This past weekend, my wife and I went cabining in West Virginia with a few friends of ours. While we are not big campers (read: we have never been camping together and my wife has never been camping period), cabining is a nice way to “rough it” while still having some of the comforts of home. We were staying in a cabin built by a group of friends out of bales of straw stacked for walls and covered in stucco. Really neat stuff. The last dregs of winter brought us constant rain for the entire weekend, but the cabin kept us nice and toasty.

The nicest part about being at the cabin was the utter lack of real-time connection with the outside world. Being without internet was a nice change of pace; lately, I feel as though I’ve become overly attached to the computer. It is hard to go an hour without checking Facebook, looking at the latest Tweet’s (follow me @colinthomas ), seeing if I have a new comment on Flickr, looking at new entries on Google Reader, satifying my curiosity at wikipedia, tracking my website stats, and on and on… It is so easy to get sucked into the constant connection that I lose real connections. Being forced to spend two days with no internet and no computer let me enjoy just being. I was able to get a bit of reading done, take a nap, and go on a (rainy) walk. It was so nice. Coming back, I think that I am going to try turning off the computer every evening after a certain time unless I have something specific to do. Maybe I can rediscover the joy of being while at home, as well.

Pictures from the trip are linked below. Some of these were taken on a previous trip, but most were from this trip.

So its going around and I’ve finally been tagged. I guess it’s time to give 25 random thoughts about myself.

1. I want to be a fulltime photographer someday.
2. My favorite book of the Bible is James.
3. The Bible is not my favorite book. Maybe it should be, but I can’t say it is.
4. I’m a conservative, but I don’t worship Republicans or hate Democrats.
5. I constantly have white cat fur on my clothes. The curse of living with two Birmans.
6. I really don’t like big dogs (anything over 40-50 lbs.)
7. I still have my wisdom teeth.
8. Bethany got me the Complete Calvin and Hobbes for Christmas one year. Best. Gift. Ever. (or at least top 5).
9. DS9 is the best ST series. If you can read that, then you are as geeky as me.
10. Get it straight: a nerd is someone who is smart; a geek is someone who is interested in sci-fi, fantasy, etc.; a dork is someone who has social awkwardness. I am a geeky nerd.
11. Death to the double space after a period! It isn’t needed in the era of proportional fonts.
12. My family moved to England the same year I left for college. It was neat to visit England in the summer, but lonely because I didn’t know many people.
13. When I was little, I brought books into restaurants.
14. I don’t eat condiments except for barbeque sauce.
15. I can’t believe it took me 27 years to discover Thai food.
16. I love chocolate, but it really gives me a headache.
17. I really need to stop watching TV with a computer on my lap.
18. My glasses give other people headaches.
19. I love math.
20. I really like babies and they seem to like me, too.
21. I love all roller coasters but can’t ride the teacups without getting sick.
22. When I was in elementary school, I wore my socks up to my knees. I did it to rebel against “coolness”.
23. I think everyone should put down the toilet seat and lid. That way, it’s fair for everyone.
24. I am insanely ticklish.
25. Everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission.

My first exposure to the phenomenon that is Hannah Montana came when my wife and I went to Typhoon Lagoon (a Disney World waterpark) and saw most of the little girls wearing these shirts with “I love Hannah Montana”, “Hannah Montana rocks”, etc. Having not exposed myself to the Disney channel since I was in grade school, I had no idea who the heck this Montana person was. Now, however, you cannot turn your head without running into Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana’s alter ego): American Idol, movies, and on and on.

This morning, the blogosphere is awash with news of Cyrus’ recent photo shoot with one of photography’s heavyweights – the great Annie Leibovitz herself – for Vanity Fair. The photo in question features the 15-year old Miss Mont… I mean Miss Cyrus wrapped in a sheet exposing her back with her face turned to the camera in a “come hither” stare. Parents, Disney officials, and watchdog groups are up in arms that little innocent Hanna… I mean Miley could pose topless for a magazine. Cyrus originally seemed proud of the pictures, calling them “not skanky” but has since recanted saying “I feel so embarassed”.

I think that the photo is inappropriate, but not for the reasons other people do. Rachel Hulin at Shoot! the Blog has a post about Sally Mann’s diptych Jessie at 12 [NSFW]. While these photos show actual nudity (and I’m not totally comfortable with them), they are not as overtly sexual in nature as the Miley Cyrus photo. While Cyrus only shows her back, her face is overly made up and has an expression of sexual anticipation that exists totally separate from her state of undress.

You may or may not have a problem with the photo itself. However, if you do have a problem with it, it is important that you realize WHY. I think it is debatable whether there is any actual “toplessness”; however, there surely is sexuality. Picture Miss Cyrus fully clothed with the same pose and expression and you will notice that the “feel” of the photo isn’t much different.

Too often, we try to define our morality by a set of rules that we can easily enumerate and understand. However, I don’t think that works in this case. Why do people have a problem with the picture? Is it her back? Or the sheet? Or the wet hair? Or the turn of her head at an x degree angle? I think that the answer is yes and no to all of those questions. In another context, the back might not be a problem. Not all pictures with sheets are sexual. Should we avoid pictures with wet hair? Alone, none of these set off alarms. It is the context in which these elements are combined that we should consider. This is not an endorsement of relativism, but rather a call to deeply understand your standards and why a picture, movie, song, etc. may or may not violate them.

via FOXNews.com

Tags: HannahMontana, Miley Cyrus, Vanity Fair, standards, relativism, sexuality

Wow, has it really been almost a year since I last posted?!? It has been an extremely busy year. I started an accelerated masters program in systems engineering and will soon be a double Woo. This, together with family and work, have served to keep me from having much time to write down my thoughts.

I didn’t realize it, but I have really missed blogging – I have had many random thoughts that I haven’t taken the time to sort through. I am trying to have more discipline in managing my time well; being committed to more regular posts will probably help out.

Oh, and the whole photography thing is starting to move from a new interest to a true passion; I think that you will start to see more posts centered around photographs or photography. Also, I have started my own website Colin Thomas Photography (which can also be accessed here) for selling prints. There aren’t many available yet, but I hope to expand the selection soon. And here are some of my images that have been accepted to PhotoShelter =)

Hopefully, it won’t be another year before you hear from me again.

Tags: photography, personal

Dateline 1517: Pope Leo offers indulgences to the faithful who offer alms towards the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. In response to this (and other Church corruptions), Martin Luther writes his 95 theses providing one of the sparks for the Protestant Reformation.

For those of you unfamiliar with indulgences, they are pardons of temporal punishment for various sins. In Catholic church theology, sin invites a duality of consequences: separation from God (the eternal) and earthly punishment (the temporal). Eternal consequences are governed by Grace won on the cross by Christ and thus, can only be redeemed through a return to relationship with Christ (via confession). Even after a person has been rescued from eternal consequences, however, temporal consequences must be addressed (either here on earth through trials and tribulations or via time spent in Purgatory). Indulgences were originally conceived as a method through which a person could use the merit of the church to satisfy these consequences. Prayer, recitation of the rosary, and reading of scripture were common devices through which this was accomplished. One thing to note in particular is that indulgences could only be granted for sin already committed – it was not a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

Martin Luther took issue with the idea of indulgences in general; however, he particularly took issue when the papal commissioner for indulgences in Germany began using indulgences to raise money for St. Peter’s Basilica. By giving alms, the faithful could absolve themselves of the consequences of their sin.

This brings us to carbon offset, the indulgence of environmentalism. A carbon offset is a device that allows a person to reduce the global warming effects of the CO2 produced by their daily activities: driving a car, using electricity, eating food. Various methods of mitigating one’s carbon footprint include planting trees and using renewable energy derived from solar energy, wind power, and bio-fuels. Like the indulgences, carbon offsets allow a person to ‘pay’ for their ’sins’ against the earth. And like indulgences, they offer a way for the corrupt to profit from the good intentions of the faithful…

Enter TerraPass, a company that allows you to pay to offset the carbon footprint caused by your driving and air travel. How does it work? You buy one of their passes that corresponds to your car and driving habits. Then they take the money and invest in research to develop new technologies that will possibly reduce future CO2 production. That’s right, with the right amount of money, you too can drive your SUV and be green at the same time – all while TerraPass makes money off of assuaging your guilt. Sound familiar?

If nothing else, environmentalism has shown itself for what it is: a religion through which one group gains power and wealth by creating guilt and then giving its adherent’s a method through which they can manage it. And like all religions that came before it (including Christian religion separated from Christian faith), it will never achieve true heart change. Only a relationship with the Creator can do that.

This is post specific to the students and alumni of UVa. If you have no interest in UVa and could care less how it handles matters of honor, by all means skip on over.

…

Still with me? Good. As many of you may or may not know, the students of UVa are currently considering the question of whether to remove expulsion as the Single-Sanction for honor offenses (lying, cheating, or stealing). As it stands, the current system works like this:

• student lies, cheats, or steals
• student comes forward – honor charges cannot be brought from this point
• someone else comes forward and charges are brought against the student. from this point on, the offending student may come forward and leave school with honor
• a honor trial is held in which the student is either found guilty, and removed from the community, or innocent, and nothing happens

A little bit of history. The Honor System was founded in the 1840s when the University was still a small, closely-knit community in which students and faculty lived together on the lawn. The notion of a gentleman was alive and well and when a professor was shot during a disturbance on the Lawn, he refused to identify his assailant, saying that a man of honor would step forward willingly.

As time has passed on, our society’s notions of honor and integrity seem to have passed away in favor of relativistic morals. At the same time, the University community has changed, as well; no longer is it a close-knit community housed together along the lawn – it is now a sprawling campus comprised of >18,000 students. There was a time when honor reigned supreme – and your honor or dishonor affected mine. Unfortunately, most students now view themselves in relative isolation; what you do affects you and what I do affects me.

The Honor System as it was originally defined depended upon the community to defend its own trust – now, all trust is placed in the golden calf of Single Sanction. When it was founded, the single sanction was a side effect: honor was first found lacking by the community and removal was the only possible remedy. However, removal is now the focus – and the notion of honor is left with nothing but lip-service. This can be seen in the defense of single-sanction. As one of my friends put it: it (single-sanction) is “its most potent, enduring symbol”.

The main problem with this focus is that student juries become focused on the consequences that are to be faced by the student – not whether his or her actions will damage the community of trust. Case in point: because of the single-sanction, honor offenses are statutorily limited to those that are of “sufficient gravity such that open toleration of the act would impair the community of trust sufficiently enough to warrant expulsion of the offender”. How can honor be defined by consequence? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Further, there are many students who, when faced with the knowledge that guilt = expulsion, prefer to give benefit of the doubt. In this case, a charged student is found innocent not because of the facts of the case, but because of juries inability to stomach a consequence.

So, what is the solution? I don’t know, but whatever it is, it should be focused on restoring true honor to the honor system, not intent on saving a golden calf that looks oh so good. If nothing else, the referendum on the ballot represents an attempt to move the discussion forward. You may not agree with the solution proposed, but rather than rejecting anything that interferes with your precious consequence, suggest something that will restore the system to what it should be: a system whose most potent, enduring symbol is the honor and integrity of those who agree to adhere by it.

I just read an article from boundless that was written in response to an article by the ChurchReport.com that discusses the impact of shifting demographics towards singleness on the church. Basically, the idea is that US churches are seeing a growing population of singles and are struggling to figure out how to best deal with this demographic – including a shift from “family-friendly” programs. What I saw from both articles was indicative of the general misunderstanding of “Church” in America (and perhaps all of the West). Both articles (and most of the accompanying comments) seemed to focus on churches like they do corporations – In other news, Microsoft is deciding whether to focus on Vista or Office. Come on, is this what we have reduced ourselves to? Products that the church can promote or not? The whole discussion is rendered moot when we look at the local church as what it is – a building (jk) – the community of believers. When we see people rather than programs, we don’t have to be concerned with whether we are reaching out to singles or to families. If there is a family in your community, you seek to show God’s love and minister to their unique needs – if there is a single, you do the same for him/her. Most of us have communities of friends which are made up of both marrieds and singles — we should seek to reflect Christ to all of them.

This is not to say that there is not an issue to be discussed here; if there wasn’t, would we even be discussing it? In fact, the call to true community is harder than a call to programs. It makes the problem all of ours rather than the problem of those we lift up to be our leaders. True agape is never the easy way out.

My good friend Matt has been recommending The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne for some time now; I finally pushed through and finished Tuesday night. It’s not that this book is an especially long or difficult read; I have just had a hard time pushing through it. Let me say up front that I don’t really like this book. However, there are two levels to why I don’t like it: 1) its an awesome, challenging, Godly call to community and love and 2) there are parts where I think the message gets lost to proselytizing. To be clear, while I don’t ‘like’ this book, I believe that God has used it to really challenge my perceptions of Him and grow me as a disciple. (Note: the following discussion may not make much sense unless you have read the book — so go read it)

Shane has a huge heart to see glimpses of the Kingdom come to our life now, and it is in the expression of this God-given desire that I believe his vision is at its strongest. I feel that his vision for community is truly radical, especially to a society that values individual accomplishment, privacy, and ‘freedom’. While real community is messy, it is the way in which God uses us to touch each other’s lives. What is the best way to share the gospel? By sharing God’s love daily with our community. How will poverty be eliminated? When the poor come into contact with the rich and see the sorrow that love of money brings and when the rich commune with the poor and see the need to use the riches God has placed in their stewardship for the good of others. This is radicalism because it takes us away from who we want to be and into who God has created us to be; this is radicalism because it requires the help of God.

Where I feel that Shane strays from true radicalism is when he goes into the realm of politics. It is not so much his heart that I have issues with than with how it has played out in his life. He takes Jesus’s call for active non-violence and spoils it with glib peace-nick rhetoric that vilifies “warmongers” and those who practice “redemptive violence” against those who wronged us. ‘How can we teach our kids not to hit when our country is dropping bombs on innocent civilians?’ I feel that this is an over simplification of a difficult question; I believe that there are Godly people on both sides who have prayerfully struggled through to their conclusions. I believe that any issue that involves life and death at such a scale demands no less. Crying out against a government whose ordinance might put children in the hospital is easy; being a leader who has the unenviable responsibility to decide between two undesirable choices is not. Rather than using deception to get into a position to make your protests heard (something Shane did at the Republican convention) – which is a lot easier (and perhaps more personnally satisfying…) – we should wrestle with wisdom and pray for God’s illumination.

The other issue I have with Shane’s writing is that I feel he often throws out statements without leaving room for debate or prayerful consideration. We are told the names of corporations who are ‘notorious’ for human rights abuses without being told why or at least where we can go to investigate. He quotes the like of Che Guevara (a violent revolutionary) and Michael Moore (who at very least bends his facts) to back up his political views. When contrasted with how he deals with radical community, it is almost like reading two different authors. His writing about God’s call to radical love through community is marked with a deliberative and sharing tone that brings the reader along … developing community with the reader.

Inspite of my issues with the book (or maybe because of them), I feel like I have grown more by reading this book than most of my recent reads. I feel that Shane’s call to radical community is something our Christian community desperately needs; we have traded expensive discipleship for cheap grace. We have traded real community for a network of aquantences. We have hardened so much that we are now useless marbles rather than beautiful, useful grapes (I stole that one from my pastor). May there be many more books I ‘don’t like’ as much as this one.

My wife Bethany and I were talking tonight about personalities and being who God made us to be. We realized that we are alot like a network of roads. Each of us has been created by God to fit within the network wherever there is a need; each of us has a purpose and when we are first made, we are pristine and useful. However, as time goes on, our surroundings beat down on us; soon cracks form as water seeps in a breaks apart that which was whole when it was created. If nothing is done, a pothole forms and we become unusable. It takes the constant attention and upkeep of the creator to keep us whole.

Sometimes it is easy to get caught up in our weaknesses and flaws and wish that God had created us to be someone different than who we are. The truth is that like the road, if we were created as someone else, the purpose that God had set aside for us would not be met. The key is not to change who we are, but for God to heal the wounds that sin has opened. Sanctification does not make us who we are not; it restores us to who we are meant to be.

from wiktionary:

-paedia: related to learning

Have you ever been in the car and heard something on the radio that made you contemplate the meaning of life, the universe, and everything (which is 42 by the way)? Too many times, I contempate something in my mind only to forget it as the next important thing in life comes along. I hope that this will be a place where I can parse through conversations I’ve had, articles I’ve read, and random thoughts that just seem to pop-up. Alot of it will be related to God and how He has woven His nature into our reality. I might throw random things in related to statistical natural language processing, photography, video games and anything else that catches my mind’s eye. However, I hope that we can travel the path towards understanding together. Welcome!