TIME WELL SPENT??

As I do crosswords I keep track of clue answers that could fill the numbers of squares that the answer requires. Many times I find there could be two or more words that will both answer the clue and exactly fill the squares.  I mark these sets of words on the bottom of each crossword I complete and later transfer them into a spreadsheet.  If the set of words contains two words (like “melt” and “thaw) I enter two rows on the spreadsheet.  One row will have “melt” in the first column and “thaw” in the second column.  The next row will have “thaw” in the first column and “melt” in the second column.  A set of three words will take three rows.

Over the years I have built up the list to 1456 rows.  There are 1276 sets of entries.  42 rows have six columns per row (7 sets of six words).  Many rows have only two columns filled (2 sets of two words).

Here is an example from the list:

WORD 1    WORD 2    WORD 3    WORD 4    WORD 5
Abase    Abuse    Shame      
Abide    Allow          
Ablaze    Aflame          
Abode    House          
Abuse    Shame    Abase      
Accosted    Ambushed          
Ace    One    Pro    Win  
Ache    Pain    Pang    Sore    Hurt

MAYBE IT'S MY FAULT AFTER ALL

With respect to LOUD CHURCH MUSIC:  it my be my fault.  See the two quotes I ran into below:

"Tinnitus could be the result of the brain’s neural circuits trying to adapt to the loss of sensory hair cells by turning up the sensitivity to sound. This would explain why some people with tinnitus are oversensitive to loud noise."

"Noise-induced hearing loss, the result of damage to the sensory hair cells of the inner ear, is one of the most common causes of tinnitus. Anything you can do to limit your exposure to loud noise - - by moving away from the sound, turning down the volume, or wearing earplugs or earmuffs - - will help prevent tinnitus or keep it from getting worse."

So it looks like I still must avoid (what seems to me) LOUD MUSIC.

ROCK-CONCERT-LOUD

Yesterday we had yet another church experience.  The church we tried had ROCK-CONCERT-LOUD music.  We tried four (that’s 4) churches the Sunday before and they each had ROCK-CONCERT-LOUD music.  We also tried a church where the music was not too loud, and the message was reasonably good, but we know the people there.  We know they disapprove of what we do - - have a glass of wine in the evening, and perhaps a glass of beer when we dine out.

So in many churches you can not have contemporary music and must refrain from alcohol, even though there is no danger of becoming an alcoholic.  And in many others you can have contemporary music IF you are willing to damage yourself, that is your sense of hearing.

I’ll add another comment:  I have never found that Rock-and-Roll or Jazz music had driven me to illicit sex, or to drugs, or to drinking, or to terrorist actions, or even to disobeying my Mother.

LOUD ALL OVER

Last Sunday (that is the last Sunday after the previous last Sunday I wrote about before: so, I am  speaking about the latest last Sunday) (the most recent one, not the one before; that is, the last last one) we went to three churches in a row and all of them had music that was too loud.  I really wonder if there a church we can go to.

This music is so loud that the congregations can not possibly hear either themselves or those next to them sing.  What then is the point of congregational singing if the congregation can not hear themselves?  Is not the singing portion of the service for the congregation to sing?  In this atmosphere of loudness the congregation does not sing.  Let us not kid ourselves, these events are not events of congregational participation, but events of performer-audience.  The performers act and the audience listens.

(or plugs their ears).

HEARING AND THE AUDIO MAN

Last Sunday we went to a church that was meeting in a school.  As we walked in the people there were very friendly and welcoming.  The only problem was the music was too loud, even in the foyer.  They very courteously tried to usher us in but even with my hearing aids turned off the music was way too loud.  We turned and left.

We will never know if the preaching was good, if it was true to the Bible, if it would have made us more effective in our Christian life.  We will never know if there were good and lasting friends to meet there.  We will never have the opportunity to contribute our knowledge built up over 41 years of a faithful Christian marriage.  We will never be able to participate in the music.  We will never be able to encourage the believers there to read the Bible every day as we have done all our married life.  We will miss any encouragement there may have been there for us, or the new lessons we needed to learn.

All this because the music was too loud.  No one in that congregation could have heard themselves singing the songs or heard others around them singing.  Some would have been discouraged from singing.

I would have liked to attend a small church with contemporary music, even if they never sang the old hymns or even owned hymn books.  I like up-beat music.  I like rock-and-roll.  I grew up on rock-and-roll.  I like jazz too.  The radio in my car would never be tuned to a classical station; classical music is OK, I just do not prefer it.

But the volume of the music at that church will never be turned down.  That’s because the audio guys like it that way.  They like it loud.  They can stand it either because they are already deaf, or because they are wearing earphones and are not effected by it.  They control the volume, not the musicians, singers or the pastor.  He who turns the dial has the power.

And the congregation there must like it too because they stay.

Some might say, “Just get over it and learn to be immersed in the experience.”  I wear hearing aids because I have poor hearing.  I have had poor hearing all my life.  I have spent six thousand dollars on hearing aids just so I can hear somewhat better yet I still struggle to hear.  I refuse to allow some audio-jockey to bore out my ears and destroy what hearing I have left.

Someone said, “If it’s too loud, you’re too old.”  I guess I am.

TAMING SOFTWARE

The only effective way to approach software:

LEADING FROM THE BACK

In some blog I got to somehow the timpanist of a major orchestra spoke of his responsibility as “leading from the back”

Having played in orchestras I would never dare say the percussion “leads from the back”.  The conductor leads.  Even in Big Band work the percussion does not lead, he (she) is part of the ensemble - - part of a group that is lead.  In Big Band work the leader is often not the drummer.  It’s the leader, or conductor, who decides the timing and tenor of the musical piece to be played.  The drummer (or percussionist) never “leads from the back” (unless he’s Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa or Ginger Baker).

Tell the conductor you are “leading from the back” and you will be “leaving out the back” (door).

It took me long enough to draw this; just another way Facebook sucks away time!

THE OLD SELF DOUBT

For some reason the other night, I remembered the time a teacher, Mrs. Griffin, said to my mother that I “had a flare for writing”.  I did with that statement as I have done with so many other similar affirming statements about me:  I blew it off.  I said to my self, “she's just saying that to flatter. She doesn't really mean it. She's saying what she wishes, not what is.”

Once I remembered that event I said “Why do I always disallow or minimize the good things that are said about me?”  It is a bad habit.  I ought rather to appreciate the positive things.  I ought to try to own them and build on them.  I ought to improve myself in the way that is spoken to me.  I ought to believe that I am “that way” and that I can do “that”.

I am tempted to doubt, to say “What if I am not 'that'?”  Well, if I'm not “that” I won't be able to do “it”.

But it is more honorable to endeavor to become “it” while trying, hoping and being positive.  How can it be honorable by never starting the thing because I think “What if I'm not”?  How can it be honorable never try 100% and only give 75%? 50%? 5%?

[[ Lord please help me to put away from me my disbelief in myself.  Please help me to appropriate the “good works which you have before ordained that I should walk in them”  Help me to recognize the “goodness and mercy which shall follow me all the days of my life.”  After all I am dwelling “in the house of the Lord forever”.  How bad can that be - - rather, how excellent that is. ]]

MOTORS AND ANCHORS

Here is a quote from a man named Wayland (I suppose the person is a man, my having only the last name) . . . "There are two types of people - anchors and motors. You want to loose the anchors and get with the motors because the motors are going somewhere and they’re having fun. The anchors will just drag you down."

This quote is either good or ridiculous depending on the assumptions you bring to it.

Wayland here seems to think anchors are bad; they are preventing you from making progress toward a goal you want to achieve. But I think of anchors as safety devices. Anchors keep your boat from drifting to places you don’t want to go, like going aground.

Wayland seems to think motors are good; they are powering you toward a positive goal. But motors do not always take you to the right places. There are some motors I do not want in my life. I do not want the motors of hateful, negative thinking. I do not want motors that drive me to buy things I do not need.

Yes an anchor can be a hindrance if you throw it overboard at the wrong time or place, but why would you? If you needed to leave your boat offshore in a river, or in a cove near the seashore, would it be OK with you for it to drift with the current or tide? If you habitually sailed near the brink of Niagara Falls would you choose the boat without an anchor?

Yes a motor provides the impetus, the power, to get somewhere; but where is the “somewhere” and how do you need to arrive there? If you need to go forward is it OK for you to use a motor that runs only in reverse? What about a motor that only goes forward and never runs in reverse? I do not paddle my Ford Explorer to the store with a canoe paddle. Neither could I use 200 horsepower V-6 in my canoe. Different motors are for different purposes. The world could have done without the motors that drove Nazi Germany, but we needed the motors that eventually won the war.

People are not only anchors, and they are not only motors; they can be both anchors and motors. It’s up to you to choose where and when to use an anchor just as it’s up to you to choose what type of motor you need for your situation. Choose the right motor; choose the right boat; don't forget your anchor.

ANGRY OVER NOTHING

I was sitting on the porch this morning when two professionally dressed cyclists rode by - - the kind dressed in all the fashionable cycling wear and helmets. As they rode buy one dropped behind the other and moved toward the curb to make room for an on-coming automobile. I thought to myself, "what if that guy decided not to move over?" I wondered, "What if that guy was thinking, 'I am going to keep my lawful place on the road, I'm not going to move for anybody; to hell with anyone who thinks I should move for them!' " I imagined that man as having a confrontational, sour attitude. I almost put myself in a sour, confrontational mood just thinking about it.

But the thing is: I don't have a clue what that guy was thinking. You can't know what anyone's attitude is if they don't speak to you, or by communicating in some other way (as in writing or with a gesture). You don't know what you are not told and there is very little point in trying to imagine what you don't know -- at least in a case like this.

I could have put myself in a sour frame of mind over something that never happened.

How often do we do that?

WHY NOT?

In our family (Lizzie and I) the domination of women is not an issue. I never thought it was right for me to dominate my Wife/Partner/Friend. I don't associate with, nor care to associate with, any person who advocates the abject submission of women, or even the general submission of women.

It makes me sad that some men and some groups push domination of women. Some men take advantage of their strength and force-of-will. Some cultures promote subservience of women as the natural order of the human condition. Why is this so? I believe for many it's simply a case of: “That's the way it's always been done.” It's passed of from Father to Son and from the culture to the men.

Why did I not grow up thinking dominance was my right? I believe it's because my Mother was an intelligent woman who knew right from wrong and saw it as her duty to pass this knowledge to her children. She required her children to act accordingly in her presence. I believe it's because I never saw my Father dominate or be harsh to my Mother. My Father also would not let his children speak disrespectfully. I believe it's because I live in this country and in this age where women have stood up themselves.

WHOSE OPINION IS THIS?

When you are hearing a negative voice in your head saying something disparaging about you know it's probably the Devil. He's always the first one in line with his two cents.  Know that's all his opinion is worth -- about two cents -- even less than that.  Don't listen

VOICES

There are many voices that proclaim themselves to be the truth.  Yet there is only one which is of God.  As Psalm 55 suggests some are from clamorous enemies and some seem to be friends.  How can we tell them apart?

Without God's word I don't know that it's possible to know good from bad.  We would eventually throw some voices out after experiencing their bitter fruits.  This would come at a high cost and being delayed much by the experience.  Others would never be recognized as folly.  We would continue on though life with them.

If we did not read God's word how would we know them?

Someone has to tell us what is good and what is bad.  Whose voice do you listen to?

YE ARE GODS

Joh 10:34:  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

“your law”  Jesus uses that phrase when he talks to the religious leaders about psalm 82.  Here it says, “is it not written in your law . . .”  They, the religious leaders, have taken God's law and have twisted it into their own law in the sense that they use it for their own ends.  Over the generations the leaders have determined that only a certain interpretation can be applied to God's word: their own interpretation, no one else's.  They have stopped understanding it according to god's sense.  Perhaps they feel they can an amend it as we would amend the U.S Constitution.

It must have taken some length of time to go by tradition from God's intended meaning of his word to man's meaning.  Perhaps some of this change was influenced by the desire to control the congregation into certain actions, certain ways of thinking.  Who knows better than those who have gone to Bible school?  Surely the trained clergy knows better.  Perhaps they feel they can an amend it as we would amend the U.S Constitution.

Step-by-step inch-by-inch, here a little and there a little.

But let me also be quick to say: he who has not read the Bible for himself is in no position to challenge one who has.  A person who has gone to Bible school most likely knows much better than he who has not even read his Bible.

IF IT'S NOT BROKEN DON'T BREAK IT

It's easy for me to be negative about work and about others' participation in it.  I think the worst of them - - that they are taking the laziest route, that they are seeking only to advance their careers, that they have motives other than they ought to have.

In truth what do I know about another's motivation unless they tell me what it is?  I end up speaking unhealthy things which do not improve the situation but rather harms it.

I should refrain from speaking harmful things, and speak helpful things.

God wants to build a fruitful world, not a broken, crippled one.  I want to help what God does, not harm it.

FAMILY TREES

Once I was diagramming family trees while waiting for Lizzie to finish at Publix.  It's amazing how complex they grow over just 3 or 4 generations into the past, or into the future.  It's like a tree: you are now, the trunk.  Below, in the past, are the roots: your parents, grand parents, etc.  Above is the future:  your children, grand children, etc.


I would like to understand how the roots grow ever bigger below into small rootlets, yet all reach back to a single couple:  Adam and Eve.  Even if you hate the idea of God and creation, it still reduces down that way:  to a single couple, or at least a very few couples.

 

IT STARTS WITH A MACHETE

Matt Dhann wrote, “What new paths for our minds do we need to blaze?”

The old roads are paved and easy to travel. To make a new road we have to hack out the brush, chop down the trees, blast out the rock, bring in the foundation gravel.  It's a long process.

But first you machete out the brush. If you keep traveling the path, the brush doesn't grow back. The more traveled the path is the more obvious the path becomes. It gets more defined when you drive jeeps and logging trucks over it.

When you've built an inn in the forest you need a more serious road, not just a track. From a dirt road it can grow to be a paved road, to a multi-lane road, to a major road, to a highway, to an Interstate. If the way becomes important enough there eventually will also be railroads and airlines.

It all starts with the knowledge there is a new way to go and the decision to pick up the machete.

START WHERE THE INFORMATION IS

I wondered today if the part of God's attention toward creation and us is not a very small part of what God pays attention to?  We think that it is all he has to do. 

But, in fact, whatever part of his "time" he spends on us is 100 % of all we have.  We have our being in him, not he in us.  How can we hope to comprehend the boundaries of God? 

We are self-important about what we say we know about the universe.  We say how big stars are and  how hot they are and what they are made of from observation of an infinitesimal speck of light passing through a man-made spectrometer.  We start with what we have been given on earth (helium gas and a prism) and presume the same rules apply uniformly thru out the universe.

Unlike the stars, which hardly give anything, God has given us the Bible.  It provides us much more information than stars. Certainly more than a few bands of light on a spectrometer.

THE SUPERNATURAL

Life as I am experiencing it has an intimate connection to the spiritual world.  Jesus said something like “As I am in the Father, so are you in me; as the Father is in me so am I in  you”  (Look at John 17 and preceding).  He was physically in the world: we could have seen, herd  him and touched him..  Yet he talked with the Father.  He said “my Father and I are one”.

So that should be true between Jesus and us today - - we are in him and he in us.  We should treat our daily living as if we are also somehow also presently in heaven.  What if a veil could be pulled back and we could see the spiritual beings about as it was done for Elisha's servant when he saw the heavenly army? (2 Kings 6:16)

How do I adopt an attitude of living my physical life and realizing, experiencing that I am at the same time living the spiritual life?

I'll bet we have been tricked into thinking that the physical is now, and the spiritual comes later.  Or we think that any spiritual event is unusual in the physical course of events.  What if the spiritual is coursing along at all times but we have made ourselves blind and unhearing toward it?  If everyone else chooses to be blind should we follow meekly along and be blind too?

What do I do to see?  What do I do to listen?

 -- Keep looking to see spiritual things
 -- Keep listening to hear spiritual things.
 -- Keep reading the Bible and rehearse the passages that support spiritual intimacies.
 -- Realize that “the Kingdom is at hand” means it is AT HAND.  It is here now.  It is a natural thing.
 -- Realize your “natural” perceptions could well have a supernatural component.
 -- Embrace your “natural” perceptions and ask God to show you what he wants you to supernaturally know.