Body vs. Soul

I have been thinking a lot about the difference between our bodies and our souls recently.  Partially because of a friend's exploration of theological views of hell, with the resulting conversations, and partially due to the will and trust process, which involves indicating plans for what should be done with my body after I die.  In one sense, it doesn't matter what happens to my body after I die, as I will be gone, or no longer using it.  But it is also an important part of me in the present, and so it feels like it should be in the future, or it is in some way intrinsically tied to our identity.

In reality I believe that our soul (and spirit) are the more significant parts of our identity once we die (our physical bodies die).  But intuitively it is hard to disconnect our identity from our body.  I know little about the details of exactly what happens to our souls or spirits when we die, but I have a reasonable understanding of the options for our body.  The two most common options are burial or cremation.  Burial used to be far more common in western culture, which is why there are large cemeteries found in any area that has been inhabited for a long period of time.  That has become more expensive in recent times, leading to increased popularity of cremation.  Burning the body decreases its mass, for cheaper long term storage and memorialize, or the ashes can be spread, removing all identifiable traces of the body, but making it one with the area it is spread in.

My grandfather is my only recent ancestor to be buried, with the rest of my grandparents, and my mother, opting to be cremated, and in most cases have their remains stored in a niche in a wall at the cemetery.  It is much closer than my grandfather's veteran's cemetery, but I have still only visited once since they were interred there.

I didn't really have a strong preference on the matter, as neither seemed appealing: rotting in a box, or being consumed by flames.  But I read an article by John Piper that was fairly opposed to cremation for Christians based on the idea that burning bodies is too similar to hell from the flames and death sense, and that it showed less respect for the hope of resurrection at the end of the age.  Now no one is claiming that God is not powerful enough to re-constitute a cremated body, and we might be getting brand new bodies anyway, but it is still a powerful metaphor for the living who are seeing the results of the practice.

That article is enough to swing me in favor, at least for the moment, of being buried.  But beyond that, I have few specific wishes for what should happen in the event of my unexpected passing, besides that I want my family taken care of, and preparations have been made for that.  I believe I should be much more concerned about what happens to my soul when I die, than I am of my body, and I am.  But it is less clear precisely who one influences that outcome, compared to how we navigate the body issue.  I have trouble wrapping my mind around the difference between our soul and our spirit in most cases.

One recent explanation I have heard is that our spirit doesn't even exist until we are "born again," just like our body doesn't really exist as a freestanding entity until we are born of our mothers.  So people who have not been born again have a soul, but not a spirit.  And that soul can be utterly destroyed in the fires of hell, but a spirit can not.  If this is actually the case, I am not sure the functional difference between the soul and the spirit if we do have both after being born again.  And are there people who do have both that don't make it into heaven?  Jesus has some harsh words for Judas's situation, and Paul talks a lot about persisting in faith until the end.  I being born again the ticket into heaven, or is that just the initial qualification?  An important question to be more fully explored later.

Go Forward

 I signed up for a new health service earlier this year.  It is a subscription to doctor access, outside of the insurance system.  I did it because I was having trouble finding a doctor who would see me, and while I still haven't had an in-person examination, I have had a battery of blood tests done, as well as a full genetic sequencing, as part of my initial onboarding process.  The health issues that I was experiencing mostly dissipated by the time I got started with them, having been caused by lactose in vitamins I was taking.  So my urgent issue was solved, but it has been interesting to observe the process of being a member of this organization.  My first and only in-person interaction, when I went to get my blood drawn, was quite the story.

I had been waiting for the Sacramento location to open, and signed up for an appointment as soon as they became available, so in hindsight I may have been their first or second customer at that facility.  The office was in east Sacramento that didn't have a direct route from my house, making it an hour long journey to get there.  When I arrived, there was basically no reference to the fact that I was in the right spot.  I found an office door with the right logo on it, and upon opening it, and found myself looking into an empty lobby with a single stanchion with a sign on top that said "Welcome, Please proceed to the next room."  I could see through an open doorway, another larger room, with a single Conex sized object in the middle, on a raised platform.

So, feeling like I was in some sort of sci-fi movie, I approached at and saw a single doorway in the side, with a screen and keypad next to it.  I stepped up onto the pedestal, and saw that is said to enter my phone number.  Once I keyed it in, it told me to enter the code I had just been texted.  My phone buzzed, and once I had entered the code, the door unlocked, and slid open to the side.  I stepped inside, and the door slid shut behind me.  Inside was a larger screen in a wall that obscured my view of the rest of the room, but when I peeked around it to the left, I saw a large chair facing a much larger screen.  A voice told me to press anywhere on the screen to continue.  I walked up to the large screen and touched it with my finger.  No response.  The voice continued to prompt me to touch anywhere on the screen.  I pushed harder, but no luck.  Great, I am locked in a computer controlled box that is erroring out.  How do I even get out of here?  I went back to examine the door, and noticed the screen I stepped around when I came it.  In a moment of inspiration, I touched it. "Welcome Michael..."  Finally, we are getting somewhere.  I was worried for a minute there, but maybe this will be fine.  "...and place them on the hooks to your left.  When you are ready, step onto the circle in front of the chair, to prepare for the body scanning process."  Wait, did it just tell me to take my clothes off?  "Repeat!"  Nope, not voice activated.  I think it just wanted me to take my jacket off.  I'm not sure, but I am going to error on the side of less embarrassing misunderstanding.  So I took off my jacket, placed it on the hook, and stepped onto the circle.

I was prompted to spread my arms, and unexpectedly, the circle I was standing on rotated either direction as cameras, created a 3D model of my body on screen.  It was definitely lumpy and "clothed" but that ship had sailed.  I was then instructed to sit down and watched a presentation about what was possible to do with the health information they were gathering.  I knew that a blood draw was coming, and was very conscious that there was a panel in the wall to my left, and I was just waiting to see if some robotic arm came out of it to work on me.  It is a bit of a blur, but the chair may have taken my blood pressure, which would have been artificially elevated at the thought of what may be to come.

Eventually I was told that is was time for the blood draw, and that "Maxine" would be assisting me.  As a GTC attendee, I am aware that is the name for one of NVidia's AI assistance technologies, so this didn't settle the question of whether a real live person would be involved.  It then warned me that Maxine would be entering from the left.  A door in the wall opened, and thank goodness a human being stepped through.  After introducing herself, she began to prepare me for the blood draw using gear from a drawer that had extended from the wall next to me, where I was anticipating a robotic arm potentially appearing.  I told her I was relieved to see another person in this isolated little chamber, and confirmed that I was in fact supposed to keep most of my clothes on for the body scan.  "It is probably less accurate that way, but my job would be much different if the patients were all naked."  She asked me about the camp on my T-Shirt, and chatted, presumably to distract me, as she proceeded to get the sample she needed.  She told me there would be a couple more things to do on screen before she left, and then I was once again alone in this chamber.  The system presented a few more pieces of information, and then prompted me to collect my belongings and depart through the sliding door I had entered through.

I glanced around on my way out, without being too nosy.  There was nothing else in the room besides me and this big chamber, so either "Maxine" had exited through a rear door and headed to another part of the building, or she must still be in there, in a smaller compartment in the back of the box, waiting for the next patient.  Either way, it was kind of weird to think about.  On the drive home I concluded that, as an introvert, I could get used to that form of healthcare, but that that would be very unhealthy, from a psychological perspective.  Anyhow, that is still my primary healthcare provider, but everything else has been done with real people, via remote telehealth.  But I am considering moving a more local and in-person solution, even if it costs more.  At least I got a good story out of it.

God Save the Queen

 In international news, the Queen of England passed away last week after 70 years on the throne.  Her official role seemed fairly minimal to me, but she apparently had a greater impact on Britain and it's culture than I was aware.  I did see the Queen a decade ago, within 6 hours of my arrival in London.  I was staying at a hotel across the street from Buckingham Palace, and they were throwing a full ceremony for a visit of the Prime minister of Indonesia that day.  So I saw the Queen and many other dignitaries going by in royal carriages, with hundreds of Cavalry on horseback riding behind them, and thousands of Red Coats in the tall furry hats, with modern assault rifles.  It was quite the spectacle, but that appears to be one of the main points of having royalty, a country showing off.  But they may also serve a purpose beyond that, and we are about to see more about their impact during this transition.

My initial impression of her was negative, based on my original introduction to the idea of her existence during Princess Diana's death and ensuing the publicity.  Similar to Ford pardoning Nixon, her responses at the time were not popular, but in hindsight appear to be wise in the long term.

She also appears to have been a good 'ruler' by most measures, especially compared to others in her role.  It will be interesting to see how her much less popular and respected son Charles handles the throne, and if the position survives to pass to his descendants.  Which raises the question: should that position continue to exist in the modern world?  My initial reaction is 'no,' based on my values for freedom and assumed equality.  I am fairly opposed to nobility and royalty being determined by birth, instead of everyone starting out equal and moving from there.  But they may serve some useful purpose, when compared to the polarized politics in America, royalty appears to have a unifying effect.  The UK's royal family may have a stabilizing effect on the country and culture, and I have one friend who believes the queen's influence has been restraining the effects of "wokeness" on British culture, compared to the rest of Europe.  They exist outside of the political party structure, and have just enough power to be relevant, but not enough to be in danger of becoming tyrannical.

The one aspect I think may need to be adjusted, is the level of ostentatious excess involved.  Charles' 100 staff members may be laid off as he inherits the queen's 541 household staff.  Couldn't that be cut by 90%, and they make due with 50 staff members?  And not everything in sight needs to be made of gold, and inlaid with jewels.  An austere royalty would be an interesting concept, vested with power but not wealth, in the service of leadership.  But then we find ourselves with the question of how are these austere leaders selected?  The one benefit of the current hereditary system is that they have been groomed from birth for the position.  Another option would be a pool of high achievers, who are then chosen from at random, once meeting a certain qualification. (Maybe military service, an advanced degree, and a few other specific accomplishments to apply)  America did something similar for choosing astronauts, why not leaders?  But to be clear, they would only be vested with a limited power within a divided government, maybe a fourth branch.  The UK basically has a symbolic branch of government.  But much of the benefit should be achievable without the same level of expense and waste.

And that extravagant wealth is relevant to the question of what is next for the UK.  If they were to abolish the monarchy, what would happen to all of those assets?  What would be a fair way of handling the billions of dollars currently controlled by the royal family, outside of the British tax system.  The palaces can continue to be museums and tourist attractions, but the other assets and holdings would need to be dealt with.  And while the surviving members of the house of Windsor should not be dumped on the street, it would be hard to justify their current wealth.  It will be interesting to see if the new monarch is worth the expense.

Large Organizations

I have always preferred smaller organizations over larger ones.  I chose the smaller boy scout troop in my home town, the smaller high school in the area, a small college instead of a large university, and deliberately sought work at a smaller company instead of a large corporation.  One of the reasons I dislike the government is that it is an excessively large organization.  Part of this is because I don't like larger organization is that I don't like dealing with strangers.  It's not that I don't like people who are strangers to me, its that I don't like the awkward process of interacting with them before I know them.  And there is less of that in smaller organizations.

If I go work somewhere with 10 employees, I will likely know them all by the end of the first day, and importantly, they will know who I am.  If I go work at a company or facility with thousands of employees, I will likely be interacting with people I don't know, on a regular basis throughout my work day.  There is also the aspect of excelling in one's environment, and while I have been the top student of every school I attended, I was not as confident that would have been true if I had reached higher and bigger.  There is nothing wrong with not being the absolutely top performer, but I have been told that likely would still have been true in a larger university, and at the very least I could have benefited from having real peers.  But maybe I lacked the ambition to take on the larger challenge, and was stressed about all of the strangers I would have to deal with.

While most of my professional work has been with small teams, I have done work for large companies on a number of occasions, but it was always more stressful than smaller environments.  Same with working onset, which always involves large numbers of people.  But having just successfully completed my second project with the world's largest company, an having found that to have been a largely positive experience, I have been re-examining that idea.

The first time I ever applied for a job in a large company was a couple months ago, and while I did not envision taking the position if it was offered to me, I was at least considering the idea, and wanted to explore the process.  I didn't get past the first round of interviews, which was bit surprising to me, but it was a good reality check.  I recently discovered that I (loosely) know the guy who got that job, and he more closely fits the corporate mold, and has held similar positions in the past, while I have not.  It was interesting to come upon that piece of information, and process the various implications.  If I had gotten (and accepted) the position, it would have been a huge boost career wise, but would have likely come at the cost of my variety of other ongoing roles.  It would have been challenging to adapt to certain responsibilities in that role, but I believe I could have done that very successfully.  But more importantly, it presumably would have provided me with a steady stream of technical problems to solve, which would be fulfilling in its own way.  And it probably would have connected me with a lot of other things that are going on in the world of media and workflows.

Maybe having that job would have turned me into a corporate guy, with a very different perspective on things.  While it would have boosted my career path, that is never something I have been overly concerned with.  And it seems at odds with other changes I am looking at making in life.  My current flexibility allows me to do a variety of different things, take summer off for ropes course trips, and volunteer to help various ministries.  That flexibility doesn't matter if I don't take advantage of it to help others when I can, but I have been getting better at that, and feel called to lean farther into that process.  Working for a large company would remove a lot of my current distractions, but would put some solid boundaries around what I could be doing in other faucets of life.

So while I would be willing to make some major sacrifices to accommodate working on The Chosen or something similar, because I believe God is calling me in the direction, that doesn't mean I need to be willing to make those sacrifices to fill another role.  But I also need to learn not to discount the idea of being part of a larger organization out of hand, because maybe that is what God will be leading my towards at some point in the future,

The Supreme Court

I have rarely been a huge fan of contemporary Supreme Court decisions.  I suppose the Bush election one was positive, but a bit sketchy, and the Hobby Lobby win was great, but it has mostly been bad news coming from the court as far back as I can recall.  But there have been a string of positive developments, and nearly a daily basis recently, that are worth noting.

It started with the decision against New York's overly restrictive gun laws, which had been rescinded in an attempt to prevent a ruling against them, but the Supreme Court acted anyway, to strengthen protections for the 2nd Amendment.  While this seems very tone deaf given the media's current narrative about gun violence, I am confident that it will be positive in the long run,  If the statistics about 10K gun related homicides annually are accurate, it would still take 1000s of years to at that rate to see the number of deaths we see in China in the 50s or Russia in the 40s, after they disarmed their populations.  While each of those deaths is a tragedy, I would choose the current hundreds or thousands of deaths over millions of deaths at the hands of tyrannical governments every time I have the opportunity.

Next came the historic overturning of Roe vs Wade.  Now while many would act like this decision was a ban on abortion, all it did was remove a previous ban on legislation limiting or restricting abortion.  And trigger laws that did go into effect as a result of that decision were the result of the legislative process, which is how laws and rules are supposed to be made.  The existing "rules" were not laws, just legal precedent set by previous cases, which had been determined not be interpreting existing laws, but creating new rules from scratch.  The Gay Marriage decision was similar, not base on any existing legislation, just making up something new.  The court is charged with "interpreting" law, and the one thing an interpreter can not do, is change the definition of a word.  (Imagine how that would affect a financial negotiation taking place across a language barrier.  To 'interpret' is to accurately translate and communicate the speaker or author's intent into a different context or language.)

Lastly, there is the case of the coach who was fired for praying on the field after a game.  I have read some theological views again the value of public prayer, which I can get behind.  But that doesn't negate the "freedom" to do so in a free country.  I would truly be opposed to the coach requiring his players to join him, but even his opponents don't accuse him of that.  Their closest claim is basically that peer pressure encourages the players to get on that bandwagon, which might be true.  But no one had a constitutional right to be protected from peer pressure, each is still free to make their own decision in those situations, and be judged by their "peers" as a consequence of their actions.  And that also leads us into the question of what constitutes religion?  Is basic theism religion?  If so, "In God we trust" would be unconstitutional.  But, if so, logically it would also follow that atheism must be treated as a religion, and that would prevent government, and therefore public schools, from teaching or promoting atheism, or anything that stems from it.  Which is a change I believe many liberals would be opposed to.  So they might be better off accepting a narrower view of what constitutes "religion."

Anyhow, seeing positive news coming from the Supreme Court is a nice change of pace, but it will be interesting to see the long term results of those decisions.  But I will take the good news while I can get it.

Discerning God's Will

I have never been one to feel particularly confident in hearing the voice of God.  I recognize after the fact, because hindsight is 20/20, but in the moment, I hear him, but wonder which part of the message is from him, and which parts my mind may have added.  When he provides solutions to complex problems, all at once, after I have been puzzling over them for a long time, it is easier for me to see.  The two examples that come to mind are my return to summer camp in 2007, and the recent surprise party for my wife.  In both cases, I had been pondering a variety of options, to fairly open ended questions, without much progress, when a wild idea occurred to me that allowed everything I needed to fit into place nicely, if it all went according to plan.  And then it did, hence the 20/20 hindsight again.  Similarly, I felt led to reach out to the people at The Chosen last year, specifically about supporting the technology for Theatrical releases.  I thought I must have heard God wrong, because the only way I could envision them doing a theatrical release would be a condensed version of the show once it was farther along, similar to Son of Man being a trimmed down version of History Channel's The Bible mini-series.  So I made my communications more open ended and generic, offering support with technical issues and workflow, which landed me on their "resource list" and nothing else.  At the time I figured I had done my part, if that had really been God's prompting, but when Christmas with The Chosen hit theaters at the end of the year, it confirmed my interpretation of what God was asking of me, even though I may not have obeyed exactly as he intended.

Sometimes it is easier to discern God at work situationally, by the opportunities he provides us, and the doors that get opened.  My career has primarily been navigated by stepping through doors I find opening in front of me, instead of following some master plan that I had from the beginning.  That is true of my multimedia classes and high school and college, my internships, and my first jobs.  I did pursue them, once they were in front of me, but didn't necessarily go seeking them out, and didn't envision them before they were right in front of me.  In a sense, I have been leaving my career growth on the back burner for the last few years, trying to make money as efficiently as possible, to need to spend the least amount of time on paid work, to focus more on family and ministry.  But recently I have been feeling led to use my media and technology talents in much more directly ministry applicable ways, and the Chosen, or similar Christian productions seems like the best way to do that.  But the how isn't as clear.

I spent my 20's focused on getting married and starting a family.  I have accomplished that, and it didn't come about in quite the way that I expected.  Most of the things I did on my own towards that end did not work out, and things I initiated always failed.  Knocking on doors has rarely gotten me anywhere.  My marriage only came about because God opened certain doors in front of me, and I was willing to step through them.  But I have been coasting a bit in my 30's since then, and now I feel God prompting me to do something, that I do not see doors opening for.  So maybe I am supposed to start knocking on doors.  But it is not clear which ones, how hard, or when.  And my previous experiences probably give me an unconscious hesitation to do so.  I believe it isn't that I fear rejection so much as I am afraid of doing it wrong, and spoiling a good opportunity.  I suppose if I had stronger faith that this is what God wanted me to do, I would have less concern about that, and if I was better at listening to God, maybe I would have a better idea how he wants me to go about doing it.  But for the moment, I just intend to keep trying, one way or another, and we will see what God is trying to teach me.  Similar to the getting married thing, if it doesn't work out, it won't be from lack of trying.

Following The Conflict in Ukraine

Many people were surprised by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to the point of apologizing for discounting the idea, including the Secretary General of the UN.  I am not surprised they actually did it, and can't figure out why so many people didn't see it coming.  But I, and most of the rest of the world, have been surprised at how strong and effective Ukraine's resistance has been against a much better armed Russian military.  Supposedly they have destroyed hundreds of armored vehicles, shot down planes full of paratroopers, and killed hundreds or thousands of the invaders.  They have clearly not only slowed the advance, but even taken back ground in certain areas.  It certainly bodes well for the 2nd Amendment supporters here at home, making their case for the value of an armed populace.  Because this is nearly all being done with handheld weapons, against modern tanks, fighter jets, and attack helicopters.

While I would love for this to be a humiliating defeat for the Russians, I fear that it may provoke them to use stronger weapons to destroy Ukrainian cities instead of capture them, killing thousands of civilians.  I think the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely, but should require a Nuclear response from the US.  (The Budapest Memorandum in pretty clear on that point, even Russia agrees.)  But there are lots of non-nuclear weapons that can cause significant damage, carpet bombing cities, or burning them to the ground.  Hopefully that would elicit a response from the rest of the world, even from China, distancing itself from that travesty which would be broadcast in real-time as Russians repeated it in different locations.  And it might even generate a response within Russia, turning the tides of power against Putin, as many of his allies in Moscow would not stand for it.  But even if it let to a change in power in Russia, it would be an unspeakable tragedy for the Ukrainians.  And while cities were bombed in WWII, weapons are so much more powerful now, that much more damage could be done in a shorter period of time, and with less risk to the aggressor.

I do wonder what the US would do if it detected that Russia was launching nuclear missiles at Ukrainian cities.  Would we attempt to shoot down the missiles?  If not, why?  What would there be to lose at that point?  I also think it would be interesting to use submarines to engage ships in the Black Sea, as there should be some level of deniability there.  If Putin turned around and his Black Sea fleet was gone, that would be fitting.  We don't know what happened, sorry, war is hell.

It will be interesting to see what happens.  I am impressed by, and rooting for, the Ukrainians, but they definitely need our prayers.  And our support in any way we can help them.

Ukraine

I once again find myself writing about major international events as they are unfolding.  This time it is Russia's attack on Ukraine that appears to be in the opening stages tonight, with airstrikes of some sort taking place in large cities there early Thursday.  After that amount of buildup, it seemed unlikely to me that Russia wouldn't follow through.  I can't envision even the intended endgame, but I suppose a new "independent" government loyal to the Kremlin is the most likely outcome Russia is looking for, although they may try to just absorb Ukraine entirely, after Putin's "Ukraine isn't even a real country" quotes over the years.

While it seems likely Ukraine will fall quickly in the face of a full scale assault, I believe that it is possible that Ukrainians could mount a a reasonable level of resistance in the form of an insurgency, but Russia may have counters to that.  In Afghanistan, the helicopters were Soviets strength against the locals, and once they were neutralized, the fight went the other direction.  We need to determine what that factor is in this conflict, and figure out how to counter it.  I expect that factor will be electronic in some form, but I am not sure exactly what, either information warfare, or cyber attacks to infrastructure, or disrupting communications.  The Russians will probably fair better than Americans have against an insurgency, because they are less concerned about the collateral damage they cause.

Obviously one of the main concerns, is that the violence would escalate beyond the borders of Ukraine, and spill into the surrounding countries.  I don't think this is the beginning or WW3, but it is possible.  If the Russians inflict casualties on US forces in the region, even is inadvertently, it could lead to a larger conflict.  I also don't think it is the beginning of another 50 year Cold War, like people were proposing this morning, but I think those misconceptions will have been put to bed in the next 48 hours.

This seems pretty clearly an issue that there is nothing I can personally do about, so I am less stressed about it than some of the other current events, like Australia and Canada's slide into authoritarianism, the general Covid craziness, and the rest of the US government's debacle of everything it undertakes, under its own incredible weight.  But it is disturbing none less, and having a great deal more impact on a large number of people, and nearly none of that impact will be positive.  Clearly something to be praying about.