Part two: Come as you are, but don’t leave as you came.

January 21, 2010 Leave a comment

I know, internet, I know.

I promised a follow-up post yesterday to my Tuesday post, but work and second work got the best of me yesterday. No excuses, I fail, but I figured I would offer a bit of explanation. In lieu of this unfortunate failure on my part, today, you are in for a rare treat!

DOUBLE POST DAY!

Yes, that’s right. Two posts…one day. This might be normal for some bloggers, but it is definitely a rarity for me. So enjoy, because I don’t know when (if ever) this will happen again.

If you missed part one of this installment, do me a favor. Go back and read it, so I don’t sound like a blithering idiot as I continue my discourse on what God is showing me through the statement which is the title of this post. Originally the comment appeared on a church sign that I happened to pass several days ago.

A quick recap…

*Insert wavy flashback lines*

I. Hate. Church. Sign. Messages.

Hate them. I think they are a blemish on the image of the church, but that really isn’t the point today, so…

*Dismounting soapbox*

God has once again decided to reveal himself to me in something for which I have a great disdain. This is not an uncommon occurence in my life. In fact, God uses these abhorrent instances quite often to show me how much I generally fail. This specific event was really no different.

Several days ago, I saw a message on a church sign that really caught my attention and has taken hold of my thought process since I read it. Usually, information comes into my brain, I process it, and discard the waste after removing and applying the meaningful pieces from the information presented. This one, however, has captured me a bit more than I expected. The statement was:

“Come as you are, but don’t leave as you came.”

*Insert wavy “coming out of the flashback” lines*

I discussed what the first part of that statement meant to me a couple days ago. I am not going to insult your intelligence. Feel free to read what I posted for the specifics. The first part of this statement affected me, but I really feel as that message is for those who have yet to find Christ or have turned their backs from his love. The second part of the statement, “but don’t leave as you came”, has interesting connotations for everyone, but, specifically, for the believer.

I started to think to myself, “Self, how many times have you graced the doors of the church and walked away wholly unaffected? How many events have you attended where the Holy Spirit has been at work where you have failed to connect with the Creator?” These instances in time began to play through my mind like an old black and white movie where I saw myself walking away from encounter after encounter with God completely the same as I entered. Intellectually, I know that it is not possible to walk away from a face-to-face with God and stay the same. You are either pulled closer or pushed further away. So how does one walk away unchanged?

God is the same today, yesterday, and will not change for eternity; therefore, he can’t be the problem. That leaves one culprit. The problem is me. The problem is you. The reason that these encounters with God don’t change us is because we get in the way. Our sin and flesh stop God from moving like he desires to in our lives. This is why Jesus calls us to deny our desires that get in the way of our relationship with Him.

The simple truth about humanity is that we are not good. The only good that exists in me is God in me. In my flesh, I am a broken lost soul-searching for meaning in a world where meaning is absent. This is why God changes us completely when we find him, so we can see the reason behind our creation.

It is so easy for us to exalt ourselves above God. Many times, we as “good Christians” appear to be walking in the light of God, but we are actually so far outside of the realm of what God wants for us that it makes Him want to upchuck. That’s right, our disobedience literally nauseates God. If that isn’t deflating, then I don’t know what catastrophe it might take to remove the wind from your sails.

It all boils down to selfishness and the casual attitude with which we approach sin. We see sin as a temporary problem for which we can just ask forgiveness. We forget that God is our Holy refiner desiring to make us more like him everyday. The hindrance to this process is the fact that we would have to give up things that we think make us happy in order to reconcile ourselves to his image. It is like two-year-old holding on to a leaf of poison ivy because he or she thinks that it is pretty, throwing a fit when the loving parent attempts to remove the leaf that is going to cause more suffering in the end.

It doesn’t make sense for us to throw a fit, but we do it anyway. It just shows how bratty we are in our relationship with God. On Earth, any parent worth their salt would do whatever it took to remove the leaf from the child’s hand, but that is what makes God entirely unique from us. He allows us to make choices. He tells us that the leaf is bad, but gives us the freedom to keep the leaf regardless of consequences. Then, when we are suffering from the rash that the leaf gave us, we curse God for allowing us to suffer. THAT IS REALLY STUPID, but we do it anyway.

The simple truth is that God desires us to look more and more like him every day and the only detractor from that is us. The time has arrived for the church to take a stand on the truth of the gospel and live out our faith every day in every instance. We will not recognize the vision that God has for us as a Church body until we are able to shove off the chains that bind us. The latch was unlocked when Christ died on the cross. All you have to do is shrug your shoulders and let the binding fall, step forward and let God take over.

When this happens, we will see revival break out because the world is looking for something real. They are looking for you to live out what you say you believe. I will leave you with one final thought that initiated the process of change that I feel taking over.

“Come as you are, but don’t leave as you came.”

Advertisements

Ten Random Astromony Questions

January 21, 2010 Leave a comment

1. What are the steps in the scientific method?

The scientific method is the method used to explore observations and answer questions within the scientific community. It is a step by step process that has evolved since the earliest days of the analysis of observation. The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question about something that is observed. After a question is proposed, one must research in order to find the most appropriate process to find the answer and to ensure that mistakes that have been documented in the past are not repeated. Next, the researcher must propose a hypothesis, which is an educated guess constructed as an if-then statement, which can be easily measured and interpreted. Then the researcher must plan and implement a scientific experiment in order to test the hypothesis. After the experiment is concluded, the researcher must interpret the measurements and draw conclusions which either support or oppose the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is proven false, a new hypothesis must be formulated and the process continues from there; however, if the hypothesis is supported and methods are repeatable, the researcher must communicate his results to be verified by the rest of the scientific community.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

2.   How is a light year defined?

A light year a unit a measure used in astronomy due to the vast distances between astronomical bodies. Our Sun, for example, is approximately 150 million km away from the Earth. It is impractical to define such large distances by miles or kilometers, so scientists developed several different units of measure for astronomy. One such measure is the light year. It is defined as the distance that light travels in one year. Light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. So in a year, light travels 9,460,800,000,000 kilometers. What this means for astronomers is that if a star is 100 light years away, the light that we are seeing from the star represents what the star looked like 100 years ago not what it looks like at the present time.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question94.htm

3.  Describe what happens during the two kinds of eclipses?

There are two categories of eclipses. These are solar and lunar. In a solar eclipse the moon passes directly between the Sun and the Earth obstructing the path of the Sun’s light to the Earth. Whether or not the viewer sees a partial or total eclipse depends on what part of the moon’s shadow falls on the Earth. The total eclipse in only visible in the umbra and this part of the shadow is very small on the Earth. A partial eclipse is observable in the penumbral shadow which covers a larger part of the Earth’s surface. The second eclipse category is called a lunar eclipse. This phenomenon occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and the Moon during a full moon and the moon passes with in the umbral shadow of the Earth.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/SEprimer.html

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/LEprimer.html

4. What is surface gravity?

Surface gravity is defined as the gravitational acceleration on the surface of an astronomical object such as a planet or a star. It is measured in units of acceleration, which is meters per second squared. Each astronomical body has a unique surface gravity which is determined by the product of the gravitational constant, G, and the mass of the object divided by radius of the object squared. The relative surface gravity of the Earth is 9.81 m/s squared. This means, that the gravitational pull of Earth exerts enough force to pull every object that is caught in its gravitational field toward itself at a speed of 9.81 m/s squared. Further, two objects that are accelerating toward the Earth’s surface will do so at this speed barring any outside interference. This outside interference is measured by multiplying the gravitational constant or G. For example, an F-16 fighter can withstand up to nine Gs. Within the equation, the number nine becomes the coefficient to measure the final modified surface gravity when taking into account the outside interference.

5. What is the difference between reflecting and refracting telescopes?

Every optic telescope falls in to one of two classifications, either refracting or reflecting. The telescopes are classified according to the method that they use to focus the image into the viewing device.  A refracting telescope uses lenses to gather and focus light, while a reflecting telescope uses a mirror. The refractor telescope gathers a greater amount of light into the lens than is possible to gather with the naked eye. This presents the observer with a brighter, clearer, and magnified image of the object being observed. This is accomplished by focusing the parallel light onto a focal point while the peripheral light is focused onto a focal plane. A reflecting telescope uses a combination of curved mirrors that reflect light and form an image into a viewing device. A curved primary mirror is the basic optical element and creates an image at the focal plane. A viewing device such as film or a digital sensor may be located at the focal plane to record the image or an eyepiece might be present for viewing the image. The mirror in most modern telescopes is composed of solid glass that has been ground into a parabolic or spherical shape with a thin layer of aluminum deposited on the front which provides a highly reflective metal surface to reflect the images. The light from the image enters the end of the tube and reflects off the primary mirror, to the secondary mirror, and finally to the viewing device. Reflectors are not only useful for measuring visible light, but they can also detect shorter and longer wavelengths (e.g. ultraviolet and infrared light).

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/reflecting_telescope.html

6. What are the Oort cloud and Kuiper Belt?

The Kuiper belt is a disk shaped region of icy debris about 30-50 AU from the Sun, which is outside the orbit of Neptune. It is similar in organization to the asteroid belt although it is far larger being 20 times as wide and 20-200 times as massive. Although similar in organization, the make up of the individual bodies is markedly different. The asteroid belt is similar to terrestrial planets being made mostly of rock and metal while the Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) share a similarity with the Jovian planets being made principally of frozen volatiles such as methane, ammonia, and water. The Kuiper belt is also the home of the dwarf planets Pluto, Haumea, and Makemake. Another organized structure of astronomical bodies has been theorized to exist called the Oort cloud, named for Jan Oort who originally theorized its existence in 1950. Light is so scarce in the far reaches of the proposed solar system that it is extremely difficult to identify the existence the cloud. The main evidence for the belt is the passage of long-period comets that pass through the inner solar system only once. The Oort cloud is home to astronomical bodies that vary in size from 50km to the size of Pluto. It has been theorized that there might be larger bodies within the Oort cloud as well, but no conclusive proof has yet been presented to confirm or deny this presumption.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=OortCloud

7. What are the advantages of a telescope in space?

The main advantage of using a telescope that is based in space rather than on Earth is simply that the space telescope does not have to compete with the Earth’s atmosphere for light. The Earth’s atmosphere can distort the imaging ability of the earthbound telescope. It also blocks x-ray and infrared light so that those spectrums cannot be studied from Earth. Also, a telescope based in space does not have to deal with light pollution as do observatories on Earth.

8. What is a dwarf planet?

A dwarf planed it s a celestial body that is in orbit around the Sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium shape, has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite. The classification was created for objects that are not quite large enough to be considered planets, but are larger than asteroids. There are currently five celestial bodies that are defined as dwarf planets.

9. What is meant by the resolution of a telescope?

The resolution of a telescope is defined as how clearly a telescope is able to view objects. The higher resolution yields a better ability to make out fine details in the celestial bodies being observed. Resolution is based highly on the quality of the optical components within the telescope, but the aperture, the hole that the light enters the telescope, of the telescope is also critical when dealing with resolution. For this reason, astronomers build bigger telescopes to allow more light in the aperture, increase the resolution, and create a finer more precise picture.

10. What is the difference between the geocentric and heliocentric model of the solar system?

The difference between the geocentric and heliocentric models of the universe hinges on Earth’s role in universal organization. The earliest thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all things revolved around it, which was the central idea in the geocentric model of universal organization. This was refuted in 1530 when Copernicus presented a mathematical model in his book De Revolutionibus. Copernicus’ theory upset the religious order of the time so his work was refuted and suppressed, but eventually, with the invention of the telescope, Copernicus’ theory of the heliocentric  model of universal organization became provable scientific fact.

Come as you are, but don’t leave as you came.

January 19, 2010 1 comment

I was driving…well, actually being towed down the road yesterday when I happened across this statement on one of those church signs with the removable letters. You know, the ones that normally say something “inspirational” like:

  • A family altar can alter a family.
  • A clean conscience makes a soft pillow.
  • Don’t Wait For 6 Strong Men to Carry you to Church.
  • Five minutes after you die you’ll know how you should have lived.
  • And so on… 

    Internet, I have a confession.

    There are times, as I drive down the road and see these signs that  I enter into a state of nearly uncontrollable rage. The steering wheel begins to shake as my grip tightens and my arms tense. Yes internet that’s right…

    I have a terrible case of church sign induced hulk-rage.

    While the statements on these signs are totally accurate most of the time, I abhor them. I think that they are completely unnecessary and most of the time idiotic, casting a very unfavorable and overly judgmental light on the church. There was even a message that I saw on one of my local church’s sign that was utterly condemning to people who had not yet found Christ. I wanted to rip the letters from their glass housing and stomp them into plastic oblivion. Obviously, this is something that is outside of the realm of possibility and practicality, nevermind human decency, but I can’t deny that the thought crossed my mind.

    As I have stated before, God is in the business of revealing himself whenever we open our eyes enough to see the subtle and not so subtle ways that he works. This was the case for me as I putted passed the sign that stated “Come as you are, but don’t leave as you came.”

    My concentration was on maintaining a taut tow-rope, so that I didn’t get a case of whiplash from the truck towing my little Saturn, but my mind wandered elsewhere as the towing process continued and I came to two conclusions about this particular statement. Surprisingly, neither stemmed from my normal sign induced hulk-rage.

    First, I think that this message is two-pronged. The first part, “Come as you are”, is directed toward people who have yet to find Christ.

    This is the call of Christ to us in the world today. He calls us to come into his love regardless of what we think might be holding us back. God’s love is sufficient and his grace is abundant. So many times, we think that we have to get our lives straightened out before we pursue a relationship with God. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

    If you are among the mistaken who believe this, I have access to some inside info in which you might be interested.

    He already knows.

    He already knows that you are a dirty, soiled creature and he is ok with that. He knows that you aren’t perfect. In fact, that is the point. He wants you to know that you need him and his forgiveness.

    Unfortunately, there is a huge stigma against Christianity in the world today due to the outrageous actions of some and the subtle failings of every day Christians. These failings are not unexpected as *gasp* even Christians aren’t perfect. The disconnect occurs when you try to judge our Creator by the created. The two just don’t line up because we are wretched sin-covered creatures. Even if one is fortunate enough to experience God’s grace, he or she is still prone to sin because the desires of the flesh never stop calling and tempting.

    The reason for this revolves around the fact that God’s people have been historically disobedient. Starting with the Israelites and persisting into today. The narcissistic truth is that we would rather pursue our personal prideful agenda than seek out what God’s intention is for the lives that he has blessed us with.

    The overarching theme for Christ’s love is grace-filled redemption at Christ’s expense. This is why we are to come to him as we are, regardless of our past transgressions.

    More tomorrow on what we are to do after we make the initial step of coming to Christ. Tomorrow’s message is for the believer, but all can benefit. Thanks for reading!

    Personal Responsibilty: A Value of Bygone Days?

    January 18, 2010 Leave a comment

    Personal responsibility is becoming more and more a value of bygone days as American society continues to progress and push forward into the twenty-first century. It seems as if the American dream is evolving from the idea that if one works hard enough, regardless of current social or economic status, he or she can achieve prosperity and wealth, to a mindset that touts mantras that support the removal of personal accountability such as: “If the market doesn’t favor the current direction in which a company is going, things will be fine.” Why will they be fine? Obviously because the government will bail the business out of bankruptcy in an effort to reestablish prosperity and the American dream for the company receiving the bailout at the cost of millions of other taxpayer’s American dream.

    In the essay “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko, he extends this idea into the realm of food. The main idea of the essay is that the government is moving in a stronger socialist direction than it has ever moved in the past. He breaks this down using food and the rising level of obesity in America in order to get his point across. The main thrust of Balko’s argument centers on the increasing amount of governmental control that is being exerted onto the food industry.  $200 million anti-obesity budgets and proposed fat taxes on high calorie food highlight some of the measures that have been discussed in order to contain the problem of rising American obesity.

    Balko believes that these measures are not the most productive way to quell obesity in America. He believes that the money that the government invests into this issue would be better spent on education programs and initiatives that foster a sense of personal responsibility. “This is the wrong way to approach obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we are doing just the opposite” (158).

    He goes on to expose the growing movement away from personal responsibility when he speaks about people being disqualified from juries for showing the “personal responsibility bias”. Balko believes the best way to alleviate the growing obesity “public health crisis” is to remove obesity from the realm of public health and simply into the realm of personal responsibility.

    I tend to agree with what Balko states within this article. It is assured that obesity is an important issue facing America today as our unhealthy lifestyles are leading to increasing incidences of heart disease, early death from cardiac problems, and a general state of unhealthiness for a very significant portion of our population. The question is, however, whose problem is it to fight?

    Certainly this should not be governed through directives coming down from the nation’s lawmakers. It has never been the government’s responsibility to legislate morality, but we are seeing an increasing incident of this as well. This falls squarely outside of the intentions that our founding fathers had for this nation.

    As America continues to push forward, the idea of personal responsibility is being pushed further and further into left field. No one wants to take responsibilities for their actions. If a child brings a gun to school and kills other students, is he held responsible? On the surface we say yes, but then in the same breath the news media will call the child a tragic product of society. Which is it? He or she can’t be personally responsible if he is a product of a corrupted society which led the child to kill.

    The time has come for America to awaken to what we are becoming. As the government begins to regulate more and more of our daily activities and moral standings, the more we begin to look like a socialist nation. The best way that we can fight obesity or change the direction that we are moving is by reestablishing the idea that we as people are completely responsible for the actions we take. Whether or not I choose to put a doughnut in my mouth or a carrot stick, is no business of the government. My health among other things are issues that are mine to change. This country will never attain the level of prosperity that we have enjoyed in the past until we decide to take responsibilities for our failures instead of just our successes. It is my hope that this day comes sooner rather than later. 

     

    Works Cited

    Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. (2009). The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing: They say I say (, pp. 463-481). New York: W.W. Norton & Company .

    Tips for Writing: Fact vs. Opinion

    January 14, 2010 Leave a comment

    Information is regarded as one of the most highly valued resources found on the planet today. Often, the organization with the most reliable information comes out ahead in whatever endeavor in which the organization is specialized. Information can be separated into two categories: fact and opinion. The real question is, however, what differentiates fact and opinion?
     
    Fact can be defined generally as a piece of information that has an objective reality. This means that  information presented in an unbiased way that stands up under scrutiny can be regarded as fact. Because factual information is verifiable under unbiased scrutiny, it can be generally regarded as truth. Facts are outright statements of observable truths, such as the sky is blue. This indisputable as anyone can look up into the sky and see that it is blue. Further, to silence any possible criticism of this statement, science has verified that the molecules that form our atmosphere reflect blue light-giving the sky its blue color.

    Opinion is defined as a view, judgment, or appraisal that is formed in one’s mind. Further, an opinion is a belief that is stronger than an impression but less strong that positive knowledge, or a generally held view. Opinion is the prevalent force behind much of the information that governs the majority of the interactions that occur in the daily lives of people. This information type is not necessarily based on objective informational analysis. Rather, opinion is subjectively based; therefore, governed by perception rather than stone cold fact. We see opinions on the news, in political and religious discourse, and in our everyday work environments. Everyone has an opinion and many times these are not solidly based in fact, rather they are based upon individual perception.

    At what point does an opinion become fact? The scientific method is useful for explaining this phenomenon. Within this method, a researcher makes an observation. Then, he or she forms an opinion of what the root cause of the observation is. This opinion is then tested. If it stands up under scrutiny, can be repeated, and is verified by third-party sourcing, the opinion then can be generally stated as a fact.

    At this point, fact an opinion seem extremely straight forward. The bigger question within the difference between fact and opinion is whether the line that separates the categories is black and white or is it something altogether different? Does the possibility exist that the line between these two categories of information is actually blurred? In many cases of fact, such as in the example of the blue sky, the evidence can be verified on a widely accepted level, but has there ever been a time where perceived fact has been proven wrong?

    Aristotle theorized that the Earth was the center of the universe. He supported his theory with seemingly verifiable evidence going as far as to explain the rotation of the Sun, Moon, and stars around the Earth. His geocentric model was accepted as scientific fact until his theory was disproved after the invention of the telescope and the introduction of the heliocentric model of the universe. This irrevocably changed scientific fact into an outdated opinion.

    The line between fact and opinion is one that is crossed everyday in every conversation and human interaction that occurs in our world. While fact can be obviously defined in some cases, fact and opinion blur together on subjects that cannot be conclusively verified. Where fact ends and opinion begins must be scrutinized on a case by case basis.

    Works Cited

    Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. (2009). The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing: They say I say (, pp. 463-481). New York: W.W. Norton & Company .

    Tips For Writing: Effective Communication

    January 11, 2010 Leave a comment
    The art of communication is often overlooked in today’s society. The ability for the populous at large to communicate within the bounds of  the every day interaction between people has slowly declined over the last several decades. There are a myriad of factors that could be causative to this issue, but the overarching effect is simply that people are not as adept with communication as they once were, whether it be written or spoken.

    One of the major issues plaguing every day interaction is rooted within people’s inability to plan the full discourse of a document or speech prior to the presentation. As with the example of Dr. X, a one sided biases speaker,  found within The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing: They say I say , we see that a communicative presentation loses much of its effectiveness when the author fails to equally present both sides of an issue, or, at the very least, introduce the opposing view of the opinion that the communicator is attempting to present.

    Objectivity within communication is achieved when the communicator effectively presents both sides of an issue without presenting a personal bias. It is a quality that is highly regarded in journalism, but this writing quality can add much needed credence to any form of persuasive communication. When the presenter appears to be extremely knowledgeable on all sides of an issue, it enables the communicator convey his or her opinion in a more highly regarded manner, ensuring that the audience will at least consider the information presented. This is also a key element in writing an effective summary.

    Summary is an effective tool within persuasive communication in which the presenter conveys the general ideas of another author on a specific subject while adding his or her stance on the particular issue being reviewed. This also lends to the presenter having a greater credibility with the audience. When an author is willing to present the opposite opinion of what he or she believes, it conveys confidence, which is imperative when attempting to engage the audience and to have the presented opinion be seriously considered.

    With an increased awareness in the tools of strong communication, many of the daily communicative interactions between people would become much more effective, which would lead to a reversal of the general decline that communication has experienced over the last several decades. The only way to remedy this problem is through strong, relevant communication education presented in a way that will captivate audiences making them more likely to apply these principles in their day to day communication.

    Works Cited
     

    Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. (2009). The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing: They say I say (, pp. 463-481). New York: W.W. Norton & Company .

    We exist for…?

    January 9, 2010 1 comment

    Have you ever considered why we you were placed on Earth or what exactly your purpose is for being here?

    If you haven’t ever taken part in a similar personal exercise, I would encourage you to check your pulse and make sure that you are still breathing.

    Sometimes, it is funny how moments of deep reflection come about for me. God seems to reveal himself to me in the strangest ways, but I am most certainly not complaining. I don’t know why God chooses to speak to me like he does, but I am grateful that he chooses to speak to me in any manner whatsoever.

    Here is a bit of background on today’s revelation.

    It all started Christmas morning at my in-law’s house. We are hanging out watching the kids open their presents (definitely my favorite part of Christmas). In short order, however, the kids had finished their assault on Fort Present at Mount Spoiled, so it was our turn to open our gifts. We opened our gifts which were great. Some new clothes, an indoor badminton set, a microwave smore maker, etc…

    My in-laws always save their favorite present for last. It is most definitely always a good one. Last year it was a new grill (awesome!), but this year was a bit different. We were given our final present which came In small nondescript envelope. Immediately my mind goes to cash or something else along those lines. So my brother-in-law and I tear into our envelopes at the same time expecting some dead presidents, but to our pleasant surprise, inside we found tickets to today’s Mizzou game.

    Fast forward to today. I woke up at about 8:00 this morning next to my beautiful wife in the hotel suite at the Resident’s Inn that my father-in-law sprung for at the last minute, so we could all spend some quality time together last night and prior to the game this morning. My eyes opened, and, instead of the sleepiness that normally pervades the morning state of my brain, I couldn’t stop thinking about the dream that I had.

    It is rare for me to remember my dreams, so when I do, I always pay attention. Usually when I do remember, It is because the dream was focused around something significant in my life. This morning’s remembrance was no different.

    The details of the dream are unimportant. The significance, instead, revolves around the people who starred in the dream. The bulk of the people were old friends that I have lost contact with over the years. Usually when I lose contact with someone who had previously been important to me, I am quick to make excuses regarding my lack of effort in maintaining my connection and moving on to “bigger and better” things. Kind of like the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality that dominates the thought processing ability of narcissistic children.

    I understand that people lose touch with one another and that it is ok, but, again, this is not the point.

    I can hear what you are thinking…

    So what IS the point, Jeremy? You dragged us over here from [insert referring website here] to talk about the point of existence. Well, what’s the point?!?!

    And the answer that God gave me this morning in quiet reflection was about you. Yes. You heard me right. It was about you.

    “About me?” you say.

    And I reply, “Yep. I have been missing it all these years. I am supposed to be all about you.”

    To understand the root of this revelation we have to go back to the first moments of human creation and look at God’s motives for our creation. So why were we created? The answer is simple. We were created for relationships. Originally, humanity was created for a relationship with God, but as Eve came along and procreation occurred, the scope of that purpose expanded.

    Let me pause and say that the total purpose of our creation was and continues to be the glorification of God, but the scope of our relational responsibilities to one another falls within this overarching purpose. I wanted to clarify that before continuing.

    So now the Earth is full of people. The question becomes, “Has our original purpose changed?”

    The short answer is that our purpose has not changed, but you all know I am not an advocate of short answers so buckle up. 😀

    The answer that God gave me this morning was one that struck me directly in the face. We were created for relationships. Duh. I know this. I have known this for a long time, but the question that our wise Creator posed to me this morning was, “If you know this so well, why don’t you do it?” I had to look really deeply inside myself to attempt to work out this flaw within my personality.

    To hang out with me, you would not think that I am shy, and, in relationships that I have fostered and invested time into, I am definitely not. In fact, my beloved friends and family have nicknamed me “center of attention boy”. The problem that I experience is rooted in fostering new relationships. I do not have the gift of gab, so I can’t engage in small talk very easily. Usually I establish my relationships in a group setting and then move into individual friendships as I find some common ground on which to relate. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing on the surface, it can leave some of those people who I interact with out in the cold as far as a potential relationship is concerned.

    I am not under the false impression that I will be able to befriend every person with whom I come in contact. But the rub occurs when I try to empathize with new people whom I meet. I think of the new faces that walk into my congregation looking for a connection and leave without ever linking up with someone. The faces that have come and gone that I have just put out of my mind and dismissed haunt me, but I have simply swept these feelings under the rug to this point disregarding the guilt that I feel as a result.

    As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately I cannot go back and change the events that have already occurred, but I can resolve to be different in the future.

    So what is the reason for which we exist?

    Simple. To establish relationships that glorify God. First and foremost with our loving creator, but the relationships that we have with people are critically important as well. I have been less than stellar at making new connections because it is tough for me, but that is no excuse to ignore the point of my creation.

    Let me extend an apology to those people with whom I have lost contact and those with whom I failed to connect. Also, I want to thank all of those wonderful people who put up with me and remain my close friends. For you, I am truly grateful.

    Here is the challenge that God presented to me, so I reciprocate it to you:

    Go out today and reconnect with someone or establish a new relationship. The simple truth is that people are worth investing your life into. Where would we be today if Jesus hadn’t thought that we were worth his sacrifice on the cross?