Author Archives: Dan

Humility

Leave a reply

I believe the highest virtue a person can possess is humility. However, what do I mean by the word humility? Humility is the opposite of pride. I define pride as not realizing one’s own nature, which for humans would necessarily imply acknowledging the possibility of being wrong. With that underscored, here are what I consider incorrect statements about humility.

  1. Humility means devaluing your opinion. No, you can be humble while having very strong opinions about any and all subjects.
  2. Humility means thinking everyone is better than you. No, you can reckon yourself to have superior reasoning or technical skills than someone else and still be humble.
  3. Humility means denying the virtues you possess. No, you can tell other people that you are humble and still be humble. I view myself as humble and I don’t hesitate to say that.

Humility as I define it is simply being aware of who you really are. I happen to know that I am not infallible (and I tend to think everyone else isn’t either) and so being humble principally means that I admit I could be wrong about anything. This includes my views on religion, science, politics, philosophy, relationships, and any other possible category. I have strong views in all of these areas and I don’t think I am wrong (or I wouldn’t believe as I do) but I do think that I could possibly be wrong.

Humility is an easier virtue to acquire if you have had some beliefs that you used to believe adamantly but then later realized were completely indefensible. Once this has happened in one area, as it did for me, it makes it much easier to be honest with yourself that you just can’t say for sure, even though you may hold strong beliefs.

Humility is a very simple concept but I am amazed at how many people lack it. Why is it so hard to say, “I am not 100% sure; I could be wrong”? Humility does not equate to skepticism, which usually implies extreme incredulity except when there is undeniable evidence. You can be humble and believe whatever you want; you just have to honestly admit that you could be mistaken.

I could be mistaken about the existence of an eternal mind. I could be mistaken about the reality of an afterlife. And if it is possible that I could be mistaken about those things, it is possible that I could be mistaken about anything.

Embracing the concept that you could be wrong about anything can be a very frightening proposition. However, the amazing thing about embracing humility is how much it liberates you. When you truly know yourself, you can finally experience the joy of asking questions without presuppositions. You can respect and learn from the beliefs and opinions of every person you come in contact with. You can embark upon the ultimate challenge of seeking knowledge.

Is there such a thing as ‘wrong’ music?

Leave a reply

Very divisive attitudes can arise in relation to music, especially in church settings. On the one side, those who more or less accept all music often view those who disagree as ignorant legalists. On the other side, those who think some music is acceptable and some is not are apt to view those who accept all music as, at best, deceived, and at worst, worshiping the devil.

To approach this topic, two words need to be defined: ‘wrong’ and ‘music.’ I defined what music is in an earlier post, and I want to clarify here that I am talking about the style of the music, not the lyrics. Those are very important as well, but not what is being discussed here. What does ‘wrong’ mean? As I concluded in my post on morality, I think it would be better to replace the word ‘wrong’ into one of its usual components, such as contrary to human flourishing, contrary to the Bible, or contrary to logic and reasoning, instead of conflating it into something about which no one is in agreement. So, I want to look at music in reference to those three specific categories I just mentioned.

First, is some music contrary to human flourishing? The only way to comment on this would be to argue that certain combinations of sounds or frequencies were unhealthy in some way. This is something that is not clear and is something on which opinions should be reserved until indisputable scientific research is forthcoming. Heavy metal music is probably targeted the most for producing suicidal thoughts or actions, but it can have benefits as well if you value them, such as independent thinking and a sense of belonging. To me, the only clear health risk for any type of music is the decibel level. Sustained exposure to volume levels greater than 90 decibels is linked to hearing loss. For some more interesting thoughts, check out this article.

Second, is some music contrary to Biblical commands or principles? While the Bible mentions several different instruments and styles of music, it does not directly condemn any as wrong. People have used the incident with the golden calf to say some music is bad, where Joshua and Moses liken the musical style coming from the camp of Israel to the sound of war and revelry, respectively (Exodus 32:17-18). However, is war or revelry always a bad thing? Some might argue so, but it seems strained to state that categorically. I generally lean to the side of not imposing something as a general rule that is easily questionable, as this subject is.

Third, is some music contrary to logic and reasoning? Since lyrics are not being considered, it is hard to think of any sound as being illogical or against reason; this is something that is usually reserved for language and thought. However, music does have the ability to greatly affect how we think, and so I suppose in this sense, it could be said to enhance logic and reasoning or discredit them. There have been some studies that suggest certain types of classical music will allow you to think more clearly, but I think these should be taken with a grain of salt. There are certainly many very smart individuals who listen to other styles of music or no music at all.

As far as my opinion is concerned, I don’t label any style of music as wrong, bad, or destructive. I find it much more helpful to focus on what, very broadly speaking, a style of music is communicating (although this could be different for different cultures) and make sure the music played in a particular venue is appropriate for the occasion. Love, anger, rebellion, joy, peace, angst, and sorrow are all emotions music can communicate and none of these emotions are intrinsically bad. However, they may not be always appropriate for a specific occasion or with certain lyrics.

Music is one of the most accessible pathways to experiencing transcendence. Let’s not rob this of others by criticizing or demeaning the music they listen to without very good reason. Our tastes and opinions on this matter will differ, and polite discussion on this topic is healthy, but I believe erring on the side of allowing freedom in this area is the wiser choice. The only thing in music that I am definitely opposed to has nothing to do with style but rather with volume. It is better not to be around sounds above 90 decibels if one can avoid it.

Life IS Fair

2 Replies

Someone is born with down syndrome; another person gets cancer; yet another has a terrible accident and becomes a paraplegic. Why does life just seem so unfair? There are two ways most people deal with this:

  1. Moan, complain, and regret. Bitterness, self-loathing, and depression is one common response to pain and suffering in life. However, what does this really accomplish? It just makes one more dependent on emotional help from others and medications to cope with these destructive attitudes.
  2. Accept that life is not fair. Realists try to suck it up and just make the best with the cards they have been dealt. I believe this to be a much more sensible reaction if it can be pursued. However, I have experienced that there are times when it is difficult if not impossible to have this realist outlook on life.

I have engaged in both of these responses. I even blogged here about how life is not fair and to simply focus on accomplishing everything you can given your condition without comparing yourself to others.

However, I cannot seem to really embrace this perspective. Perhaps others are stronger than I, but for me it still fosters a sense of bitterness, regret, and despair, as much as I fight against these feelings. I am now in the habit of forming personal empowering beliefs that have the possibility of being true and whole-heartedly embracing them in my philosophy on life.

So, in dealing with pain, I have decided to believe that life IS fair. That ultimately, somehow, compensation will be made if I deal with pain consciously.

Now, I have pondered extensively over how this compensation will happen and what the compensation will be when it happens. As with everything, I realize that I will not figure out a good answer for this today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and most likely not even in ten years.

Despite not knowing the particulars, I choose to believe that there will be  compensation for the things people suffer in this life, but some conditions must be met in order to receive this.

  1. You must connect with the Source. Who or what is the source? I believe He is an almighty and eternal being who directly interacted with His creation via Jesus/Y’shua the Christ. I will never claim to know who He is except in a very, very small way, since I believe He operates in a different dimension that is difficult if not impossible for me to fully comprehend (Isaiah 55:8-9).
  2. You must live consciously right now. Don’t worry about what you did in the last year, last month, or even the last second. Just choose this moment to live consciously. If you would like a framework in which to do this, check out my posts on living in appointed times by faith (part 2, part 3, part 4). You may also find my statement of belief helpful.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham said to the rich man, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted and thou art in anguish.” Now, I have no idea whether this parable is commenting at all on a principle of compensation or not. However, I believe it is plausible to think that it is. Abraham should have said, “Look, you refused to believe in the Messiah, so now you are suffering!” But that is not what he said, though that was additionally implied later.

There was a suggestion that Lazarus was being compensated for the evil things he suffered in life. Now, would this not also mean that a believer that has a suffered more than another believer will be compensated more for that suffering? This is mainly conjecture on my part, but it is a theologically fruitful one. It helps to make sense of the things in life that just seem so unfair. This could mean that those born with down syndrome or with a disability will be the ones with the highest capacity for knowing the Father or something equivalent to that. This idea makes all suffering more meaningful. I believe it is an empowering belief worth adopting.

Evaluation of my Month of Constant Smiling

1 Reply

I think this past month’s challenge has been the most rewarding I have done so far. Constant smiling, while awkward at times, really focuses your attention on the present moment, which I believe is one of the keys to leading a fulfilled life. Here is what I learned:

  • Smiling will lift your spirit in most cases. This is especially true if you are doing it on your own initiative. This is because when you choose to smile, it becomes harder to think negatively and easier to think positively, and the more you do it, the more this happens.
  • Smiling encourages eye contact. I believe an important component in living for consciousness is eye contact. This is something that is not natural for me. However, when I wear a bright countenance, I feel more excited to make meaningful connections with people in this way.
  • Smiling makes you more conscious about other things. I notice that when I am smiling, I tend to be more conscious of my posture, priorities, and hygiene. This was a natural result.
  • Smiling makes it hard to be moody. Seriously, it is just difficult to be very moody when you are wearing a toothy grin all the time. Since I tend to be more moody by nature, this was a good antidote for me.

Here are some examples of when smiling does not fit the bill:

  • Yoga. Smiling seems to take away from the absolute concentration on movement, position, and breath. Although I still got plenty of great results, the environment was just a little less than ideal.
  • Studying. It is somewhat difficult for me to think about a problem when smiling. If I am working relatively simple problems or just reading easy text, it is no problem. However, if there is something I need to really think about, smiling takes away from the thought process.
  • Sleeping. Smiling right as you lay down, to channel a peaceful atmosphere, is good, but then everything should be neutral. Even if  some want to argue that smiling is their default expression, from a muscular perspective it is not – a neutral face is.

So, what will I retain from this past month’s challenge? First, I would like try to make smiling one of my standard expressions. Unless I have a good reason not to smile, I am going to try to wear one as much as possible. Second, I want to create and maintain empowering beliefs that will give me good reasons to smile. One of these I will talk about in my next post.

Last, I want to read and think more about inspiring positive actions that happen in the world. I focus quite a bit on the big questions in science, theology, politics, and medicine, but I want to also absorb a good dose of heart-warming stories and songs that will create more positivity.

What makes something morally right or wrong?

3 Replies

Most people are outraged when they hear of someone being raped or killed. A person is praised for being generous and courageous. Why is this? It seems most people have a built in sense of what is right and wrong. The problem is that once we try to define exactly what makes something morally right or wrong, everything becomes pretty subjective. Here are three definitions I have heard given for defining morality.

  • Human Flourishing. This is the way a lot of humanists would define what is morally right and wrong. According to this line of thinking, things that contributed to human flourishing would be morally right and things that did not would be wrong. Consequently, killing someone, unless for a very good reason (e.g. they were a mass murderer), would be wrong. Conversely, giving money to charities would be right. Killing an animal would be neutral. By this definition, doing things that are unhealthy to yourself, others, or the environment could be classified as wrong. Limiting people’s rights, except for specific cases, would also be a no-no.
  • The Bible. I am not listing all the different holy books, even though there are many people that believe the holy book of their particular religion is the final arbiter of what is morally right and wrong. For now, since most of my readers are Christians, I will just focus on the Bible. Now, the Bible is a very diverse book and there are thousands of interpretations of its various commands. However, actions can be placed into a general category of definitely wrong, possibly wrong, or definitely not wrong according to the Bible. Killing another person (except in unique cases) would be definitely wrong, something that is not contested. Eating pork and not tithing would be possibly wrong, as these are debated among Christians. Things that are not wrong according to the Bible would be topics the Bible doesn’t even reference in general or things the Bible specifically commands or infers are acceptable.
  • Logic and reasoning. Atheists will sometimes argue that most religion is wrong because it makes a virtue out of believing things without evidence and favoring presuppositionalism over logic in discovering truth. This definition condemns any action or belief as wrong if it does not lead to empirical truth but is mystical in nature.

With this much confusion and lack of consensus on what constitutes morality, I believe this word is better avoided. Instead of asking if something is moral, just choose one of the above definitions (or another one you like) and ask “Will this contribute to human flourishing?” “Does the Bible state this is definitely (or possibly) wrong?” “Does this contradict logic?”

I believe if we asked these questions instead of asking “Is this moral?” or “Is this right?” we would be able to understand people with different ideas of morality better and have meaningful discussions about these important topics. As for me, I tend to value each of these pursuits (human flourishing, the Bible, and logic) equally, but I realize they are distinct concepts. I am ultimately interested in finding the intersection between the pursuit of happiness, and the pursuit of truth.

A Month of Orderly Surroundings

1 Reply

For the next month, I am going to maintain a state of neatness. Because I live in two different places, I am always packing and unpacking bags. Oftentimes, I won’t finish putting everything up, and once one thing is left out, another follows, and soon my surroundings are cluttered.

So, this month’s challenge is fairly simple. Here are the basic objectives:

  • Maintain open floor space. In general, keep things off of the floor. If they need to be on the floor, make sure they are tucked away and are not adding clutter.
  • Keep tables and shelves generally organized. Not everything will be perfectly neat all the time, but things should always have a general appearance of order, even if things are laying out.
  • Make the bed neatly. I have made it a point to always “make” my bed. However, it often still looks messy (creases, sheet showing, pillows scrunched up, etc.). I want to take the extra 30 seconds and make it nice.
  • Do regular light cleaning. Incessantly cleaning can be a big waste of time. However, just doing 5-10 minute cleaning episodes once a day can work wonders and will remove the need to have a big cleaning day every few months.

Up next: an evaluation of my month of constant smiling!

Walk in the Light

Leave a reply

I would like to share what has become probably the most important verse in my relationship with my heavenly father, I John 1:7. When I am following my convictions and doing what is good, all it takes to feel connected is to think my thoughts to the father (pray). However, what happens when I sin and lack faith in my paradigms?

In the past I focused on I John 1:9, which says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I took this verse to mean that in order to be forgiven of a sin, any sin, I needed to tell the Father the specific sin I had committed. Also, Matthew 6:12 says, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” So after I had sinned and wanted to restore the relationship I would say something like, “Father, I lusted; please forgive me” or “Father, I was lazy; please forgive me”.

Now these verses brought tremendous bondage into my life. I was always worrying that I had not confessed my sin correctly, or that I had forgotten to confess a sin. These two verses became an integral part of how I viewed my sanctification. Sometimes I would spend long periods of time searching my mind for how I had sinned and pleading with the Father to forgive me, hoping I was doing it right.

At some point, I realized that what I was trying to do was impossible. If I had to confess every sin in order to be forgiven and have a relationship with the Father, I was doomed. So, how should I John 1:9 and Matthew 6:12 be interpreted. I am not entirely sure, but I tend to think that these are some of the possible evidences of having a close relationship with the Father. When you sin, it will burden you, and you very well might share your failing with the Father.

However, you would not be doing this to receive forgiveness. This happens in a different way. I John 1:7 is a verse I quote to myself all the time, but especially after I have failed. It reminds me that the Father does not require any pleading or penance in order for us to receive forgiveness. Rather, as I John 1:7 so beautifully states, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

What this verse means to me is that if I stop what I am doing that is sinful and start following my paradigm again, then I am forgiven and have fellowship with the Father. Fellowship can always be restored in an instant. I just have to choose to do so. Now there are still times when I allow guilt to consume me, and these I am trying to fight against. I believe guilt while you are engaged in sin is good, but any lingering guilt after the moment you start doing right is not, because according to Romans 8:1, there is no condemnation to those who are in the Christ Jesus/Yeshua.

So, here are three quick things you can do when you realize you have strayed from walking in the light.

  1. Stop. Whatever it is that you are doing or thinking that is not right, cease doing that.
  2. Start. Whatever you believe is the action or thought you should do right now, do that.
  3. Thank. Consider expressing your gratefulness to the Father for His unbelievable forgiveness. You could have just done the worst sin imaginable, but the moment you leave it behind, He is waiting with open arms to fellowship with you and give you His favor!

The Apostle Paul said in Romans 5:20 that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” The Father’s amazing grace seems even more amazing after each time I sin. Does this make me more likely to sin? Not at all! You see, once you grasp this concept, you can begin to look at sin more objectively and think of ways to help you avoid it rather than just moaning over your sin and pleading with the Father for forgiveness. You can conquer your failings with inspiration rather than guilt.

Truth vs. Happiness

Leave a reply

What would you rather have: more truth or more happiness? I am sure most of you will immediately think this is a false dichotomy and that these two concepts are linked. The more truth you acquire, the more you will be able to make decisions that lead to more happiness, right?

Well, this may be right, but is not necessarily so. I listen to and read a fair amount of atheist shows and articles. This has been one of the most informative ways of pointing out flaws in my thinking and inconsistencies in my beliefs. The biggest thing I have learned from doing this is that atheism is very logical and based on truth at all costs. This I greatly respect. I have seriously considered becoming an atheist in the past for this very reason. Atheists don’t appeal to belief without evidence, tradition, or personal feelings. And nor do I.

However, one thing I have decided recently for myself (and I really knew this all along, but had never really thought upon it), is that I am not interested in atheism even if it had the highest possibility of being true, unless it offers some better hope of eternal life by doing so. This was a shocking realization and one I tried to get rid of initially. However, I now realize that I am definitely more interested in happiness than truth and not ashamed about that. Really, everyone else is as well, even if some don’t want to admit it, because it sounds more noble to be a “truth-seeker.”

Now, having said that, let me quickly add that, for the most part, I believe these two concepts are directly aligned. That is, the more truth you know, the more happiness you will be able to attain. However, the difficulty with truth is that it is very hard if not impossible to know anything with 100% certainty except for our own existence. Furthermore, when I say I am more interested in happiness than truth, I am principally referring to only one area, that of the afterlife. Unless I knew with 100% certainty that there was no afterlife or that nothing I did in this life would affect it, I am going to believe in some religion, philosophy, or metaphysical concept that does offer this possibility. The question is not what is the most logical position, but rather what is the most logical position among the positions that offer hope of an afterlife based on what I do here and now. I am not implying here that atheism is the most logical position, only that even if it was so, I still don’t think I would be interested.

I am sure any atheist reading this will be absolutely disgusted at this point. But I want to challenge that reaction. I am living for total consciousness forever, which I believe will bring ultimate personal fulfillment or happiness. I am sure you are living for ultimate personal fulfillment as well.

If I was in great health and expected to maintain that, I would consider atheism as a potentially logical belief that freed my from possible constraints imposed by religion. However, I am not, and though I will live the healthiest life I can, I don’t ever expect to be in really great health. So, by default, unless the truth of atheism could be shown with 100% certainty, it is not even an option.

Let me expound on this a bit. I have kyphoscoliosis, which is a 3-dimensional spinal deformity. It is not as severe as many others, but it has caused immense pain and feelings of inferiority, and has limited my career choices. Now if I did not have this deformity, it is possible I would be extremely skeptical of anything outside of mainstream medicine. I still am skeptical of anything outside mainstream medicine, but not extremely so. Why? Because even though I believe the best science supports conventional medicine, at this point there is not a whole lot else that it can do for me. For this reason, I am very open and interested in chiropractic care, essential oils, and other alternative modalities that at least offer hope, and may (even if the possibility is slight) turn out to be true. I look at the existence of a divine being and the truth of Christianity in  a similar fashion.

Always seek your greatest happiness. Selfishness is not a vice or a virtue; it is simply an unalterable part of what makes us human beings. What is important in seeking fulfillment is to live your life according to the logical paradigm and belief structure that will best accomplish this.

Romans 8:28 as a Cure for Guilt and Bitterness

1 Reply

I was searching around last week for a way to make sense of undesirable things in life, and eventually thought of Romans 8:28. I have commented on this verse before, but for completely different reasons. Here is how the verse reads, for those unfamiliar with it:

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love Elohim, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

My application of this is as follows. If I am currently (not as in my general lifestyle, but the moment I am in right now) meeting the conditions in this verse, then I can legitimately entertain the empowering thought that every flaw I have inherited or acquired, every sin I have committed, and every bad impression I have made will ultimately work together for my ultimate fulfillment.

I believe loving the Father and being called according to His purpose are two sides of the same coin. My practical interpretation of this verse would interpret this group of people as those that don’t compromise their convictions and those who do what they know to be good. To really generalize this, it would be those who live consciously.

I believe this is the sort of concept that just makes a lot of sense to believe in for anyone. For even if it turned out to be false (say at death you simply ceased to exist forever), it would still greatly empower the life you have now. Extremely fortunately for me, this concept is actually written into the Scriptures in which I currently place a good deal of importance.

So, if you are reading this and happen to be a Christian, I encourage you to fully take advantage of this concept to combat the guilt you may feel over a recent failure you made or bitterness over some flaw you have physically or with your personality. However, you can only access this if you are living consciously and meet the conditions in the passage.

The 3 Definitions for Sin

2 Replies

In the new testament, I have found three primary definitions for sin that I think are very instructive. These are located in Romans 14:23, James 4:17, and I John 3:4.

  1. Sin is doing something despite having qualms about it (Romans 14:23). The classic Biblical example of this is eating meat offered to idols. Paul made it clear in I Corinthians 8 that intrinsically, doing so is not sin. However, he also made it clear that to do so thinking that it may be wrong is sin. Basically, if you have a conviction on something, you need to keep that conviction. Your convictions can and should change as you learn more and transition from a weak believer to a strong believer, but whatever ones you currently hold should not be compromised.
  2. Sin is not doing what you know you should be doing (James 4:17). The immediate context of this statement is in connection with saying ‘If the Lord will, we shall do such and such” instead of boastfully presuming on the future. However, I believe it can be taken in a broader sense as well. Now, the verse actually says that if you know what is good and don’t do it, then you have sinned. Does this mean that I must do every good action that pops into my mind? I don’t believe so. This would lead to absurdity. I believe a sensible way to understand this is to do what you should be doing right now. In order to do this, you would either need a paradigm in place to determine a prioritized list of things you should be doing, or else be following any hint of what could be the spirit’s prompting. Your choice would reflect whether you believe reason or instinct should be the guiding force in your decisions.
  3. Sin is transgressing the law (I John 3:4). This is where things get controversial. Is John referring to the Torah, the commands of Christ, the instructions in the epistles of Paul, or possibly all three of these? My short answer to this is: I don’t know. However, if you want to know how I currently make sense of this, check out my Scriptural Command Paradigm (also part 2).

Now, I believe most people tend to think of the third definition when they think of sin. They ask, is homosexuality sin? What about gambling? Is it wrong to smoke? And the questions go on and on. What they are basically asking is what does the Bible categorically prohibit? This is a very important, though difficult, question that is worthy of much thought and study.

However, I am here to propose that the first two definitions given above are more fundamental and more important than the specific actions the Bible condemns as sin. One reason for this is that these are not ambiguous like the last definition. You know if you have a qualm about doing something, or if you are not doing what you know you should be doing right now. Even something most Christians think is just obviously sinful, homosexuality, is really dependent on how you interpret Scripture, such as this article and this one show. I have a different understanding of this topic than these authors do, but I am willing to admit that I could be wrong.

This drives sin a lot closer to home. You don’t know what other people’s convictions are usually and neither do you know their priorities, so for the most part judging others is excluded in the first two definitions of sin. The only person you can judge is yourself.

I believe this understanding of sin is very important in witnessing. I know of people who use the 10 commandments to show a person that they are a sinner and in need of forgiveness. While I believe this is done with good intention, I think it is a very poor and inconsistent method of pointing out sin. There are a wide variety of viewpoints on whether the 10 commandments apply to Christians today as well as on how to interpret them.