You are
Would You come close and hold my heart"
The lyrics really tells what I've been feeling for the past couple weeks.
"How long must I pray
Must I pray to You
How long must I wait
How long til I see Your face
See You shining through
I'm on my knees
Begging You to notice me
I'm on my knees
Father, will you turn to me
One tear in the driving rain
One voice in a sea of pain
Could the maker of the stars
Hear the sound of my breaking heart
One life, that's all I am
Right now I can barely stand
If You're everything You say You are
Would You come close and hold my heart"
2 years 2 months and counting
*sigh*
Why does it take over two years to get over someone I've only known for 3 months?
I still have a difficult time handling emotions that can't be reasoned with.
Why does it take over two years to get over someone I've only known for 3 months?
I still have a difficult time handling emotions that can't be reasoned with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)