Not much posting going on, as I've been occupied with a new side project I'm taking on. As part of this new venture, I'm setting up a corporation and am actually enjoying the process of getting things off the ground. (While technically I'm already a small business owner, buying into a corporation is just not the same as starting from scratch).
Filed with the state for my certificate of formation, and now have my official IRS tax ID number. Next step- licenses and a bank account. Hope to be operational by June, and soon thereafter taking advantage of all the benefits both personally and professionally that come from running my own show. Maybe I'll petition the Board of Directors (me) to hold the first shareholder's meeting (singular possessive) off-site- perhaps at Citi Field?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Resurrection
Many have said the two things you can't talk about at work are politics and religion- that's what blogs are for. Touched on politics last fall, but I haven't really approached the third rail of religion yet, though not for lack of desire. In fact, I once thought about starting an entirely separate blog for matters of religion to allow for longer and deeper discussion. For now though we'll start here, and with no smaller matter than the entire foundation of the Christian faith.
I listened intently to yesterday's sermon in which the priest focused on the importance of the empty tomb. His point was that Christianity centers on the belief in the unseen, that Peter and the "other disciple" (John) left the empty tomb believing in the resurrection, though they hadn't seen anything. They went back and reported in, telling the others that Jesus had risen. Only Thomas doubted, and needed to see the risen Christ to believe. Jesus of course would soon show himself to Thomas and the others, but would then declare that with regards to the resurrection, "blessed are those who do not see, but still believe".
But what if the resurrection was more of a spiritual event than a physical one? What if it was more allegory than literal fact? Is it possible that those first two disciples came back from that empty tomb, professing their belief with such conviction that a miracle was born? What if it was not the return of Christ to a human body that was the true resurrection miracle, but rather the ability of those two disciples to believe that He would live on forever?
For Christians, a resurrected Christ is necessary to show God's ability to conquer death and to bring to believers the gift of eternal life. If the resurrection is not corporeal, than how could that need be filled? The answer is in the empty tomb. For Peter and John, the resurrection was not a vision of Christ. It was the absence of his dead body that caused them to believe. Once they believed that death had been conquered, the resurrection was real regardless of what happened to Christ's body. It is easy to question that if Christ did not return to his earthly body, then how did the tomb become empty in the first place, and how did Christ appear to the apostles later? That is not the point. How the body left the tomb does not matter, nor does his appearance later matter. Whether Christ rejoined his body at all does not matter. What matters is that we believe that after he died, Christ returned from death to live on first in John (because he got there first, of course), then in Peter, then the rest of us.
The sermon I remember more than any other was one I heard probably 25 years ago. It was given by a deacon about the gospel of loaves and the fishes. He suggested that perhaps the miracle that day wasn't Jesus creating food for 5,000 from thin air, but rather was Jesus convincing everyone other than the kid with the fish and bread to share the food they had brought with them. People in attendance, reluctant to share their food, were touched by Christ and produced enough food to feed everyone, with plenty to spare. Bible literalists would consider any possibility other than Jesus creating food to be blasphemy, but this exegesis struck a deep chord within me. It was a way to explain a miracle while still considering it a miracle.
If Christ can live on in each of us, than he has in fact conquered death. If we believe that Christ has conquered death, than we believe that we too can live forever. And if those beliefs are held in good faith, then isn't that what the resurrection is for?
I listened intently to yesterday's sermon in which the priest focused on the importance of the empty tomb. His point was that Christianity centers on the belief in the unseen, that Peter and the "other disciple" (John) left the empty tomb believing in the resurrection, though they hadn't seen anything. They went back and reported in, telling the others that Jesus had risen. Only Thomas doubted, and needed to see the risen Christ to believe. Jesus of course would soon show himself to Thomas and the others, but would then declare that with regards to the resurrection, "blessed are those who do not see, but still believe".
But what if the resurrection was more of a spiritual event than a physical one? What if it was more allegory than literal fact? Is it possible that those first two disciples came back from that empty tomb, professing their belief with such conviction that a miracle was born? What if it was not the return of Christ to a human body that was the true resurrection miracle, but rather the ability of those two disciples to believe that He would live on forever?
For Christians, a resurrected Christ is necessary to show God's ability to conquer death and to bring to believers the gift of eternal life. If the resurrection is not corporeal, than how could that need be filled? The answer is in the empty tomb. For Peter and John, the resurrection was not a vision of Christ. It was the absence of his dead body that caused them to believe. Once they believed that death had been conquered, the resurrection was real regardless of what happened to Christ's body. It is easy to question that if Christ did not return to his earthly body, then how did the tomb become empty in the first place, and how did Christ appear to the apostles later? That is not the point. How the body left the tomb does not matter, nor does his appearance later matter. Whether Christ rejoined his body at all does not matter. What matters is that we believe that after he died, Christ returned from death to live on first in John (because he got there first, of course), then in Peter, then the rest of us.
The sermon I remember more than any other was one I heard probably 25 years ago. It was given by a deacon about the gospel of loaves and the fishes. He suggested that perhaps the miracle that day wasn't Jesus creating food for 5,000 from thin air, but rather was Jesus convincing everyone other than the kid with the fish and bread to share the food they had brought with them. People in attendance, reluctant to share their food, were touched by Christ and produced enough food to feed everyone, with plenty to spare. Bible literalists would consider any possibility other than Jesus creating food to be blasphemy, but this exegesis struck a deep chord within me. It was a way to explain a miracle while still considering it a miracle.
If Christ can live on in each of us, than he has in fact conquered death. If we believe that Christ has conquered death, than we believe that we too can live forever. And if those beliefs are held in good faith, then isn't that what the resurrection is for?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Change you can believe in
So it wasn't entirely an April Fool's joke. Most of it was true. I used to be a horrible typist, and truly couldn't find a shift key. Didn't matter much to a science geek who had few term papers to write, but with the advent of the internet, typing was forced upon me pretty quickly. So, I could either type slowly, or just forego capital letters in the interest of speed. I opted for the latter.
Didn't take too long to get skillz, but I kinda liked the lower case thing. Became a style, an M.O. But for a while now I've been growing a little tired of it. Looking back on this blog in particular, I do feel that an all lowercase font does make the entries a little more difficult to read. (I know, the background and layout need some big time work too, but that's gonna take some HTML skillz that I haven't got yet.) So, it's time to grow up.
You may see e-mails from me in all lowercase, and for effect I won't rule out a lowercase entry here from time to time, but from now on, it's a more traditional style here at finkipedia. Except for the name.
Didn't take too long to get skillz, but I kinda liked the lower case thing. Became a style, an M.O. But for a while now I've been growing a little tired of it. Looking back on this blog in particular, I do feel that an all lowercase font does make the entries a little more difficult to read. (I know, the background and layout need some big time work too, but that's gonna take some HTML skillz that I haven't got yet.) So, it's time to grow up.
You may see e-mails from me in all lowercase, and for effect I won't rule out a lowercase entry here from time to time, but from now on, it's a more traditional style here at finkipedia. Except for the name.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
GOOD TIME FOR A CHANGE
WHEN I FIRST STARTED USING E-MAIL YEARS AGO, I WAS A HORRIBLE TYPIST AND COULDN'T FIND THE SHIFT KEY. THUS, I'D TYPE ONLY IN LOWER CASE. WHAT BEGAN OUT OF INEPTITUDE MORPHED INTO A STYLE, AND IT'S BEEN HARD TO GO BACK.
BUT WHEN I RE-READ THIS BLOG, I FIND THAT READING LOWER CASE CAN BE A BIT DISTRACTING AT TIMES. SO I'VE DECIDED TO CHANGE THE FORMAT A LITTLE, AND SWITCH TO AN ALL UPPER CASE FORMAT FOR A WHILE.
FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU'D LIKE, BUT AN ALL-CAPS COMMENT SECTION WOULD JIVE NICELY WITH THE TEXT ABOVE.
BUT WHEN I RE-READ THIS BLOG, I FIND THAT READING LOWER CASE CAN BE A BIT DISTRACTING AT TIMES. SO I'VE DECIDED TO CHANGE THE FORMAT A LITTLE, AND SWITCH TO AN ALL UPPER CASE FORMAT FOR A WHILE.
FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU'D LIKE, BUT AN ALL-CAPS COMMENT SECTION WOULD JIVE NICELY WITH THE TEXT ABOVE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)