A simple three letter word, but what does it really mean?  Apparently, it's been argued about for centuries, and through it all, I'm not sure what the definition is anymore.  I've always been aware that sin is something that you do apart from God's will.  Disobedience to a law.  But, I've also associated it with a willful act.  I am fully aware that Jesus says in Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28 that even motives are bound by sin.  However, I'm not sure that's what Jesus was literally meaning.  I take his sayings in Matthew 5 as being preventive measures to guard against sin because as humans we are prone to sin.  Other verses like Romans 14:23, James 4:17, I John 5:17, and Proverbs 24:9 all try to define sin, but in my opinion, all we get is more confusion.  So, being the good Methodist I am, I subscribe to the following definition.

Sin is the willful breaking of a known law.

Question 1:  Is this an adequate definition?
Question 2:  In reference to James 4:17, is non-action still a willful action?
Question 3:  In reference to Matthew 5, if motives are considered sin, when do we start sinning?
Question 4:  Does not the Holy Spirit help us to avoid sinning, and if so, does this happen on an unconscious level if thinking about sin is called a sin?
Question 5a:  Is sinning the natural consequence of free-will?
Question 5b:  Do we have free will if there is a divine plan set for us, and does such a divine plan then build in sin, in which case are we really free at all? (See Matthew 18:7) (we will revisit the free will question at another time)
Question 6:  Does temptation equal sin if thinking about sin is sin?

I leave you with this thought and to keep you thinking about different versions of the Bible.  The Revised Standard Version of the Bible has this for Matthew 5:22

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.  (Some variants insert angry without cause instead of just angry)

Now, it certainly sounds like anger is a sin does it not?  Is not anger (wrath) a deadly sin according to the Catholic tradition?  Jesus certain calls the Pharisees a "brood of vipers?"  Is that not more powerful a statement than you fool?  When Jesus cleanses the Temple, wasn't he angry?  We all hold that Jesus did not sin, and that anger is only an emotion.  But if bad motives are just as sinful as the results of motives carried out....then what does this say about Jesus?

I've been wanting to post about this for awhile now.  Mind you, I am grounded in Christianity which may present a certain bias, but let's see if I can avoid that.  I've had some interesting discussions with agnostics.  I've read some material of former Christians who have become agnostic.  All basically say the same thing:  I just don't know. 

Ok.  Don't know what?  If God exists?  If one particular God is the right god?  Is God a type of personality that we have known to be God?  These are all good questions.  I have no problem with that.  Each questions has an answer that requires thought and soul searching.  In fact I find it admirable that despite the easy way out of doubt or disbelief, agnostics are open the idea that God does exist, that one God may or may not be a THE god, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.  As long as one continues to search for answers, I have no complaint with agnostics.

What I do have a problem with are agnostics who become complacent and just don't care anymore.  The "I don't know" consumes them to a point where the answers do not exist, at least ones that they are willing to accept, and they no longer search for answers.  Moreover, some antagonize believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc,) for "conversion" attempts.  Now, I don't know how forceful such a discussion would entail, and I don't condone coercesiveness when proselytizing, but it is information that should be considered, if one is truly searching for answers.

Agnostics occupy a very convenient place, if not wishy-washy state.  Despite all the presented evidence about God, how is one left without an answer?  How does an agnostic declare ignorance about God, in a grand "I don't know" about everything?  Shouldn't there have been a mental process that made infomred decissions about God?  If so, doesn't that mean decisions are being made that accepts some ideas and discards others about God?  And if this is so, are such people truely agnostic?  In the end it's the difference between not believing something to be true, and not knowing something to be true.  If one does not believe something to be true, and so claims ignorance about God is not really agnostic.  They know something to be untrue about God, and that is not agnoisis.

If there really is a God, and there is a judgment, agnostics gain no benefit.  The question then is, why remain an agnostic?  Either believe things about God or don't.  Don't say I don't know and not care.

I posted a comment on a fellow xanga's page about racism in this election.  It revolved around a post about a "racist" email sent by a Republican volunteer about Black people voting for Obama just because he was Black.  The statistic of course was the in polls 90% of Black are voting for Obama.

Now, I pointed out that the volunteer was just making an observation and wasn't being a racist.  Others of course disagreed.  But here's some more evidence that it wasn't racism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081102/ap_on_el_pr/election_black_hopes_and_fears

Implicit is the desire to see a Black person elected president.  Get to the bottom and you have 6 and 4 year olds saying no to McCain and yes to Obama.  Do you really think that a 4 year old would understand the intricacies of politics?  Granted, it's possilbe, but I find it more likely that they are making racial choices.  No, children do not vote, but if they can have those same ideas about race, wouldn't it be possible that voting adults would also?

The election is one week away.  In the past, I haven't been a voter, but this year, I can not just sit on the sidelines.  I've put in a lot of time looking at news, articles, interviews, and to tell you the truth it's actually fun.  Whether I vote Republican or Democrat is no concern to anyone else but myself, but I see an interesting development that I think is exciting.

For a long time, two parties have dominated the political arena in the US, but if we look at history a bit, they actually came from the same party.  The Democratic-Republican party gave rise to both, and back then opposed the Federalist party.  In the proceedings of the current election, Republicans seem to be facing an identity crisis amidst the wave of Democratic sentiment.  With such a disparity between registered Democrats and Republicans, I'm actually somewhat surprised that Republicans are able to win anything, and if the trend for an increase in number of Democrats continue, the Republicans will find themselves in a quandary....

...Except, that appears to be what they are facing now.  It's not like a "realignment" of the Republican party has been anything new since it has been proposed in the past, but with the current state of the economy weighing heavily on peoples minds, and the widely unpopular Bush presidency, it appears the Republican party has no choice but to remake its image.  The problem is that it comes at a bad time, and that there is considerable resistance.

Is it possible that the Democratic-Republican party be resurrected?  Probably not, but hard questions will be asked by Republicans once this election ends, in particular the future direction of the party.  And that's what I find exciting.  Maybe.....just maybe....what will happen is a political refresh that falls more "in-line" with Centrist thinking than either Democrat or Republican policy.  Because right now, it's clear to me that in an age of Democratic ideology, pushing toward the Center is better than sitting on the Right.

Alright, I'm sure there are going to be many of these abounds, but here's my writeup of the first debate.  It's pretty much a draw...

Both candidates pretty much stuck to their strengths.  Obama, being the better orator, was better organized than McCain, numbering each of his statements.  He had more "specifics" than McCain but was awfully acquiescent with McCain.  It felt like Obama was on the defensive, partly because there may have been untrue statements, but more often times than not, he "absolutely agreed" with McCain.  Neither candidate offered specifics about the bailout, though Obama did list no loss of money for money for mortgages, no CEO benefits, and something to help out current homeowners.  I suspect however, that McCain was more silent on the matter because he may be in opposition to the current $700 billion bailout plan.  I think he made a passing reference to his concern about how the American people will be burdened with the bailout currently structured.  I could be hearing things though.  The thing that bothered me about McCain was his repeated statements about government spending.  While it may be true that he has a track record of cutting spending, you don't have to mention it every single moment you can get.  Interestingly, Obama also agreed with spending cuts.  Overall though, I give the edge to Obama.

As for foreign policy, I'm going to have to give the edge to McCain.  I felt that his experience backed by personally being in each of the foreign settings gives him a leg up.  He spoke with the confidence of an experienced person while Obama, while well-spoken, seemed to flounder a bit.  Particularly interesting was Pakistan.  I was a bit concerned with the notion that if Pakistan isn't going to help out with Pakistan, then we'll do it ourselves attitude that came from Obama.  It is a bit unfair to extrapolate a bit, but that's what it amounts to if we decide to bomb Pakistan, if we knew Bin Ladin was there.  McCain called this a political gaff, though, I wouldn't say that calling the Iranian government and economy incompetent, or North Korea's average height being 3 inches shorter than South Korea as warranting high praise.

The difference on Iraq was interesting.  Obama points to the past while McCain points to the future.  For Obama, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, one of many faults of the current administration, and so wants to pull out of Iraq whether the job there is finished or not...16 months and that's it.  McCain has not set a timetable, but sees an end to the Iraq war, although what he plans to do with Afghanistan is less clear.  That said, McCain has actually been there so he knows it's a huge place, bigger Iraq, which probably means more troops and a change of culture.  The problem with that is culture takes time to change, which means a prolonged time in Afghanistan.  It really comes down to a matter of which problem candidates want to tackle first.  It is difficult to fight a two front battle...as any Civilization 4 gamer would know, so one needs to be dealt before the other.  The problem is, we are already committed in Iraq.  If we switch now to Afghanistan, it is possible that we could lose the costly gains made in Iraq.  So here, I agree more with McCain than Obama.  It is absolutely true that the next president won't be dealing with why we got into the war, but what to do now that we're in it.

Though, it's hard to declare a winner in this debate, this was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy.  If that was it, then I would give the debate edge to McCain.  We'll see what happens when the focus realigns to the economy, since part of the economy was already talked about.  

Who's to blame?  The government or the banks?  I ask because I currently view the subprime mess and its progeny as separate from government policy.  With the "Feds" only way of fight both inflation and recession by controlling interest rates, where an inverse relationship exists between the two by raising and lowering interest rates, what is the government supposed to do if banks got a bit too greedy?  And....is it truly the fault of the current administration or it just the fallguy now?  And...just for speculation, would a government typically more involved in regulation been able to prevent the current financial crisis?

For....We.....are.....Freedom, Fanatics.  Fanatics for Freedom.  Yes Freedom Fanatics, fanatics for freedom.

I was actually thinking back on this old production that was put on at church when I was a kid.  I was Moses....can you imagine that?  An Asian Moses...with dreadfully crazy hair.  Ah, yes those were the days.  Why am I writing about this you ask?  Well, like I said, I was thinking back about it, and lo and behold what was the Hebrew Scripture reading this past Sunday?  It was the birth of Moses.  It's funny how things coincide like this all the time.  Now, if only relationships coincided like this, but I digress. 

I think back about the what I had back then, and I have to say that I couldn't complain about much.  I really had a good "childhood."  I made friends easily, kept out of trouble, and generally was carefree.  At least, that's what I remember.  Sometimes, I wish I was back in those days.  No worries about what I was doing with my life.  Noone pushing you to be more focused.  No reason to search for someone who is in the ever expansive place of "out there."  I think that people sometimes forget that.  It's true that some people have had rough childhoods, so this story isn't for them.  But for others who rarely reflect on what has happened in the past.....I think....up on examination find that it really wasn't bad as they thought back then. 

Hmphf....well.  If there is one thing I wish I could do again.  It's to play chess.  I know I could play it now, but that's not what I mean.  My opponent would be the same.  And I think....there's only two people...maybe three people in the entire world that knows what I'm talking about.  Coincidence would have to really be on top of things for that happen, and the Muses would have to work awfully hard.  But....wouldn't THAT be something?

I'm a fan of Brian Setzer, and this track kills.  It's on a Swingin Christmas or his most recent album that has renditions of classical music.  The track is titled Take a Break Guys.  If this track doesn't get you going, I don't know what will.  Seriously, at 1:53 the guitar solo kicks in, and the bass just grooves.  I mean it's no What is Hip, but at least it moves.  Get those instrumental punches in while the guitar screeches in the back ground, and you'll certainly be tapping your feet to this one.  Maybe even start some swing steps, even if you don't how to!  It's that good.

I got my new Bose IE (In Ear) headphones today after sending the old ones for an RMA.  I was one of the "first" to jump on board when it came out.  It turns out that there was a design flaw that prematurely bends the input jack.  This causes the rubber there to crack and expose wires, causing them to eventually snap.  I can't tell you now pleased I am with the newer generation IE headphones.  Listening to my music again, I can hear things that I didn't pick up before, and this is in comparison to the over-the-ear Bose Triports!  Of course, the Triports are a bit old, so that might be the difference, but in defense of the Triports, they are better at isolating sound.  I can actually hear the music without having to crank the volume up so high. 

In contrast, the IEs need to more volume, and while light and convienient, they do not "cancel" noise at all.  Hence, in high wind or on loud trains, I cannot hear music very well.  Other than that though, superb headphones. 

So I failed.  About a week ago, I took an oral exam.  No, no....I wasn't sitting in a dentist chair.  Rather, I was in a room with 5 faculty members who asked me questions to test my knowledge of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and normal aging.  Oh yeah, of course imbedded in there is material on Down's Syndrome, Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple Lateral Sclerosis, FrontoTemporal Dementia....the list goes on.  I actually was doing ok in the beginning, but then I hit a wall.  From there, it was just quicksand....yeah....quicksand.  If you remember that line from The Replacements, you know what I mean.

Anyhow, I have roughly 4 weeks left to study for it again.  This time, it's do or die.  Either I pass and go on in the program, or I fail and have to quit.  I considered quitting....but I've come this far, so I don't want to that just yet.  But lately it's been hard.  Hence, the multiple posts on being tired and all.  I'm beyond that now.  Really, I do feel much better, and to tell you the truth, perhaps this was for the better.  The studying is working....so....we'll see what happens. 

In the meantime...I've purchased my next MP3 download.  Journey's Greatest Hits!!  What's on there?  Only the #2 song of the 80's according to VH1.  "Don't Stop Believin"  I must say though, the hits on this CD have a lot of power ballads on it, which is different from Boston.  Nevertheless....these ballads are the ones that you just crank up and sing out loud.