things have been good and stressful. i hate when i get on these stretches where i don't blog, and in fact last weekend, anne and i, and some of our friends actually had a little discussion on why we blog. i blog because i want to be a better communicator and i believe blogging has contributed to be becoming one. and sometimes, like right now, i have to just force myself to write something because i know it will benefit me. and i also know that many times when i write a post, for whatever reason, it causes me to want to write more.
so life has been good lately. anne recently got a raise and, after she passes a test and receives some sort of insurance license, will get another one. at that point she'll become my sugar momma because she'll be officially making more than me. which i am fine with, because i know that someday, hopefully in the relatively near future, i'll be making more than her again :). which leads me to my next update which is i found out, yesterday, that i will probably be getting an internship at spectrum. interning there has been part of my plan all along because finding out about medical social work is what caused me to get into social work to begin with. this isn't to say that 20 years down the road i still want to be a medical social worker, but it's definatly a great place to begin a social work career, especially for a BSW. so finding that out made my day. it also gave me a boost of confidence.
my confidence in myself has been shaken ever since i decided not to pursue becoming a surgical technologist. for me, confidence is something that is very fragile. lately, i have been going through some serious doubting concerning my future because my interview with spectrum for my internship wasn't that great. i couldn't thoroughly answer some pretty easy questions. and spending all this time waiting to hear from them has made me doubt things even more. starting monday, i was about to embark on some serious internship hunting and take a spot where ever i could get one. thank God, that i won't have to, and hopefully things are all back on track.
so that's my life right now. i've been reading a lot. i knocked out the great gatsby right before christmas and i have been reading the jungle by upton sinclaire ever since. down the road, those two books are sure to give me a great post on capitalism. i've also been getting way into philosophy. hopefully i'll get some thoughts down in the near future. until then...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
take the hell quiz
i found this quiz on the website of bible scholar edward fudge. i thought it was informative. check it out. for the answers click here
1. According to the Bible, the human being is:
a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;
b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.
2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God's
final judgment against the wicked are:
a. expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;
b. the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;
c. the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression "eternal fire" to signify:
a. fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);
b. fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);
c. fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).
4. The "brimstone" in "fire and brimstone" is:
a. a symbol of terrible torture;
b. burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;
c. a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.
5. Throughout the Bible, "gnashing of teeth" denotes:
a. excruciating pain and agony;
b. gingivitis;
c. extreme anger and hostility.
6. When the Bible portrays "smoke rising" to warn of judgment,
we should think of:
a. people suffering horrible pain;
b. a completed desolation or annihilation;
c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.
7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising "forever," it signifies:
a. a destruction that will be irreversible;
b. conscious torment that never ends;
c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.
8. The "worm" in the expression "worm that dies not" is:
a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;
b. a symbol for a pained conscience;
c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.
9. Throughout the Bible, the expression "unquenchable fire" always signifies:
a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;
b. fire which comes from a volcano;
c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.
10. The Old Testament's final description of the end of sinners states that:
a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;
b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;
c. neither of the above.
11. John the Baptist warned of "unquenchable fire," by which Jesus would:
a. burn up the "chaff";
b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;
c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.
12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:
a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;
b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;
c. all the above.
13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:
a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;
b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;
c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.
14. The phrase "eternal punishment" signifies:
a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;
b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;
c. punishment which has everlasting results;
d. (a) and (c) but not (b).
15. The context and "punch line" of the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus talk about:
a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;
b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;
c. details about the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection.
16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:
a. go to hell and burn alive forever;
b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;
c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.
17. The New Testament uses the adjective "immortal" to describe:
a. the soul of every person, good or evil;
b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;
c. no human being now or hereafter.
18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:
a. unending conscious pain;
b. inescapable destruction;
c. going "gently into that good night."
19. Peter's epistles say that the lost will:
a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;
b. perish like brute beasts;
c. both the above.
20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a "lake of fire" as:
a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;
b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;
c. the second death.
1. According to the Bible, the human being is:
a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;
b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.
2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God's
final judgment against the wicked are:
a. expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;
b. the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;
c. the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression "eternal fire" to signify:
a. fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);
b. fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);
c. fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).
4. The "brimstone" in "fire and brimstone" is:
a. a symbol of terrible torture;
b. burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;
c. a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.
5. Throughout the Bible, "gnashing of teeth" denotes:
a. excruciating pain and agony;
b. gingivitis;
c. extreme anger and hostility.
6. When the Bible portrays "smoke rising" to warn of judgment,
we should think of:
a. people suffering horrible pain;
b. a completed desolation or annihilation;
c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.
7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising "forever," it signifies:
a. a destruction that will be irreversible;
b. conscious torment that never ends;
c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.
8. The "worm" in the expression "worm that dies not" is:
a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;
b. a symbol for a pained conscience;
c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.
9. Throughout the Bible, the expression "unquenchable fire" always signifies:
a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;
b. fire which comes from a volcano;
c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.
10. The Old Testament's final description of the end of sinners states that:
a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;
b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;
c. neither of the above.
11. John the Baptist warned of "unquenchable fire," by which Jesus would:
a. burn up the "chaff";
b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;
c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.
12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:
a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;
b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;
c. all the above.
13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:
a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;
b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;
c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.
14. The phrase "eternal punishment" signifies:
a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;
b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;
c. punishment which has everlasting results;
d. (a) and (c) but not (b).
15. The context and "punch line" of the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus talk about:
a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;
b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;
c. details about the "intermediate state" between death and resurrection.
16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:
a. go to hell and burn alive forever;
b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;
c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.
17. The New Testament uses the adjective "immortal" to describe:
a. the soul of every person, good or evil;
b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;
c. no human being now or hereafter.
18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:
a. unending conscious pain;
b. inescapable destruction;
c. going "gently into that good night."
19. Peter's epistles say that the lost will:
a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;
b. perish like brute beasts;
c. both the above.
20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a "lake of fire" as:
a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;
b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;
c. the second death.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
on being a skeptical believer: beyond survival
everyone agrees that people are selfish, and that our basic instinct is survival and self-preservation. much of the time, the decisions we make are made so that we benefit in some way. in fact, the main driver of evolution is survival-- species adapt to survive. so a question i constantly find myself asking is: what if this is all just a survival mechanism? "this" meaning belief in God, and, in my case, christianity.
i've heard it argued that if one takes away the belief in God and the consequence of going to hell, then it would render all of life meaningless, and such a person could do whatever he or she wants. but this just isn't true is it? there are many atheists in this world, and probably most of them are quite moral people. but the argument is silly for other reasons as well. i've read somewhere that if a chimpanzee living, in whatever a chimpanzee community is called, starts going crazy and hurting other chimps, that the entire community will attack and kill the offending chimp. so apparently even chimps have a moral code. this is because we need morals or laws for our survival. if i want to live, one of the ways i can go about doing that is to make a deal with my fellow humans that i won't kill them if they won't kill me. that's called a law. yet humans aren't just individuals, humans are families, cultures, societies, nations, races, and a species. and survival is also driving the existence of the groups people live in, and ultimately the human race. families maintain their line; cultures are passed down; nations conquer other nations. and if humans want to survive as a whole, then humans must become organized and unified. one mechanism that accomplishes this task is religion. religion not only unifies, but it enhances laws. it turns laws into morals and values. if a person violates a law, then that person not only violates a law, but sins against the god of his people.
but the gospel of christ is different, right? the gospel is grounded in love, and not just any love, but agape. and agape is a self-sacrificial love. in other words, agape says we should give up our own happiness, and even our own survival, for others. jesus says, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." this would really seem to run counter to the idea that religion is just merely a survival mechanism. but in thinking about this, i wasn't so sure. what if this is really about the survival of the human species? that we all have to give up something, sometimes our own life, for the survival of the human race? i've read somewhere that some scientists theorize that love evolved in mammals from the instinct that a mother has to protect her young. and while this picture of a mother protecting her young is beautiful to us and seemingly selfless, it's really about the survival of that species. it's actually somewhat selfish. didn't somewhere jesus liken himself to a mother hen giving up her life to protect her chicks? it seemed that you could really make a strong case that christianity is just another religion, and like all religions, it is nothing more than a grand evolutionary survival mechanism. then yesterday, i started thinking about something.
in the adam and eve story, adam and eve already had survival; they had the opportunity to eat from a "tree of life." in the story, however, they choose to walk away from this life they had where they lived in shalom with God, one another and creation, and become autonomous. they choose this path where they stop depending upon God, and instead decide that they want to make the decision about what is good and what is evil. after they do this, God blocks them from eating of the tree of life. why? one theory is that if they continue to live forever, they will do so living in the destructive consequences of their sin. their life would extend infinitely into a perpetual death. thus, in allowing them to die, God is actually having mercy on them.
sometimes it's just better to die. sometimes survival just isn't worth it. that is why people fight for the right to die. what the gospel is about isn't survival; it's about eternal life. and eternal life isn't just about quantity-- living forever-- it's about quality. deep inside all of us, we have this remnant of eden. we have this notion that there is some sort of ultimate existence; this ultimate way to live. we are all striving not to just survive-- survival is just a layer; a first step-- we are striving to live a life we cannot even put into words. and the gospel, the kingdom of God, is a glimpse into that better way of living that extends infinitely into the presence of God, who is the ultimate source of life.
so that's where i am now in my journey of faith and doubt. i'll post more as i continue thinking.
i've heard it argued that if one takes away the belief in God and the consequence of going to hell, then it would render all of life meaningless, and such a person could do whatever he or she wants. but this just isn't true is it? there are many atheists in this world, and probably most of them are quite moral people. but the argument is silly for other reasons as well. i've read somewhere that if a chimpanzee living, in whatever a chimpanzee community is called, starts going crazy and hurting other chimps, that the entire community will attack and kill the offending chimp. so apparently even chimps have a moral code. this is because we need morals or laws for our survival. if i want to live, one of the ways i can go about doing that is to make a deal with my fellow humans that i won't kill them if they won't kill me. that's called a law. yet humans aren't just individuals, humans are families, cultures, societies, nations, races, and a species. and survival is also driving the existence of the groups people live in, and ultimately the human race. families maintain their line; cultures are passed down; nations conquer other nations. and if humans want to survive as a whole, then humans must become organized and unified. one mechanism that accomplishes this task is religion. religion not only unifies, but it enhances laws. it turns laws into morals and values. if a person violates a law, then that person not only violates a law, but sins against the god of his people.
but the gospel of christ is different, right? the gospel is grounded in love, and not just any love, but agape. and agape is a self-sacrificial love. in other words, agape says we should give up our own happiness, and even our own survival, for others. jesus says, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." this would really seem to run counter to the idea that religion is just merely a survival mechanism. but in thinking about this, i wasn't so sure. what if this is really about the survival of the human species? that we all have to give up something, sometimes our own life, for the survival of the human race? i've read somewhere that some scientists theorize that love evolved in mammals from the instinct that a mother has to protect her young. and while this picture of a mother protecting her young is beautiful to us and seemingly selfless, it's really about the survival of that species. it's actually somewhat selfish. didn't somewhere jesus liken himself to a mother hen giving up her life to protect her chicks? it seemed that you could really make a strong case that christianity is just another religion, and like all religions, it is nothing more than a grand evolutionary survival mechanism. then yesterday, i started thinking about something.
in the adam and eve story, adam and eve already had survival; they had the opportunity to eat from a "tree of life." in the story, however, they choose to walk away from this life they had where they lived in shalom with God, one another and creation, and become autonomous. they choose this path where they stop depending upon God, and instead decide that they want to make the decision about what is good and what is evil. after they do this, God blocks them from eating of the tree of life. why? one theory is that if they continue to live forever, they will do so living in the destructive consequences of their sin. their life would extend infinitely into a perpetual death. thus, in allowing them to die, God is actually having mercy on them.
sometimes it's just better to die. sometimes survival just isn't worth it. that is why people fight for the right to die. what the gospel is about isn't survival; it's about eternal life. and eternal life isn't just about quantity-- living forever-- it's about quality. deep inside all of us, we have this remnant of eden. we have this notion that there is some sort of ultimate existence; this ultimate way to live. we are all striving not to just survive-- survival is just a layer; a first step-- we are striving to live a life we cannot even put into words. and the gospel, the kingdom of God, is a glimpse into that better way of living that extends infinitely into the presence of God, who is the ultimate source of life.
so that's where i am now in my journey of faith and doubt. i'll post more as i continue thinking.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
a merry schismatic christmas (part 7)
a lot has happened since i first started this little series. i began it to explore the tensions that often form between family and friends who have different religious and/or political views. i wanted to more deeply understand what perceptions about key philosophical and theological ideas under girded my view of God, humans, this world, jesus, heaven & hell, salvation, and the purpose of being a christian as opposed to those of family and friends. my hope was that i could pinpoint the differences in order to better and more simply explain my views and understanding.
the purpose of doing this is communication. the different perceptions at the root of these tensions do indeed incite the, sometimes ugly, squabbles families and friends may get into over the topics of religion and politics. but many times the real source of the most bitter arguments come from of a lack in effectively communicating ideas. in identifying key areas of disagreement i believe i can better communicate my views and create constructive dialogue rather than frustrating debates. thus, here is my list, a progression if you will, of the philosophical and theological differences that i believe fuel the tension between the christianity i practice and the christianity of my family and friends:
-a dualistic versus holistic understanding of the sacred and secular-->
-an intrinsically evil creation versus and intrinsically good creation-->
-a God who will ultimately scrap his creation for a new one versus a God who will ultimately restore and reconcile his creation he loves-->
-a future/post-mortem focus versus a here and now focus-->
-being a christian is primarily about escaping earth/going to heaven when one dies versus being a christian is about bringing the kingdom of God to earth through one's life (i.e. thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth...)
i understand that this is only part of the solution, and i would also point out that none of my above points violates any historic orthodox christian doctrines. so outside of these differing perspectives, there is much room for agreement. but the other part involves time.
when i first began spending time with my wife's family, i would have never made an attempt to discuss any of this with them, and not because i was afraid. one reason was because of what i outlined above. i didn't have a clear understanding of what we would be disagreeing over. however, the other is this: it is much easier to reject the ideas of someone you do not know, or barely know than someone you've come to know and love. i can reject all atheists as morons until i unknowingly befriend one who i find to be brilliant, loving, sincere and compassionate. once that bond is made it becomes more difficult to simply reject one's deeply held beliefs. you want to understand them. you don't want to simply toss that person aside. that atheist, conservative, democrat, buddhist, muslim or catholic becomes a person.
in the year since i started this series my wife has been lectured by a family member about our attending mars hill, and how we need to "be careful." the label of "emergent" finally came out when my wife was told by a different family member there are things she doesn't agree with us on because we're emergent. my high school best friend and i had a huge debate/discussion about the rapture and the end times. this political season brought about many awkward moments, most notably my aunt being heartbroken that i was voting for "that other guy." out of my wife's family though i have had the most fruitful conversations with her brother whom i find to be a kindred spirit. i have also had good casual discussions with my mom who reads this blog. she agrees that you just can't figure God out, and that you can't cram him into a box, which is the first step to all-out emergent heresy ;). we'll see what this christmas will bring. i'm most eager to see if people on my wife's side will finally just come out and confront me. we shall see. and i hope to continue to re-work and expand on some of my previous installments.
the purpose of doing this is communication. the different perceptions at the root of these tensions do indeed incite the, sometimes ugly, squabbles families and friends may get into over the topics of religion and politics. but many times the real source of the most bitter arguments come from of a lack in effectively communicating ideas. in identifying key areas of disagreement i believe i can better communicate my views and create constructive dialogue rather than frustrating debates. thus, here is my list, a progression if you will, of the philosophical and theological differences that i believe fuel the tension between the christianity i practice and the christianity of my family and friends:
-a dualistic versus holistic understanding of the sacred and secular-->
-an intrinsically evil creation versus and intrinsically good creation-->
-a God who will ultimately scrap his creation for a new one versus a God who will ultimately restore and reconcile his creation he loves-->
-a future/post-mortem focus versus a here and now focus-->
-being a christian is primarily about escaping earth/going to heaven when one dies versus being a christian is about bringing the kingdom of God to earth through one's life (i.e. thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth...)
i understand that this is only part of the solution, and i would also point out that none of my above points violates any historic orthodox christian doctrines. so outside of these differing perspectives, there is much room for agreement. but the other part involves time.
when i first began spending time with my wife's family, i would have never made an attempt to discuss any of this with them, and not because i was afraid. one reason was because of what i outlined above. i didn't have a clear understanding of what we would be disagreeing over. however, the other is this: it is much easier to reject the ideas of someone you do not know, or barely know than someone you've come to know and love. i can reject all atheists as morons until i unknowingly befriend one who i find to be brilliant, loving, sincere and compassionate. once that bond is made it becomes more difficult to simply reject one's deeply held beliefs. you want to understand them. you don't want to simply toss that person aside. that atheist, conservative, democrat, buddhist, muslim or catholic becomes a person.
in the year since i started this series my wife has been lectured by a family member about our attending mars hill, and how we need to "be careful." the label of "emergent" finally came out when my wife was told by a different family member there are things she doesn't agree with us on because we're emergent. my high school best friend and i had a huge debate/discussion about the rapture and the end times. this political season brought about many awkward moments, most notably my aunt being heartbroken that i was voting for "that other guy." out of my wife's family though i have had the most fruitful conversations with her brother whom i find to be a kindred spirit. i have also had good casual discussions with my mom who reads this blog. she agrees that you just can't figure God out, and that you can't cram him into a box, which is the first step to all-out emergent heresy ;). we'll see what this christmas will bring. i'm most eager to see if people on my wife's side will finally just come out and confront me. we shall see. and i hope to continue to re-work and expand on some of my previous installments.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
tongue-talking, charasmatic, universalists. oh, and don't forget the gays!
i think this story is fascinating to say the least. i would love to hear thoughts.
Friday, November 28, 2008
love wins?
i originally was going to post on how i recently struggled to define the simple yet complex phrase "love wins" to a friend after church one day. but instead i want to ask a question.
my wife got into a discussion with family about christians disagreeing on political issues and the love of God. during the discussion a family member said things that amounted to "God doesn't love everyone, because then who would go to hell?" and basically that love just doesn't win. these statements are just so mind-numbingly frustrating for me to the point where i just become angry. for God SO LOVED THE WORLD; God IS love, and i could go on and on and on, because the bible is filled with verses about God's infinite love. what this person is doing is painting God in his/her own image, which we all do to a certain extent, but here's my question: how much can we underestimate the love of God to the point where we're worshipping a false God? to the point of blaspheme? to the point of heresy? i'm serious. usually heresy is reserved for denying the virgin birth, or the trinity or some other theological factoid. we don't usually charge people with heresy who deny God's love despite the fact that love is the very core nature of God.
my wife got into a discussion with family about christians disagreeing on political issues and the love of God. during the discussion a family member said things that amounted to "God doesn't love everyone, because then who would go to hell?" and basically that love just doesn't win. these statements are just so mind-numbingly frustrating for me to the point where i just become angry. for God SO LOVED THE WORLD; God IS love, and i could go on and on and on, because the bible is filled with verses about God's infinite love. what this person is doing is painting God in his/her own image, which we all do to a certain extent, but here's my question: how much can we underestimate the love of God to the point where we're worshipping a false God? to the point of blaspheme? to the point of heresy? i'm serious. usually heresy is reserved for denying the virgin birth, or the trinity or some other theological factoid. we don't usually charge people with heresy who deny God's love despite the fact that love is the very core nature of God.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
this is me
the results from this test describe me with incredible accuracy to the point where it answers questions about my learning style that i've wondered about for some time now.
chris, you show a slight right-hemisphere dominance with a moderate preference for auditory processing, an unusual and somewhat paradoxical combination of characteristics.
You are drawn to a random and sometimes nonchalant synthesis of material. You learn as it seems important to a specific situation, and might even develop a resentment of others who attempt to direct your learning down a specific channel.
Your right-hemispheric dominance provides a structure that is only loosely organized and one which processes entire swatches of reality, overlooking details. You are emotional in your reactions and perceptual more than logical in your approach, although you can impose structure and a language base when necessary.
Your auditory preference, on the other hand, implies that you process information sequentially and unidimensionally. This combination of right-brain and auditory modes creates conflict, as you want to process data more rapidly than your natural processes allow.
Your tendency to be creative and free-flowing is accompanied by sufficient ability to organize and be logical, allowing you a reasonable degree of success in a number of different endeavors. You take in information methodically and systematically which can then be synthesized rapidly. In this manner, you manage to function consistently well, although certainly less efficiently than you desire.
You prefer the abstract and are a theoretician at heart while retaining the ability to be practical. You find the symbolism in a great deal of what you encounter and are something of a "mystic."
With regards to your lifestyle, you have the mentality which would be good as a philosopher, writer, journalist, or instructor, or possibly as a systems designer or social worker. Perhaps most important is your ability to "listen to your inner voice" as a mode of skipping over unnecessary steps to achieve your goals.
ht joe
chris, you show a slight right-hemisphere dominance with a moderate preference for auditory processing, an unusual and somewhat paradoxical combination of characteristics.
You are drawn to a random and sometimes nonchalant synthesis of material. You learn as it seems important to a specific situation, and might even develop a resentment of others who attempt to direct your learning down a specific channel.
Your right-hemispheric dominance provides a structure that is only loosely organized and one which processes entire swatches of reality, overlooking details. You are emotional in your reactions and perceptual more than logical in your approach, although you can impose structure and a language base when necessary.
Your auditory preference, on the other hand, implies that you process information sequentially and unidimensionally. This combination of right-brain and auditory modes creates conflict, as you want to process data more rapidly than your natural processes allow.
Your tendency to be creative and free-flowing is accompanied by sufficient ability to organize and be logical, allowing you a reasonable degree of success in a number of different endeavors. You take in information methodically and systematically which can then be synthesized rapidly. In this manner, you manage to function consistently well, although certainly less efficiently than you desire.
You prefer the abstract and are a theoretician at heart while retaining the ability to be practical. You find the symbolism in a great deal of what you encounter and are something of a "mystic."
With regards to your lifestyle, you have the mentality which would be good as a philosopher, writer, journalist, or instructor, or possibly as a systems designer or social worker. Perhaps most important is your ability to "listen to your inner voice" as a mode of skipping over unnecessary steps to achieve your goals.
ht joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
