My son, the dishwasher

Well, Sean got his first on-campus job working at the Cafeteria for about 3 hours a day. He is starting out as a dishwasher. This is the first job he has ever gotten with out parental input or influence. . .yeah!!

Too much information?

As I was lamenting that Sean wasn't more communicative, he decided to share one of his Youtube sites with me, or I guess the proper terminology is "channel" in the case of Youtube. What shall I say? It is a bit edgy, not really intended for mom-eyes or mom-ears. It is sort of a a video diary or video blog, a "vlog." Sean is using it to develop his thoughts and think outloud on all sorts of topics. In the past couple of months he has posted more than 360 short videos. Wow. I sent him an email with my thoughts after a one-hour sampling. Some of the videos are rather funny, like a short piece in which he directs the camera to his shirtless torso and after a quick view of his chest a "blank-out" box appears over the nipple area, apparently added by the Youtube software. Guys can't show their shirtless chests?

Too busy for Mom :(

Well, it has been a quiet week. I've been busy and I assume Sean's been busy--haven't really heard too much from him. I did find out a week ago that I was annoying him with "RU there" Instant Messages, so I have stopped doing that. Sean prefers the "delayed communication" of email.

A Shave and a Haircut and Grandpa's retirement

Well, I finally saw Sean in person when I went to Grand Forks on Tuesday. I had gone to Grand Forks for my Father’s retirement reception and dinner, which were held on Wednesday. Clara had come up with me and we both stopped at Sean’s dorm room late Tuesday afternoon. The dorm room wasn’t as bad as I had expected with two young men in such a small space. No funky smell and only a few food containers lined up against the wall (for reuse, I guess). However, Sean hadn’t had a haircut since he had left home; his thick, unruly hair, along with his small, not-so-neatly clipped chin beard gave him a decidedly unkept look. I suggested we walk over to the Student Union and visit the on-campus Great Clips hair cutting salon. Sean balked at that suggestion, as he didn’t like the itchy feeling of snippets of cut hair around his neck. He relented when I said, “Here’s the deal. You do it now, I pay for it. Later, you pay.” Unfortunately (or as it ended up, fortunately), Great Clips was booked, but the barber shop down the hall had time for a walk-in. Sean got a great haircut, but was startled at the end when the female barber, Marie, started lathering up the sides of his face and neck for a shave—a new experience for him. Sean’s appearance was much improved after the haircut. I told him that a few people would probably comment on his haircut the next day in class. He was skeptical that people would even notice, but when I spoke with him on Wednesday, he said quite a few people had mentioned it to him, which actually made him feel good—he wasn’t invisible!
The next day, Wednesday, Sean met us at the reception and even spoke a few words regarding his grandpa (something his uncles were even too self-conscious to do). His “high praise” was regarding his Grandpa’s portion of the JFK conference he had attended recently. Sean said that unlike some of the talks on subjects like homosexuality, which seemed to have no relevance, his grandpa’s talk was “the most relevant.”

Truth, God and Religion

Well, this entry is a long one! It is a cut and past of an Instant Message Dialog between my son and Me about Truth, God and Religion. Wow. My brain hurts! Diane55317: Hmmm...now that I think about it, it is not so much "situational ethics' that bothers me, but more relativistic truth. I can't stand it when people say "that may be true for you, but not for me." Argh! Sean55374: Could you give me an example?Diane55317: Well, if I say something is true for me but not true for you, then there are contradictions that are silly. If I say the light in the bathroom is on and you say the light in the bathroom is off and we are both right, then the light must be on and the light must be off at the same time, but that is impossible. Ok that was a strange example.Sean55374: lolDiane55317: Or take the statement I might make that "God exists." An atheist would say, "God does not exist." But these two statements can not both be true. If one is true, then the other is false. And since there are no other possibilities, one of them must be true.Diane55317: Also, and this is the part that I think has permeated our society--if truth is relative--no one is ever wrong--even when they are.Sean55374: So, what you're saying, is that since there are only two possibilities, one of them must be true, and people who say that either possibility could be the case is a semantic annoyance, because either God exists, or He doesn't; likewise, the light is either on, or off. And, this is an example of our society trying to never be wrong, since truth is relative?Diane55317: Yep. If someone feels they believe something to be true "for them" then they impede learning, because learning is moving from a false or incomplete belief to a true one.Sean55374: Is it really a dichotomy of "God exists" or "God doesn't exist"?Diane55317: Yes. There are no other possibilities.Sean55374: Why?Diane55317: Existance and non-existance are mutually exclusive and together encompass the only 2 choice regarding existanceDiane55317: Truth is a narrow pathSean55374: What is God's characteristics?Diane55317: Many have said that Christians are narrow-minded, because they claim that there is only one way to God and all other non-Christian systems are false. That is a narrow absolute. However if only A is true then it follows that non-A is false.Sean55374: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and, I'd think, some others would be considered narrow-minded.Sean55374: Do other religions hold that Christianity is false?Diane55317: Charateristics of God are found in the Bible--All powerful, all-knowing, all-present (or if you like the big words--Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent), Compassionate, Eternal, Faithful. . .I could go on and on. . .about other religions--yes, some other religions believe Christianity is false. The biggest reason is regarding the divinity of Jesus. For example, non-believing Jews do not believe that Jesus is God.Diane55317: They are still waiting for their savior.Sean55374: As I've understood it, all, or nearly all, religions think that all other religions are false. What do you think?Diane55317: Well, some religions try to "unify" beliefs. The Unitarian Church is one example of that, I think. It sounds good on the surface--sort of a big "group hug." But, I believe it is the work of Satan! How better to get people to believe a lie (that there is more than one path to truth or salvation) than to make them feel good about it?Sean55374: If an atheist will go to Hell, why would someone become an atheist? How could the knowledge of going to Hell be comforting?Diane55317: An atheist probably doesn't believe in Hell.Sean55374: Why?Diane55317: No Heaven. . .No HellSean55374: Why?Diane55317: An Atheist typically would believe that when you die, it is over. No afterlife.Sean55374: Why?/Diane55317: Well, atheists don't believe in the spirtual realm, only the physical.Sean55374: Why?Diane55317: By definition, atheism is the denial of the existence of God or of any supernatural realm.Sean55374: Forgot the label. Why don't atheists believe in the spiritual realm?Sean55374: ForgetDiane55317: Well, that is the question, isn't it.Sean55374: Not forgotSean55374: "Forget the label"Diane55317: Do you remember what some of the atheists have said that you have met?Sean55374: Do you mean atheists that I have met alongside you?Diane55317: No, I was thinking about the group at UND that you visited.Sean55374: Eh. Forget the group. Piss posh.Diane55317: What? Were they that lame?Sean55374: It was cultural reaction.Sean55374: They weren't objective in the least.Sean55374: The was more of anger towards Christian stupidity in believing in a man in the clouds than anything, and a gratefulness that other people like them were around, who shared their beliefs and convictions.Diane55317: OK--some people could be called ignorant atheists or accidental atheistis-they just never thought about God. But, that is not the usual kind of atheist that people mean. . .Sean55374: brbSean55374: backSean55374: You mean the people who have thought about it and have come to the conclusion that there is no God?Diane55317: Sean--I think there have been many books written on why people have chosen to deny the existence of God, with just as many stating the opposite. What is really interesting is to find out WHY a person holds their beliefs. Sean55374: What about those who view God as an invention of man?Diane55317: I think some people realize they have lost the ability to have blind faith in the religious traditions they grew up with. That and public schools pretty much can't talk about God, so some kids (myself included), start to feel that God was an invention of man, a fairy-tale.Sean55374: So, because you can't or shouldn't talk about God, God becomes myth/fairytale?Diane55317: Not so much that as it is the very lack of any time spent on learning about God. God was never a subject in school. If it isn't taught in school, it must not be important, right? :-)Also, the theory of evolution, which is taught in public school, puts forth an explanation for life without need for God.Sean55374: Well, then, if it were the reverse, and Evolution weren't allowed in schools, Evolution must not be important, and God puts for an explanation of life without the need for slow change?Diane55317: You state that some think God is an invention of Man. How ironic that must seem to God, the creator of all! Of course, almost every culture has Religion to explain life. I think that is because thoughtful people everywhere and in every time have looked at the world and seen God's handiwork and realized that there must be a creator. Evolution is a very flawed theory.Sean55374: Is Evolution a religion?Diane55317: Hmmm. . .I guess that depends on the definition of religion. But, I would say it is not a religionSean55374: Why is evolution a flawed theory?Diane55317: Well, you can do some of your own research on that, but part of the problem lies with how things are dated. Some of the dating of fossils is done based on the depth they were found at, but at the same time the age of various depths are based on the fossils found there. It is circular--trying to prove A based on B based on A.Sean55374: So, because the factors (fossils, age, and depth) aren't independent of one another, the method is flawed?Diane55317: Yes.Sean55374: I would think an evolutionist would say the same of God and the Bible: "Is the Bible true? Yes, because God said so. How do you know? Because it says so in the Bible."Diane55317: Yes, that is a circular argument as well and a very poor argument at that!Sean55374: What do you mean?Diane55317: It is just so blantantly circular! Sean55374: What is?Diane55317: Bible true because God said so in the Bible.Sean55374: Why is it a poor argument?Sean55374: brbDiane55317: Because the question of the Bible being true is dependent on the Bible being True (God says so in the Bible, so if the Bible is not true, then "God saying it is true" is not true)Sean55374: backSean55374: Well, how do you know that the Bible is true/Diane55317: I have a high confidence that it is true, based on various educational experiences I have had--learning about how it was carefully copied and how close to the events the writing took place, other corroborating writers, etc.Sean55374: How do you know that the original authors were right, assuming that the copies are faithful and pure to the originals?Diane55317: I can't know with 100% certainty--in the case of the beginning of mankind, for example, there weren't too many witnesses! But, the Bible probably has more copies written closer to the time of events than any other ancient document.Sean55374: Let's assume the copies are perfect. How do you know that the original authors were right?Diane55317: I don't know with 100% factual certainty, but based on the evidence I have read about, it's as good as it gets. The New Testament is much easier to verify, as it was only 2000 years ago and other writers wrote about Jesus.Sean55374: What's as good as what gets? What verification? What is verification?Diane55317: Hey, Sean--I've got to say goodnight--I have to get up earlhy to go to St. Cloud for a Toastmaster Contest. You really should do some research on the topic, or talk to someone who has done much more scholarly Bible research--I don't know who that would be at UND or in that area.Sean55374: I'm not interested in doing research on it. I'm interested in listening to and understanding you.