my current stream of consciousness

There's a difference between what we want and what is wise. That's a principle I'm trying to force myself to think about these days. Yearbook has been a continual frustration as far as computer delays, and the delay (as I predicted) was set even later (until next Tuesday "at the latest"...which means it will be Tuesday and no sooner, though perhaps later). Anyway, I understand the complicated process of finances/picking out the right computers, and am pleased that we're getting the Core 2 Duo chips. I'm sure it'll all be worth the wait.

My only concern is the newspaper. I've received mixed reports about whether or not we (the newspaper) will actually be able to use one of the Macs. Mrs. Bernson informed me that the newspaper would probably be using the old PC's with new processors, and linux. The other day, though, Mr. Boyd asked me of my preference in tools to make the newspaper, and I told him honestly, "Pages." Pages, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, is great for desiging cool documents, but still a step behind Microsoft Word as far as practicality. The formatting is a little weird, and complicated to customize. As you can probably imagine, writing a paper with a teacher's specific standards can become a frustrating process. Microsoft Word is still better for the boring stuff :). But Pages would be perfect for making a good-looking, well-put-together Newspaper. Mr. Boyd seemed to respond positively, and confirmed with me that he would have to buy iWork. Do we get a Mac? I don't know.

I spoke with my dad the other day, and put together a keynote presentation for him filled with reasons to get a Macbook Pro. Powerschool makes everything much more computer-based, and I don't know how I could bear trying to piece together a newspaper on something like OpenOffice. In other words, if we don't get to use the Macs, I'll have a good reason to get a laptop.

But I'm still hesitant. If I buy one now, it'll have to last me a while. I won't get a new computer for college, which means I'll enter college with good, but below-the-standard technology. I think I would like it better if I waited until then to get the latest, greatest technology. Another factor is that if I bought it now, it would all come out of my pocket. My dad would grant me the money I need now, but I would make payments to him every month (basically everything I make), for the next 8 months minimum, according to my calculations. I'd not only get a good computer now and possibly regret it later, but I would also lose a lot of my independence, since I would have little to no spending money. If I waited for the end of Senior Year, my parents and grandparents and maybe some others would band together and buy me the greatest configuration I could ever want as my graduation present. And by then, who can fathom what that might be?

So I face this decision with hope, but with doubt. Aside from yearbook, it would be incrediby convenient to carry my computer with me in my bag and have the ability to access it at any moment. Not to mention My Dad's still thinking about it, so it's not even a definite possibility. I think, though, that it's very likely that it will be. It's a hard decision.

On a different note, today was an interesting day for me. It started off well; Katie and I agreed to share history outlines, which has taken a huge workload off for both of us. In History, Mr. Shapiro talked about the Puritans' doctrine and theology, and we delved into reformed theology, which of course teaches the Biblical principles of predestination. It was an interesting experience: I was at Alma Heights, learning reformed theology in History class. Mr. Shapiro tried to be unopinionated about it, simply trying to teach us what the Puritans believed and set in place for generations, but he spoke of it as if it were a common theological belief (which it is, but not in the Alma Heights context, of course).

The irony of it is that we learned better theology in History class than we did in Bible class:) Bogdan, who has been quite loud lately, contributed to our discussion of the question, "Why did God make us?" He immediately brought up the idea that God had the desire to create beings that actually wanted to love Him, so he gave them a free will so that they could choose him. Just this morning, Mr. Shapiro had told us that our sinful nature controls and dominates us, leaving it up to God to free us from it. But no one seemed to notice this apparent contradiction in teaching.

Bogdan's observation (to which Mrs. Travis heartily agreed, along with most of the class) has a critical error. It places God in a place of need. God needs us to love him. Poor God! Most people don't love him!! I think he needs a hug. A small one, since most people would rather slug him in the face.

Is God really that naive? Did he really think that, given the option, we would choose him over the attractive sinful pleasures of the world? I think he knows better. I think he knows that our state is corrupt and unfixable, except by his own power. Originally, when all was perfect, Adam and Eve were made to glorify him and bask in his creation. He created them for his own enjoyment, yet is wasn't just simply that. It was relationship.

I would agree with someone that God desires a relationship with his creation. But I would disagree with those who think God is pitiful enough to leave that decision up to us. We're in a more screwed-up state than we even know. We are like dogs who return to their own vomit, as the Proverbs say, constantly returning to our sin. The sway of the entire scriptures is that we can't do it ourselves, that we continue to mess up, and that we are born with this tendency. Our tendency imprisons us, it reigns in us until God frees us from it and frees us from its bondage. In short, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Of course, we continue to struggle with sin. The difference is that we have the ability to override our sinful nature, thanks to God's empowering of us to do so. We actually have the ability to say "no" to our sinful desires. Someone without God sins even when he intends to do good, since the very act of good is performed under the motivation of self-promotion. And self-promotion is not only selfish, but futile. In Isaiah, even our good deeds are described as "filthy rags" compared to the holiness God requires from us. The act of doing good for the purpose of somehow making ourselves legitimate is the opposite teaching of the gospel. Can a creation so corrupted and chained really free itself from it's terrible curse? The Bible strongly emphasises that we cannot, but with equal emphasis tells us of the hope we have in a merciful God of grace. That, to me, paints a much more beautiful picture than that of a needy God hoping his creation will pick him.

I didn't quite intend to get in-depth theologically with that, but there you go. It's been a long time since I wrote a post this long, and that's probably a good thing. Hasta luego.