But what of the soul?

I received an e-mail from an old friend of mine just this morning, and I was very happy to hear from him again. In addition, it gives me the opportunity to clarify a theological point of my acceptance of evolution. He has been reading my blog and he believes that a large gap to the meshing of Christianity and evolution is the issue of the soul. Where did it come from and was there a fall?

This is actually quite appropriate, following my last post, because it was my science teacher at CofO that first introduced me to this concept. I think there are several extremely important points to the story of creation in the Bible. First, of course, I do not believe it is a literal representation of the creation of the universe. If you read it carefully, very little of it makes any sense. There was light on the first day, but we don't get the source of light until the fourth day. The earth was formless and empty, but there were "waters"? This is what I believe the story of creation was meant to tell:

1) The existence of the universe came about from the will of God, and that the product was something He believed was good.
2) Humans are a form that are in the image of God. I do not believe this implies a physical image, but rather elements of our nature. I believe it is represented in our ability to think independently, a desire to create, an ability to perceive the world abstractly and so on and so forth.
3) At some point, we became aware of God, and we became aware of good and evil.
4) Despite what we knew was right, humans chose to wrong. As a result, we began feeling shame, because we knew that we had no right to be in the presence of a perfect God.

What do I believe happened? I believe that God set the universe into motion, and that He had a very specific plan of creating a being that could think freely. Why? Well, I believe that He wanted to be in a relationship. There is more fulfillment to being loved by someone who chooses to love you rather than being loved by someone who has no choice or no knowledge of a choice. As evolution continued its process, a creature came about that began having abstract thought, and an intense capacity for rationality and choice making. This was the design of God, and I believe that He gave to these creatures the ability to perceive the unnatural or spiritual world. In fact, I believe this may be what "the breath of live" that made each man become "a living being." Our bodies and minds were dead to the spiritual world, and at a point God made us apart of it. Whether that meant that they gained a soul or that he had to give them souls in order to perceive it is irrelevant. I do not believe there was one Adam or Eve, but that they represent the first of Gods contacts with humans. However, because we existed with free will, every one of us made choices that were against the will of God.

Am I absolutely sure? Not really. I'm not exactly sure what God wants from us, or how He created the world, or how the soul came about. I do my best to understand the world given the information that I have available to me. I believe, though, the way I do because I do not believe that the evidence on earth is faulty or that God created a world meant to deceive us into believing the world is older or created differently than the way it really is. Yet, this is not what matters. What matters is that I see in myself a fall. I have chosen evil, I have sinned, and I understand that I do not deserve to be in the presence of such perfection. I believe that I obtain redemption by accepting the sacrifice of Christ as truth and by following the guidelines He has laid out for me.

Make sense?

Probably not, but I'm open for debate.

The Great Divide at OU.

I am filling out my applications for study abroad in the Fall, and I came across the forms for letters of recommendation from my professors. It occurred to me, for the first time since I left College of the Ozarks, how much I miss knowing my professors. Maybe it's my fault, or maybe it's just the way of going to such a large public university, but I'm now in my fourth semester of OU, and I only know one or two of my professors really well. At CofO, I knew 4 of my professors really well, and the only reason I didn't know the 5 was because that class was split into three parts. Each section was too short to really know your professors.

I think this is something that needs to be improved in the academic world. This was part of the reason my mother home schooled me; she wanted the person who taught her kids to be personally involved in their lives. This not only meant her, but any other co-op teacher who taught Nick and me. Now, I go to class and leave, and I can't even remember what the names of my professors were. In addition, they certainly do not remember me. This lack of connection between the professors and the students is tragic. That rift will only weaken the intellectual strength of our youth, as well as discouraging professors from putting real effort into their classes.

I ran into the head the Expository Writing program at OU Wednesday, and he was meeting with a candidate for professorship in the program. He asked me why I loved the program so much, and I said, "You know, I still meet with Dr. Hawkins (my EXPO professor from my first semester at OU, Fall '04) and I think that says something. I hardly know any of my other professors. I think that speaks to the significance of the class to a student." If only all classes were as well run as that one.

King of the Obvious.

"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a nation." - George W. Bush on the Hamas victory.

I'm not making a political statement by posting this or attempting to make fun of GW. I love the way the words very clearly convey a rather obvious dilemma.

Ghosts from the Past.

There have been precious few times in my life where I have said, "Goodbye" to someone and felt happy to believe it was unlikely I should meet them again. I knew someone once who took time out of his day to call me on the phone so that he could rub my face in my failures. I did not appreciate it then. When I finally quit the organization that we mutually attended, I felt this happiness I described above. I was certain I would not see him again. Somehow, it is like a fly to the zapper, this boy consistently finds his way back to me. It's infuriating. So many times I've met a person and longed to meet them again, but our relationship ends there.

When I desire it the most, coincidence seems set against me.

Fandom.

I attended my first OU football game this last semester. It was fascinating. I have grown up in the center of Oklahoma and have felt the pains of OU football obsession my entire life. I remember making my first trip to Norman on a Saturday during a game. My destination was not the game, but it did not matter; I was pulled into the madness without my consent. Norman is not a large town, and so when there is a game, the whole town is consumed by it. I was not wearing Crimson and Cream on this unfortunate first meeting, and I paid for it by the disgusted stares of the more knowledgeable fans. I can say that after this initial introduction to OU football, I wanted nothing to do with it.

Yet, I think that it is pointless to attend such a university and not attend at least one football game for the cultural value it provides. So, when I was given the opportunity to attend the OU vs. OSU game, I went. And, I loved it. There is a pattern to being a fan. You dress a certain way and throughout a game, you make certain chants and gestures. You know when to cheer and when to boo, and when you are cheering for such a good team with such a large group of people, it's uniquely fulfilling.

I was reminded of this feeling when I attended a Hornets game last night. This is even slightly more difficult, because the Hornets are not nearly as dominant a team as OU. (Or, at least, they did not play as dominantly against the Kings and OU played against OSU.) I had no attachment to this team, but yet by the end of the game, I am undeniably bound to their success or failure. If you go to a game and do not cheer, it is not half as fun. You cheer for you team as they enter the court, and you make the first connection. Then your enemy comes out, and suddenly the battle is yours. Every shot they make is an insult. And you are deeply elated every point that your team makes. You take confidence in the fact that you know when to cheer at the right time with the rest of the crowd to make the most noise.

The NBA is a clever beast. They have been forced to play some of the games at the Lloyd Noble Center in Norman, rather than the Ford Center in OKC. Norman, however, is not as passionate a fan base as OKC. So, someone dresses up a fake mascot for the other team and brings him out after the first quarter to say, "I had been told that OKC had the worst fans ever." Now it's personal. That bastard just said we can't cheer. He even had the audacity to mistake us as Oklahoma State University. Everyone starts getting louder, yelling at him to get off "our" court. Needless to say, we were loud the rest of the game and quite grateful when "our" mascot ran him out.

::raises an eyebrow:: The many faces of marketing.

But I like it. It makes my experience more enjoyable the more I am attached to the competition. Will I go back? Absolutely.

Go OU.

Ayn Galactica.

I have been hanging out with a good friend of mine throughout the break. He is intrigued with my connections to Objectivism, and he will occassionally delve into a conversation with me concerning it. However, they are short lived, because (In order to avoid the confusing terms "conservative" and "liberal") he is what you might call the "occassional looter." For those of you who are not familiar with the term "looter," I'll clarify with a loose definition: a person who seeks to take away the profit of people who actually work and give it to people who don't work and don't attempt to work. This is an unfortunate situation. I've found most looters have good intentions, but simply lack (or do not wish to posess) the rationality to examine the beneficiaries of their redistribution of wealth.

Anyway, this good friend of mine will then go talk to his brother about our conversations, which is also unfortunate, because I think his brother would probably kiss Marx, Lenin, and perhaps even Stalin on the cheek if he had the chance. So, our conversations never really go anywhere, because I do not have the opportunity to combat the arguments from the source. However, I have never selected friends based on their accordance to my personal philosophies. As long as they do not force me to compromise my moral positions, I feel no harm in enjoying their company. However, I am connected with his brother through this indirect debate.

Beyond this, my friend enjoys watching Sci-Fi shows. My interests in television is for one purpose only: it is light entertainment. I spend a great deal of time thinking, and so, on occassion, I will endulge in an amount of mindless activity. Stargate SG-1 has been a show that I could watch, and enjoy without thinking too much about it. My friend invited me over to watch it with him on the Sci-Fi channel with his roommate in their traditional Sci-Fi Friday get together. Needless to say, I was the only female. On Friday nights, there are three shows: Stargate SG-1 (which has been going downhill), Stargate Atlantis (which started downhill), and Battlestar Galactica. The latter show interests me a great deal, and I have a feeling I will rent a season when I get a chance.

The point here is that I have a new name because of this. Apparently my friend brother used to ask "How's the Objectivist?" but when my friend replied that I hung out with him to watch Battlestar Galactica, the brother was stunned. So now when he asks about me, he asks, "So, how's Ayn Galactica doing?"

Somehow, I delight in this name.

Is it abnormal, or are we bored?

I was amused to discover that Eastland County Texas had made national news. Fires, apparently, are rushing over this area of the country and the "government spokesmen" is hoping to evacuate the entire county. This is tragic, for all those who have houses there. I need to ask my mom if there are any insurance concerns, but if I remember correctly, fire is always covered. It's hurricanes that get complicated. If the storm destroys your house, no problem. If it was flooding, though, then you have to have separate insurance. So, as as unfortunate as it is, hopefully everyone who has home insurance in these counties scouraged by wildfires will find adequate reimbursement on their property if it is burned down.

However, this has been a rather strange year. We started it out donating huge sum of money to Tsunami relief effort. Then Katrina came and we donated more. Then Rita came and I am almost certain there were several other large hurricanes or storms outside of those two. Now we have wildfires and flooding in the west. Have natural disasters been springing up rapidly, or has there been a sudden interest in the news consumer market for stories about natural disasters? I suppose we could be wearying of politics, controversy, and war, and therefore what something else to be miserable about that can't be solved. You are supposed to keep up with politics, because you are responsible for who's in charge. When something goes wrong, it almost like it's the citizens fault for not paying close enough attention. Nature, however, is not elected. It is the ultimate us verses them. We humans have to stick together if we want to survive the cruelty of the universe, regardless of the internal conflicts of our species.

I don't remember another year where so much of this stuff happen and with such violent force. I remember Andrew, but did several other natural disasters happen that year at the same time? Or is there something about human memory that makes us want to believe that whatever misfortune that exists right now is the worst that has ever happened, regardless if it is or is not? If that's the case, I wonder what that says about our perception of the situation in Iraq.

Hm... Well, I'm going to go play some more Zelda.