bad hair month
So today I finally cut my hair, and I must say that my hair has gone from pretty bad to pretty bad, if not worse. Shall I describe the incident? Just so you know, this happens EVERY TIME I get my haircut.
We went to Supercuts, because it's like the only place, unless you want to get a really expensive cut. Supercuts, for some reason, has a staff fully comprised of Asians who don't speak English (I'm not trying to be racist, this is just the fact of the matter). I went to Supercuts ONCE and got a haircut from a lady who spoke English and was from Brazil, and it was one of the best haircuts I've ever had. They probably fired her because she doesn't speak Chinese. So of course, I get my hair cut by a lady who doesn't speak English. She asked me what I wanted (I just assumed that's what she asked, since she started speaking to me) and I said I wanted a nice trim, but not too short (because I was trying to avoid what I have now). She started speaking in tongues (it certainly wasn't english), and somehow I picked up the phrase "same style." So I said "Yeah, the same style, that will be fine..." but I said it uneasily, because I really didn't know what that meant. So she barely cut it, and it wasn't looking too bad, it just needed a little bit more here and there. I was afraid, though, so I said "Yeah, that's fine." My dad came over to inspect it and said "It needs a little more cut from the back, it's still bushy there." And since I couldn't see the back, I figured heck, if it's a little too bushy, a little more off won't hurt. But rather than continue cutting with her scissors, she took out the shaver and resorted to buzzing not only the back of my head, but my sides as well. All the while I stared at the mirror in horror as I slowly realized that this was exactly what I had been trying to avoid. I don't know what the style is in China, but apparently it's big, poofy bowl cuts. The top of my head has a normal length (a little shorter than before), and my sides and back are buzzed. So now, especially when it grows out, it will turn into this mushroom-like atomic-bomb-cloud thing. This happens EVERY TIME. The reason my hair wasn't like that these past few months is because I had it cut in the summer in Florida by an English-speaking American who was probably legally there and understood what I said when I spoke. So that's my situation right now. My hair is horrible. I'm considering getting a buzz cut in order to start over fresh, but I really don't know. I'm sort of stuck right now. Anyways, I'm probably making too big of a deal out of this, I mean, it's just my hair. But it's still pretty bad.
On a lighter note, I saw "Walk the Line" today in theaters, and I enjoyed it (yes, I had to go out in public with this hair, I was lucky not to run into someone I know). I thought it was really good, I recommend seeing it when you get the chance.
This is one of those posts where I jumble a lot of things together, I think. Slashdot was talking about Creationism the other day. Well, actually, they got the terms mixed up. They called it "intelligent design" but were really talking about Creationism. Creationism is the theory that Genesis 1 is the literal account of the creation. Intelligent Design is only the theory that there is some kind of intellegent purpose behind creation. This theory isn't necessarily associated with Christianity or the Bible. What's my opinion? I think Creationism is absurd. Don't misunderstand me on this one; God could have created the universe in seven literal days. Sure, that's entirely within the scope of possibility. But that doesn't mean it's the only way period and there's no exception unless you're not a Christian who takes the Bible seriously. What I have against Creationism and our Bob Jones text books is that Creationism is the only way and that Evolution is evil and satanic and counter-Biblical. I don't mind if you prove evolution wrong scientifically, but leave God out of it. Why is the first chapter of Genesis not to be interpreted literally? Because it's a poem.
How do we know it's a poem? It's arranged in verse, and repeats many phrases (as in a chorus or refrain) like "and He saw that it was good", etc. But let's pretend it's a literal account for a moment. When were plants made? Any Biblical Creationist scholar can tell you that it was on the third day. And when was man created? The sixth day. So since this text is to be taken literally, it must be chronological as well. So plants, then man. But what does chapter 2 of this story say? It finishes up chapter one by saying that God rested on the seventh day. Ok, that's great, but what does it say after that? It says "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens--and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground..." Hmm, what's this? An apparent contradiction between two accounts of the same thing.
Not an apparent contradiction, however, if the first Chapter of Genesis is to be read as a poem or a song.
There are many parts of the Bible that are not necessarily to be taken literally. Genesis 1, the Psalms, and Revelations are three of the most common examples. Revelations is full of metaphors and imagery, so it can't be said that it is completely literal, as so many interpretations can be drawn from it. We do know that it is talking about a literal event--the end of the age; just as Genesis 1 is talking about a literal event--the creation of the world. But how that came about is unknown simply because no clear account is given and no one who is alive today saw it happen.
Now, if one thinks evolution is wrong because it is scientifically disprovable, I'm all for it. That's perfectly fine with me, and I just might agree with you. However, it is not disprovable by the scriptures. God's word is not a science textbook, nor a history textbook, nor a math textbook. It is a book about God and the gospel of Christ, which is something that goes beyond all things you learn in Science and History and Math. When we try to use it as anything else, we distort it's meaning and use it as something that is not intended for it to be used.
Just an example from one of our own textbooks, they mentioned a theory that the "water turning to blood" plague that was inflicted on the Egyptians by Moses was actually a large spawn of red algae that made the water smell bad and undrinkable. Our textbooks, however, disproved this theory as unbiblical since the Bible says the word "blood" and that algae can't possibly spawn that quickly anyways. So what? Perhaps the interpretation is more along the lines of "like blood"..."made the water like blood", and perhaps God used algae to fulfill His purpose? Who knows? It could even be blood. Anything is possible. But one can't claim to know that based solely on the scriptures because they simply do not provide enough clear information on the matter. The reason for that is that it's completely unimporant. In other words, God doesn't give a crap whether you think he turned water into blood or whether he used algae. He's trying to make a point. He's inflicting hardship on the Egyptians through Moses in a miraculous way, in order to teach them a lesson and free his people. That's all that matters. We could just as easily argue about whether Moses' staff was made of oak or birch. Who cares?
So that's my take on things. I believe that God created the world and that we, as humans, are his "chosen" creation, set apart for His redemptive purpose. The scientific theory that is the closest to my statement is Intelligent Design, so that's why I choose that.
Whew! From bad haircuts to Johnny Cash to Creationism and Intelligent Design. That's my definition of a post. Just so you know, I'm not trying to sound mean or cocky in these posts, though it may be taken that way (and often I get that impression myself when re-reading them). Please know that I believe all of this firmly because I believe it to be the truth, which corresponds with most important truth of all: the gospel of Jesus Christ. That truth is the center of my beliefs.
We went to Supercuts, because it's like the only place, unless you want to get a really expensive cut. Supercuts, for some reason, has a staff fully comprised of Asians who don't speak English (I'm not trying to be racist, this is just the fact of the matter). I went to Supercuts ONCE and got a haircut from a lady who spoke English and was from Brazil, and it was one of the best haircuts I've ever had. They probably fired her because she doesn't speak Chinese. So of course, I get my hair cut by a lady who doesn't speak English. She asked me what I wanted (I just assumed that's what she asked, since she started speaking to me) and I said I wanted a nice trim, but not too short (because I was trying to avoid what I have now). She started speaking in tongues (it certainly wasn't english), and somehow I picked up the phrase "same style." So I said "Yeah, the same style, that will be fine..." but I said it uneasily, because I really didn't know what that meant. So she barely cut it, and it wasn't looking too bad, it just needed a little bit more here and there. I was afraid, though, so I said "Yeah, that's fine." My dad came over to inspect it and said "It needs a little more cut from the back, it's still bushy there." And since I couldn't see the back, I figured heck, if it's a little too bushy, a little more off won't hurt. But rather than continue cutting with her scissors, she took out the shaver and resorted to buzzing not only the back of my head, but my sides as well. All the while I stared at the mirror in horror as I slowly realized that this was exactly what I had been trying to avoid. I don't know what the style is in China, but apparently it's big, poofy bowl cuts. The top of my head has a normal length (a little shorter than before), and my sides and back are buzzed. So now, especially when it grows out, it will turn into this mushroom-like atomic-bomb-cloud thing. This happens EVERY TIME. The reason my hair wasn't like that these past few months is because I had it cut in the summer in Florida by an English-speaking American who was probably legally there and understood what I said when I spoke. So that's my situation right now. My hair is horrible. I'm considering getting a buzz cut in order to start over fresh, but I really don't know. I'm sort of stuck right now. Anyways, I'm probably making too big of a deal out of this, I mean, it's just my hair. But it's still pretty bad.
On a lighter note, I saw "Walk the Line" today in theaters, and I enjoyed it (yes, I had to go out in public with this hair, I was lucky not to run into someone I know). I thought it was really good, I recommend seeing it when you get the chance.
This is one of those posts where I jumble a lot of things together, I think. Slashdot was talking about Creationism the other day. Well, actually, they got the terms mixed up. They called it "intelligent design" but were really talking about Creationism. Creationism is the theory that Genesis 1 is the literal account of the creation. Intelligent Design is only the theory that there is some kind of intellegent purpose behind creation. This theory isn't necessarily associated with Christianity or the Bible. What's my opinion? I think Creationism is absurd. Don't misunderstand me on this one; God could have created the universe in seven literal days. Sure, that's entirely within the scope of possibility. But that doesn't mean it's the only way period and there's no exception unless you're not a Christian who takes the Bible seriously. What I have against Creationism and our Bob Jones text books is that Creationism is the only way and that Evolution is evil and satanic and counter-Biblical. I don't mind if you prove evolution wrong scientifically, but leave God out of it. Why is the first chapter of Genesis not to be interpreted literally? Because it's a poem.
How do we know it's a poem? It's arranged in verse, and repeats many phrases (as in a chorus or refrain) like "and He saw that it was good", etc. But let's pretend it's a literal account for a moment. When were plants made? Any Biblical Creationist scholar can tell you that it was on the third day. And when was man created? The sixth day. So since this text is to be taken literally, it must be chronological as well. So plants, then man. But what does chapter 2 of this story say? It finishes up chapter one by saying that God rested on the seventh day. Ok, that's great, but what does it say after that? It says "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens--and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground..." Hmm, what's this? An apparent contradiction between two accounts of the same thing.
Not an apparent contradiction, however, if the first Chapter of Genesis is to be read as a poem or a song.
There are many parts of the Bible that are not necessarily to be taken literally. Genesis 1, the Psalms, and Revelations are three of the most common examples. Revelations is full of metaphors and imagery, so it can't be said that it is completely literal, as so many interpretations can be drawn from it. We do know that it is talking about a literal event--the end of the age; just as Genesis 1 is talking about a literal event--the creation of the world. But how that came about is unknown simply because no clear account is given and no one who is alive today saw it happen.
Now, if one thinks evolution is wrong because it is scientifically disprovable, I'm all for it. That's perfectly fine with me, and I just might agree with you. However, it is not disprovable by the scriptures. God's word is not a science textbook, nor a history textbook, nor a math textbook. It is a book about God and the gospel of Christ, which is something that goes beyond all things you learn in Science and History and Math. When we try to use it as anything else, we distort it's meaning and use it as something that is not intended for it to be used.
Just an example from one of our own textbooks, they mentioned a theory that the "water turning to blood" plague that was inflicted on the Egyptians by Moses was actually a large spawn of red algae that made the water smell bad and undrinkable. Our textbooks, however, disproved this theory as unbiblical since the Bible says the word "blood" and that algae can't possibly spawn that quickly anyways. So what? Perhaps the interpretation is more along the lines of "like blood"..."made the water like blood", and perhaps God used algae to fulfill His purpose? Who knows? It could even be blood. Anything is possible. But one can't claim to know that based solely on the scriptures because they simply do not provide enough clear information on the matter. The reason for that is that it's completely unimporant. In other words, God doesn't give a crap whether you think he turned water into blood or whether he used algae. He's trying to make a point. He's inflicting hardship on the Egyptians through Moses in a miraculous way, in order to teach them a lesson and free his people. That's all that matters. We could just as easily argue about whether Moses' staff was made of oak or birch. Who cares?
So that's my take on things. I believe that God created the world and that we, as humans, are his "chosen" creation, set apart for His redemptive purpose. The scientific theory that is the closest to my statement is Intelligent Design, so that's why I choose that.
Whew! From bad haircuts to Johnny Cash to Creationism and Intelligent Design. That's my definition of a post. Just so you know, I'm not trying to sound mean or cocky in these posts, though it may be taken that way (and often I get that impression myself when re-reading them). Please know that I believe all of this firmly because I believe it to be the truth, which corresponds with most important truth of all: the gospel of Jesus Christ. That truth is the center of my beliefs.
posted by John Mark at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home