The site is finished, save for some content that still needs to be reviewed by the Session and the secretary, but this means the brunt of the cross-browser work is done, which is a thorn in many a web developer’s side. Next step is to get the domain name and hosting space reserved, although those are dependent on the flexibility of the current system, although I’ve never known a free system that has ever had much wiggle-room in terms of custom themes and cheap domain names. The time for this can be extended, since the planning and development was so quick (less than two full days). On a side note, social media presence is also an important part in enabling current church members with information relevant to goings-on at the church, but also for targeting new members that may not have been aware of the organization at all, and that’s another aspect of what’s going to be implemented in this project.

        I’m starting to get back into form with my chosen trade: design and development. Weak comp so far, but it’s the most I’ve done in two years:

http://drp.ly/18bVf7

i dont try to call my self a christian… but some people do… and those who do need to live up to their standars that they try to set….. i know no one is perfect but when someone calls theirself a christian they usually dont yell and cus you out about drama. once again. what is this world coming too?

Allow me to annotate a bit:

i dont try to call my self a christian [this seems to be a qualifying remark, as if being a Christian wouldn’t entitle this person to make the following comments on another Christian, but since that’s not the case, it’s alright...which it’s not]… but some people do… and those who do need to live up to their standars that they try to set [so no standards, no problem, right?]….. i know no one is perfect but when someone calls theirself a christian they usually dont yell and cus you out about drama. [No one’s perfect, but...] once again. what is this world coming too?

        Indeed. What is this world coming to? We have those racist, bigoted Christians judging everyone who isn’t a Christian in this society…oh wait. News flash: everyone’s a hypocrite. There are varying degrees, but the fact remains. The media would like everyone to believe that hypocrisy really only applies to Christians, who have high ideals, but cannot live up to them. What’s the alternative? Having low ideals and living up to mediocrity, all to avoid hypocrisy? If I’m going to sin anyway as a human being, I want to die trying to achieve the greatest supernatural ideal possible instead of settling for some form of mediocrity. The above post absolutely struck me because of the relativistic views it portrays, and also because it is implicitly promoted over Christianity and its impossibility to uphold. Relativism tends to hold that there are few, if any, objective truths, and truth is generally what individuals define for themselves. The hypocrisy, which I find somewhat farcical in this situation, lies in the fact that one is attacking another’s definition of truth in the above post, despite insinuating a life philosophy that differs. Relativism is manifested in the post in this way: saying that Christians need to live up to their standards after some apparent verbal confrontation implies that the poster is using Christians as bait to press a further point on hypocrisy (in a most ironic way) by attacking the setting of unattainable standards. This indicates that the author is violating a tenet of her own definition of hypocrisy, and sets herself unattainable moral goals, just without the Christian label, or establishes lower goals that can be met, both of which are free from objective truth, and contain some element of moral relativism.

        The point of this post is to highlight the direct attacks on Christianity and the indirectly moral dissonance caused by moral relativism, using a real-life example. Remember, the comments written as a status update are only being analyzed to understand the concept of relativism and how hypocrisy as applied to Christians can be misleading. Reading the post for the first time, I was taken immediately to Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John, which tells the story of an adulteress caught by the Pharisees and brought to Jesus with their recommendation of the death penalty from Mosaic law. Jesus responds, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” bending down and writing in the dirt with his finger as the Pharisees went away silently, one by one. It is not a discounting of sin since we’re all a part of it, but, rather, our inability to claim that our sins are superior or better than another’s. Moral relativism can’t account for the fact that sin exists, much less that there some measure of equivalency to all sin for everyone, regardless of personal philosophy, because there is such a thing as objective truth! Christians sin, too. It’s the most unfortunate aspect of Christianity, but it’s the pursuit of the character of Jesus Christ, coupled with forgiveness, that lights a fire under Christians, and gets them going to higher and higher levels. There’s nothing mundane about the true Christian’s faith, and the ability to let God judge is paramount to understanding how humility and forgiveness operate. A true Christian understands the necessity of pardon, peace, forgiveness, and healing to situations of sin against others, instead of calling out each other, trapping each other in our sinfulness (of which everyone could do a good job), and prolonging hurt for pride and superiority in a faux sense of morality and understanding.

        No one on this earth today can claim they haven’t sinned, in an absolute sense, and that applies to Christians and nonbelievers alike. Instead of pointing out those sins to our detriment, let us work to heal and forgive those who have sinned against us and God, to our credit.

John

        With the tumult surrounding the Roman Catholic Church amid the numerous accusations concerning clerical sex abuse reaching a fever pitch, bystanding is not an option any more. Already in America, it seems that the only tolerable bias is anti-Catholicism. Being raised as a strong Catholic in Southwest Virginia is hardly the tale of many natives, and that is shown in not only extremely-rare incidents of maltreatment, but also in the lack of general understanding of the faith, and a willingness to attack what the Church’s teachings are perceived to be. Consider, then, the intense liberal and “tolerant” mien of a college campus in Southwest Virginia, and how that might pose significant pressure to turn away from a decidedly countercultural lifestyle, and pursue hedonism and convenience instead. There is seemingly-endless grating and friction between these two shoulder-perched demon and angel, where it seems that the idea of “freedom” is foisted upon me as a desirable quality given the environment I currently occupy, when in fact it can only yield a chainéd enslavement.

        The whole idea of Catholicism that is unappealing to young and rather liberal folk is that there are “rules,” perceived to be essentially telling people what they can’t do and placing stricture on a life of fun and pleasure. They may consider the Church to be full of myrmidons who worship the Pope as God (or as a god) and hate gays and women and minorities, and only want to be rich just to be so. “Who needs the Church to tell you what to do, when you can be your own boss, and be happy?” might be one quote to sum the attitude referenced previously. True membership in the church is not determined by Mass attendance, Sacrament reception, the absence of Friday carnivorism, wearing a cross necklace at all times, or any of the such. It is determined by a willingness and readiness to accept the teachings of the Church, and be willing to apply them in one’s own life, which just so happens to make natural the participation in Mass, Sacraments, prayer, service, and self-denial, because a greater truth becomes self-evident, and silly becomes a lifestyle of being one’s own boss, because there’s no guarantee of being happy, or right, or stable. Worshiping society doesn’t yield any benefits from society, because society has no vested interest in individuals, individually. With society, manifested primarily by the media, there is an agenda, and that agenda is composed of kitschy ideas and money-making. The Catholic Church, collectively (meaning its Pope, priests, bishops, nuns, brothers, and lay people), stands square in the way of those ideas, serving as the loudest voice and strongest contrary influence. For society to succeed with its mission, there is need to discredit the Church.

        With the clarifications above, let us consider the recent sex-abuse incident(s) in the Church. First, and absolutely foremost, a strong and round condemnation of molestation, immoral sexual acts, and indecent liberties is called for, and those guilty of these offenses need to be punished as much as legally allowable (barring the death penalty, of course). Second, those participating in the cover-up of these offenses, which appears to be the bishops of the dioceses corresponding to the priests, need to be punished as much as legally allowable. Now that those two requisite denunciations have been made, consider the Roman Catholic faith. There has been much misunderstanding concerning the Church’s doctrine of papal infallibility, which may be the most misunderstood in the arena of non-Catholics. Many are under the impression that the Pope doesn’t make any mistakes ever, and, to a lesser extent, that qualifies him as a demigod to Catholics. Several people have said to me, “Well, I would be a Catholic, but I couldn’t worship the Pope as a sinless god.” That’s great, because neither could I! The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to the declaration of doctrine that must be free from moral or human error. It was established in the late nineteenth century, and has been used exactly once. That’s right: once. In 1950, when declaring the Assumption of Mary to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. That’s hardly the corrupt and nefarious vision some may imagine for which the Pope would use infallibility. So, despite implications that Pope was involved in some of the scandals, the Church does not proclaim the Pope to be free from sin. Contrast this truth to the cause of general outrage: a straw man has been established that contends that the Pope is free from sin in all instances, and then he is shown to have improperly handled a case from the early 1980s, the latter of which is an accurate report and truth. Pope Benedict XVI has been much more active in rooting out offenders within the Church, and punishing them and the bishops, beginning in 2001 and continuing into his papacy. The media’s line from the 1970s was that rehabilitation was the answer, and heartless would it be to throw these poor priests out without the second chance surely offered by Jesus. So off to rehab they went. And it didn’t work. So now the Church pays for that mistake with each revelation (most of which happened more than twenty years ago, by the way).

        One common reaction of note is that of, “I’m leaving the Church because of these abuses and subsequent cover-ups.” Number one, the Church is not a sinless institution, because it is operated by sinful humans. No one has ever claimed otherwise. That “fact” is being hammered by those who want to point out hypocrisy by showing how a “perfect” organization, or one that speaks the truth, could be affected by such grave sin. Sure, the institution is sinful. That’s a simple product of common sense. The reason that the previously-noted common reaction is nonsensical and makes excuses is that no one truly belongs to the Church because of the Pope, or because of a priest. If people left organizations of which they were a member because of sin, one would have to leave America, and then the Earth itself, because of the sin prevalent on the Earth. While the Church herself is sinful, her message is not, and that is why the people in pews who are true believers are there to stay, unswayed in faith by any heinous goings-on. It does not mean approval or being an apologist for child abusers, but recognition that humans are just that, and consequently, make mistakes, and need forgiveness, compassion, and mercy, inasmuch as any of us err and have the same needs.

        A mildly-cold dawn greeted my senses as I arose for the final two-hour leg of classes before a week off that felt much-deserved. Ambulating toward my appointments in my warm coat and shoes, with my computer in my bag, and thinking about going to my hometown to be with the family brought me to another destination: appreciation. I have sufficient clothes to wear, a means to attend college, a computer to use, and a house and loving family to go back home to visit. How happy so many people would be if any one of those things was within their grasp!

        Since the beginning of Lent, I have begun rising fifteen minutes earlier, pulling the blanket over my head, and just sitting in bed in my own little environment, listening to the silence and the lack of noise pollution that seems to dominate dorm life and thanking God for what I have, and entrusting the upcoming day to whatever He’s going to cook up. I’ve tried some things like this before, and they go on for a little while, but then fizzle out, simply because their scope was too big and it was too tedious to keep up. One can never stop being thankful, however. The Roman Catholic Sacrament of the Eucharist is all about thanksgiving, in etymology as well as in meaning. Not just for His sacrifice that gives life meaning in general, but for taking care of us when things are going wrong by human standards, because there are an awful lot of things that seem to go wrong for us on a daily basis. In this sense, the purpose of our lives is to be thankful for what has been given to us (since we can only earn things from a human perspective), and manifest that gratitude by steering our words and deeds toward that which makes life great and bountiful. The idea to sit and listen to silence was given to me by a video Pipes referred to me, and I find it a splendid way to attempt to discern an overall mood for the day, having an attitude baseline that’s independent of what events may occur. It ceases the ritual of worrying, which is always something beneficial and desirous.

        It seems as though we are content to thank ourselves when things work out, and blame others when they don’t, offering no vision beyond what could ever be in store for us, even in the face of failure. The face of failure shows up with unfortunate frequency in college, and this has served as a humbling, and therefore, enlightening, experience. The success to failure ratio is much higher in high school than in college thus far, and the reliance on others is inevitable, and normally considered a mark of healthy interpersonal growth. The relative dearth of items a college student possesses has led to an increased gratitude for simple things, like returning home, driving somewhere, and having luxury foods to eat (like cheese). Finding the good from the bad, and giving thanks for the learning and growing opportunities found in every experience seems to create less stress, foster an unshakeable inmost calm, and strengthen relationships with surrounding persons.

Stress is an inevitable weight at the midpoint of the semester, because of, if nothing else, the sheer complexity of activities, curricular and extracurricular. It exists not so much because deadlines mean anything in themselves, but because of humankind’s fear of failure. Failure, in this case, refers to being unsuccessful in a worldly endeavor. But what do these endeavors entail, even when viewed through an earthly lens?

Two sources of stress this week for me are a computer science test, and a project for the same class. As a freshman, major/identity is not fully-established, which often leads to the question, “Am I in the right major/department?” For the goal-oriented, answers are necessary sooner rather than later, and assessments in the classes of major are the most accessible barometers of success. Or so it would seem. The need for achievement, belonging, and success is dominant in the overwhelming feeling of stress and pressure, because those would appear to be indicative of how good, useful, and smart we are, so that the world may be impressed and accepting. In black-and-white terms, doing well on the test and project mean that I am cut out for computer science, and will be able to go on to a distinguishable career in the field, and doing poorly means that I have no chance, because I am so far behind everyone else and the material is way over my head, and I’ll have to change major or career in order to not fail out. No middle ground here, right?

Even using worldly reasoning, there’s really not as much at risk as it would appear in a panic-driven state. Mathematically, it’s possible in most classes to have a D average on tests, and pull off a low B in the class, which is hardly anything to cry about in computer science. Even if grades are low enough that the course must be retaken, that means little in the overall scheme of things. Graduation in four years is hardly taken off-track in that instance.

But what does it mean to worry about things such as school in general, or careers, or lifestyles, or challenges, or problems? Can one, by worrying, add a single hour to one’s life? Jesus asks this question in the Sermon on the Mount, and its premise remains extremely relevant to this day. If the sparrow’s have enough to eat and a place to live, why wouldn’t a human? Do the things we seek really bring happiness, or are they sought in order to fulfill a human standard that means very little outside of a human scope? What will my computer science degree mean when I depart from this earth? What will it matter if I participated in this club, or I owned this device? How silly we all are to constrict our views to that of a human’s! What will matter, and what college is intended to foster, is personal growth experienced through the endeavors college requires. Inasmuch as the Spirit fed Christ for forty days in the desert, the Spirit is our food, sent to sustain us apart from worldly desires. If someone can be upheld for an extended period without eating at all, then why can’t I receive that same support for fifty minutes? Or for a day? Or for the rest of my life? Why do we constantly worry about things that we can’t control, yet still trust ourselves to know what’s best? Why not trust someone who is in control of what we aren’t?

I’ll survive to the end of this week. And the next, and so on. The greater question is whether I can improve myself during that period, and not create empty experiences marked by senseless worrying. Will you?

I recently watched Shutter Island. Having no clue what it was about, I knew I was in for an adventure and a surprise. Fortunately, it is $10 well wasted. Oddly enough, many people I know billed it as a horror film. After watching Shutter Island, I do not believe it is any sort of movie. I would put it in the “literature” category (more on this later). Out of curiosity, I wandered over to IMDB.com and discovered it listed this movie as a these three categories: “drama, mystery, thriller.” I cannot disagree with this, yet I find that these three categories fail to capture the movie in its entirety. And the “horror” category is completely incorrect.

In the Encyclopedia of Pipes (a book containing all knowledge known to man) a horror movie film, in the pop culture world, involves making the viewer think “DON’T OPEN THAT DOOR!!! DON’T OPEN THAT DOOR!!!!” and then screaming loudly because the axe murderer is behind the door. This is not a film of that type. This film explores more of a philosophical question.

******SPOILERS FOLLOW******

Shutter Island deals with the insanity of people. It asks the question “what does it mean to be insane?” But it leads through to a comment about society. The question that Teddy Daniels explores is if it is better to die a monster, but sane or to die a hero, but insane. The interesting twist of the movie is not in the fact that Teddy Daniels lives in a fictional world, but in the fact that Teddy Daniels was brought back to insanity twice. Now, it is slightly unclear if Teddy Daniels regressed to his world because his mind could not cope with his crime or if he chose the fantasy world because he did not want to die feeling like he is a monster (despite knowing that he would have the trans-orbital lobotomy).

But it also forces the viewer to face something that few people can deal with: the reality that there are some things that cannot be fixed. It seems that this is the case when it comes to Teddy Daniels (he continues to regress into the fantasy). The board decided that after the “elaborate role-play” that if Teddy Daniels returned to his fantasy that he would have to be surgically subdued. This is what most viewers fear: that the hero cannot be healed.

My belief is that any movie that has ambiguity in it that concerns a moral value, or a criticism of our society is what I would call a “literary” movie. Hence, this movie would be classified as a “dramatic literary” movie.

Personally, this movie dealt perfectly with a concept I had been exploring in my head. Specifically, the difference between reality and fantasy and distinguishing between the two.

Who are we? Frankly, we really don’t know. At least, I don’t. John and I happen to be CS students and we have a love for nerdy things. That is pretty much as specific as we can be. We don’t limit ourselves to one area of nerdiness, but attack several areas. We are not entirely certain what area we fall into, but it is somewhere in the xkcd, Nerf, Lego, and white cheddar popcorn loving category. We also hate megablocks, just a heads up.

Format: Our names will be italicized so that you know which of us is speaking. In case you don’t know by now, this is a joint blog by Pipes and John.

What can you expect from this blog? We have no idea. At least, I don’t. John might, but if he does, he has yet to tell me. Just expect random, unintelligible thoughts, comments, and links.

I’ma let John take over now.

May the force be with you.

_____

John

And also with you, Pipes.

There are too many lols and roflcopters to be had on the interwebz not to share them with somebody. And if sharing is being done, why not share with some bound to enjoy it? Thus is the premise behind the blog.

CS is best-spent in the company of nerdyism.

And so it’s been done.

Our inspiration.