P-Dunn's Musings

Reflections on "The Fire"

2009-06-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, someone will send me a YouTube video and say that it is important for me to watch it and pass it on. I don't often end up watching them. Usually, I end up skipping them entirely. Does that make me a bad person?

Today was different. I received this video and thought it looked interesting, so I watched the first part, quickly realizing what it was all about. Soon I found myself continuing onto the second part of it.

The video is located here:

So here I am, passing the video on. But that doesn't mean I agree. I'm writing this because I want your thoughts on it. Watch both Part 1 and 2 (total it's about 12 minutes) and then let me know what you think. But, of course, I'll tell you my point of view first.

There are certainly many things good about this video. People who call themselves Christians and go on sinning as if it's no big deal certainly need to examine themselves. People who use God's grace as an excuse to go out and sin everywhere don't understand what Jesus talked about. Christianity is not merely praying a prayer one day and obtaining a free ticket to Heaven. It's much more than that, in fact. This is a pernicious distortion of the truth, certainly, and this man is wise to call it out. It's something that we don't emphasize as much as we can.

But there's a great deal in this video that I take objection to. You may already know what I'm about to say, since I left a few comments on the video.

This man's view of salvation appears to be that even if you are saved by the so-called "grace" of God, you still are bound by the law. You still have to do a great amount of works. In fact, you have to almost completely forsake your sinfulness. The extent that he emphasizes this, and how we must forsake our desires, sounds almost like Buddhism to me, not Christianity. I thought the point of Christianity was that we can't not sin. We are totally depraved, each and every one of us, and that's why God became human and was sinless in our place. We cannot simply remove our inherent sin nature once we become Christians. I don't know of any Christian who doesn't sin, and certainly no one who is not tempted to daily.

No one can serve two masters, he says: it is either sin or God. Not both. Now, if that were Biblical, that would be one thing, but that's not what the scripture actually says. It says that we can't serve two masters, being God or money. Money, as it turns out, is never mentioned in the video, and yet the video itself looks like it was professionally put together with high-end cameras and video editing software. I wonder how much it cost to purchase those materials to put out this video.

God killed his son in a bloody and brutal way, according to this man, "with a smile." Something strikes me as incredibly barbaric about that statement. The idea that God was literally reveling in watching his son be crucified (in an act of human sacrifice) is completely foreign to me. I thought that Jesus (God in flesh, after all) was so terrified about his upcoming fate that he sweat blood, and then begged his Father to somehow "take this cup" from him. Pardon my apparent mistake, but I was under the impression that God turned his back on his son in his final moments, forsaking him because he was so covered in our sin that he could not be in his presence. Smile, indeed.

And in Part Two, we discover that God is apparently opening the door of mercy as "wide as he can." This, I happen to believe. But this seems to render this man's theology incoherent. How can he possibly say that God is being as merciful as he possibly can, when most Christians are in fact Hell-bound (of course, being literally tortured by fire for millions of years) because they happen to watch movies which happen to contain profanity? Where is God's mercy when he "stomps his enemies until their blood sprinkles all over his robes?" Where in the world is that imagery coming from? I bet you that he would condemn that sort of imagery if it were in a movie, but apparently stomping people into bloody pulps is okay if you're God.

So those are my thoughts, coming from someone who really believes that salvation is through grace alone, not by works, lest any man should boast. I know that God has forgiven me, even for sins that I have committed after I "became a Christian."

What are your thoughts?

Patrick Dunnevant

E3 2009: An Incredible Time for Gaming

2009-06-07T18:38:00.000-07:00

Merely looking at the list of major announcements of this year's Electronic Entertainment Expo shows that 2009 and 2010 are years that will be looked back upon as a milestone for video games.

Project Natal for the Xbox 360, a full-body motion sensing device that removes the need for any kind of controller at all to play a video game. Move your arms, head, legs, or any other part of your body, and the character on the screen moves in the same way.
Golden Sun DS, a revival of a series of fabulous role-playing games that has not produced a new title in six years, and was generally assumed to be finished.
Halo: Reach, a prequel to the best-selling Halo: Combat Evolved, likely based upon the book Halo: The Fall of Reach.
Metroid: The Other M, a return to a more traditional style of Metroid games in which the focus of the game is in third person. It combines two-dimensional and three-dimentional graphics, and is developed in part by Team Ninja, the masterminds behind the Ninja Gaiden series (and seems to have been heavily influenced by it).
New Super Mario Bros. Wii, a nostalgic, side-scrolling platformer that allows four simultaneous players for the first time in the history of the immensely popular video game series.
Super Mario Galaxy 2, a sequel to the fantastic platformer of a similar name, and the first time more than one full 3D Mario title has appeared on any one Nintendo console.
Metal Gear Solid: Rising, a title that will return the Metal Gear Solid series to the Xbox and bring back the love-him-or-hate-him protagonist, Raiden.
The Playstation Motion Controller, a wand-like device that will be used to create further motion capability on the Playstation 3.
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, the first traditional Castlevania title on the next generation consoles.
Perfect Dark, the classic first-person shooter for the N64, finds it way to the Xbox Live Arcade in its original form.
Final Fantasy XIV, the newest title in the epic series, is announced before Final Fantasy XIII is even released.
Assassin's Creed 2, a new sequel to the groundbreaking and sadly over-hyped (to its own demise) "medieval science fiction" title.
Wii Fit Plus adds new exercizes, the ability to further customize your workout routine, and newer features to enhance the fitness experience.

This was a great E3, certainly better than many of them in recent years. Nintendo learned from their mistakes of last year in not showcasing any new titles from any major franchises by announcing five heavy-hitting titles. And Microsoft demonstrated a potentially revolutionary device that could change the way people look at motion sensory gaming forever, with Sony throwing in their competitor to the infamous Wii Remote.

In short, I'm going to have to save up a lot of money for all of the incredible new games that will be coming out soon. I haven't been this excited about the future of gaming since the Wii came out.

Patrick Dunnevant

Does Scott Roeder deserve to be waterboarded?

2009-06-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

A recent Huffington Post editorial [1], contributed by Cenk Uygar, asks a very important question.

Should we torture the man who shot the abortion doctor George Tiller in the middle of a church service? After all, he had been arrested for the possession of bomb making materials before. This is a pretty clear indication of his terrorist intentions. And the act of slaying a man to make a statement is a nearly exact definition of what terrorism is all about. So is he a justifiable candidate to subject to, say, waterboarding?

Or perhaps more intense techniques. Perhaps drowning the man isn't enough. Maybe we should make him stand in "pressure positions" for 48 hours, not allowing him to sleep. Maybe we should burn his skin with cigarettes, or use dogs on him. Maybe we should stack him with other naked anti-abortion activists in amusing positions and take photos.

Many, even amongst the GOP, would respond that we should not torture Scott Roeder. But why not? He's a terrorist. He has more of a terrorist background than many of the Guantanamo prisoners ever did. The man even said that killing of abortion doctors is "justifiable homicide" a while before he killed Dr. Tiller. Who knows what organizations he's connected to that may be planning on many other killings. We need to extract that information out of him at all cost in order to save the lives other doctors! It doesn't matter that he hasn't even been tried yet or given a lawyer. He may be guilty, and sounds like a terrorist, and that's all that matters.

Oh, wait. We can't do that. He's an American citizen. We can't torture one of our own! That would be unethical.

And this is what we're reduced to. Torture advocates are put in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we must believe that Americans are somehow more valuable as individuals than "those brown people over in Arabia or wherever," and they don't deserve to be subjected to such treatment merely because they happen to have been born in a particular location.

Or if you're like the rest of us, who view the torture of any human being to be a cowardly act of despicable evil, you'll recognize the absurdity of the idea of torturing even a murdering scumbag like Scott Roeder is alleged to be.

Patrick Dunnevant

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/should-we-waterboard-the_b_209591.html - It's not every day I agree with a Huffington Post article.

A Racism Dilemma for Atheists

2009-04-01T10:27:00.001-07:00

According to a new study by the Pew Research Center, African Americans are more religious than the rest of the population.

Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another. The analysis also finds that nearly eight-in-ten African-Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56% among all U.S. adults.

... A large majority of African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith (72%) say religion plays at least a somewhat important role in their lives; nearly half (45%) of unaffiliated African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives, roughly three times the percentage who says this among the religiously unaffiliated population overall (16%).

This presents an interesting dilemma for the types of atheists (who I often call "fundamentalist atheists") that say that the less intelligent you are, the more religious you are, or that religion makes you stupid. Will the atheists own up to their claim, and now have to agree with the idea that African Americans as a whole are less intelligent than the rest of the population? Or will they let go of their bigotry and finally agree that there are plenty of smart people who are religious, and religion doesn't have any significant role in someone's intelligence?

Patrick Dunnevant

How Probable is a Blind Watchmaker?

2009-03-08T11:32:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting quote from physicist Stephen Barr for you to contemplate.

"When examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from mere chaos, or form emerging from mere formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way. When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously "arranging themselves" into orderly patterns, what we find in every case is that what appeared to be haphazard actually has a great deal of order to it. . . .

"What [Richard] Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable than [William] Paley's watches. Paley finds a "watch" and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley's point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?"

What do you think?

Patrick Dunnevant

The Monopoly on Openmindedness, Reason, and Rationality

2009-01-12T13:12:00.000-08:00

It happens all the time. Atheists assert that faith is fundamentally unreasonable. Anyone who believes in God is being irrational and not using critical thinking. On the contrary, atheism is rational and atheists think through their beliefs rather than accepting them uncritically.

"The Reason Project," founded by prominent atheist author Sam Harris, describes itself as "a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." It has a stated goal that it will "encourage critical thinking" and therefore "erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world."
Bill Maher and other non-believers fancy themselves "rationalists," with the definition of one being that their worldview is defined by facts and evidence, rather than faith and religious beliefs.
The "Brights" movement, with the obvious implication of being made up of smart people, is made up of people called "brights," which are "individuals whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)."
Richard Dawkins sells DVDs known as "Voices of Reason," which feature himself in dialogue with others about issues like religion from an atheistic point of view.

Somehow, atheists have decided that they can declare a monopoly on reason and rationality.

They also assert that Christians, and other religious people, are close-minded. Their view of the universe, they say, is a product of open-minded thinking, because they don't believe in any kind of deity. Dawkins, in "The God Delusion," remarks of people who may be convinced by the book (emphasis mine):

"But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether."

But is this not merely a rhetorical ploy? How can it possibly be anything different? They are aware that many of our modern intellectuals are religious believers, even Christians. They have to be aware that Christians function rationally like any other individuals do in their daily lives. They are aware that many of our most important scientific discoveries have been brought about by Christians like Galileo, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, and Kepler, who were very rational and reasonable individuals, yet in many cases thought they were doing God's work by performing science. They are aware of all of the arguments presented for the existence of God, which are purely rationalistic in nature, and all of the great philosophical works by Christians which have nothing to do with blind faith. So what is the issue?

Furthermore, the idea that fundamentally theism is close-minded and atheism is open-minded seems to me to be a very strange concept. "At the center of the Christian faith," pastor Rob Bell notes in Velvet Elvis, "is the assumption that this life isn't all there is." Christianity declares that there is more to life than what we can taste, touch, see, hear, and in other ways observe, whereas atheism declares that the material universe is all there is, and is built around the idea of declaring that something does not exist. Which perspective, out of these two, is more "open?"

Certainly some Christians prohibit themselves access to things that may change their mind. Certainly Christians don't always read both sides of the story before making a decision. But then again, atheists do the same thing. I know a lot of atheists who have read "The God Delusion," by Dawkins or "The End of Faith," by Harris, but not many atheists who have read "Reasonable Faith" by Craig, or "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by Wright. The basic assumption that atheists have thought through what they believe and Christians have not needs to be challenged every time it is brought up, because in many cases, it is simply not true.

Atheists trying to monopolize reason and rationality is rather like Christians trying to monopolize love, music, or happiness. Reason, just like joy, is a basic human phenomenon, not a specifically secular phenomenon. It is an insult to Christians, most of whom do critically analyze their beliefs, understand the basics of critical thinking, and use reason in their daily lives. But it is also an insult to atheists who do believe in proper debate, and understand the very basic idea of what "respect" means.

"Theology gives evidence of a high order of reason at work, and one cannot, as many atheists do, dismiss these arguments as unreasonable even if you don't agree with them." - Dinesh D'Souza, "What's So Great About Christianity?"
Patrick Dunnevant

Quotes from Ned Rorem

2008-11-13T14:14:00.000-08:00

"To compose is not to express oneself at the moment; rather it is to release oneself from the moment into a timeless limbo. To compose is to notate what one has learned over the years about the nature of things (including self expression)." - Ned Rorem, "Setting the Tone."

"Music cannot lie, though it can speak a banal truth." - Ned Rorem, "Setting the Tone."

"Musical composition, though always dealing with sound, does not primarily deal with sound but with the cohesion of ideas eventually expressed through the language of sound." - Ned Rorem, "Setting the Tone."

"Art is not the abstraction of ideas but incarnation of ideas. We talk all about it, but only the thing itself explains the thing itself. What music 'should' do is nothing next to what it does." - Ned Rorem, "The Later Diaries."

"Art is an aristocratic affair. One cannot demonstrate that the average man experiences - or can be trained to experience - those reactions which make up a work of art, or an appreciation of that work." - Ned Rorem, "The Later Diaries."

"The art of words and the art of notes answer to separate calls; for if the various arts could express each other we would only need one. Were a composer able to say what it means to compose, he would not need to compose." - Ned Rorem, "Setting the Tone."

"Like abstract painting, . . . a poem calls forth personal representations of the words it contains. Music, meanwhile, is itself the emotion (the idea): it represents nothing beyond itself. And so music cannot be intellectualized." - Ned Rorem, "Setting the Tone."

"Composing expresses the invisible singer within us all." - Ned Rorem, "The Later Diaries."

"Enveloped by music - not by its sound but by the tools. Staves entwine us with their five endless tentacles while treble clefs unwind and re-stiffen into unstable towers which crash upon the sand, sand crushed from a trillion yellow neumes." - Ned Rorem, "The Later Diaries"

Patrick Dunnevant

A Question About Patriotism

2008-11-08T22:32:00.000-08:00

In light of this election season, I thought I would pose a question to all of you, think over your responses, and then post my take afterward. These questions all revolve around the same idea.

What does it mean to be a "patriotic" American? What does it mean to be "proud to be an American?"

Does being patriotic mean that we must support our country in everything? Most things? More support than not? By your estimation, how much can we disapprove of our country's actions and still call ourselves "patriotic," or "proud to be American?"

What should we stand for in order to stand for America? What ideals are distinctly "American?"

If someone loves their country, what exactly do they love about it? Is it literally the land they are standing on? Is it the government, and it's policies? Is it the actions we have taken in history? Is it the citizens, and what they have produced? Is it the ideals for which we are founded?

Do you consider America to be the best country in the world? If so, for what reasons? What is the biggest thing that sets the United States of America apart from the other countries of the world?

Thanks for your answers.

"I gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land." - Lee Greenwood
Patrick Dunnevant

Barack and Roll: Post Election Considerations

2008-11-05T12:06:00.000-08:00

I am currently at a very strange place in terms of my political feelings.

I am relieved, excited even, that Barack Obama is the forty-fourth President of the United States. I was pulling for him all evening yesterday, watching the map of the states dance, bounce, and light up to the beat of electronic music on Current. I was anxiously refreshing the CNN Election Tracker on the internet and getting more satisfied with every electoral vote passed. When he soared in with his two hundred and seventieth, even passing three hundred, I felt like standing up and shouting it out in the middle of the business meeting I was in at the time. It was almost like Christmas.

Yet, politically, what I best identify myself as is a conservative libertarian. By all counts, I should be very distressed over Obama's historic victory. I believe in a small government that performs as little interference as possible, and a free market that will sort all of our problems out through American ingenuity. I believe in not just keeping taxes even for the middle class, but getting rid of income taxes entirely, for everyone, including people who make more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. I believe in a non-interventious foreign policy, where we start no aggressive wars or conflicts. I am pro-life, and against gun control. I don't believe in national health care. So what, then, should I have to be excited about Obama? I did not even vote for him.

I never used to be very political. Like most other people growing up, I accepted whatever the political idea was in my house. This is partially because my father is a very intelligent person, and I tend to agree with him on a lot, but also because I never really cared about the political process. It was irrelevant to me. I wasn't old enough to vote, so it didn't really matter. Sure, there were differences in candidates, but from my grade school perspective, the differences weren't that drastic, and life would get along just fine whoever was elected. But that all changed this year. This was probably due to the fact that a few years ago I realized that I would be able to vote come November 2008, and decided early on that I would pay attention to the candidates. I moved from a state of politics being irrelevant to politics being very important to the way I think, relatively quickly, and I give credit to one particular candidate: Dr. Ron Paul.

I can't remember when I first heard about Ron Paul. I can't even remember when I started to support him as a candidate. I simply remember that for several months, I would compulsively check his candidacy website, waiting anxiously for updates. For months, I would browse YouTube, watching every debate montage, speech recording, and truly awful campaign commercial I could get my hands on. His ideas were different from everyone else's that I'd ever heard. Who else wanted to get rid of the IRS and the income tax, and the Department of Education, for example? What other Republican wanted to get out of not just Iraq, but most other countries where we also don't belong in? What other candidate was talking about personal liberties that had been taken away from us?

When he conceded his campaign, and the candidates for the two major parties were decided, I came to a crossroads. I did not like McCain. I did not like Obama either. Ron Paul was gone. What in the world was I supposed to do? I wanted to do my civic duty and vote, but the last thing I wanted to do was vote for the lesser of two evils.

Recently, Dr. Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the Constitution Party. I looked him up, and most of his ideas were very similar to those of Paul's, except for his unhealthy obsession with a non-existent "New World Order." So I voted for him absentee, along with a Libertarian house candidate and a Republican senator.

Chuck Baldwin probably got a hundred thousand votes in America. So much for the Ron Paul Revolution.

Why is it, then, that I'm so relieved to see Obama in the White House?

Perhaps it's because Obama is an incredibly charismatic person, and I think he will represent America better than Bush ever did. Perhaps it's because Sarah Palin, in both her appointment as a Vice Presidential candidate, and in nearly everything she says, scares me much more than Obama or Biden. Perhaps it's because the liberals and Democrats have been whining for the past eight years about how much they can do better, and so now their chance to prove it is actualized in Obama's victory, as well as the reinstating of an overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress. Perhaps it's because I've bought into his idea that he can actually bring change to the country, change that's for the better, and it could be that I want this change. Perhaps it's because this moment of electing a minority to the most powerful office we possess is so historical and organic.

Maybe it's because Obama wants to finally stop killing people in the name of spreading "peace" and "Democracy," and wants to leave Iraq; this is, in my opinion, the most important issue of the election, even more than the economy. Maybe it's because I have a notion that some of our civil liberties, and a respect for our Constitution, will come back now that the Grand Old Party, in their PATRIOT Act glory, is out of power.

Whatever the reason, it's a complete paradox to me. When people ask me how I feel about the election, I can't really sum it up in one word, without making up one. Like "doubleplusgood."

Whatever you feel about Obama, the next few years are going to be very interesting. I'm bracing myself for the long haul, but for the first time in a long time, I feel like things are going to be all right.

"Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy." - Ron Paul
Patrick Dunnevant

Muggle Quidditch - Belmont League

2008-10-19T08:52:00.000-07:00

Muggle Quidditch
Belmont University League
Rules and Regulations

Teams

Two teams of 7 players per match.
Names can either come from Harry Potter or be original, but must be unique to that particular team. (i.e. No two teams can be Gryffindor in the Belmont League)
Teams must wear the same colors, but not necessarily the same outfits. Of course, that's encouraged.
Ideally, the teams should be in the format of “The X Y’s.” (i.e. The Chudley Cannons. The Gryffindor Lions.)
- Team verification comes through me. In order to register your team, you must provide me with a list of all seven people on your team, designating who is the Captain as well as what positions everyone will play, along with your team name and mascot.
There is also one neutral player who functions as a snitch. He or She is to be dressed in all yellow or gold and will wear two flags around their waist.
One or Two referees. If Two, one will supervise the Chasers and Beaters, whilst the other supervises the Seekers, Snitch, and Beaters.

Equipment

One medium, red, Softi dodgeball, which serves as a Quaffle
Two small, blue or black, Softi dodgeballs, which serve as Bludgers
Six Hula-Hoops, each attached to a pole or stand that keeps it in the air at varied heights. Three are placed at each end.
Two flags, to be placed around the “Snitch’s” waist a la Flag Football.

Players (Per Team)

Three Chasers
- Responsible for throwing the Quaffle through one of three goal hoops on the opposing side of the field.
Two Beaters
- Responsible for hitting anyone in possession of the quaffle, or a seeker in an attempt to catch the snitch, with a bludger.
One Seeker
- Responsible for catching the snitch, and therefore ending the game.
One Keeper
- Responsible for defending their three goals.

Player Specific Rules

Chasers
- Upon receiving the Quaffle, Chasers can take six steps before they will be forced to stop.
- From a stopped position, they may either make a scoring attempt or may pass it to another Chaser.
- Any step more than six will result in a turnover to the nearest opposing Chaser who is farthest away from the penalized team’s keeper.
- Steps can be as wide as the Chaser sees fit, but he or she must remember that even a stumble can result in a turnover.
- If the Chaser passes it in mid-air and manages to get the Quaffle out of their hands before their foot touches the ground, there is no penalty.
- Chasers CANNOT breach the goal zone, and must attempt to score from outside the line. Any breach of the goal zone while holding the Quaffle will also result in a turnover as per the method already mentioned.
- Each goal is worth ten points.
- A Chaser who is on the defensive team must stand at least five feet away from the chaser with the Quaffle.

Beaters
- No Beater Bats will be used. Instead, Bludgers will merely be thrown.
- Bludgers may be thrown in the following situations:
  - At a Chaser who is holding the Quaffle.
  - At a Seeker who is attempting to grab the Snitch.
  - At a Quaffle being thrown, either to score or as a pass.
  - At any Beaters.
  - At a Keeper when a Chaser is in scoring position.
- Any other usage of a Bludger will result in a turnover of the Quaffle.
- If any player is hit with a Bludger, they must freeze for five seconds and drop any ball that they are in possession of.
- Beaters must remain within the middle boundary of the field, set by the red lines on the diagram below.
- If a Bludger goes out of bounds, including outside the middle boundary, the Beater who threw it must retrieve it and stand where they picked it up for fifteen seconds. From there, they must enter the boundary again before throwing the Bludger.

Seekers
- Seekers cannot interfere with the Quaffle or Chasers in any way. If any Seeker comes in contact with the Quaffle, the opposing team will take possession.
- Seekers must stay within the boundaries of the field.
- When the Snitch is released at the beginning of the game, the Seekers may not watch where it goes until after a period of one minute.
- In order to catch the Snitch, Seekers must steal a flag off of the waist of the person serving as the Snitch. They must hold it for at least five seconds.
  - In the event that the flag is stolen back by the Snitch within those five seconds, there is no score, and the game continues as normal.
- Once the Snitch has entered the field of play, the seekers must wait at least two seconds before attempting to capture it.
- If one Seeker has possession of a flag, the other seeker can attempt to steal it from said Seeker. However, they cannot attempt to steal the other flag from the Snitch during that time.
  - If they do manage to steal the flag, the five-second timer is reset.
  - A Steal is only valid if the victim of the theft is not holding onto any part of the flag. If there is dual possession, as in a tug-of-war or something similar, the first person to grab it is still in possession.
- A successful possession of the snitch results in one hundred and fifty points and the game is over. The game is not over until the Snitch has been captured.

Keepers
- Keepers are not allowed to leave the Goal Zone.
- Keepers may not make physical contact with any Chaser as a means of gaining possession of the Quaffle.
  - A penalty occurs if either of these happen. This means that the keeper must leave their goals unmanned for a period of ten seconds.
- If a Keeper blocks a scoring attempt, or the attempt simply misses, they can either throw the Quaffle to a member of their team who is down the field, or they may hand off or toss the Quaffle to a player who is close.
- The keeper gaining possession of the Quaffle ends the scoring attempt immediately, and the Quaffle is out of play.

Snitches
- A Snitch is released one minute prior to the start of the game, and is free to run anywhere they wish on campus, as long as it follows the following rules:
  - It must be outside. The Snitch cannot enter any campus buildings or vehicles.
  - It must be within the boundaries of the Main Campus. This includes the North Lawn and Quad, the Grassy Knoll, the Ampitheater, the Kennedy Courtyard, the Maple Courtyard, and the tennis courts.
  - The Snitch cannot go in any main roads that border the campus.
  - The Snitch must be able to be seen by observers, though not necessarily the seekers themselves.
- The Snitch may not return to the field of play until at least five minutes of game time have passed.
- Once the Snitch returns to the field of play, they must say on the field for fifteen seconds at minimum.
- If they are on the field of play, Snitches may not go into areas that are off limits to the players, such as the Goal Zones.
- Snitches must operate as neutral entities, not favoring any particular team.

Other Gameplay Rules

At the beginning of the match, the initial possession is determined by a coin toss. Team captains will call it in the air, and from there decide if they want to take possession first, and which goal they will defend.
At that point, the Snitch is released to roam the campus. Players will form up as per the diagram.
A referree, after one minute has passed, will blow a whistle and hand off the Quaffle to the Center Chaser.
Whenever a whistle is blown by the referee, play stops immediately.
Physical contact, including tripping, holding, pushing, tackling, or merely touching an opposing player in any way, is not allowed.

Field Diagram

Key
- Red Dots = Beaters
- Dark Blue Dots = Chasers
- Light Blue Dots = Keepers
- Blue Circles = Goals
- Red Lines = Beater Boundaries
- Light Blue Lines = Goal Zone

So who wants to play?

Tony Campolo - My Thoughts

2008-09-03T12:20:00.000-07:00

Today, Christian sociologist, pastor, professor, and author Tony Campolo came to Belmont University to lecture on the relationship between Christianity and politics. The event was part of the convocation system we have at Belmont, and fell under the category of Christian Faith Development. It was billed as the following:

Dr. Tony Campolo is a nationally celebrated speaker, the author of 35 books and a media commentator on religious, social and political matters. His latest book is “Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics.” He has been a guest on television programs like The Colbert Report, Nightline, Crossfire, Politically Incorrect, The Charlie Rose Show, Larry King Live, CNN Dayside, CNN News and MSNBC News. He is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University. For ten years he was on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Campolo is the founder and president of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education and has worked to create, nurture and support programs for “at-risk” children in cities across North America, and has helped establish schools and universities in several developing countries. Tony Campolo will show how the “red letter” words of Jesus move us beyond the Republican/Democrat dichotomy and into a world where the crises of AIDS, war, and failing public schools can be tackled. [emphasis mine]

On the whole, the lecture was very interesting. Campolo is an engaging speaker with a ragged voice, who is obviously very passionate about the subject and enjoyed speaking to people my age about it. Here are some of my thoughts based on the notes that I took.

He began with the quote, "God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, decided to return the favor." This refers to how we have a tendency to warp God into our own political ideas and philosophies of life, to make it appear as though God is a Democrat or a Republican. Campolo called this "idolatry," because it merely makes God a projection of our political values. He described the process for how the Aboriginal people created their deities (each tribe had different ones), and it involved taking their core values and making a "totem" out of that, and eventually worshipping that totem. And if you make a totem based on your values and worship it, you are ultimately worshiping yourself.

He began to describe how it is impossible to read the words of Jesus and not be "radicalized." For example, he said that capital punishment is wrong because Jesus said "blessed are the merciful." Not exactly sure about that, since the Bible is chocked full of examples of capital punishment, many of them directed by God. Jesus was punished capitally.

He then talked about how there are several issues that the Christian faith can provide insight on: the conflict in Iraq, homosexuality, abortion, and immigration. He summarized the position of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party regarding the war in Iraq, and then said that both don't exactly get it in terms of what the Bible suggests. But rather than really using the Bible to propose a solution, he sort of launched into his own opinion about what we should do. According to Campolo, this should be a three step process:

We should replace the British and American forces currently in Iraq with troops supplied by The Arab League. Apparently, they offered to do this three years ago, but we denied them.
Our President should go before the United Nations and essentially say this:

"Several years ago, I came before you and asked you for your help in eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Some of you helped us, some of you didn't. Now we know that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction. We are sorry for making a mistake."
He responded to the claim that apologizing to the UN is weakness by pointing out that never in the Bible is apologizing a sign of weakness...Quite the opposite.

We should give them $50 billion to repair the country, like we did in World War II. That amount of money is pocket change compared to how much money we spent last year on the war.

All of these sound like reasonable answers to the problem. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and we need to get out as soon as possible. We have only made things worse over there, according to Campolo. He pointed out that there used to be 1.5 million Christians in Iraq, and after we've invaded, the number has gone down to just over half a million. Christians are being persecuted in ways never seen before we went in there. He also pointed out that we haven't created a democracy there. According to him, democracy is not when the majority rules, but when it's "safe to be in the minority," meaning if you vote against the majority, you won't be killed for it.

His points, however, do seem to go a little bit towards the left side of the political spectrum, however, which was strange, seeing as he was encouraging us to "move beyond" political ideology.

Regarding homosexuality, his argument was literally exactly what I believe on the subject. I could have walked up there and have given the same presentation. He made several points about the nature of homosexuality itself, saying that "Behavior is chosen, but orientation is not." He argued that there isn't enough evidence for any side of the argument of how homosexuality is caused, which is the only thing I would argue isn't entirely true; now that we have mapped the entire human genome (thanks to Dr. Francis), we know what every strand does, and none of them cause homosexuality. The great amount of evidence suggests that orientation is formed at a very early stage in life, which he also argued, and so therefore, nobody "chooses" homosexuality in that sense.

Here's where it gets really good. He first said that marriage is a sacred institution. Most of us would agree on that. But now that we do, it makes us wonder...What in the world is the government doing regulating a sacred institution? It should be up to the religious institutions to regulate sacred institutions, should it not? He argued that it should be done here as it is in Europe. Two people go to the government and register as a "couple," whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. And then they go to a church and get married, "blessed." Some churches would marry both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Some churches would only marry heterosexual couples. Though he himself is not a fan of gay marriage, he did not let his religious beliefs influence his policy in that sense.

Campolo then said that it's impossible to love someone while simultaneously taking away their rights. He said that he has always been a member of an African American church ever since he's been going to church, and so he understands what that means more than most of us do.

And this next part is really interesting, something that had never occurred to me before. We believe in no taxation without representation, correct? That's a fundamental principle in the founding of our government. So if gays are being discriminated against in things like the military, why in the world are they paying taxes? He added, "If they said that if you're gay, you don't have to pay taxes, there would be the biggest coming out party in history. And some of you straight people here at Belmont would be running around saying, 'I'm gay! I'm gay!' I know you people!"

Next came abortion. He hit us with the fact that seventy percent of all abortions are economically driven, meaning the reason the woman had an abortion is because she didn't feel she was financially able to raise the child. He then stated that he was pro-life, but he said that he would rather stay unborn than raised in a situation where no one can care for you and no one cares about you. His proposed solution was the government institute more programs to help care for these types of people, since the majority of the women who had abortions said they wouldn't have gotten one if they had received more help.

I disagree. It is not, and shouldn't be, the government's responsibility to care for these people. Why should we shift the responsibility onto them, when the burden is ours to bear? Religious organizations have been caring for the poor, caring for widows and single mothers, etc much better than the government has for the last few hundred years, and creating more welfare programs won't solve that. It will likely make matters worse. What the government should be doing is giving the money to organizations that already do this better than they do, not creating the programs themselves.

He did say something that was really striking to me, though. He quoted a particularly liberal congressman who stated that we pro-lifers have the mentality that life begins at conception and ends at birth, and I can see exactly what he means by that.

His solution to the illegal immigration problem was to have a "big wall with a wide gate." We need immigrants from other countries like Mexico because, as he clarified in the Q&A session, they take jobs that we Americans don't really want to take. Returning to the issue of what Christianity said (finally), he informed us that Jesus includes the "stranger/alien" as part of the "least of these" that we need to serve, as per Matthew 25:40. In reference to the twelve million illegals in our country, he said that we should increase the proposed punishment fine to $10,000, because they have broken the law. But instead of making them go back to their own country, we should make them legal in the process, and take that money out of their income tax: 10% of it. Some would argue that this is unfair, but according to him, the illegals often get 20% less income than a legal worker does, and so by paying 10% of the legitimate salary, they're still getting 10% more money than they were as illegals.

In closing, Tony Campolo encouraged us to be "red letter Christians," meaning that we take the words of Jesus very seriously in how we live our lives and how we view social policy. He was a professor of Shaine Claiborne's, who is also coming to Belmont next month, and Shaine certainly knows what that means. But it still seemed to me that Campolo was using sheer politics a lot more than he was using religion, or what Jesus said, to establish his points. I mean, that's fine with me, because it was an entertaining and informative take on all of the issues that I will be continuing to ponder for quite some time. But while it was an excellent talk, it wasn't what I was expecting.

"If America is too arrogant, too prideful to repent, it's not the kind of country that God wants it to be." - Tony Campolo
Patrick Dunnevant

Christopher Hitchens on Lincoln: A Rant

2008-08-30T11:20:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't know who this man is, Christopher Hitchens is about the prime example one can find of the phrase "unwarranted self-importance." He was a columnist for Vanity Fair, among others, and apparently thinks that is enough qualification to write a book about how God doesn't exist, which is called "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Hearing the man talk (and boy, does he love to talk) is rather akin to listening to a teenager who has recently discovered how good it makes him feel to break the rules of his overbearing parents, and thinks that he is somehow making your life better by conjecturing about how brave and mature he is.

But enough about his ego. Let's see what happens when he is meshed with the insufferable ignorance, sickening and unqualified arrogance, and immaturity of the Rational Response Squad.

Let's give some context here. The Rational Response Squad is an atheist activism organization, made up of people who never went to college, but commonly criticize people with Ph.D's. They believe that theism is a mind disorder and post all the qualifications of what constitutes a mind disorder so they can prove it, and fail to realize that their brand of rabid atheism fulfills almost all of them. They rely entirely on the donations of other people for their income, which is apparently merited by their sitting around all day on their computer, fighting theists on the internet for great justice. Their delusion makes them sincerely believe that they are the "cure" for theism.

The Rational Response Squad at some point had the opportunity to have Christopher Hitchens, who they idolize, in their home, which was donated to them by a fool whom I pity very much. And what did they think would be a good idea to do with him? Word Association.

Christopher Hitchens trots out his usual arguments about Mother Teresa being a "douche bag," but I'm more concerned with his statement about Charles Darwin vs. Abraham Lincoln. Let's read that statement again.

SAPEINT: Uh, Charles Darwin.
HITCHENS: The boss. Born on the same, exact same day as Abraham Lincoln. And...
KELLY: Really?
HITCHENS: Yeah. Same day in 1809. I forget the day itself, I'm not a fetishist about anniversaries, but they were born on the very same day. And Mr. Darwin was by far the greater of the two emancipators.
SAPIENT: Oh...'Cause Abraham Lincoln...Abraham Lincoln was supposedly an atheist.
HITCHENS: Yeah, I think almost certainly he was. Herndon, his great friend, said that he was converted to atheism.

Herndon actually said no such thing. Herndon wrote an article called Religion of Lincoln, and in it, he quotes Lincoln's wife, who says, "He was a religious man always, I think, but not a technical Christian." It is far more likely that Lincoln was a deist, given many of his speeches, and what others say about him. But this is not the point of this article.

I wish that Greydon Square, an African American "artist" who performs atheist rap and a member of the RRS, had been in the room when Mr. Hitchens had claimed that Darwin was "by far" a "greater emancipator" than Mr. Lincoln was. I wonder what his reaction to the claim that someone who made a biological theory is somehow emancipating the world in a far more worthwhile manner than freeing millions of Africans from a tyrannical, life-long form of cruel, forced labor would be. The absurdity of the claim is almost mind blowing, and yet Christopher Hitchens is regarded as a famous intellect in our society.

Let's grant the accusation that some have made that Lincoln was only freeing the slaves as part of a political motive. Why, I'll even grant, for the sake of argument, the baseless assertion that Lincoln himself didn't have a problem with slavery at all! Even if this is the case, President Lincoln still qualifies as a greater emancipator than Darwin, precisely because Darwin didn't emancipate anything.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the argument that atheists are poor, persecuted people suffering under the oppressive regime of Christianity and organized religion. Even if we grant that atheists are discriminated against in our society, which is certainly true, to insinuate that this is in any way comparable to the treatment that Africans as slaves received for nearly hundreds of years is folly of the highest degree. Even if we grant that atheism is somehow emancipation from something (which seems ironic, since according to atheism, there is nothing out there to be emancipated from), it is still ridiculous to claim that someone who rode a boat around making some discoveries somehow provides the vehicle for emancipation, much less that atheism is the inevitable consequence of Darwinism.

On the opposite side of things, it is certainly true that Darwin himself was anti-slavery, but what exactly did he do about it? Well, nothing. He wrote a line in his diary about how it made his "blood boil, yet heart tremble" to think that we had been slaveholders, and that's about all we get from him. Good for you, Charles. We agree. But the fact is that the logical outcomes of your theory, social Darwinism, don't seem to have anything positive to say concerning slavery. In fact, proponents of slavery can find exactly what they need within your theory of "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life," and the atheism that people take away from your philosophy provides no objective moral framework for condemning the practice either.

So much for emancipation.

"Only in world stripped of all that is distinctively human would Darwin’s theories about the evolution of finch beaks provide greater emancipation for the human spirit than Lincoln’s sublime words about human dignity, sacrifice and the better angels of our nature." - Father Raymond J. de Souza
Patrick Dunnevant

New Book Suggestions

2008-08-11T11:33:00.000-07:00

I'm looking for a book related to Christian thought to read. Right now, though, I'm not really interested in reading a book of philosophy, apologetics, or theodicy, which is what I've been doing for years, because I have begun to tire of it. I'm interested in a book that will help me in my Christian faith, but not in some sort of intellectual way. Something not by a scholar, but perhaps by a good Christian leader or speaker. Something to inspire me.

Suggestions, anyone? Here's what's currently on my Amazon Wish List. As you read it, you'll realize that many of them are exactly the types of books that I'm not interested in reading right now.

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God by Gregory Boyd
Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy by Gregory Boyd
The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church by Gregory Boyd. (I like him, what can I say?)
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright (a 740 page tome, the opposite of what I want)
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright
What's So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions by Mark Driscoll
Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller
Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell
Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper
Shattering the Christ Myth by James Patrick Holding
The Impossible Faith by James Patrick Holding
The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig

The ones out of those list I can see as being what I'm looking for right now are the works by Piper, Bell, and Miller. The others, while I will ultimately get to them (I hope) are exactly what I'm not interested in.

Has anyone read Desiring God, Velvet Elvis, or Searching for God Knows What? If so, are they any good, and would you recommend them to me? Better yet, do you have any other books that would be good for me to read right now?

Thanks!

Respect Deserved

2008-06-16T21:59:00.000-07:00

I feel, as many others undoubtedly do, that music featured in video games, be it incidental or primary, goes largely unappreciated.

This is not to say that no one enjoys video game music. I certainly do. Some gamers out there would consider themselves video game music enthusiasts. This is instead to say that to the average gamer, the function of music in a video game is purely background noise; the average gamer may be familiar with a few famous themes, most likely able to hum a few lines of it on command, but wouldn't recognize the name of the person that composed it; the average gamer would find it silly for someone to be playing video game music on the piano as serious, standalone pieces.

Think about this. Suppose you were sitting and watching a piano recital. Suppose that, in this recital, talented musicians played beautiful works of classical music, as far back as Bach and as recent as Copland. Suppose that someone then played the theme from Final Fantasy VII by Nobuo Uematsu. Usually, there would be several reactions in the room.

The gamers would immediately recognize the theme. Many of them would probably find it a bit out of place. "It's video game music."

Other gamers would recognize it, probably think it felt out of place, but enjoy the experience and appreciate it as serious art. Perhaps they would marvel at the beautiful arrangement.

The non gamers wouldn't recognize the theme. After further inspection, perhaps reading the program notes, they would think to themselves, "Seriously? Video game music?"

Other non gamers wouldn't recognize the theme, but would appreciate the music as serious art.

Many of you reading this will probably recognize this as true. If someone were to get up in a piano recital and play the Super Mario Overworld Theme, it would probably generate laughs, grins, and glances from person to person in the audience. But why? Why do we not get the same reaction when one plays the antiquated and overworked Fur Elise? This piece, arguably Beethoven's most popular work, has been given a death sentence, not only because anyone who's ever played the piano knows how to play some variation of it, but because it's status has been reduced to being a standard annoying cell phone ring tone. It's not viewed as high art by most of the mainstream public anymore, but yet, the reaction is different. And in addition, both of these pieces were written with the intention of being important works of art.

Many non gamers still have the impression that game music hasn't advanced farther than this. That familiar, eight bit theme that repeats over and over. Even if they are aware that the technology has greatly improved for musical creation, they still are not aware of how much the talent and musical prowess has improved, that now, sweeping orchestral fanfares accompany the action on screen that could be easily mistaken as music one might hear in a symphony hall. Why is this the impression that I have experienced?

My guess is that video games still are not considered as a genuine art form by many. This is the opinion of such critics as Roger Ebert, who said the following:

"[I] consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

"I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

To further illustrate the point that undoubtedly many people have, ask any parent what their kids are doing at any given time. It's essentially guaranteed that they will have a different facial structure and emotional reaction when saying, "They're reading," or "They're watching a movie," then when they say "They're playing video games." Reading is a healthy activity that infuses knowledge. Watching a movie is great because they do it too. Video games, on the other hand, are something that people do when they're bored and have nothing better to do...I wish they would go play outside or something.

These people, including Roger Ebert, are typically ignorant of the very basic ideas of how video games work. For example, Ebert stated that player choice somehow discounts authorial control. Ebert, then, has never experienced games like Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy, or virtually any game with anything resembling an in depth story line. In the example of these two games, the players will find themselves watching cinematic sequences and reading or listening to dialogue just as often as they find themselves actually controlling the character, and the "choices" they make do not ultimately change the outcome of the game to an extent that it removes the rest of the storyline, as he seems to imply. Being entertained by a story is the very nature of role-playing games, and that is what Hideo Kojima prides himself in creating his stealth action saga.

I am not a gamer that believes that my time spent gaming is a "loss of precious hours." What I do and play is valuable to me. Playing video games as a child has shaped my imagination and, of all things, my musical ability. My first inclination to be a composer game from listening to the soundtracks of video games and imagining being the one who wrote the soundtrack to the next Zelda game.

The music in movies is today considered to be valuable music. At the most important award shows celebrating films, such as the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, awards are given out in recognition of outstanding musical scores. The average Oscar watcher, in fact, may even have an opinion on some of the movies present. "Oh, Atonement had really good music, I hope that one wins." Most movie viewers will notice how integral the score of a film is to it's plot development and emotional impact; suspenseful and horror films are an excellent example of this. Symphony orchestras around the world commonly play music from films, even put on entire concert series's based around them.

Why then are video games put in a different category altogether? Why are there no major award shows on networks like NBC or Fox that celebrate video games, despite the video game industry bringing in just as much revenue as the movie industry? Compared to it's counterpart, it's rather rare to find game music played by symphony orchestras, and when it is, it's primarily in Japan; an exception is the Video Games Live tour. I think it all comes back to the question of worth and artistic value. Most people, especially non-gamers, don't view games as truly important, but rather a hobby that's mostly part of childhood, and even that is wrong: the average American gamer is thirty-three years old.

Of course, times will change. In fact, times are already changing. Video games are on the road to eventually being accepted as important works of art rather than simply things people do when they're bored. For example, the Eminence Symphony Orchestra was created for the purpose of playing video game music last year. And with that new respect, just as in the movie industry, will come a wide respect for video game music. No longer will the idea that video game music is merely drone and mechanical noises be so inexplicably widespread. Composers like Martin O'Donnell will be given honors just like Hans Zimmer. People will go to concerts by the ESO even if they aren't gamers. Video game soundtracks will be available on iTunes far more readily than they are now. But until that day comes, video game music will continue to go on largely unappreciated, a comedy of sorts, the lowest of art.

"For over ten years or so game music has developed into a very large market. However in countries outside of Japan I think game music is still a potential growth market that has not yet developed to the extent that we are seeing in Japan." - Nobuo Uematsu
Patrick Dunnevant

Xbox Live and Christianity

2008-06-06T15:06:00.001-07:00

I had a rather disheartening conversation while playing a game on Xbox Live, and I feel like sharing it with you.

I was playing a game called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which I consider to be the most well crafted first person shooter video game of all time. It takes the Call of Duty series, games known for being shooting games set in the time period of World War II, into a modern conflict with terrorists and Russians. But I suppose this isn't the point. I was playing online with about twelve other people, most of them guys but a few girls too, from all over the country. One of them, who's gamer tag was something along the lines of "Man Down [with a number after it]" started to talk a great deal of trash, saying really disrespectful things and slurs all over the place. And, as is typical with guys like this, he sounded like his voice had only recently begun to change.

At one point, he randomly made a "your mom" joke, and so at this point, I felt it necessary to jump in.

P-Dunn: "Dude, are you like five years old or something?"
Man Down: "I'm actually fourteen. What, how old are you?"
P-Dunn: "I'm nineteen."

He apparently didn't hear my response, so he continued.

Man Down: "What, you don't want to answer? It's okay. I won't rape you."
P-Dunn: "Did you not hear me? I said I was nineteen."
Man Down: "No, I didn't. Oh."

That was the extent of the conversation for a while. We didn't speak again until the end of the game. But that wasn't enough for him.

The game ended with my team winning. During the thirty-second pause that occurs in between games, he apparently went and read my profile, and proceeded to read it to everyone else in the party.

Man Down: "'Christianity and Music essentially describe me. I'm a music major and an atheist debater.' Wow, I guess that makes you the biggest douche bag ever, then."

This caught the attention of the other guys in the room, who grumbled things like, "That's not nice," or "Dude, shut up." To no avail:

Man Down: "So you're nothing without your religion and music, then?"
P-Dunn: "Probably not."
Man Down: "So I guess that means you probably hate gay people, and black people, and Jews, right?"
P-Dunn: "No, of course not. Why would you say that?"
Man Down: "Well, because Christians usually do."

Every time I hear something like this, I cringe, both inside and out. It saddens me so much.

Why is it that Christianity is continually given negative labels? Why is Christianity known more for what it disapproves of then what it affirms? Why isn't Christianity known for followers that love their neighbors as they love themselves, help the poor, or give to charity more than others? Why instead is Christianity known for followers who are racist, anti-Semetic homophobes?

I think that Christians need to realize that this is exactly some members of the outside world views us, and we need to keep that in mind in the way we act. When we do things like crusade against marriage amendments, we are labeled as homophobic prudes rather than people who care about affirming traditional marriage. And then, in more extreme examples, when people let their children die instead of giving them proper medical care, the religion is labeled as a bunch of anti-scientific nuts. Is it fair? Of course it isn't. But it's something we have to live with. It's something we must work to counteract.

"The greatest thing a man can do for his Heavenly Father is to be kind to some of His other children." - Henry Drummond
Patrick Dunnevant

Community Hymn Sing Experience

2008-04-14T22:24:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to once again sing in the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville, TN with the Belmont University Chamber Singers. This time, however, we were not accompanied by the rest of Belmont's musical ensembles, and we were not broadcasted on TV. This time, we performed with the Nashville Symphony, and such acts as Amy Grant, Melinda Doolittle (not unlike last time), Travis Cottrell, Bill Gaither, and the Out for Souls gospel choir. Our role was to sing one of our pieces, "Now is the Cool of the Day," and lead the audience in singing "Fairest Lord Jesus," a cappella.

This should be a fairly short entry, because I merely want to describe what the experience of singing on stage in such an environment was like.

We went on stage a few numbers after the intermission. The entire place was packed (we did two sold-out concerts) and we stood on the very edge of the stage, so the closest audience members were mere feet from me. We didn't have enough from for Dr. E to stand in front of us; he merely conducted from the side. When it was time to sing Fairest Lord Jesus, we opened up our music and sang through the verse the first time on merely a "nu" sound (not "Ni," as he frequently reminded us). It was interesting to see the audience's reaction to hearing that melody. They all immediately knew what it was that we were singing.

When we came in again, and Dr. E cued the audience to join us in singing, it was absolutely magical. The entire place began to sing in sync, and from where we were standing, the sound was resonating at us from literally all directions. There was something incredible about singing such a beautiful hymn in the presence of God with nearly two thousand other people, a cappella, in such a beautiful building that has such magnificent acoustics and reverberation space. I really can't describe it, and I feel like other members of the choir felt the same way, just by looking at their faces.

It was a really cool experience, and I just wanted to share it with you.

A Defense of Marriage

2008-01-11T23:53:00.000-08:00

Contrary to what you first thought upon reading the title, this is NOT an article about homosexuality. If you want one of those, scroll down a bit. This article is about something completely different, something that is more relevant to me for several reasons. The first reason is because I’m a straight man; the second, because I’m a straight man who is looking to get married one day; and the third, because I’m very interested in sex, but not until that day.

Those who know me know that I frequently engage atheists in debate. It has become a passion of mine to debate nonbelievers on the existence of God, the viability of morality in atheism, the resurrection of Jesus, and the reliability of the Gospels. But just the other day, I engaged in a debate about a topic that I never thought I would ever debate: promiscuity vs. monogamous sex. My opponent was advocating a “transparent and responsible” form of promiscuous sex, and I was defending saving sex for marriage. Needless to say, it was stimulating enough (pardon the pun) to inspire me to write an article about my thoughts on the subject.

I entered into a Facebook topic called “Can Christians have fun too?” and the author was asking what people would miss out on because of being a Christian. Someone said “premarital sex,” and I posted the following in response:

“Well, that's certainly no biggie. Yes, baby, I want you to give yourself fully to me, but I don't want to make a real, lasting commitment to you. I just want to get naked and bang you. That's so romantic, isn't it?”

My opponent was an atheist from Atlanta who calls himself Snotti Prince St. Cyr. He has messaged me before about my debates with other atheists that he observed. Of course, the discussion did not get very far, since he repeatedly would assert that my articles on Brain Is Ignorant had many problems, but refused to name a single one and demonstrate why, in fact, it was a problem. Either way, he discovered my post and saw fit to make a response to it. This led to a considerable discussion.

First, I shall lay out my terms. Some of these are hotly debated topics, especially amongst Christian circles, and so I must be clear about this.

There are two different types of sex: sexual intercourse and non-penetrative sex, which is also called “outercourse.”
Sexual intercourse is what most people speak of, and I will be speaking of in this article, when they talk about “having sex,” meaning penetration of the vagina with a penis. This also includes anal sex, and debatably includes oral sex. The reason some include oral sex as part of intercourse is that you can receive and transmit STI’s through oral sex fairly easily.
Outercourse is any sexual activity that does not involve genital-to-genital penetration, but typically involves genital stimulation.
My opinion on the issue is that someone who engages in the first type of sex, known as “sexual intercourse,” which includes vaginal penetration, anal sex, and oral sex, is no longer a “virgin”^[1] in the emotional sense. Others may disagree with this stance, and that’s perfectly fine with me, because in this case, it's not clearly defined. For further information on what it means to be a virgin, see the footnote.

Now that all of the terms have been laid out, let's get into more specifics.

This is a debate about promiscuity vs. sex in marriage. First off, promiscuity is a type of sexual lifestyle that involves having sex with many partners, usually without any long term commitment. It is in fact the type of sexual activity that the majority of Americans seem to practice. According to a 2004 study, the median number for sexual partners that a male has in his lifetime is eight, whereas the median for a woman is three. Only twelve percent of men restrict themselves to one partner, whereas only twenty-five percent of women do. Snotti Prince St. Cyr said that he advocated a "transparent and responsible" form of promiscuity. I inquired as to what this was, to which he stated:

I would deem a "transparent and responsible" form of promiscuity as a variation of promiscuity in which people openly express their understandings of sex and their agendas, in hopes of establishing a sense of comfort and trustworthiness within their partners.

People seem to think that the denotation of "promiscuity" rules out the "responsible" constituent, but this isn't necessarily true. Conversely, any connotation(s) of "promiscuity" that are engendered doesn't/don't necessarily have to rule out responsibility.

He stated this last part in response to me saying that in my opinion, the very meaning of the word "promiscuity" connotes a total lack of responsibility. It seems like he agrees with me here to some extent, seeing as he didn't as much respond to me as say, "That's not necessarily true."

This, I think, fails as a valuable method of sexual activity. For one, how can one have any sort of "trustworthiness" with someone they have only known for a relatively short time? This problem is magnified greatly if sex with with someone you met in a bar or at a party that night. Trust is the product of a long series of events. It's not just something that appears immediately because you explain your motives.

My position is that promiscuity is incredibly irresponsible for the following reasons.

Firstly, promiscuity as it is commonly practiced doesn't do anything to stop the spread of STI's, and in fact furthers it. It seems as though Snotti was trying to advocate a more responsible form where protection was used, but even in these cases, condoms aren't universally effective at preventing STI's. I think if tomorrow, everyone stopped being promiscuous and began to save themselves for marriage (a tall order, to be sure), the percentage of STI's in the world would rapidly decrease. And why wouldn't it? If everyone only had one sex partner in their entire lives, how would they get an STI?
Sex as a result of promiscuity is not based on love, but more lust. Lust is much different from love in that it is a selfish emotion which seeks primarily for instant self-gratification. And lust is also a destructive emotion; if left unchecked, it can dramatically take control of someone's life. In any case, when people go to bars to get laid, are they seeking to make a lasting commitment to someone, or are they seeking a moment's pleasure? The answer is obvious. And because it is based on lust and not love, it cheapens the value of sex. Sex is the deepest form of emotional bond you can have with someone else, and it is wasted in this case on someone that you may not have known for very long.
Promiscuity does not prepare someone adequately for entering into a binding relationship. If one is going to eventually pursue a marriage relationship, how in the world are they going to be adequately prepared to only have sex with one person for the rest of their life if they spent their life before then having sex with lots of different people? I can't think of a valid example where splurging was great practice for conserving.

Why does this matter? Because sex is incredibly important. Without it, in fact, none of us would exist at all. And because it's so important, to treat it lightly is irresponsible and causes a great deal of negative consequences and emotional baggage down the road.

So why is waiting for marriage so great?

Religiously, it's the way God intended it to be. And thus, sex outside of a marriage relationship, is in a sense, theft. A woman who calls herself Teallaura on the TheologyWeb forum put it this way: "When we marry, our bodies are no longer our own but belong to our spouses in terms of our sexuality. By having premarital sex we've given away something that is rightfully our spouses - something we cannot regain to give to the spouse."
Sex is the deepest form of physical and emotional bond that you can make with a person. The Bible goes so far as to say that "the two become one flesh" in the process. Marriage is the deepest form of legal and committal bonds that you can make with a person. Since marriage is the culmination of types of commitments, does it not make sense that we should save the culmination of intimacy for the culmination of commitment?
Sex in a marriage relationship, ideally, is based on love. Love is something that is not selfishly based, and has the best interest of the other at heart. When you cultivate something like that in a marriage relationship, one is ideally making something with a joint effort in mind, and there is a great deal of trust and comfort in this process because the two parties have committed themselves wholly to each other.
If both partners wait to have sex until their married, then they are both experiencing something new together that is both emotionally and physically overwhelming. Though I can't be sure myself, I feel as though this would be much more rewarding and much more of a special experience than if I'd already given myself to someone else before my wedding night.

The only negative outcome of restricting sex to one partner in marriage that I can think of is that you could get bored with that partner and want something new and exciting. I have no experience in this, obviously, so I can't say that is right or wrong based on my knowledge. But another T-Web'er who calls themself ChosenOne66 gave this analogy out of experience. Sex in a marriage relationship is not like having one record and listening to it over and over and over until you're sick of it. Sex in a marriage relationship is like learning to play a musical instrument. The more committed you are to learning how to play (and practicing often), the more enjoyment you will get out of it.

So here I am: one of the apparent twelve percent of men who aims to only have one sex partner for my entire life.

Concerning those who disagree: I do not mean to come off as having a "holier-than-thou" approach. But if you happen to disagree with my reasoning, I'd like to understand why. It will do nothing for you to call me a prude or ridicule me, as has happened before, if you can't demonstrate it to be so.

"True love does wait. Such love will embrace you with awe and honor. No matter how far and alone you had to walk to find it." - Rahab, TheologyWeb
Patrick Dunnevant

^[1] The definition of what constitutes a virgin is very hotly debated; the traditional Catholic definition was that any intended sexual pleasure at all resulted in a loss of virginity, whereas some believe that only vaginal penetration results in a loss of virginity. There are also multiple types of virginity to discuss, which must be defined.

Physical virginity

In females, if the hymen is unbroken, they are physically still virgins. This was the method used as early as Leviticus to determine whether brides were virgins on their wedding nights. If one goes strictly by this definition, only vaginal penetration results in a loss of virginity.

"Emotional" virginity

This is the kind of virginity that most people discuss. Virginity in this case is lost by committing a certain sex act, which depending on your personal take might not involve breaking physical virginity.

I don't think there's a concrete line here. It's up for interpretation. What's your opinion, and why?

Christianity and Homosexuality

2007-12-26T12:49:00.000-08:00

This essay has the capability to offend some people, but that will only happen if you do not read it with the perspective of gaining knowledge. To be honest, the people that will be offended are most likely not who you are expecting them to be, given the state of the current relationship between Christianity (usually evangelical) and Homosexuality. So to kick things off on a slightly lighter note, I'd like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I hope everyone had a relaxing, enjoyable, and enriching holiday.

Facebook has a new feature provided by ABC News where they pose poll questions about issues in the upcoming elections. The questions range from what the focus in the War on Terror should be to whether marijuana should be legalized. Each question has a message board for people to discuss and debate the question.

The question that I recently participated in was, "What should the federal government do about same sex couples that want to be married?" As I'm writing this, the option, "It should be allowed and treated the same as a marriage between a man and a woman," is winning by a long shot at 60%. The strong opposition answer of, "It should not be allowed, and civil unions should not be granted," is at a lowly 14%. I answered with the former, with this explanation: Each religious institution or place where marriages normally occur should decide if they will marry same-sex couples or not. There should be no prohibition if they choose to or choose not to by the government.

And yet, I'm a Christian. Yes, ladies and gentleman of the world. I do not discriminate because of my faith. I'm about to get into why I do not.

I ventured into the debate forum and checked out some of the topics. I found one topic that, unsurprisingly, had turned into a Biblical debate about Homosexuality. This was unsurprising, since it was started with the title, "So I'm a christian and I believe in gay marriage." In it, I found some stances made by my fellow Christians which were sorely misinformed. So in this essay, I would like to address some of the claims of Christians regarding why homosexuals cannot be Christians, and why homosexuals cannot get married. When they do this, they do so against reason, and really in spite of their own scripture.

Just so we are clear, I'd like to put my stance out right now.

Any person having lustful desires for a person of their own gender is sinning. (Romans 1:26-28)
Any person having lustful desires for a person of another gender is also sinning. (Matthew 5:28)

Here is my main argument against laws banning gay marriage.

If marriage was still a purely religious idea, and we were run under a theocratic government, banning gay marriage would make complete sense.
However, marriage is now available outside of the church, and we have laws that prohibit one religion to be valued over another because of the Constitution.
Making a law based purely on religion is against the Constitution.
The only legitimate reason to make a law against gay marriage is religion.
Therefore, a law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Premise 4 needs to be defended. Some Christians give other, non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. However, in my opinion, they all fall flat because they are sorely ineffective. Here's one of the most frequent:

"Gay marriage is wrong because they can't have children."

This, of course, assumes that the sole purpose of marriage is making children. I'm not sure any married couple will tell you that the only reason they got married was so they could have children together. Furthermore, if we were to take this idea to it's full extent, we would have to prohibit several other groups of people from getting married:

Senior citizens
People who are infertile, either from birth or from other circumstances
People who don't even want children

These people don't want to get married because of the possibility of having children. They want to get married because they love each other and want to make that deep commitment. That's what marriage is about.

"Gay marriage is wrong because it's not natural."

Well, that's interesting. This argument says that anything that is not natural is wrong. So let's also take this to it's full extent. Television, computers, the internet, your Xbox, and the very Bible you read each day is not "natural" either. They are all made by humans using machinery that was also made by humans. And yet, if you were to burn a leaf of cannabis and inhale the smoke that is expelled from it, it would be natural, seeing as it uses two natural forces (a plant, and fire). However, that doesn't make Xbox "bad" and smoking cannabis "good." Come to think of it, marriage itself isn't even "natural," especially the construct that we are using today. So marriage itself, according to people who make this argument, should be forbidden because it is not natural.

Well, perhaps it's "traditional," that we should be talking about. But this is much worse. Slavery was traditional for literally thousands of years. Less than a hundred years ago, women couldn't even vote, and that just was the way things were.

The Gator GSA made a list called "12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society." It's written with their tongues firmly sewn into their cheeks, but I think it gives a very good overview of the "naturalistic" arguments against gay marriage. You're sure to find it if you Google it.

So what is a valid argument against gay marriage? Well, in my mind, since homosexuality is a sin, and since we shouldn't be promoting sin, we should not allow gay marriage. I think using religion is a logically valid argument against gay marriage. But in a democratic society, this does not work.

Suppose an Islamic lobbyist group in Congress wanted to pass a law that required all women to cover their faces using a niqāb. This would be supported by the following verse in the Qur'an.

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." (Qur'an 33:59)

Many Christians would object to this. I certainly would. I am not Muslim, and therefore, I shouldn't be required to follow the laws of Islam. And yet, some Christians want to make gay people, many of whom are not Christians, follow the laws of Christianity. This is just as invalid. Though I may not personally approve the concept of gay marriage, making a law based on a disapproval that stems from my religious beliefs is simply wrong.

This explains my choice in the poll. There should be no law provided by the United States government that says two consenting adults cannot be married. Thus, each place where marriage is provided should decide whether they want to award marriages to homosexuals. Grove Avenue Baptist Church may not allow homosexual marriage. However, Derbyshire Baptist Church, about a minute up the road, could allow homosexual marriage. It should be a private, not a public decision, but in any case, the government should not deny any church's decision to allow it.

Now, onto the second, and most likely more important part of this essay. Can people who are gay be Christians? My answer is yes.

A fellow in the Facebook group I was talking about earlier named Aaron Brown, who appears to be a high school senior, made the following claim:

If you are a Christian and you slip into sin, that doesnt unChrist-ian-ify you.

If you "are gay"-- whatever that means-- then you cant become a Christian unless you stop "being gay".

So in Aaron's mind, as well as the minds of many other Christians I know, one cannot be a Christian unless they stop being a homosexual.

However, I ask these Christians to refer to the Bible verses that I posted at the beginning of the essay. Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. But Jesus also says, very plainly and uncompromisingly, that if you look at someone with lust, you are not just lusting, but you are committing adultery with that person in your heart. Adultery is a sin as well, according to the Bible. So I ask these folks to explain to me why they consider themselves to be Christians if they continue to lust after other people. Or lie. Or have hate in their hearts for others, which Jesus said was committing murder in your hearts. Or disobey their parents.

Some people may say that a homosexual lust is worse than a heterosexual lust. But doesn't the Bible also say that if you break one of the commandments, you might as well have broken all of them? That's James 2:10. In God's eyes, a sin is a sin.

Who among us as Christians immediately stopped sinning when they became a Christian? Are there any adults out there who have been Christians for a great deal of time that can name a point in their lives were all temptation to sin just stopped? No. We are all tempted to sin, and we all fall short of the glory of God each and every day, almost without fail. And yet, we are still washed from that sin. That's what Paul said, in fact. He said that homosexuals, adulterers, drunkards, and lots of other people in the Corinthian church would not enter the kingdom of God. And he says that's what they were: but they were washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ, who forgives all sin. And besides, Jesus strongly criticized people who looked at others sin and judged them, but forgot their own sin. He called them hypocrites (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:40-42).

If anything at all, I think that Christianity needs to direct its focus somewhere else, like Darfur, or at poverty, or at war, or at racism, rather than trying to eliminate equal rights. It doesn't really further the Gospel of Christ, does it?

Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? ~Ernest Gaines
Patrick Dunnevant

Life According to Calvin and Hobbes

2007-11-11T09:35:00.001-08:00

I am confident in saying that nearly everyone at one time or another has had some sort of toy or stuffed animal that they treasured and played with. These toys were real to us, not just playthings, and we treated them as such. I remember that my sister and I would play with two stuffed monkeys that we won at Kings Dominion, whom we named Abu and Khe. They were not simply creations of man, they were living creatures with their own personalities. We have all felt that way about certain things, have we not?

"Calvin and Hobbes," a comic strip illustrated by Bill Watterson, conveys this part of my childhood with such intelligence and care that, to this day, his philosophical points of life simply blow me away. The strip ran for ten years, from 1985 to 1995, and was and always will be one of the most beloved and respected comic strips ever to grace the funny papers. And it's entire premise is the fact that when we are alone with the toys we cherish, they come to life and are totally real to us.

I feel like this needs to be mentioned also. Bill Watterson, a private man who essentially went into hiding after he stopped writing the strip, uniquely refused to let his ideas be merchandised, because to him it seemed to "violate the spirit of the strip, contradict its message, and take me away from the work I loved."^[1] Where you see thousands of Garfield and Peanuts products on everything from suction-cup cats to coffee mugs, the only Calvin and Hobbes merchandise you see are bootlegs, nothing official. This is highly respectable of him.

Recently, I discovered something that I've always wanted to have: a Calvin and Hobbes search engine. This tool, located here, allows you to type in any word, and it will search to find Calvin and Hobbes strips that contain that word. So in this essay, I will show you what life is like according to Calvin and Hobbes, analyzing his opinions of certain hot topics and include some of my favorite strips of all time. If you are unconvinced that this is perhaps the greatest comic strip ever written after reading this essay, then I have failed you.

If you click the image, you can see it full size. This will help you read it if you can't see it already.

Religion

Speaking of hot topics, what topic is more controversial than religion these days? So what does Calvin feel about God? Does he believe in God? Bill Watterson wasn't a member of any organized religion^[2], so what about his creation? There are actually several strips that address this issue.

This is the earliest reference to religion that I can find. The fundamental question is explicitly asked by Hobbes, and Calvin answers with a humorous, though admittedly positive answer.

This strip was used by the website "Positive Atheism" to suggest that Calvin and Hobbes is an atheistic comic strip. I feel as though this is highly invalid, however, since Calvin sincerely believes in Santa Clause, and is often terrified that he hasn't been good enough and will get a lump of coal as Christmas begins to approach.

This one's just a classic. And oh, so true. I am a firm believer that God has a sense of humor.

It's amazing how Calvin and Hobbes discuss deep issues while flying down a hill on a sled, careening towards certain injury and death. It's often that they make their most profound points either while sledding, while walking in the woods enjoying nature, or while riding in his wagon.

Lastly, I think this insight about religion and pop culture from Calvin's dad is brilliant:

Politics and the Media

Calvin seems to be a politically oriented person to some respect. He frequently approaches his dad as follows to inform him he's not doing well with his political position as "Dad":

But how does Calvin feel about the political process in general, and how the media portrays politics and the news? Calvin is a six year old, so how does all of this effect him?

Does this accurately capture our news organizations today, or what? All we here on the news today are stories that contain sound bites, scandals, sob stories, antics, and emotional confrontation. It's rare to hear anything positive these days, because happy stories don't sell: it's the tragedy and the danger that everyone cares about.

Several strips comment on the graphic violence often portrayed in the media, and how it may affect our young children.

And of course, Calvin doesn't believe he's watching enough of it.

And, of course, here's an interesting take on a very important societal issue: self-image, and how the mass media distorts it.

Education

One of the things Calvin detests is going to school. Who doesn't at his age? It's his least favorite part of the day, easily. And yet, often times school will lead to thrilling adventures...or at least important points about our education system.

This is our education system in a nutshell. In all honesty, I can't remember much of what I learned in high school, at least academically concerned. None of that is relevant to what I want to do as a career. I have a basic understanding of a lot of things, but most of it I've forgotten. I took three years of Spanish, and all I can remember is how to say what I'm currently wearing and how to make small talk. This won't help me.

This is Calvin's work ethic in a nutshell. He doesn't want to work to achieve anything, but he wants everything. There are several other strips devoted to this concept.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Philosophies of Life

Calvin and Hobbes are both named for philosophers (John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes, respectively) and so it seems fitting that they often make important philosophical points on how life works, and how it affects them. Many times, Calvin asks the question of, "What's the purpose in life?" or, "Why am I here?" And it is often answered in various ways, some profound, and some humorous.

Who can forget this classic:

But I think the most profound statement about life Calvin ever makes comes from one of Watterson's real life experiences.

Here's what Bill Watterson said about this strip in his 10th Anniversary book:

"Drawing is a way for me to muse about the nature of things, and I sketched a dead bird I found with reflections similar to Calvin's. Not many Sunday strips begin with a first panel like this, and I wondered if readers would find it offensive. In fact, I received several moving letters from people who had found the strip meaningful. Sharing with people, I'm always impressed by how they share back."

Comic strips, I've found, are so much more than just entertainment. If it's a good strip written by a master like Watterson, they minister to us. They teach us valuable lessons about life in ways that we wouldn't expect. Calvin and Hobbes does these over and over again. It is truly a gem amongst the ordinary that we observe in the newspapers today.

With that, I will leave you with some other great strips that I found, but don't necessarily go in these categories.

Perhaps my favorite strip of all time:

This is just so genius. I laughed out loud when I found this strip again.

These strips are both testament to how well Calvin and Hobbes is actually drawn. This strip is a full blown work of art. Watterson certainly considered comics to be a valid art form.

I hope you enjoyed these strips, and I hope it inspires you to take a closer look at a comic strip that I simply adore above all others.

Patrick Dunnevant

^[1] From interview, located here.
^[2] From interview, located here.

The Incompatibility of Bible Contradictions and Fiction

2007-11-02T20:09:00.001-07:00

Here's something rare on this blog. I don't believe I have written a religious piece for this blog ever. But this literally just occurred to me, and I feel as though I have to write it down before I forget it.

Atheists, or critics of the Bible and primarily the Gospel accounts, really love to make the following claims, usually simultaneously:

The Gospels contain contradictions, and
The Gospels are fictitious.

In this essay, I aim to demonstrate that both of these cannot simultaneously be true, for they are in contradiction to the other. Let's address the first.

The Gospels contain contradictions.

This statement is used to discredit the Gospels quite often. According to critics, if the Bible contains contradictions, it is obviously not God's word, and if it isn't God's word, then it's just like every other holy book which is not God's word. Of course, this logic is absurd, because even if the Bible isn't God's word, that doesn't eliminate the Bible from being true. I am not here to make a judgment in this essay about what I believe about divine inspiration, and if you really want to know what I feel about it, you can check my other blog. Let's continue. Despite this, this argument is used because it shows apparently they can't even get basic details right. Some of the contradictions used by critics are the number of angels at the tomb, differences between the genealogies of Jesus, when Jesus killed off the fig tree, who bought the Potter's Field, etc.

The Gospels are fictitious.

This is used by skeptics even more. The Gospels were invented, and they are not true. If this argument is correct, then by definition, Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, and lo, Christianity is false. This is often the trump card used by atheists, and it's more of a "hurl the elephant" than a real argument. It is easily asserted, but not easily proven, and thus, it constitutes what I call a sound bite argument.

Here's where the two ideas contradict. If the Gospels were written as fiction, then they must have been written in cooperation. For how else could all four of the Gospels contain the same events and statements of Jesus if they were invented independently? It would be mindbogglingly improbable for two people who were inventing a guy named Jesus up to both decide that he fed five thousand people with a few loaves and fish without talking to one another about it...Much less four different independent people. The feeding of the five thousand is the only miracle, other than the resurrection, that is recorded in all four Gospels.

Someone who's keen might have already figured out the contradiction.

If they were written in cooperation, how is it possible that they have contradictions in them? If they were written together, the authors would have had to have been incredibly stupid in order to contradict each other. To illustrate this, I have designed a satirical screenplay.

Midday, A.D. 70. Four bearded Caucasian men are sitting around a wooden table in a small house. The tables are dusty and creaking as they write on long scrolls of parchment. Some various chit chat is going on between them. Matthew taps his glass with his utencil and a high pitched "ding" sounds.

MATTHEW: So Peter is the one that's going to deny Jesus, okay?

MARK: I guess so. I like Peter, but he is a pretty weak individual, so it makes sense.

LUKE: Then it's settled. And hey, let's set a timetable on it so we can make it seem like it's even more embarrassing for Peter.

MATTHEW: Good call. How about before the cock crows?

Luke and John nod and murmur sounds that indicate agreement. They begin to scribble.

MARK: Well, how many times should the cock crow? You know, I think we should make it two times.

The three others stop writing for a moment and look at Mark questioningly. A few seconds of silence.

JOHN: All right, Mark. You write that the cock has to crow twice. The rest of us will just say the cock has to crow.

MATTHEW: Sounds good.

More silence and scribbling.

MARK: Oh...Hmm. Maybe I should say that the cock crows after Peter denies him once, and then later as well.

JOHN: Well, that presents a problem. I just said that the crows after he denies him three times.

MATTHEW: Oh well. Nobody cares anyway. Mark, just write whatever you want.

Mark shrugs.

MATTHEW: Anyway...So guys, let's start on the resurrection.

LUKE (excitedly): Oh boy, my favorite part!

Murmurs of ascent.

MATTHEW: So I was thinking that we should say that he rose on the third day. I figure that gives us enough time to convince people that he actually died.

MARK (nodding): Yeah, good idea. (Beat) Well wait, is it three days and three nights, or just three days?

MATTHEW: I think it should be three days and nights.

MARK: Well, I disagree. It should just be three days.

LUKE: Guys, it's okay. No need to get heated about such a trivial thing. Just write whatever you want. It doesn't matter.

JOHN: Yeah, nobody will care.

Of course, it's satirical. But I feel like it illustrates a few points.

Either the contradictions were intentionally written, or they were written by mistake.
Contradictions being intentionally written doesn't make any sense at all. There is no reason that makes any sense for the Gospel authors purposefully writing different things.
Contradictions being written by mistake also doesn't make any sense at all. This would either show incredible carelessness, unreasonable carelessness in fact.

So let's make sense of this. How can this issue be resolved? By merely positing that the Gospels are independent. Each author wrote from a base of experience, and wrote his own personal take on the issue based on how he would have remembered it, or how the eyewitnesses he interviewed remembered it.

But then, that rules out them being written as fiction.

"But wait, P-Dunn! You're forgetting the theory of Markan priority! Mark wrote it initially, and the other Gospels used Mark as a source!" No, this doesn't solve the problem one bit. The issue is still exactly the same, just minus one author. In fact, this makes the situation even worse. The other authors must have written in collaboration, deliberately not writing the same thing or doing it carelessly, and they were doing it based on something that was already written as a guideline! That makes it all the more unbelievable. In addition, some would have decided to write other miracles that aren't featured in Mark, while others would have chosen to ignore those ideas.

"But Mark wrote his as fiction!" Well, that must be argued, not merely asserted. Mark is not an example of mythology or a literary genre that could be considered straight up fiction. Mark is an example of a Greco-Roman bioi. It's a biography, and it contains historical claims that have been confirmed. There is no reason for us to assume that it is fiction.

Let's put all of this in argument form.

The Gospels contain contradictions.
The Gospels are fictitious.

If the Gospels are fictitious, then they were either written separately or together.
If they were written separately, there is no explanation for the similarities between the stories.
If the Gospels are fictitious, they must have been written together.

If the Gospels were written fictitiously in collaboration, the contradictions we find between the stories are either as a result of deliberate insertion or error.
Deliberate insertion defies any logical sense for obvious reasons.
Error defies any logical sense, since they were written together, eliminating the possibility of error.
Therefore, the Gospels are not fictitious.

The Gospels are based on actual experiences.
The Gospels were written independently.
The Gospels each have different takes on certain issues, leading to perceived contradictions.

Note: If you want answers to any of the alleged contradictions that I happened to feature in this essay, you should visit Tekton Apologetics Ministries, which has answers to all of them.

So skeptics, if you want to argue with me about the Gospels, do not assert that the Gospels are fiction while spontaneously asserting that the Gospels contain contradictions. You are speaking nonsense.

Speaking of Tekton...

"You might be a fundamentalist atheist if when a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation." - J.P. Holding
Patrick Dunnevant

My Fall Break

2007-10-16T09:05:00.000-07:00

So a lot of really awesome things happened on my fall break, which was from October 10th until October 14th. Some of the events can't really be described in words as well as they can be described in experience. You ultimately have to experience it yourself in order to get it. But I'll try to explain anyway.

I spent my fall break touring with the Belmont University "Chamber Singers" ensemble. We are a group of twenty-eight, including our director, and its a select classical ensemble with an emphasis on a cappella music. In our rehearsals, we do not use the piano to learn our pitches, but instead, we must sight read everything by getting pitches from tuning forks, which only sound an A four forty. It's been a challenge for me to be able to adjust to this new way of learning, but I've found that it's also incredibly valuable to my musicianship. My sight reading ability has greatly increased in these last few weeks.

We left Belmont University at four in the morning on that Wednesday. I did not sleep the previous night, because I got out of rehearsals late and I knew I would be in a bad mood if I slept for only a few hours before waking up really early. So I made Raspberry Supreme Pie with several other Chamber Singers (henceforth known as "Chambers") and a few other folks who wanted to join in. After that, we all hiked over to the bus and shoved off.

Our bus driver for most of the trip was a guy named Walter. We called him Walt. He was definitely a character. I don't really know how to describe him, because there are so many events that happened on this trip that gave him a kind of mystery air about him. But if I were to use a few adjectives to describe Walt, I would probably say creepy, disturbing, strange, and weird. He got lost in Richmond and caused us to wait around for an hour outside of VCU's music building. He kept hitting the barrier on the sides of the road that makes loud noises to wake up sleeping drivers. He behaved rather oddly to several of our female Chambers on a few occasions, even once remarking something akin to, "I wish I had a woman like you to squeeze." But nevertheless, us Chambers never passed up the opportunity to cheer him on after getting to a destination. Forever in the Chamber Lore will be the cries of, "Walt...Walt...Walt...Walt...WALT! WALT! WALT! WALT!"

We got to Godwin High School just after five o'clock in the afternoon that day. We were supposed to get there around six o'clock, which means we could have left an hour later and still have gotten there on time. At this point, I was taken to my host home, which coincidentally was my own house. We called it a day.

The next day, the Chambers went to do a work shop with the Mills E. Godwin High School choral department. We sat in on every class and listened to each choir sing a song or two. Then, Dr. E would work with them on warm up exercises and other musical things. Each choir at Godwin, except for the show choirs and Eagles Combination, performed a piece that had been composed by Dr. E, and so he had a chance to work on these pieces with them and give them a bit of a taste of how he wanted them to sound. And then, of course, we would sing for them.

The Chambers' reaction to Godwin's choirs were overwhelmingly positive. I asked several of them afterwards and they all said that they were impressed with the choirs overall, and impressed the most by Madrigals and A Capella. As a previous member of Mads, I am slightly biased towards it, but it was my favorite part of the day. I was excited to hear their new sound after losing fifteen seniors, and I must say that they have recovered extraordinarily well and they sound terrific. I'm proud of everyone! I think my favorite song that they performed was the spiritual, where Rishabh Bajekal (a.k.a. Rasheeb) had a full-length solo.

That night, after having a barbecue dinner from Alexander's, we performed at Randolph-Macon College. Ultimately, we performed the same concert twice, since the itinerary had the concert taking place at eight o'clock, but in all reality, it was actually at seven. Graham's parents were driving up from Raleigh, NC and we did not want them to miss the concert. Upon finishing our set list, we turned right around and did it again. It was a cool experience and it was great to see my grandparents, parents, and other family friends there watching in the audience. The only problem was that we had literally been singing all day, from nine o'clock in the morning at the start of Eagles Combination until nine o'clock at night after the concert was over. Our voices were really tired, and mine was shot for the next few days.

The next day, we met back at Godwin for a little while, and then headed off to Hermitage High School. Instead of staying the entire day there, we only sang there for about an hour. That was cool for me because it's rare that I get to see another high school choir in action besides my own. Some other things happened there that I don't think need repeating, because it will forever remain in Chamber Lore and no one outside of Chamber Singers needs to be aware of it. :-)

We stopped for a Bill's Barbecue lunch, were I had a BLT sandwich, fries, a Limeade, and a banana pie. Then we headed off to Virginia Commonwealth University to perform there as well as do another workshop with them. That was a great experience, for I got to see some of my old friends from my high school days as well as other friends I'd met at choir events like All State Choir and Honors Choir. One of VCU's ensembles performed a stunning arrangement of Amazing Grace, and that was definitely a highlight of the workshop.

Shortly after, we had an opportunity to chill out around Richmond. So I walked around with Jessica, Steven, and Matt and eventually made my way to the park, where Chambers were having push up contests and wrestling each other. I got one of the battles on tape, and it can be seen on my Facebook page. After that, we all headed out to my house, where we had a fantastic home cooked meal of grilled chicken and a pumpkin carving contest between tables where replicas of Dr. E and Walt were made. Some of the Chambers went to Godwin's football game, but for whatever reason, I did not. It was only against TJ anyway, and everyone knows who's going to win a game like that. I was busy watching the Red Sox kick the snot out of the Indians and talking with Alexis and Chris C. who had chosen to come to the party as well. It was a really great time, in large part due to my mom's amazing party planning ability. :-)

The next day, we walked around Washington D.C. and had a day to do whatever we wanted. I walked through the Holocaust Museum, which was a very heavy experience, in addition to going to all the memorials and some of the monuments. The most surreal part of that museum was seeing an actual bunk that was used in Auschwitz. Think about how many people died on the bunk, and imagine standing and looking at it. It was chilling, to say the least. But after that, we were treated to another home cooked meal put on by the Fleeson family and many members of their church. We went to our new host homes, and ultimately I went to bed early because that day was really exhausting. The next day would be the culmination of our trip.

We sang in two church services at Columbia Baptist Church and sat through the same message twice. The pastor was preaching about the different types of God's grace. The first type is "Common Grace," which is the grace of everyday blessings that all people get, not just non-Christians. When you look at the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people?" or "Why do non-Christians prosper?" then Common Grace makes complete sense here. The other kind of grace was "Special Grace," which is the grace that comes with salvation through Christ. Of course, the pastor took the stance of the Calvinists and stated that the special grace was given out by God to people that he chose, whereas I would believe that we choose God. But other than that, I didn't find myself in disagreement with too many things he said. He said some really over-the-top things in talking about what God would be like if he was like us humans, which were made fun of afterwards, but largely, I think he was correct. But that was only the beginning. What was next?

The National Cathedral.

The National Cathedral is the sixth largest cathedral in the world. It was built in 1907, and they just finished their centennial celebration. We walked into the place and immediately our jaws dropped. I gave myself a tour for about an hour, most of which was spent gaping at the ceilings, the intricate sculptures, the incredible acoustics in the room, and the pipe organ. Now we are getting into things that are troubling to describe, because nothing I put in words seems to convey what I felt in that building.

That's what we did. We sang the prelude to the choral Evensong service. We sung our entire set in the incredible cathedral. After every chord was released, an echo that lasted for five seconds resounded throughout the hall. The highlight of the performance was "Light," which was a piece Dr. E wrote specifically for echoing chambers. He wrote pauses in the music specifically for waiting for the echoes to stop. At the end of that song, where we sing a B major chord that seemingly comes out of nowhere, we cut off and I literally gasped because of the echo and how perfectly it sounded. My hands were shaking uncontrollably for a good half hour after we sat down.

It was the most incredible musical experience of my life. If you are a musician, you simply must experience it. Go to Washington D.C., sit in on a choral Evensong service, sit in awe of the incredible Men and Boys chorus that followed us, and thank God for music. Better yet, perform in the choral Evensong service, and then thank God for music. You will never forget it for the rest of your life.

And then we drove home for twelve hours in the back of a bus that kept hitting the noisy barriers for sleepy drivers, chanting "Walt, Walt, Walt," watching the new Family Guy episode, and asking "Would You Rather" questions for a few hours. We got back home at five fifteen that Monday morning, and I slept through my Harmony II class because I set my alarm incorrectly by accident.

That was my Fall Break in a nutshell.

"Walt...Walt...Walt...WALT! WALT! WALT! WALT! Suck it!" - John Melick
Patrick Dunnevant

Fallacious Blanket Statements

2007-09-08T16:00:00.000-07:00

Blanket statements are what I call statements that people spout off that are way too broad and usually way too vague to actually be considered true. A variant of this is a soundbite argument, where someone states a cliche sort of statement that is incredibly vague, and would take you days to actually research and disprove, that someone uses in a debate as sort of a cop out. These two are similar in the way that they are used by people who don't really understand the topic at hand, and are usually used by people who like saying things to reassure themselves.

Another excellent definition was provided by Memory-Alpha.org, which states, "A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence."

Blanket statements are used frequently by racists. Certainly, some examples can come to mind. They are like stereotypes in the way that they make judgments about a certain very large and diverse group of people. "Black people are all criminals," for example, is a very good explanation of a blanket statement. It's obviously incorrect. While there are many black people that are criminals, there are also many white people who are criminals, and thus, the racist's argument is moot.

But this essay isn't about stereotypes, per se. There are some blanket statements that I have heard recently that are clearly different from stereotypes, and I feel that I want to address them and refute them now. From now on, Blanket Statements will be referred to as BS as an abbreviation. Convenient, huh?

Example One:
"War Is Not The Answer"

I was recently invited to a Facebook group about the most recent war protest in Washington DC. It's being put on by a group called ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. I'm not really sure what ending the Iraq war will do to end racism, but that is beside the point. In the invitation, the picture to advertise the group was a large text that stated, "War Is Not The Answer."

Now, I have to agree that in the case of the Iraq war, war might not have been the answer. True, we did get rid of Saddam Hussein, a dictator who was gassing his own people. That was, and forever will be, a positive impact that this war has had. However, it is also true that this war is causing economic distress on the home front, and it doesn't seem like any progress is being made whatsoever. I do not believe it is our business to set up their government for them, and I agree with Ron Paul when he says that the biggest incentive we can give the Iraqis to set up their own is to leave. So in this case, I happen to agree that war probably isn't the answer in Iraq, or at least, more of it is not.

However, to assert that war isn't the answer as if war has never done anything positive in the past is incredibly misguided. We've all heard the famous line of lyrics that states, "War (huh). What is it good for? Absolutely nothing." But that's so far beyond false that I'm not even sure that it deserves comment. However, here are a few things that would not exist or would have happened had we, as a human race, remained peaceful.

The United States would still be a collection of English colonies with no Declaration of Independence.
We would be wishing that 6,000,000 Jews would have been killed in the Holocaust, because the number would potentially be two to three times higher since no one would have stood up to Hitler.
Most of Europe, and debateably the collection of English colonies that we today would call the USA, would be speaking German, and occupied under a dictatorship.
The slave trade would potentially still be active in the English colonies.
If there hadn't have been a civil war and if there wasn't aggressive action taken against the King John of England, he never would have signed the Magna Carta, and thus, or Constitution as we know it would not exist. Neither would the British Constitution. Then again, it's meaningless to talk about the United States Constitution, since the USA wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Women would not have entered the workplace to take the place of the husbands in World War Two, and thus, I'm not so sure that the status of women would be the same today.

I'm sure many of you realize that this is a very small list, and I could have gone on for pages and pages. If the United States, or any other government that was being impressed on, had attempted to negotiate peacefully, attempting to "work it out," then the world would be quite different from the place it is today.

Someone may say, "Patrick, if there wasn't a nation attacking another nation, none of those would even matter anyway!" But this is another blanket statement, and easily proven false. England wasn't attacking us when we wanted to be an independent state. No nation was attacking us when we continued our slave trade.

Thus, we see that this BS doesn't have any merit, at least in many cases.

Example Two:
"Religion Kills More Than It Helps"

On the face of it, this statement seems absurd. That's because it is. Believe it or not, I have heard this argument many times by atheists who support getting rid of religion. Almost never am I provided with any evidence to support this claim, and if I am, it's usually the Crusades, which was done in contrast to the tenants of Christianity, and the Spanish Inquisition, which is almost always exaggerated to the point of saying that nine million women were killed. In case you were wondering, the number is less than two thousand. However, this is not the issue.

Most people say that religion kills more than it helps because they put aside all the good things religion is doing and merely focus on the suicide bombings that are being committed by radical Muslims. These same people are also unaware that, according to University of Chicago professor Edward Pape, "the leading purveyors of suicide attacks over the last two decades" has been the Tamil Tigers, a secular group with Hindu roots. Again, this is beside the point.

If the claim "Religion Kills More Than It Helps" is true, then we would expect to see more people being killed because of religion than people being helped by religion. But this is so easily seen as absurd that I almost wonder if the people who make this argument really believe what they are saying. Without religion, none of the following organizations would exist:

The Salvation Army
World Vision
Food For The Hungry
Christian Disaster Relief
Mission of Mercy
Operation Blessing
Christian World Adoption
Compassion International
World Missionary Evangelism
International Mission Board
Young Men's Christian Association, aka YMCA
Habitat for Humanity
Christian Children's Fund
Mercy Ships
Farndale Charity Network
Christian Outreach for Relief & Development
Christian Blind Mission
Food for the Poor, Inc

I'm sure many of you realize, again, that this is a very small list, and I could have gone on for pages and pages. And this is not even mentioning the literally thousands of hospitals around the nation and the world that were founded because of religion, nor the humanitarian efforts of hundreds of other organizations. If one truly supports the eradication of religion, like Elton John or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or the Rational Response Squad, then they must be content with all of these organizations disbanding, or renounce their religious aspects (and that means many would rather disband than do that). All the Christian missionaries in AIDS hospitals in Africa would have to simply leave, because they are apparently doing more harm than good, and they would have to be replaced with willing and able atheists. Most atheists would ultimately be hesitant to remove these things. And thus, all it is is a big BS.

Do you have any more BS's that you would like me to address? Comment!

"90% of the putts that are short don't go in." - Yogi Berra
Patrick Dunnevant

Parody of a Manipulative Christian Video

2007-08-24T22:06:00.000-07:00

If there's one thing my dad can recognize well, it's manipulation. He detests it when they play the piano during the invitation at church because it's emotionally manipulative, and I agree. We don't want Christianity to be manipulative and lack anything genuine.

Well, if there's one piece of manipulative propaganda in the world, it's this video. Originally, a friend of mine showed it to the congregation of students during his turn at preaching. And no offence is intended to my friend here, but I don't think it was a good idea. When I sat there watching this video, my stomach became slightly queasy; not because I was feeling convicted to witness, but because I couldn't believe how ridiculous, over the top, and manipulative this video was. It was outrageous. In fact, I remember thinking of this parody as I was watching the video, because the video almost parodied itself. I even voiced it to one of my other friends. And now, this parody has been put into flesh.

What you are about to see is the video that I was shown almost unedited...Until the end, that is. Many of you won't get it, and that's okay. I'll try to explain it for you. But if you do, that's great too.

I'm sorry, but I simply could not resist.

Expect an essay about college soon.

“When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.” - Stephen Jay Gould
Patrick Dunnevant

The Wonderful World of Harry James Potter

2007-07-13T08:12:00.001-07:00

It's almost like meeting an old friend that you haven't seen in a few years. It's like sitting down at a table and having a conversation with that friend that's several hours long, and then waking up and realizing that it was only a dream.

To me, that is what reading Harry Potter is like.

I say that it's like meeting and old friend because I had almost forgotten how involving and magnificent Harry Potter really is. I had not picked up a book from the series since Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince came out on July 16th, 2005. I finished the book within a few days and then left the Harry Potter series to it's own, amidst the bursts of excitement on the internet over the shocking murder of a certain character which spawned viral videos and even T-shirts. A few months later, I saw the movie adaptation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and after that, Harry Potter wasn't even an afterthought. My life went in a different direction from reading my favorite book series; college applications, three choirs, different programs at church, and various other activities became my life once again.

Two days ago, I went to the movie theater and saw the film version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix. And then it hit me that I hadn't paid any attention at all into the world of Harry Potter. I was suddenly brought back into a world where seeing an elf who cleans houses wasn't abnormal. I could escape from the stress, the hustle and bustle of my last summers of childhood, and return to a magical world of infinite possibility for two hours and eighteen minutes. This was only enhanced by the fact that Pheonix was a wonderful film, the best yet from the Harry Potter series in my opinion. I can't wait to see what David Yates does with the Half-Blood Prince.

The next day, there I was again, avidly reading the novel of which the movie was based on as if I was picking it up again for the first time. And as the wonderful memories came back to me, I was astounded by the depth of the storylines, the unique characters that we have all grown to care so much about, the wide range of emotions that Harry Potter can show that so accurately depict what goes on in so many of our hearts, and the sheer size and detail of the world that J.K. Rowling has created. And I will keep reading these novels until I have finished the fifth and sixth books in time to read the brand new Deathly Hallows.

I say that it's like waking up from a dream of talking to an old friend because ultimately, one has to accept the fact that Harry Potter is fiction. To the best of our current knowledge, we can say that there is no sport called Quidditch, no wizarding schools called Hogwarts or Beauxbatons or Durmstrang, no magical spells that can make people sprout boils or tentacles, no organization of government known as the Ministry of Magic, no mysterious marketplace known as Diagon Alley or Hogsmeade, no evil wizard named Voldemort who has a hatred for all things good. It could be that these things, or perhaps variations of them, do in fact exist and merely exist in hiding from us "Muggles," but of course is very unlikely. For any reader who has a fondness for the series as I do, it is almost sad to say.

For instance, I know that many of my friends would love to play Quidditch if it were a real sport. I, for one, would love to be a Chaser. I wouldn't want to have the incredible one hundred and fifty-point burden that the Seeker has, nor would I want to have the dangerous job of heaving a bat around and protecting my teammates from a heavy iron ball that means to take them out, nor would I have any skill trying to prevent the opposition from scoring on my goals.

Perhaps one day some brilliant inventor in Japan will create a broomstick that is able to fly (probably using gasoline-powered jets or something to that effect). And when that day comes, I will be the first to force my kids to join the Little Quidditch League and avidly watch the Quidditch World Cup on ESPN8, The Ocho. But until that day comes, this generation is simply bound to what our imagination will allow us to experience.

In seven days, eleven hours, and forty five minutes, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be released to millions of fans around the world. It has already topped both Amazon and Barnes & Noble's bestseller lists, even though it has not officially sold one copy. And after it is released, there will be no more word from the universe of Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling has already confirmed that she has no plans for an eighth book. And so forever more, this feeling of anticipation, the waiting, rumor mongering and predicting, will be put to sleep.

What is even more sad to say is that the feeling of picking up a new Harry Potter book will forever be gone as well. Fans of the series like me are always overjoyed to be reading a fresh batch of literature from Rowling. We get that feeling of excitement in the pit of our stomachs, and our emotions are running wild as Harry goes off on some other adventure. But before, once we reached the end of the book, we could always look foreword and say to ourselves that we always have several more books in the series...It's not done yet. But now it is. In seven days, I will come to the last page of Harry Potter and the imagination won't ever be the same. I can already realize that even when I read the Harry Potter books again, I still know what happens in the end. I view the books differently now that I know a certain character will ultimately die, or that this task Harry is working so hard to do is ultimately pointless in the end.

But such is the consequence of any good series. It's inevitable, and so I am embracing the end with enthusiasm, readiness, and a bit of hope, too. Perhaps Rowling will adapt more of the fictional books like Quidditch Through The Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them into life. She will undoubtedly start a new series on unrelated subjects, but I somehow feel like they will never quite be the same. If she can create a new series with just as much creativity and excitement, then I will have respect for her as an author that I do not have for anyone else on this world.

I will be at the midnight party at Barnes and Noble with some of the cast of High School Musical. Soon after, I will start reading, probably forget that it's four o'clock in the morning, and read it straight through. And then it will be over forever.

I think I'm ready.

"Let us step out into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure." - Albus Dumbledore
Patrick Dunnevant

PS. As a precaution against spoilers, I will not be using the internet, nor answering any cell phone calls from people I know that may spoil it, for several days before the book is released until after I finish it. Furthermore, I'm taking headphones and blasting music in my ears at the Midnight Release party, so if anyone drives by and screams something to the effect of, "So and so kills so and so!" I will not hear it.

I suggest everyone do the same. We've been waiting for literally a decade to learn the fate of Harry Potter. Anyone who spoils it for fans is the equivalence of scum, and probably lower than anyone I could ever know.

F-Zero X Put Into Perspective

2007-07-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

Some of you may be avid gamers out there, and I'll let you know that I am one of them as well. Last year, I sat in line until about midnight at Wal-Mart to no avail to buy a Nintendo Wii, and so I ended up going to Circuit City and waiting in line around 6:00 AM in the morning to buy a Nintendo Wii. I was one of the first people to be able to play the brand new Nintendo console and one of the few that didn't sell mine on eBay for ridiculous prices.

One of the excellent features of the Nintendo Wii is the "Wii Shop Channel," where you can download old Nintendo games for a small cost and play them right on your Wii. Ever since they first started pumping out retro classics like Super Mario Bros, Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario 64, Gunstar Heroes, and Donkey Kong Country I and II, I've been buying them very frequently and remembering the days of the past, where all I really did was sit around and play video games with my very small group of friends.

My most recent purchase on the Wii Shop Channel was "F-Zero X," a classic racing game for the Nintendo 64 that was very popular, selling 56,457 copies in it's first week in Japan. It's a very fun game with innovative track design, a speed metal soundtrack that sounds like something Dragonforce would put out, and very high speeds. Playing it again with a more educated mind as changed my perception on how the game would work if it actually happened in reality, and so I am now going to apply the laws of physics to the world of F-Zero and show you how fast it actually is.

I entered into Time Attack mode with Captain Falcoln, one of the protagonists of the game and perhaps the most well known of the bunch. Selecting the first race, Mute City, I sat with a notepad and pencil and recorded some of my stats. Keep in mind that this is me racing with my eye on the speedometer, not really trying as hard as I could to race.

My first lap I raced without boosting at all. I didn't go over the dash plates or anything. My highest unboosted speed was 907 km/h. The next lap, I boosted just about as much as I could. Ultimately my max speed was 1194 km/h on the whole race, and I finished in 1 minute, 37 seconds, and 879 milliseconds.

Since most of my readers probably won't know kilometers per hour as well as miles per hour, I've converted them for you. 1 kilometer is equal to about 0.621118 miles per hour.

907 kph = 563.354 mph
1194 kph = 741.614 mph

Now, let's put this into perspective for you. At my unboosted speed, 563 miles per hour is equal to about 9.38 miles per minute, which means you're going about 0.156 miles a second. If you were traveling in a car at that speed, you would go one mile in roughly six and a half seconds. That's pretty darn fast. So fast that you could get from Richmond, Virginia to San Fransisco, California, a distance of 2,881 miles, in about 5 hours. That trip would normally take an entire day, plus another eighteen hours, of nonstop driving. That's booking, but that's my unboosted speed.

I finished my first lap in 35.900 seconds. Using simple mathematics, we discover that the length of the track would be 5.52 miles. To put that in perspective, the longest NASCAR track, the Talladega Superspeedway, is only 2.66 miles. The fastest time that has ever been recorded was by Bill Elliott and it was 44.998 seconds.

Let's put the same test to the max speed. First, I'll take the average speed of the two numbers. It comes out to about 652.484 miles per hour. At this speed, you're going about 10.8 miles a minute, which translates to 0.181 miles a second. You'd be going a mile every five and a half seconds. That decreases the time of the transit across America to a measly four and a half hours.

Let's talk about G-forces. The Griffin, a ride at Busch Gardens Williamsburg, subjects you to G-forces of up to 4 G's and it's maximum speed is 71 miles per hour. Using a simple math procedure, we can conclude that if the Griffin went 652.484 miles per hour, the G-forces would be at about 36 Gs. Most humans can't withstand more than about 15 Gs for an extended period of time without blacking out. The record is 179.8 Gs, but that was for about a second. Imagine 36 Gs for a minute and thirty-seven seconds, and you'll see what it's like to drive an F-Zero car.

Don't even get me started on the initial acceleration. Frequently, the cars to about 0 to 600 km/h (372 miles per hour) in one second. It doesn't take rocket science to realize that this sort of acceleration would kill somebody.

See, this is what happens when I'm bored on a summer day.

"Right on! You're right out in front! Finish! All right, first place!" - F-Zero
Patrick Dunnevant