Sorry non-sports people, today I write about a Baseball idea. I have kicked this around with several people and decided its time to write it out.
Currently a 25 man roster has either 12 or 13 pitchers on it. Five of them are usually "starters", that is they begin the games and are supposed to be trying to finish them. Six or Seven of them are "relievers" they enter the game after the "starters" either due to matchups, injury, performance or fatigue. The last guy is the "closer" he is usually tasked with finishing games which are within a run or two of being tied. Usually he enters for a "save chance" which is either the last 3 innings of the game, the last out of a game which is within 4 runs or the final outs as long as the he entered when the game was within 4 and faces the potential tying run and prevents the tie from occurring ending the game. These days, the "relievers" are broken into two groups as well. "Specialists" and "long relievers." The specialists enter the game for one or two batters which they have a % advantage against. Such as a lefty with a good changeup against power hitting lefties. The long relievers are available for situations when a starter gets hurt or a game goes into extra innings and the team needs one guy to go 3 or more innings. The specialization has done several things for baseball. It has allowed for more turnover on rosters, as starters that can't sustain success and have scores of available talent either in the majors as relievers or in the minors that can replace them or in cases where the bullpen (the relief pitchers) is used as a training ground for young potential starters. It has only been this way for a little while. The great relievers of yesteryear typical threw close to 200 innings in their pursuit of saves and often were referred to as "relief aces" because they were the best pitchers on the team. Guys like Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage were workhorse arms that would've started for any team today. Early on, complete games and shutouts happened constantly. Cy Young had a season in which he had 1 more walks allowed than shutouts. Read that a couple times, and then you will never wonder why they named the award after him.
I purpose a new change. Not returning to the old model, but forging a new one. Short Relievers. They exist, but they have the least important position on the roster (if we're counting by dollars spent). This change would need to start from the beginning, from the ground up. The organization would start by focusing their pitching scouting on "six out" arms. Guys that have ++ stuff despite possible troubles with stamina and control. Pitchers like Fernando Rodney, Johnny Venters, David Robertson, Mark Melancon, Luke Gregerson, Tyler Clippard etc, are examples of the guys that fit the system. They would hold 10 pitchers at each level, and in a perfect world use 4 each game. One of them would be tasked with 9 outs while the other 3 have 6. Right/Left matchups, Wins/Losses, Saves/Holds would all be unnecessary and outdated means of assessment. Bases Allowed versus Outs would be the key stat. Instead of focusing on pitch counts and getting through the 5th inning, the pitcher would be only focused on getting his 3 or 6 or 9 outs.
Right now they try to keep a pitcher from having to pitch more than 100-140 pitches every 5 days. A comfortable inning is usually around 20 pitches, an uncomfortable inning is closer to 30. That being said, a guy can usually pitch in 3 or 4 games in a row if called upon. That way 10 pitchers would be plenty, especially if an arbitrary pitch count, say 70, was placed on the relievers. That way you have the 4 guys for game 1, 4 guys for game 2 and 2 guys for emergencies. Not only could a pitcher throw in back to back games, but since he typically would only throw 45-50 pitches he would be available again after just a 2 or 3 game break.
Financially, if the rest of the league was slow on the upkeep, the pitching budget for a the Short Reliever System would be comfortably below the league average and allow for more spending on the offense. Also, the arbitration hearings would be based on commonly accepted achievements, again giving the organization an advantage. In the long run, however, if the system were to work, all pitchers would be paid the same, and most likely net salaries would go up.
The biggest problem is how the players would feel. Awards like the Cy Young and Reliever of the Year are usually given out based on stats. I already mentioned the pay would be lower for longer and of course deciding who is the "Ace" and "Closer" would be moot points. As far as team construction, this seems like a plus, but for the players themselves it could get tough.
Fire away.
Braves have won 23 of their last 30 and still have the best record in Baseball. The fact literally NO ONE is picking them to win the World Series is ridiculous. I admit, even as a ravenous Braves fan, I am very afraid of the Cardinals, Reds, Rays, Tigers and A's...Not so much of the Dodgers, Pirates, Red Sox and Rangers.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
No Pain, No Gain
I'm in a fair amount of pain so its been on the mind recently. I'm doing Physical Therapy twice a week and each time my therapist asks what my pain is on a scale of 1 to 10. Anyone who's been in a Dr's Office, Hospital or watched a Hospital Drama knows what the 10-point pain scale is. It is the most frustrating, arbitrary and yet important concept in Health Care. There is no way, as I've mentioned before, for a person to experience another person's pain. My experiences, nervous system and focus all contribute to the amount of pain I tolerate, all three things which will be different from yours. Because of this I've tried different ways to decide which number to assign to whatever pain I happen to be in the office to complain about. Usually I go by the little faces on the little poster you all know I'm talking about. I usually say a number between 4 and 8. In my mind a 10 would be 1000 volts of electricity or a gunshot wound while a 1 would be no pain at all. However, as I've thought about it, I think a more descriptive method would be describing this pain in relation to the other pains I have experienced.
As I've thought about this, I've decided I've had an extremely easy life. I've had one surgery which is inextricably linked to my one broken bone. I was born with 2 "conditions", one of which I grew out of (asthma) and one which is under control (allergies). Never been electrocuted, never fallen more than a few stories, never passed out or been shot (other than paint balls). So, here are the most painful things I've experienced in order.
Least - Well, anytime I haven't been in pain
1 - Sprained my ankle pretty bad this one time and had to use crutches at work
2 - Had some pretty nasty migraines which my mother falsely attributed to video games and candy but were actually a result of dog hair and pollen allergies
3 - Got hit about six inches above the knee on the inside of my right leg by a 58-60 mph fastball
4 - I had infected lymph nodes when I was like 8, my ear canal felt like it was going to explode
Middle - I sprained/tore my left oblique (my current injury)
6 - A Hornet stung me on the upper lip at my mom's grandparent's house and it swelled up so big I could see it
7 - After my nasal surgery I developed a sore throat which two vicodin and a constant stream of lausanges couldn't hold down, absolute misery
8 - Got drilled in the face when I missed a toss from my dad (most likely broke my nose leading to the aforementioned surgery)
9 - Nearly burned by thumb print off on a chipper shredder's muffler, but I was 6 or something so the memory is pretty hazy, If I had a better memory of this it would probably be the most
Most - I dropped a rock on my right foot. I'm not talking a skipping stone, this solid piece of granite was at least 75 lbs and I was wearing sandals. I was probably around 13-14 yrs old and my dad had to carry me several hundred yards to our car. Apparently it didn't break the toe, but it shattered the nail and it still hasn't healed entirely (neither has the other leaving me with some gnarly big toenails)
Pretty easy life I've had so far.
Braves magic number is 19 with 31 to go and still have the best record in baseball.
As I've thought about this, I've decided I've had an extremely easy life. I've had one surgery which is inextricably linked to my one broken bone. I was born with 2 "conditions", one of which I grew out of (asthma) and one which is under control (allergies). Never been electrocuted, never fallen more than a few stories, never passed out or been shot (other than paint balls). So, here are the most painful things I've experienced in order.
Least - Well, anytime I haven't been in pain
1 - Sprained my ankle pretty bad this one time and had to use crutches at work
2 - Had some pretty nasty migraines which my mother falsely attributed to video games and candy but were actually a result of dog hair and pollen allergies
3 - Got hit about six inches above the knee on the inside of my right leg by a 58-60 mph fastball
4 - I had infected lymph nodes when I was like 8, my ear canal felt like it was going to explode
Middle - I sprained/tore my left oblique (my current injury)
6 - A Hornet stung me on the upper lip at my mom's grandparent's house and it swelled up so big I could see it
7 - After my nasal surgery I developed a sore throat which two vicodin and a constant stream of lausanges couldn't hold down, absolute misery
8 - Got drilled in the face when I missed a toss from my dad (most likely broke my nose leading to the aforementioned surgery)
9 - Nearly burned by thumb print off on a chipper shredder's muffler, but I was 6 or something so the memory is pretty hazy, If I had a better memory of this it would probably be the most
Most - I dropped a rock on my right foot. I'm not talking a skipping stone, this solid piece of granite was at least 75 lbs and I was wearing sandals. I was probably around 13-14 yrs old and my dad had to carry me several hundred yards to our car. Apparently it didn't break the toe, but it shattered the nail and it still hasn't healed entirely (neither has the other leaving me with some gnarly big toenails)
Pretty easy life I've had so far.
Braves magic number is 19 with 31 to go and still have the best record in baseball.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The 5 Greatest Generals and some other stuff
Day 13 out of work. Still in pain, but the doc adjusted my meds so I'm not going all hallucinogenic anymore. Twice a week PT and a scheduled visit with a Specialist which leaves hours of sitting around in pain. Not being at work is, as expected, mostly nice. I get to be with my wife and child spending the days quite frivolously. However, boredom has set in. That and uncertainty due to being on comp meaning no 2nd job and no OT which means less income which means tighter budget. That being said, I'll try to keep my complaining to a minimum.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
House, MD.
I watch a lot of television. Often its just sports but I also watch movies and on very rare occasions syndicated programming. One particular show I can't get enough of is House. Simply put it is the best show ever. If you don't like Hospital dramas or witty characters or life and death situations you won't like it. I happen to like all 3, though I can't think of another Hospital drama I like. (Emergency wasn't all that bad and I do love Dr Who).
But those reasons aren't why House is so incredible. Its also not Hugh Laurie's unbelievable performance or the litany of memorable side characters throughout the series. Its not the great soundtrack or extremely sarcastic and modern sense of humor. Its not the imaginative yet usually realistic variety of ailments to be dealt with. Its the ideas.
Most shows that deal with a clash of ideas come off as pretentious or pedantic. House in my opinion, is neither. The viewer loves Greg House despite his many evident failings. However, in most cases, its not his actions which are meant to be embraced. Sure, its supposed to be cool how maverick he is and how courageously independent he is in the face of whatever or whoever happens to be telling him what to do. Instead, its the underlying, philosophical, dare I say presuppositions, which the viewer is carefully, but hardly subtly, fed.
Let's pretend there's really a person named Gregory House. He's really a doctor. A man sworn to do everything in his power to enhance the quality of life of the people around him. A man who has devoted his life to the study of the preservation of life. Let's pretend, like our show's authors do, that this man has a better grip on man's inherent sinfulness than many preachers. Why would he be a doctor? Why would a natural pessimist, a naturalist pessimist, devote himself to helping the very people he understands are naturally bad? In a recent episode he explains everyone lies and the only time you get to the truth is when death is imminent. He is both excusing lying to that person to get them to tell the truth while explaining why lying about the person's impending death is essential to get the truth from them. Deep. In any case, a doctor would have to have a reason to care about the truth. Take the happy ending out of the story and you lose the reason to tell it.
That's where it gets interesting. In the same episode our character affirms he is a naturalist. He states that any out-of-body experiences while practically dead are merely the remaining energy firing through the brain and optical nerves. Another character presses him on it and he states he chooses to believe that because he doesn't want this life to merely be a test. Why? Because he knows he'd fail. He knows we'd all fail. He knows he already failed.
I know I'm reading into things a bit when I'm dissecting the psychology of a TV character. In some shows a character's beliefs change as often as their clothes. Not House's. A consistent theme is humanities' depravity. House is always assuming the worst and being right most of the time. An important secondary character represents vice for several seasons. Another represents depression and the suddenness of death. Another represents the fragility of life and time. All of these themes painted in the dismal light of depravity are really horrid. Suicide, murder, drug addiction and serial cheating are not viewed as abnormal. They are what makes us human.
Why do I care? Well, I like to think hard about stuff most people just say, "Wow, that's deep stuff." But also, do you see how close our mythical doctor is to the truth? He knows what's wrong he just doesn't have the solution. He can't get there with a differential diagnosis. All the Holmesian logic in the universe won't result in God. And that's why he won't go there. That character in the TV show is the naturalist you work with, who is just trying to make now count because they don't believe in "next."
There is no equation to find God. To find God you need faith. House is a Rationalist, he can't believe in faith because it means he can't do it himself. Do you see the tragic circle? Someone who is so in tune with his own inability to achieve a goal, instead of looking for help he wishes away the need to achieve that goal. "I am incapable of perfect therefore there is no perfection."
At the risk of sounding pretentious and pedantic, let me challenge you to think about the shows you watch. Do they confront you with ideas? Do they make you think?
Braves still looking strong. Beachy has been steadily better since returning from the DL, Uggla and now probably Pastornicky on the DL themselves meaning maybe some Simmons-Janish glove work up the middle which could make for some sweet highlights. Could also mean a deal for a second baseman could be in the works.
Current lineup is pretty frickin beast tho:
Heyward-Justin-Freeman-CJ-Mac-Gattis-PJ-Simba-Pitch
(I'd play Gattis in left and JHey in center, BJ or Schafer enter as defensive replacements late in games we lead or close games)
But those reasons aren't why House is so incredible. Its also not Hugh Laurie's unbelievable performance or the litany of memorable side characters throughout the series. Its not the great soundtrack or extremely sarcastic and modern sense of humor. Its not the imaginative yet usually realistic variety of ailments to be dealt with. Its the ideas.
Most shows that deal with a clash of ideas come off as pretentious or pedantic. House in my opinion, is neither. The viewer loves Greg House despite his many evident failings. However, in most cases, its not his actions which are meant to be embraced. Sure, its supposed to be cool how maverick he is and how courageously independent he is in the face of whatever or whoever happens to be telling him what to do. Instead, its the underlying, philosophical, dare I say presuppositions, which the viewer is carefully, but hardly subtly, fed.
Let's pretend there's really a person named Gregory House. He's really a doctor. A man sworn to do everything in his power to enhance the quality of life of the people around him. A man who has devoted his life to the study of the preservation of life. Let's pretend, like our show's authors do, that this man has a better grip on man's inherent sinfulness than many preachers. Why would he be a doctor? Why would a natural pessimist, a naturalist pessimist, devote himself to helping the very people he understands are naturally bad? In a recent episode he explains everyone lies and the only time you get to the truth is when death is imminent. He is both excusing lying to that person to get them to tell the truth while explaining why lying about the person's impending death is essential to get the truth from them. Deep. In any case, a doctor would have to have a reason to care about the truth. Take the happy ending out of the story and you lose the reason to tell it.
That's where it gets interesting. In the same episode our character affirms he is a naturalist. He states that any out-of-body experiences while practically dead are merely the remaining energy firing through the brain and optical nerves. Another character presses him on it and he states he chooses to believe that because he doesn't want this life to merely be a test. Why? Because he knows he'd fail. He knows we'd all fail. He knows he already failed.
I know I'm reading into things a bit when I'm dissecting the psychology of a TV character. In some shows a character's beliefs change as often as their clothes. Not House's. A consistent theme is humanities' depravity. House is always assuming the worst and being right most of the time. An important secondary character represents vice for several seasons. Another represents depression and the suddenness of death. Another represents the fragility of life and time. All of these themes painted in the dismal light of depravity are really horrid. Suicide, murder, drug addiction and serial cheating are not viewed as abnormal. They are what makes us human.
Why do I care? Well, I like to think hard about stuff most people just say, "Wow, that's deep stuff." But also, do you see how close our mythical doctor is to the truth? He knows what's wrong he just doesn't have the solution. He can't get there with a differential diagnosis. All the Holmesian logic in the universe won't result in God. And that's why he won't go there. That character in the TV show is the naturalist you work with, who is just trying to make now count because they don't believe in "next."
There is no equation to find God. To find God you need faith. House is a Rationalist, he can't believe in faith because it means he can't do it himself. Do you see the tragic circle? Someone who is so in tune with his own inability to achieve a goal, instead of looking for help he wishes away the need to achieve that goal. "I am incapable of perfect therefore there is no perfection."
At the risk of sounding pretentious and pedantic, let me challenge you to think about the shows you watch. Do they confront you with ideas? Do they make you think?
Braves still looking strong. Beachy has been steadily better since returning from the DL, Uggla and now probably Pastornicky on the DL themselves meaning maybe some Simmons-Janish glove work up the middle which could make for some sweet highlights. Could also mean a deal for a second baseman could be in the works.
Current lineup is pretty frickin beast tho:
Heyward-Justin-Freeman-CJ-Mac-Gattis-PJ-Simba-Pitch
(I'd play Gattis in left and JHey in center, BJ or Schafer enter as defensive replacements late in games we lead or close games)
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Marriage: Day 730
First of all, I must amend my last post. The Princess Bride and Batman: The Dark Knight must be included at the expense of Men In Black I and The Hunt For Red October.
Now, today is the 2nd anniversary of the inception of our family. My wife and I tied the knot 8/13/11. I will therefore dedicate this post to her. The following is a selection of songs which I think represent my love and adoration for my only one.
"When a Man Loves a Woman"
Percy Sledge
"Never My Love"
The Association
"Lullabye (Goodnight My Angel)"
Preformed by The King's Singers
"Never Gonna Leave This Bed"
Maroon 5
"The Reason"
Hoobastank
"Your Guardian Angel"
Red Jumpsuit Apparatus
"Redundant"
Green Day
"Fragile"
Poets of the Fall
"When I'm 64"
The Beatles
Yep, I think those nearly say it all, except of course:
I LOVE YOU SWEETIE!
Now, today is the 2nd anniversary of the inception of our family. My wife and I tied the knot 8/13/11. I will therefore dedicate this post to her. The following is a selection of songs which I think represent my love and adoration for my only one.
"When a Man Loves a Woman"
Percy Sledge
"Never My Love"
The Association
"Lullabye (Goodnight My Angel)"
Preformed by The King's Singers
"Never Gonna Leave This Bed"
Maroon 5
"The Reason"
Hoobastank
"Your Guardian Angel"
Red Jumpsuit Apparatus
"Redundant"
Green Day
"Fragile"
Poets of the Fall
"When I'm 64"
The Beatles
Yep, I think those nearly say it all, except of course:
I LOVE YOU SWEETIE!
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Flexoril Diaries vol 2 and My top 10 movies
It wasn't the Flexoril that was leaving me in the dust earlier this week. Apparently I responded abnormally to Meloxicam, an anti-inflammatory, and had extreme dizziness, lack of focus etc. So I've switched off of it and also finally processed the correctly marked forms to receive Federal Worker's Compensation Benefits. Yay.
To celebrate, I slept in.
However, I'm still on Flexoril so if you see someone stumbling around a small apartment in his pajamas it might be me. I also could not come up with something to write about to save my neck, so here's a power ranking of motion pictures I am fond of with some notes.
Let it be know, this is the greatest movies of all-time list, prepared by and contributed to by one me.
1. Gladiator
Yeah, I know, I'm a guy. This is Russell Crowe's great moment. He is good to very good in several other movies, they might even make the list. But as Maximus he is immortal. His voice and the physical disdain for his surroundings coupled with the awesome, fluid fight scenes make this film a lock for top 10, and as you see I say greatest ever. Most times however I won't answer with "Gladiator" when asked what my favorite movie is. For the same reason I'd say my favorite bball player was Bryon Russell while Michael Jordan was obviously the greatest player. But don't get me wrong, I love this film. I also think it has less of the corniness which is often present in a film set in Ancient Rome. The other primary characters are fantastic along with excellent side roles. Joaquin Phoenix would steal the movie if Crowe wasn't so transcendent.
2. Signs
This is my favorite movie. The only way Gladiator ranks above it is simply that Signs has very little fighting. I'm a guy. But, this film is absolutely incredible. For the weak souled its actually a little scary, especially at the beginning. The children are unbelievable, best child performances in any film ever. Phoenix is again outstanding, easily his best role. Mel Gibson is also incredible. Despite the star-studded cast and their show-stopping bits, the Story is what makes this movie. M Night sets the bar so high he has yet to come close. Both a perfectly communicated message but also something I feel people need to hear. A wonderful combination of story telling and a great story. If you were disappointed by the alien or perhaps the multi-climax ending you're missing the point. Somebody is out there watching over us and Everything has its purpose. A story which has never been told better on the screen.
3. The Matrix
Only the first film. The second and third are decent, I enjoyed them, but the first film is so ground-breaking, so dreamy, that it created not just a genre but a sub-culture all to its own. Keanu Reeves needed a role to separate himself from Ted and this is it. He will forever be Neo and then Ted. Hugo Weaving is show-stealing and the rest of the cast deliver their best. The fighting is awesome, not too fast and in most cases not too weird. A great, cult-hit for a cult I'm all in for.
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
It's very hard to separate this trilogy, they're all outstanding, I believe the first one is best and here's why. Gandalf is at his best as Gandalf the Grey, he has some awesome moments post-death, but his early character is much more playfully ultra-powerful. He loses some playfulness and becomes more weary and dark later on. The interaction between Legolas and Gimli slowly becomes more and more silly. In the first film there's a tension which I enjoy. Finally, the later films develop a massiveness which the first is only beginning to manifest. The first one is more intimate, more connected to the viewer. And while all 3 have some of the greatest "war" scenes and equally as great individual fighting scenes, nothing beats the Mines of Moria.
5. Inception
Nice top 5 I'd say. DiCaprio has slowly but surely becomes one of my favorite actors. He's great in Shutter Island, Blood Diamond and The Departed. He's not bad in Body of Lies either. He's very good in Inception. This is another great combination of "new" ideas, excellent acting, and cool scenes. It's also quite the thinker, which I have always enjoyed. Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy all became superstars because they're so good in this film. Its hard to make a stand alone single film which aspires to "epic" standing but this film does it.
6. Jurassic Park
I love this movie. Best Jeff Goldblum, best Sam Neil and excellent supporting cast. The sequels are so far below the original I hardly even consider them connected.
7. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back
Really? The 2nd one? Yes. Han Solo is at his best (Harrison Ford's best character, take that Indiana) and Luke finally fights Vader. This is the greatest piece of the greatest trilogy ever made. The "first" 3 stand as a separate trilogy as far as I'm considered. The only reason it falls this far is because despite its epic-ness it is still vulnerable to its era. An era marked by corny lines and horrible special effects.
8. The Hunt for Red October
Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin, James Earl Jones, Sam Neil - Baldwin's greatest character, O how the mighty have fallen! Great book made into a better movie, doesn't happen often.
9. Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail
No comment.
10. Men In Black 1
Haven't seen 3 yet but if its even half what its namesake was it'll be good. A fresh take on an old idea. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are both incredible, hilarious yet super cool. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously while still trying to stay true to its story. Also hard to beat Rip Torn's Zed, he was born to be Zed. II is ok, not close to the same level.
So that's my top 10 movies, some runners up include: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bourn Identity, I Am Legend, Toy Story, Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Part II, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, A Beautiful Mind and Zombieland
Braves are unbeaten since installing a Waffle House at the Ted.
To celebrate, I slept in.
However, I'm still on Flexoril so if you see someone stumbling around a small apartment in his pajamas it might be me. I also could not come up with something to write about to save my neck, so here's a power ranking of motion pictures I am fond of with some notes.
Let it be know, this is the greatest movies of all-time list, prepared by and contributed to by one me.
1. Gladiator
Yeah, I know, I'm a guy. This is Russell Crowe's great moment. He is good to very good in several other movies, they might even make the list. But as Maximus he is immortal. His voice and the physical disdain for his surroundings coupled with the awesome, fluid fight scenes make this film a lock for top 10, and as you see I say greatest ever. Most times however I won't answer with "Gladiator" when asked what my favorite movie is. For the same reason I'd say my favorite bball player was Bryon Russell while Michael Jordan was obviously the greatest player. But don't get me wrong, I love this film. I also think it has less of the corniness which is often present in a film set in Ancient Rome. The other primary characters are fantastic along with excellent side roles. Joaquin Phoenix would steal the movie if Crowe wasn't so transcendent.
2. Signs
This is my favorite movie. The only way Gladiator ranks above it is simply that Signs has very little fighting. I'm a guy. But, this film is absolutely incredible. For the weak souled its actually a little scary, especially at the beginning. The children are unbelievable, best child performances in any film ever. Phoenix is again outstanding, easily his best role. Mel Gibson is also incredible. Despite the star-studded cast and their show-stopping bits, the Story is what makes this movie. M Night sets the bar so high he has yet to come close. Both a perfectly communicated message but also something I feel people need to hear. A wonderful combination of story telling and a great story. If you were disappointed by the alien or perhaps the multi-climax ending you're missing the point. Somebody is out there watching over us and Everything has its purpose. A story which has never been told better on the screen.
3. The Matrix
Only the first film. The second and third are decent, I enjoyed them, but the first film is so ground-breaking, so dreamy, that it created not just a genre but a sub-culture all to its own. Keanu Reeves needed a role to separate himself from Ted and this is it. He will forever be Neo and then Ted. Hugo Weaving is show-stealing and the rest of the cast deliver their best. The fighting is awesome, not too fast and in most cases not too weird. A great, cult-hit for a cult I'm all in for.
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
It's very hard to separate this trilogy, they're all outstanding, I believe the first one is best and here's why. Gandalf is at his best as Gandalf the Grey, he has some awesome moments post-death, but his early character is much more playfully ultra-powerful. He loses some playfulness and becomes more weary and dark later on. The interaction between Legolas and Gimli slowly becomes more and more silly. In the first film there's a tension which I enjoy. Finally, the later films develop a massiveness which the first is only beginning to manifest. The first one is more intimate, more connected to the viewer. And while all 3 have some of the greatest "war" scenes and equally as great individual fighting scenes, nothing beats the Mines of Moria.
5. Inception
Nice top 5 I'd say. DiCaprio has slowly but surely becomes one of my favorite actors. He's great in Shutter Island, Blood Diamond and The Departed. He's not bad in Body of Lies either. He's very good in Inception. This is another great combination of "new" ideas, excellent acting, and cool scenes. It's also quite the thinker, which I have always enjoyed. Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy all became superstars because they're so good in this film. Its hard to make a stand alone single film which aspires to "epic" standing but this film does it.
6. Jurassic Park
I love this movie. Best Jeff Goldblum, best Sam Neil and excellent supporting cast. The sequels are so far below the original I hardly even consider them connected.
7. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back
Really? The 2nd one? Yes. Han Solo is at his best (Harrison Ford's best character, take that Indiana) and Luke finally fights Vader. This is the greatest piece of the greatest trilogy ever made. The "first" 3 stand as a separate trilogy as far as I'm considered. The only reason it falls this far is because despite its epic-ness it is still vulnerable to its era. An era marked by corny lines and horrible special effects.
8. The Hunt for Red October
Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin, James Earl Jones, Sam Neil - Baldwin's greatest character, O how the mighty have fallen! Great book made into a better movie, doesn't happen often.
9. Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail
No comment.
10. Men In Black 1
Haven't seen 3 yet but if its even half what its namesake was it'll be good. A fresh take on an old idea. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are both incredible, hilarious yet super cool. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously while still trying to stay true to its story. Also hard to beat Rip Torn's Zed, he was born to be Zed. II is ok, not close to the same level.
So that's my top 10 movies, some runners up include: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Bourn Identity, I Am Legend, Toy Story, Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Part II, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, A Beautiful Mind and Zombieland
Braves are unbeaten since installing a Waffle House at the Ted.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
The Flexoril Diaries
So, I'm pretty out of it. I have a strained oblique which is possibly squeezing a sciatic nerve. In the simplest terms I hurted. Through a series of events only possible with the inevitable and ubiquitous red tapedness which is associated with a government employment I am on a 10 lb work restriction, taking drugs which make me loopy with a capital loop and still driving to work tomorrow for an 8 hour day. Equally as surprising but not really surprising at all, I took off most of last week on Dr's orders but as of right now will be receiving no compensation due to injury because I knew I wasn't going to be able to avoid working at all so in being able to work some I must be able to work all and therefore am not entitled to compensation. I'm surprised I understand what I just wrote, if you understand it, kudos all around.
In short, this is less than fun.
Maybe Thursday I'll have good-er news.
PS Braves are the all-time greatest and have a lead over the Gnats of n^millionth power games which is actually like 14 but still a whole bunchedy bunch
In short, this is less than fun.
Maybe Thursday I'll have good-er news.
PS Braves are the all-time greatest and have a lead over the Gnats of n^millionth power games which is actually like 14 but still a whole bunchedy bunch
Thursday, August 1, 2013
SS Lesson 8-4-13 Prov 9:1-18
As I mentioned last week, with my Dad in Argentina I'm teaching his Proverbs Sunday School class. Last week seemed to go well, I made it a full 40 min and then squeezed 5 more with questions/discussion meaning we dismissed only 10 min early. Not bad seeing as last time I taught I was done 15 min in. This week we're in Proverbs chapter 9 which is only 18 verses long, so I'm sure it will be short. However, going to try to be as long-winded as possible and stretch it out. We'll see how it goes. Once again, if you're going to be there Sunday and want to be surprised, now is the time to go do something else, otherwise this is what I'll be speaking about.
Outline and most thoughts are my Dad's.
After hammering the benefits of Wisdom versus the consequences of Folly for 8 straight chapters, this one seems a little bit "superfluous" as my Dad puts it. I mean, surely we get the point. But, instead of assuming we do, Solomon paints one more word picture describing the contrast of Wisdom and Folly. It is organized into 3 sections, each with 6 versus, laid out as such: The Feast of Wisdom, The Responses to Wisdom's Appeal, and The Feast of Folly. As we noted last week, Solomon leaves the worst for last so that the warning of Folly lingers longest.
I. The Feast of Wisdom (vs 1-6)
A. Her Preparations (vs. 1-3)
1. Her House is Ready
"seven pillars" - there is no specific meaning here that anyone has determined as of yet. As Dad notes, we aren't describing a particularly well-built house or a particular type of house from Solomonic Israel. However, it is ok to numerologize the number 7 and suggest the house is perfect. Wisdom lives in a perfect place. The kind of place we should want to live in.
2. Her meal is ready
meat and wine with spices, would be the ultimate meal - just like today, a big steak, a fancy drink and no expense spared on the seasonings
this doesn't mean Wisdom is a meal. Obviously its referring to how it satisfies, it provides all we need and leaves us lacking nothing. We live a fulfilling life when we embrace Wisdom and feast on its meaty-ness.
3. Her invitations are ready
As we saw in chapter 8, she's out where we can see her. She's crying from the hilltops, not a subtle message, a loud, open, transparent one. This leads to the fact its all-inclusive. Everyone is invited, personally invited to partake in the feast.
B. Her Invitation (vs 4-6)
1. Who?
The simple and those lacking understanding - everyone without Wisdom
2. What does she invite them to do?
Eat the bread, drink the wine - enjoy the feast, taste of Wisdom, to learn, not just to sample it but to sit down and fully partake of its benefits
3. Why?
Wisdom is offering life, she contrasts it from foolishness. She wants a decision to be made, reject foolishness and come partake of my feast, this is an either-or
II. Responses to Wisdom's Appeal (vs 7-12)
A. The Scoffer's Response (vs 7-8)
1. This is the fool who has heard this all before, he's hardened his heart, he mocks Wisdom openly to draw others away from it.
2. His rejection is to be avoided, stay away from the scoffer, Christ taught us not to toss pearls before swine (Matt 7:6), arguing is not profitable. I had to opportunity several times to travel down to State Street in Madison while at college to hand out tracts and speak with the people walking up and down that busy street. Sometimes very profitable discussions occurred. Often they didn't. One night a friend of mine handed a tract to a guy and he stopped to talk. He had a blue Mohawk, several tattoos and piercings and looked rather disinterested in the actual discussion and more interested in getting a laugh. My buddy, Marc, launched into the Gospel and a little ways in casually asked, or more suggested, people would care what happened to them after they died. He cut in responding, "why should I care? I'll be dead. I couldn't care less." Marc objected, suggesting that the same thing that makes us care about whether we take our next breath in this life will not leave us in the next. He shot back that he didn't care about his next breath here either. I responded wrong to this, scoffing myself, and said, "So really, you don't care if you die and turn into a bird, or die and have to watch reruns of Seinfeld forever, or die and just sit in darkness forever or..." But he turned and walked off before I could finish. That was dumb, and it was casting pearls before swine. Once we had presented the Gospel, trying to argue along presuppositional lines was going to go nowhere. He was a scoffer and responding in kind would not help anybody.
B. The Wise Man's Response (vs 8-11)
1. Unlike the scoffer, the wise man desires disagreement and instruction. He wants to get smarter and he knows delving into the marketplace of ideas will grow his Wisdom. As Christians we should not shy away from learning. We should shy away from spending undue time diving into the depths of the philosophies of man, but being smarter is always better. More specifically, the wise man is looking to live better. He wants to improve his life. He knows others will know better, he knows the Bible will have better ways. He is not arrogant, he does not suppose he's figured it out.
2. This Wisdom in inexhaustible, the wise man can search wisdom from the day he is born to the eons of eternity and forever be gaining. It says, "teach a just man and he will increase in learning" This is already a just man, yet he can always take more teaching and always can increase in learning.
3. Again we see the theme. This Wisdom = The Fear of the Lord
4. As I mentioned last week, we can learn about and increasingly "fear the Lord" for eternity. This is the inexhaustible nature of wisdom, it is contained in the Being of the eternal God
C. The Contrast (12)
1. "If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself" means wisdom is rewarding. It is apparently an extremely literal translation. The satisfaction of wisdom is often merely the attainment of it.
2. So yes, Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord and ultimately we seek it to please Him, but we also receive the most blessing in our lives from it
3. However, the scoffer thinks he's getting other people to come down to his level, but in the end its his own life that's in shambles. Solomon will describe this later when he says "The way of the fool is hard"
III. The Feast of Folly
A. Her Character (vs 13-15)
1. Lady Folly, like Wisdom, has prepared us a "feast"
2. This is the same Folly we've seen before - loud, undisciplined, ignorant - she is intentionally evil and deceptive
3. Unlike previously, this time she's out in the open, she's trying to mimic Wisdom - Dad suggests the picture is like a crossroads with Folly on one corner and Wisdom on the other. A decision must be made, they're both making their case, now we must decide.
4. The passengers in verse 15 are just people going by, they have no clue what's in store, like the simple man in Chapter 7.
B. Her Invitation (vs 16-17)
1. Like Wisdom, Folly calls out to the fools, the simple, the people who haven't chosen Wisdom already.
2. She appeals directly to our sin nature - stolen water is sweet, bread eaten in secret is delicious. Its not the water and the bread which are satisfying, its the manner in which we get them. However, that satisfaction is fleeting, false and damning. This is precisely what the adulterous woman said in her passages. No one will ever know, You can get away with it. Instead of getting a massive delicious feast at Wisdom's table, the fool is happy to sneak around in the dark gnawing on some stolen bread. Why? Because he's getting away with it. He's deceived into thinking because "he did it" its better than what God has provided for him.
C. The Consequences of Accepting Folly's Invitation (vs 18)
1. The same consequences from the adulteress.
2. Foolishness is death. It is not only losing one's life but also losing the joy, fulfillment and purpose of that life. As Dad says, its a macabre picture of people gathered around a rotting meal already dead but not realizing it.
Do you get the idea now? Chapters 1-9 of Proverbs have one central theme. Will you, (will Solomon's son), choose Wisdom and her innumerable benefits? Will you choose the Fear of the Lord, the righteous path, the revealed Word of God? Or will you choose Folly? The easy path at first, but the difficult way in the end. The way of death and misery.
Why is this so hard? I mentioned it last week. We still have the old man hanging on us. That old man which wars against God. So yes, if all things were equal, the blessings of Wisdom would make her the obvious choice. However, The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom, and our old man wants nothing to do with that. This is why we need Faith. We need God's power which is channeled to us through the conduit of the Holy Spirit living within us. We need to rest in the power and in the specific instruction of His Word.
That's it. So before I close, I want to touch on something. I mentioned it for a second last week. But we kept seeing Folly and the Adulteress present sexual temptation. I believe this is Solomon's lesser-to-greater way of describing all temptation. As an example, take the story in Chapter 7. The simple man is walking down the street in the middle of the night and the adulteress springs on him, seduces him, and he falls. This same process can be used to describe ANY temptation. Picture instead, young man walking down Madison Ave, sees a pair of new Nike Tennis Shoes he just has to have (the adulteress springs out and lands a kiss). He walks into the store and notices they're just sitting on a shelf, no locks, guards anything (the adulteress mentions her Husband is away)...he looks both ways and grabs them. (He succumbs to the temptation and the result? Death). Folly is not just making poor decisions. It is sinning and not believing God and the Bible when they say "the wages of sin is death." So don't think that you, if you haven't struggled with or believe you've dealt sufficiently with sexual temptation, are invulnerable to Folly's charm. She is lurking behind every weakness we have and without God's supernatural intervention - the Holy Scripture and Himself in the person of the Spirit - we are helpless.
Short! But it's a short chapter so I think its ok. I'm off work for a week, starting yesterday, because I strained my left oblique. I'm on a 10 lb restriction and taking a couple pills for the pain and to help it heal. Totally awesome. Its also my birthday on Saturday, Happy Birthday to me, I'll be 25.
Braves are cruising, 6 games in a row. Beachy is back, Heyward, Mac, Freddie and Simba are all raking. Things couldn't be better.
Outline and most thoughts are my Dad's.
After hammering the benefits of Wisdom versus the consequences of Folly for 8 straight chapters, this one seems a little bit "superfluous" as my Dad puts it. I mean, surely we get the point. But, instead of assuming we do, Solomon paints one more word picture describing the contrast of Wisdom and Folly. It is organized into 3 sections, each with 6 versus, laid out as such: The Feast of Wisdom, The Responses to Wisdom's Appeal, and The Feast of Folly. As we noted last week, Solomon leaves the worst for last so that the warning of Folly lingers longest.
I. The Feast of Wisdom (vs 1-6)
A. Her Preparations (vs. 1-3)
1. Her House is Ready
"seven pillars" - there is no specific meaning here that anyone has determined as of yet. As Dad notes, we aren't describing a particularly well-built house or a particular type of house from Solomonic Israel. However, it is ok to numerologize the number 7 and suggest the house is perfect. Wisdom lives in a perfect place. The kind of place we should want to live in.
2. Her meal is ready
meat and wine with spices, would be the ultimate meal - just like today, a big steak, a fancy drink and no expense spared on the seasonings
this doesn't mean Wisdom is a meal. Obviously its referring to how it satisfies, it provides all we need and leaves us lacking nothing. We live a fulfilling life when we embrace Wisdom and feast on its meaty-ness.
3. Her invitations are ready
As we saw in chapter 8, she's out where we can see her. She's crying from the hilltops, not a subtle message, a loud, open, transparent one. This leads to the fact its all-inclusive. Everyone is invited, personally invited to partake in the feast.
B. Her Invitation (vs 4-6)
1. Who?
The simple and those lacking understanding - everyone without Wisdom
2. What does she invite them to do?
Eat the bread, drink the wine - enjoy the feast, taste of Wisdom, to learn, not just to sample it but to sit down and fully partake of its benefits
3. Why?
Wisdom is offering life, she contrasts it from foolishness. She wants a decision to be made, reject foolishness and come partake of my feast, this is an either-or
II. Responses to Wisdom's Appeal (vs 7-12)
A. The Scoffer's Response (vs 7-8)
1. This is the fool who has heard this all before, he's hardened his heart, he mocks Wisdom openly to draw others away from it.
2. His rejection is to be avoided, stay away from the scoffer, Christ taught us not to toss pearls before swine (Matt 7:6), arguing is not profitable. I had to opportunity several times to travel down to State Street in Madison while at college to hand out tracts and speak with the people walking up and down that busy street. Sometimes very profitable discussions occurred. Often they didn't. One night a friend of mine handed a tract to a guy and he stopped to talk. He had a blue Mohawk, several tattoos and piercings and looked rather disinterested in the actual discussion and more interested in getting a laugh. My buddy, Marc, launched into the Gospel and a little ways in casually asked, or more suggested, people would care what happened to them after they died. He cut in responding, "why should I care? I'll be dead. I couldn't care less." Marc objected, suggesting that the same thing that makes us care about whether we take our next breath in this life will not leave us in the next. He shot back that he didn't care about his next breath here either. I responded wrong to this, scoffing myself, and said, "So really, you don't care if you die and turn into a bird, or die and have to watch reruns of Seinfeld forever, or die and just sit in darkness forever or..." But he turned and walked off before I could finish. That was dumb, and it was casting pearls before swine. Once we had presented the Gospel, trying to argue along presuppositional lines was going to go nowhere. He was a scoffer and responding in kind would not help anybody.
B. The Wise Man's Response (vs 8-11)
1. Unlike the scoffer, the wise man desires disagreement and instruction. He wants to get smarter and he knows delving into the marketplace of ideas will grow his Wisdom. As Christians we should not shy away from learning. We should shy away from spending undue time diving into the depths of the philosophies of man, but being smarter is always better. More specifically, the wise man is looking to live better. He wants to improve his life. He knows others will know better, he knows the Bible will have better ways. He is not arrogant, he does not suppose he's figured it out.
2. This Wisdom in inexhaustible, the wise man can search wisdom from the day he is born to the eons of eternity and forever be gaining. It says, "teach a just man and he will increase in learning" This is already a just man, yet he can always take more teaching and always can increase in learning.
3. Again we see the theme. This Wisdom = The Fear of the Lord
4. As I mentioned last week, we can learn about and increasingly "fear the Lord" for eternity. This is the inexhaustible nature of wisdom, it is contained in the Being of the eternal God
C. The Contrast (12)
1. "If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself" means wisdom is rewarding. It is apparently an extremely literal translation. The satisfaction of wisdom is often merely the attainment of it.
2. So yes, Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord and ultimately we seek it to please Him, but we also receive the most blessing in our lives from it
3. However, the scoffer thinks he's getting other people to come down to his level, but in the end its his own life that's in shambles. Solomon will describe this later when he says "The way of the fool is hard"
III. The Feast of Folly
A. Her Character (vs 13-15)
1. Lady Folly, like Wisdom, has prepared us a "feast"
2. This is the same Folly we've seen before - loud, undisciplined, ignorant - she is intentionally evil and deceptive
3. Unlike previously, this time she's out in the open, she's trying to mimic Wisdom - Dad suggests the picture is like a crossroads with Folly on one corner and Wisdom on the other. A decision must be made, they're both making their case, now we must decide.
4. The passengers in verse 15 are just people going by, they have no clue what's in store, like the simple man in Chapter 7.
B. Her Invitation (vs 16-17)
1. Like Wisdom, Folly calls out to the fools, the simple, the people who haven't chosen Wisdom already.
2. She appeals directly to our sin nature - stolen water is sweet, bread eaten in secret is delicious. Its not the water and the bread which are satisfying, its the manner in which we get them. However, that satisfaction is fleeting, false and damning. This is precisely what the adulterous woman said in her passages. No one will ever know, You can get away with it. Instead of getting a massive delicious feast at Wisdom's table, the fool is happy to sneak around in the dark gnawing on some stolen bread. Why? Because he's getting away with it. He's deceived into thinking because "he did it" its better than what God has provided for him.
C. The Consequences of Accepting Folly's Invitation (vs 18)
1. The same consequences from the adulteress.
2. Foolishness is death. It is not only losing one's life but also losing the joy, fulfillment and purpose of that life. As Dad says, its a macabre picture of people gathered around a rotting meal already dead but not realizing it.
Do you get the idea now? Chapters 1-9 of Proverbs have one central theme. Will you, (will Solomon's son), choose Wisdom and her innumerable benefits? Will you choose the Fear of the Lord, the righteous path, the revealed Word of God? Or will you choose Folly? The easy path at first, but the difficult way in the end. The way of death and misery.
Why is this so hard? I mentioned it last week. We still have the old man hanging on us. That old man which wars against God. So yes, if all things were equal, the blessings of Wisdom would make her the obvious choice. However, The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom, and our old man wants nothing to do with that. This is why we need Faith. We need God's power which is channeled to us through the conduit of the Holy Spirit living within us. We need to rest in the power and in the specific instruction of His Word.
That's it. So before I close, I want to touch on something. I mentioned it for a second last week. But we kept seeing Folly and the Adulteress present sexual temptation. I believe this is Solomon's lesser-to-greater way of describing all temptation. As an example, take the story in Chapter 7. The simple man is walking down the street in the middle of the night and the adulteress springs on him, seduces him, and he falls. This same process can be used to describe ANY temptation. Picture instead, young man walking down Madison Ave, sees a pair of new Nike Tennis Shoes he just has to have (the adulteress springs out and lands a kiss). He walks into the store and notices they're just sitting on a shelf, no locks, guards anything (the adulteress mentions her Husband is away)...he looks both ways and grabs them. (He succumbs to the temptation and the result? Death). Folly is not just making poor decisions. It is sinning and not believing God and the Bible when they say "the wages of sin is death." So don't think that you, if you haven't struggled with or believe you've dealt sufficiently with sexual temptation, are invulnerable to Folly's charm. She is lurking behind every weakness we have and without God's supernatural intervention - the Holy Scripture and Himself in the person of the Spirit - we are helpless.
Short! But it's a short chapter so I think its ok. I'm off work for a week, starting yesterday, because I strained my left oblique. I'm on a 10 lb restriction and taking a couple pills for the pain and to help it heal. Totally awesome. Its also my birthday on Saturday, Happy Birthday to me, I'll be 25.
Braves are cruising, 6 games in a row. Beachy is back, Heyward, Mac, Freddie and Simba are all raking. Things couldn't be better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)