More readings

This past week was good, I did go ahead and drop Economics because I felt it would be too busy, especially if I do end up getting this TA position, on which I haven't heard a thing yet. There was an ice storm. Bible study Wednesday.... yeah. That's about it. The week has been busy, but good, and I'm actually really enjoying the book for my Semiconductor Physics class. We've been going over the introduction to quantum theory.

There have been a couple of things I've been reading lately. I finished up Josh McDowell's book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and it had some interesting things on modern thinking. It all sounds roughly the same to me. Deny truth, deny absolutes, deny that anything really means anything. A good point that he made was that those who are writing to inform us that writing is only what it means to the reader, have to cope with the fact that they are trying to get their point across, and appear to be offended if you take their words to mean something other than they intended.

Those who claim that the written word only means what the reader makes of it, yet obviously try to get their own intent across without being misunderstood, are living in a disharmonious world-view.


There were a couple of stories about Ravie Zacharias that I found to be pretty amusing:
Dennis McCallum shares a story:
"A friend of mine told me that when Christian apologist and author Ravi Zacharias visited Columbus to speak at ohio State University, his hosts took him to visit the Wexner Center for the Arts. The Wexner Center is a citadel of postmodern architecture. It has stairways leading nowhere, columns that come down but never touch the floor, beams and galleries going everywhere, and a crazy-looking exposed girder system over most of the outside. Like most of postmodernism, it defies every cannon of common sense and every law of rationality. Zacharias looked at the building and cocked his head. With a grin he askes, 'I wonder if they used the same techniques when they laid the foundation?'
His point is very good. It's one thing to declare independence from reality when building a monument. It's another thing when we have to come into contact with the real world."

A very good point.


"As the professor waxed eloquent and expounded on the law of non-contradiction, he eventually drew his conclusion: 'This [either/or logic] is a Western way of looking at reality. The real problem is that you are seeing contradiction as a Westerner when you should be approaching it as an Easterner. The both/and is the Eastern way of viewing reality.'
After he belaboured those two ideas on either/or and both/and for some time, I finally asked if I could interrupt his unpunctuated train of thought and raise one question.
I said 'Sir, are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and system of logic or nothing else?'
There was pin-drop silence for what seemed an eternity. I repeated my question:
'Are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I either use the both/and system of logic or nothing else? Have I got that right?'
He threw his head back and said, 'The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn't it?'
'Indeed it does emerge,' I said. 'And as a matter of fact, even in India we look both ways before we cross the street - it is either the bus or me, not both of us.'
Do you see the mistake he was making? He was using the either/or logic in order to prove the both/and. The more you try to hammer the law of non-contradiction, the more it hammers you."



Now I'd like to share some more Henry.
Leviticus 19:27 says that the Israelites were not to round the corners of their heads. Henry says "Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe."

Soo..... does that mean an afro is out? Man! It sounds like those things were in style 4000 years ago!




Now for some more beneficial quotes.
First of all, when reading about the two birds, one being killed and the other dipped in the blood of the slain bird and then set free (to fly towards the heavens as Henry states) it really seems to be a picture, in some sense, of what Christ has done for us. He was a man (like us) and was slain that we might pass through his blood, be cleansed, and then set free, to fly heavenward. The analogy breaks down very rapidly if you press it deeper, but it seemed to be a good picture and a good thing to be reminded of as I read through these Old Testament shadows.




Against a sinful man, Lev 20:5 says "Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family..." Henry points out "The wickedness of the master of a family often brings ruin upon a family; and he that should be the house-keeper proves the house-breaker."
It's a good reminder that the head of a household is more responsible than any other member, his failures affect others in a greater way than ordinarily. He receives the stricter judgement, he watches after not merely his own soul, but those of his family.



Lev 20:8 "I am the Lord which sanctify you."
"Note, 1. God's people are, and must be persons of distinction. God has distinguished them by his holy covenant, and therefore they ought to distinguish themselves by their holy conversation.


Here are some quotes that I had really liked a while back, but I waited to share them.
Gen 31:4 "And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock, and he said unto them......" This where Jacob tells his wives what he is planning to do. Despite the fact that he had two wives, Henry makes this very good point:
"Note, Husbands that love their wives will communicate their purposes and intentions to them. Where there is a mutual affection there will be a mutual confidence. And the prudence of the wife should engage the heart of her husband to trust in her, Prov xxxi. 11"

I thought this was an excellent point, especially in today's society where many times, if the husband is a leader at all, he feels he has to make the decisions and "go it alone." There is a point where it is true that the husband has the responsibility, but that doesn't mean the he doesn't seek advice or doesn't care how his wife feels upon a matter. The responsibility for the decision is his alone, the process of getting to that decision belongs to both the husband and the wife. The husband should be sensitive of the wife's concerns and there is a good amount of practical wisdom that God has endowed wives with, sometimes they can see things from a different angle, perhaps God is laying it on her heart that a certain choice is not a good one, the husband should listen and be grateful for such input, and the wife should submit to the decision that is ultimately made but in no wise is the husband a "lone ranger" who has to do everything himself. That is why God made him a helpmate, to help! A good leader will be willing to seriously hear his friend and helpmate.

Which brings up another good quote:
In talking about incestuous marriage relationships between brother and sister in Leviticus 28, Henry says something that I really liked when contrasting it with proper marriage:
"[These] cannot intermarry without defeating one of the intentions of marriage, which is the enlargement of friendship and interest." I very much appreciate the idea of a helpmate and companion rather than a servant who is lower than her husband. The idea of it being an enlargement of friendship is very beautiful and appropriate to my way of thinking.

In a similar way, as the bride of Christ, Christians are called "brothers," friends, or equals. Christ has taken us to be His own beloved people, not as slaves. I suppose analogies break down, but this much seems to work for me.