Collected Musings

On Christianity

The true fulfillment of Christianity is service to others. Or, to eliminate the possibility of mistaken connotations, "the infusion of love towards others in every social interaction."

If the Christian faith were solely about introspective improvement and the elimination of sin within our lives, it would not, could not, turn the world upside-down. Yet we cannot separate the internal and the external, for to live with internal and external lives at variance with one another is to live in perpetual conflict.

Christianity is not about the forgiveness of guilt, for guilt is not a sin, but merely the symptom of sin. What is sin? Sin is a failure to love. Love God, or to love thy neighbour. Anything that does not fall under this category is not a sin. But what does it mean to love God?

It can be said that love is contextual. In different cultures, the requirements of love will vary greatly. For some, there is deep meaning in removing footwear prior to entering a holy place. Others may find deepest devotion to God in praising His name with uplifted hands amidst a concert with loud music and ringing ears.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that there is no shared definition of love that crosses all bounds of culture. One such definition, in every culture I know of, is to adapt oneself to the desires and tastes of the cherished object.

God has revealed his tastes and desires in writing to us through the Bible. Through the Bible, God has given specific instructions on how to honour him--the ten commandments being one. Many people split up the ten commandments into four and six--love towards God and love towards man--but the ten commandments are actually one set of ten--love to both God and man. To not kill or commit adultery is as much honour to God as it is to other people.

In culture and our environment, we have been granted a unique and unmatched perspective on life--a lens, per se, that focuses on some depth of our world and allows us to see some objects more clearly, while others the lens blurs. We can have a pretty good idea of what we can see sharply, but as we have only one lens, who are we to say that others can see more or less clearly than ourselves?

So it is with faith. It is up to us to live our faith in the deepest and most meaningful way possible based on our culture--our perspective. It is up to us to seek out other peoples' lenses and experiences and use them to bring our own worlds into focus. It is up to us to share our own experiences to help others see more clearly. But it is not ours to judge the depth and meaning of someone else's religious experience. Only God and the follower can know the sincerity and devotion of their own faith.

What do I see in God?

I see a God who is honoured by our devotion in the little things without neglecting the larger things. When we keep the sabbath exactly from sundown to sundown, in communion with God and fellow worshippers, I believe He is honoured by our concern for His instruction. When we extend this communion in love for Him and others throughout the rest of the week, He is touched. Would a significant other act any differently?

I have found that even in the little things that God has asked us to do, for seemingly no reason that applies to us, should I challenge their value for today, God ends up proven right, be it a few days or a few years later. I find that God granted us His instruction for our own good, and not just to watch us jump hoops. I find that God granted us common sense to figure out for ourselves which of His advice applies only to specific situations, and how to take general principles from them to then guide our lives.

I choose to live my life in this manner. I do not expect others to do so, unless their culture and life experiences can make such a life meaningful to them.

The important universal thing is love, at all times, within all contexts. That is what it means to be Christian.



On Culture

Thanks to mass media, more people have knowledge of global events as they happen; thanks to education, more people are educated enough to make sense of these global events and form an opinion of them.

This trend has accelerated with the Internet, as people have learned how to educate themselves, quickly, resulting in a move from "consult the relevant expert" to "become your own expert." The trend to self-expertise has been exaggerated by the population boom in the past 200 years, where we have gone from a planet with fewer than a billion people to one approaching seven billion.

The result is where you had Beethoven, king and undisputed authority on music but 200 years ago, you now have fractured leadership atop the musical field. Expertise is diluted. The same applies to every field.

Today everyone's an expert. And that means no one is an expert. Which means... we now live in a communist society. But it's no longer a communism of class, politics, or power--it's a communism of information, opinion, and talent.

"Communism creates equality by making all men poor." But thanks to pluralism and the internet, everyone's opinion matters--meaning no one's opinion matters--because of the communism of information.

This communism isn't enforced by a police state: there are no wiretaps, no death penalties, no re-education camps to enforce this communism upon us. Rather, we enforce this communism upon ourselves, by demanding our own self-importance.

It is foolish to allow that all opinions are of equal value. Certainly in an election every vote counts--but when a friend tells you to ask someone out and another says not to, and the date ends badly, very badly, obviously one person was right and the other was wrong. Would you rather have Beethoven or your mother teaching you music?

How many Beethovens of this generation have been lost because they went unrecognized? How many Beethovens drown in the sea of our own self-importance?

By demanding equality, we destroy greatness.



On Economics

Every penny saved is someone else's debt.

Thought experiment: you have a clothes-maker, a farmer, a teacher, a priest, and a police-officer. Each one's services can be retained for one year for $10,000--the clothes-maker to provide sufficient clothing for a year, the farmer food, the teacher education, and so forth. Therefore, everyone makes $40,000 a year, and everyone spends $40,000 a year.

Now, suppose the teacher wished to double their consumption of services. The teacher now spends $80,000 per year, but still only makes $40,000 per year, so at year-end, the teacher will be $40,000 in debt. But because of the teacher's extra-spending, everyone else will have made $50,000, while still only spending $40,000; thus, at year-end, everyone else will own $10,000.

The combined savings of the four will equal $40,000, the same as the teacher's debt; therefore savings equal debt.

Now, suppose that the four were to agree to equally spend whatever money they received throughout the year. After one iteration, each spends $50,000 and makes $58,000, with the teacher's debt being reduced to $32,000; the second iteration would see spending hit $58,000, earnings hit $64,400 and the teacher's debt would drop to $27,600; this would continue until all parties reached $80,000 in spending and income, and at the moment none of the four had savings, the teacher would have no debt.

As the Earth is a closed economic system, just as the model above, it can be shown that hoarding cash puts other people in debt, and is therefore criminal. This model also shows that the sooner people spend money they earn, the healthier the economy is. (That is, the faster the next guy in the chain gets his money, the sooner he can spend it, and the sooner it returns to you.)

It is a well-known financial principle that you should only spend money you have, and should always maintain some savings for emergencies. How then can this principle be considered valid in light of this theory (as you couldn't purchase, say, a car, without saving up money for months in order to be able to afford it)?

Government debt. The government goes into debt to enable us to own cash reserves. That is, in fact, the origination of the dollar bill--by owning a dollar bill, the government said it owed you one dollar. Thus all cash balances really are someone else's debt.

As of last I heard, the US government owed $10 trillion dollars. If you split that evenly among the 300,000,000 American citizens, that comes out to a little over $30,000 per person. Thus it is morally right for people to own cash reserves up to $30,000.

But companies require cash balances too--usually much more than people. Suppose that companies require cash balances close to $8,000 per employee--enough for four bi-weekly paycheques of $2,000. Based on a guesstimate that there are 120,000 registered companies in the US, that would provide for companies to hold an average cash balance of $1,000,000. (Obviously, this number would rise or fall based on number of employees, and therefore size of company and need for such a cash balance.)

This still leaves people with $22,000 that they can hold morally as a cash balance without fear that they are putting someone else into debt or harming the economy. Though this is the amount government debt enables you to own, it still holds true that a) the faster you spend your money, the healthier the economy will be, and b) there will always be people who try to cheat the system, along the lines of the famous "Tragedy of the Commons."

So to return to the initial thought exercise: suppose one day the clothes-maker decides to double the price of clothes. Thus everyone else pays $50,000 a year to meet their needs, while earning only $40,000; the clothes-maker would earn $80,000, but spend only $40,000. Thus the clothes-maker finishes the year $40,000 in the green, and everyone else is $10,000 in the red.

But suppose the clothes-maker feels conscientious enough about his actions that he spends the entire $40,000 profit within the year on his fellow-workers, thus enabling them to avoid debt. In contrast with the first year, when all earned $40,000 and the economy was balanced, each of the four other workers would have to work harder to produce more goods to sell to the clothes-maker at the initial rate; but at least they would survive.

The clothes-maker would see his quality of life rise, who for the same amount of effort now receives more produce; everyone else's quality of life would decline, as they would work harder to maintain the same quality of life they had in the past. Note: despite earning double, the clothes-maker's quality of life would only rise 25%, as he could only afford 25% more of each good.

After a few years of working like horses to support the clothes-maker's affluence, the remaining four workers decided they had enough and double their rates as well. Thus, $80,000 in this system is worth what $40,000 was worth only a few years earlier. This is inflation.

On its own, there's nothing wrong with it, as the quality of life of each worker is the same at the beginning and the end; and it allows people to make capital purchases now that are a little beyond their means, knowing that in the future, their cash debt will decrease in value with the value of cash. The problem occurs when there are multiple competing currencies, in which case a currency whose cash value is rapidly falling may soon be unable to purchase anything from the other currencies. But so long as standard of living rises along with it, there should be no problem.

Inflation can thus be simplified as one of two things-- a) a correction in the balance of prices, as the other workers try to get fair value for their services; b) some overzealous clothes-maker who tries to get himself a better standard of living than everyone else. Granted, a and b are really one and the same thing, depending on whose viewpoint you are taking, as everyone seems to think "fair value for their services" is higher than it is right now.

Thus in the real world everyone slowly raises their own prices bit by bit, almost like a horse race. For instance, at this point in the story, the clothes-maker could decide to double his rates at the same time the four other workers "catch-up", in order to maintain his own high standards.

A good example of this working in real life would be the current economic crisis. You'll recall two summers ago that the price of gas spiked dramatically. This had the effect of the clothes-seller doubling his rates. Everyone tried to maintain their standard of living, but soon realized that this caused them to go into debt. As most places of work do not have a mechanism for the entire factory to work 10 extra hours of overtime when prices rise, the only option remaining to avoid debt was to stop spending (lower one's own standard of living). Slowing the rate of spending and holding onto one's earnings in this manner has the unfortunate effect of collapsing the market; increased debt has the consequence of defaulted loans/mortgages; and here you have the US economic collapse of 2008 in a nutshell. All because a ridiculous jump in the price of oil strained the average person's finances. (And I suspect the ridiculous profits the oil companies piled up at this time didn't get returned to the people/spent as fast as they could have.)

Disclaimer: I have never taken a class in business or economics in my life--as such, this entire section consisted of mainly my own theories. If there is an error in the above, I would appreciate a business major pointing it out to me.



On Government

A government occurs when a collective body of people join forces for mutual security and economic gain. A government is when a group of citizens forms an economic bloc to negotiate a better deal with the world and in the world. A government is when people mutually pool their resources to create and build infrastructure and systems for the mutual economic benefit of all.

People have the right to choose between varying competing governmental systems on the earth, but do not have the right to secede from government and create their own, as currently existing governments have a monopoly on all land area on the planet.

If one wishes to create a new competing government, through warring to acquire land, one assumes all the responsibilities of government, including security--and therefore should this government fail in any regard, they will be responsible for choosing that government to represent them, and are responsible for suffering any consequences of that poor choice.

Thankfully, most government find it immoral to summarily execute the citizens of a failed government.

On the other hand, most governments find it equally immoral to war over land in these modern times; and thus, should you even begin to attempt this, you can expect a coalition of 200+ nations to oppose your efforts.



On Community

The two-party system, for dummies--a child grows up, with pre-conceived ideas and opinions formed from family and education; sometime around the first election they care about/are conscious of (usually between ages 10-20), they examine which party best fits their pre-conceived ideas. Having chosen a party, they then conform the rest of their ideals (that didn't fit to begin with) to that party, and become a mental card-carrying member, if not officially. (Understand that for purposes of this argument, being Independent also qualifies as a party, a third-party in the two-party system, as many independents share a mind-set to the point they would qualify as a political party.)

This may be because of a need for community, a need to belong. It's much easier to face the world when you know that there are others out there who think like you--mental companionship. This might also be a mental process to justify casting a ballot in favour of one party or another--I voted for it, so I must believe it. Either way, it results in mindless support of one party and mindless opposition to the other throughout an election campaign.

Truth is, both parties sleep around, both parties steal public money, both parties cross the bounds of "political correctness" with ads and both parties go right up to the line the law allows them to, while as frequently as can be quietly done cross over it. But when the "other" party gets discovered, it's decried as evidence of dishonesty, poor morals, and non-concern for the law, while when one's own party messes up, it's an honest mistake. It's the same thing, people!

This same mindset to political parties can be applied to any community humans belong to. It's only in politics that communities clash with each other so frequently. When other forms of communities clash, the results are the same. Sports teams, home towns, churches, families... any time one of your own messes up, you either call it an "honest mistake" or ostracize them from your community (or leave yourself); when the arch-rival messes up, you're calling for blood and demanding justice.

Politics has this heightening sensation on community conflict, because politics deals with what is most personal to us--our core beliefs, our sense of power and control over our own destiny, in addition to the sense of identity that comes with every community.

So I say: think for yourselves! Conform not to a party platform, and be individual! Vote for a party on principle and platform, and let that be determined freshly every four years. And don't let the campaign mumbo-jumbo about whose fourth cousin said a bad word in school five years ago sway you.

There are much better communities to identify with than a political party.



On Hypocrites

The mistakes people see most clearly in others are those mistakes people are most acutely aware of in their own lives. They regret making them, but cannot stop sometimes. Does it make them a hypocrite when they see someone else about to fall into the same trap and rush to warn them?

I hope not, or else no one would ever receive a warning.



On Meaning

History remembers only the greats. Which is unfortunate, because people have a psychological need to mean something.

The internet has been a blessing and a curse in that respect: it has provided more opportunities for community and to achieve something within them; but the fluid nature of online communities and the virtual nature (that is, nothing physically exists) of these communities leads to frequent dispersals, disbandings, and disillusionment.

The size of the internet and the size of the world make it a challenge to achieve something great, and often when it is achieved, it's often of only temporal importance--15 seconds of fame--and then it vanishes in the memories of all but the one who reached it.

In this culture where everything matters, therefore nothing matters, everyone is important, therefore no one is important.

Thus the communism of society depresses people in their quest for importance, leading to the high rates of suicide and disillusionment in the Western world.

"Greatness" is defined as above the surroundings. This greatness cannot exist in equality. By definition, greatness cannot be achieved by all--so clearly, the quest for greatness as a fulfillment of the search for meaning is futile. (For most, anyways.)

Where then lies the search for meaning? For most, it will end in family. To ensure the success of progeny is will provide meaning for parents who failed to reach greatness, and graciously most parents die before seeing their children repeat the process with their own children. (Or maybe they transfer the mantle from their children to their grandchildren? Because if only one of them turns out to be great, then their own life will have meant something...)

I am therefore convinced that lasting greatness and true meaning comes only from God. The greatness of a soul saved for eternity through the gospel of love does not diminish. The value of a kind act does not rot as it ages. Goodness does not require fame to be meaningful--God remembers all.

Isn't that a much better goal in life?