Downhill slide

Today the newspaper reported the death of the son of a local minister. At work, the morning meeting took 2 1/2 hours and the intent was to spell the death of the way budget matters are currently operating. This afternoon, the 3 1/2 hour meeting was to spell the death of a particular committee that had been operating as a rather maverick entity. The meeting around lunch was a meeting to repair what had been done earlier in the day while I was attending the morning meeting. Today has been a day of reporting death and doom and despair. Tomorrow's a new day. Maybe it will be one of refreshment.

Asking way too much?

The book of Hosea is astonishing to me. I really don't know what to do with it. In many ways it fits the words of the Great Teacher in answer to the question, "How many times should a person forgive another person?" His answer was 70X7. In Hosea, the analogy is given of a husband having to go get an adulterous wife 3 different times. Most of the book is a tirade of God against the northern kingdom of Israel. It is venomous and talks of how adulterous the chosen people have been against their Maker. However, in 3 sections that aren't really long, God tells how he will take back his chosen people. That's astonishing, and I don't really know what to make of it. Humans don't really work at that level of forgiveness naturally. And, maybe it's a statement just about the Creator and not meant for humans to try to copy. Unless, of course, one couples it with Jesus' words about forgiveness. Then, it's for everybody to do. I'm still pondering the application.

Bipolar noise

Some days are just filled with noise. Some of the noise is good, some bad. I have heard over the last two days much that was good. People were wearing smiles and laughing. People were getting welcome relief. I have also heard over the last two days much ill. People were pensive and doubtful. People were giving in instead of plodding forward. Over the last two days, I too, have been smiling and laughing, but mainly out of courtesy. My mind dictated much anger because of malicioius behavior aimed at those I care about.

Charles Dickens knew well this dual feeling that faces us every day. His book A Tale of Two Cities begins with this opening paragraph:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.

So, I leave the noise in my mind for the time being. I will sort out the noise that gets left behind because the noise that didn't disappear has a root somewhere that I must deal with.

Iron on iron

Jack struggled all the way through the book with the living habits he had developed. His early philosophy of "Blow it off" worked for him until he had to show up for a paternity test and later when he fell in love with Jan. Then he had to grow up some. But he never grasped what Damon kept telling him—that there was a "big picture" to life. Some people think the big picture is a particular plan of the Creator for his creation or least for those who believe in him. Even at the end, in Jack's posthumous letter, Jack never bought into the Creator plan for his life. Instead, he wanted the big picture to be that a Creator existed and that his life had meant something instead of nothing.

Damon, too, seemed to be confused at times about the role of the Creator. He wrote several letters discussing either the idea of prayer or the idea that a Creator would care for Jack if he would come around to accepting the idea of a Creator. But, even then, Damon did not have well defined ideas.

But, in this arena of Life in which late adolescents are defining their values and trying to place individual values into an overall value system, most people would not fault Jack or Damon. Some people get worried that young people wait too late in life to select certain moral values and they become evangelistic in their behavior, wanting others to accept the values they themselves have selected. But, I think the real beauty of the two young men is that they really learned from each other over time during the days of their topsy-turvy world of late adolescence. Damon needed to loosen up and enjoy life. Jack needed to tighten up and take on basic morality.

When iron sharpens iron, the result is a sharp blade, one that is useful for removing what needs to be removed when cutting. Iron that is not struck against another piece of iron results in a dull blade, one that tries to remove what needs to be removed but it can't or it takes longer or it butchers the job.

Therefore, the book had a happy ending. Jack dies to be sure. But, through the process of sharpening himself against a friend's opposite belief system, he worked out a satisfactory morality before dying. And Damon learned that friends who live life more fully actually enjoy the events life has to offer. So, the old Hebrew proverb still has a universal truth at its heart. As iron sharpens iron, so one friend affects another. So-o-o true!

The development of ethics

The book is really about the development of ethical awareness. At the beginning, Jack and Damon date every skirt that walks. They switch dates, they make up their own rules as to how to treat dates, they banter with each other in a denigrating way, yet still remain friends. When they put themselves in a different setting from high school, they act the same way because there was no reason to change. But, in college there was no protection. They did not go home to their parent's house at night. They lived outside their familiar bubbles and found that others had rules that had to be observed. Sherry learns these ethical rules and has a reaction against Jack and fiercely takes him to task for his previous behavior.

When Jack contracted AIDS, he went into denial, but came out of it once he understood about violating some ethical rules that lead to "cleaner" living. He still did not learn his lesson, though, as was evidenced by his attitude toward Joni. And leading Jan on even after learning of his disease was unconscionable. Damon reasoned with him and finally experienced breakthrough because Jack opened up to Jan.

Damon seemed to have a better sense about ethics. How did he get his? Why did he stick to his ethics in a high school environment that was not conducive to maintaining the ethics Damon had developed? How did Jack develop a conscience after all? Can someone influence another to have different ethics, or is experience the only teacher?

Stuck in that everliving present

Teenagers can't seem to help themselves. They have blinders when it comes to seeing the future of themselves. Life is simple in some regards. If a person puts in nothing into Life, (s)he gets nothing in return. There is more than a single moment in the present along Life's time continuum. What a person sows, a person reaps.

As one breaks into adulthood, this realization becomes stronger. But, it's usually an ex post facto realization for most teens. That means that living in the moment carries with it some of the consequences of actions taken into a future moment. Jack had a severe case of living blind. Damon seems to have been a little better, but it was based on his faith rather than his experience or good teaching in public schools. Shaughnessy's and blondes become such a great symbol for teens who cannot think past the old motto, "If it feels good, do it." There's a lesson learned from the rocks of nature. Even though time is enduring, what happens today affects the rock's future. A rock is a mountain today, but with erosion over time, a rock becomes merely a shrunken chunk on a plain that any human can raise and look at.

Does it really take a top 10 academic geek to understand one of Life's simplest principles? Getting stuck in the moment should be the behavior of a child, not a late adolescent. Damon, try as he might, could never lead Jack into a realization that a different existence from Shaughnessy's and blondes could be experienced. I guess teens are really so egocentric that they cannot get past their immature selves. So be it. Amor omnia vincit leads down a path of one night stands, literally and figuratively. So be it.

Typical teenage life

The book As Iron Sharpens Iron is a book about the development of ethical behavior. It pits two opposite characters in terms of morality against each other in some instances and for each other in other instances. Typically, later adolescence is characterized by the start of the extremely egocentric phase in a person's life. The college years are the center of the phase. But, in high school the youth in his or her late teens begins seeing that life is not merely lived by all human beings the way that mom and dad has said that life should be lived.

Jack and Damon are polar opposites in their views about sexuality. They are also competitive. They also believe in partaking of what life has to offer a teenager. Prom, basketball, dating, writing notes in class, making comments about teachers and coaches are all a part of the typical landscape surrounding the high school experience.

Another part of the experience of high school is the way Jack and Damon try to maintain their relationship. It's a back and forth style, an up and down experience, a hot and cold way of reacting to the other. Late adolescence is also characterized by that type of relationship maintenance. Due to lack of experience in social interaction, later-year teens experiment with selfishness and caring, giving and withholding, controling and succumbing. It's a roller-coaster approach even though teenagers are too close to their experimentation to see that they are experimenting with relationships.

In the book, switching dates and trying to relate to great number of young ladies are activities that represent this very typical stage in life. Fortunately, youth mature past this stage. As obnoxious a stage as this might be to adults, missing it seems to retard a young adult when relating to people in the workplace in the mid-twenties.

A clue to people's intentions

Some languages use tone to distinguish meanings of words while others use tone to add to the semantic domain of a word. I used to have to deal with someone who would drink to get drunk. Always, the tone of voice would get louder and the denials that any loudness was happening accompanied any commentary that this was the truth. Loud tones are obnoxious to the sensibilities, but they do show where someone is placing the bulk of their intentions with a statement.



It works somewhat like people who would like to project an image of themselves through added accoutrements to their clothing. In the picture above, the wings and the halo make all the difference. Without them, the picture would convey a whole other idea.

It's no different with words and tone. Placement of tone arranges one's idea of what has just been said. For example, I don't need any of your advice can have several meanings. Watch the change in italicized words for a shift in the meaning.

I don't need any of your advice.
I don't need any of your advice.
I don't need any of your advice.
I don't need any of your advice.

All of the above tonal changes show where the emphasis is. So whenever, two people speak, it is always important to note the tonal nature of a statement. The person speaking will probably deny whatever tonal qualities one may point out to him or her. But, the listener will always know where speaker stands.

Tone placement is only a part of the prosody of a language. But, it is an important part of a language because tone carries meaning in addition to the meanings of the words used. It hints at intentions, which people will and can lie about frequently. A person has to stay on his toes sometimes to remember to listen to the prosody of the language being used. But it's worth the extra alertness. He will always be aware of others' intentions and act accordingly.

He's waiting on us

As people look at their lives, they supposedly have the capacity to reflect on their accomplishments and on their failures. The longer they live, perhaps it gets harder. The failures are many times bigger than they like. They seem to outweigh, or at least offset, the accomplishments. What was an accomplishment at age 30 is mere child's play at age 50. I guess it gets down to the point of whether people can look at themselves in the mirror or not.

That's where rationalization steps in. People can also put out of their minds this reflective capacity. They go on with their lives in a "rum dumb" manner. Nothing changes. I think that's why in Revelation, when the Christians were looking to God for a preemptive military-style strike to wipe out the Romans who were persecuting them so severely, God instead answered,

Whoever is evil must go on doing evil, and whoever is filthy must go on being filthy; whoever is good must go on doing good, and whoever is holy must go on being holy (22.11).

Wake-up calls happen to people who want to reflect. The rest of the people just can live their "rum dumb, hum-drum" lives. That's the way I feel about it, too. I guess the wish to God this evening is for more people to desire the will to reflect—look in the mirror and realize the consequences of their actions no matter how dire they may be. God can do something once that happens.

Rays for shadows

Watching the darkness of the night fade into the hints of light at dawn is something special to behold. I guess if one lives long enough, it's like that with spirituality. One slowly grows over the course of the years.

The darkness of ignorance gradually dissipates as the light of wisdom grows ever stronger.

And what is revealed by the light is beautiful compared to what is masked by shadows and blackness. Night is the symbol of what hides evil and wrong. Day is the symbol of what is good and right. So, I cheer those who live with the goal of shedding darkness and allowing rays of delightful sunlight to engulf their spiritual journeys.

A walk in the park

Much of reaching any goal is to take one step at a time. Putting one foot in front of the other is not hard, it's just slower than what people want to do when they need to climb out of a hole. Patience is required. I should know this because every morning I walk. I get through with my 1.2 mile walk by putting one foot in front of the other—everyday. So, the image of a walk through life is probably the best one. From the last valley to the next mountain top is simply made by taking one step, then another, even if one has to rest along the way. The next mountain top is still reached. The last valley was a lot farther from the mountain top than this one, so this one should be a breeze. The next step starts tomorrow at 6:30 AM. I'll be there.

Whatever

Times get rough once in a while. Times seem good once in a while. Then, there's the mixed bag—the good with the bad. Maybe life follows the thermodynamic rule: for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Whatever.

It's hard to wax philosophical when chips are down. But, I guess the Maker can reverse chips when it is due time. I wish I could determine the due time. That's not the case, however. In the meantime, life goes on. Maybe not in the same fashion as before, but in some fashion nonetheless. Whatever.

Inside every dark cloud is a silver lining. A crock, of course, but it encourages people just the same. Then there's the story of the Chinese farmer whose son fell off of a horse. People said that's bad. But, as a result the son did not have to go to war because of his broken leg. People said that's good. But, the son's leg was not set right, so it became malformed. Now that was bad, except that he contracted a disease in the leg that doctors had to heal and refracture and reset the leg as a result. That was good. But not so... ad infinitum. That story is more like the roller coaster of life, but fictitious and a crock nonetheless. Whatever.

I hate the twisting turns of life. A country-western song a few years back had the title, Life is like a river. I hate not being able to see around the bends ahead. It wears a person out and otherwise keeps one from enjoying life. Whatever.

Stepping over lines all around

I was in a professional development session today. Out of about 50 people attending, I was one of 3 males. The presenter was female. She was supposed to have been presenting ideas on how to be an academic coach when helping with teachers in need of assistance. I was taken back at what was said at a professional development. It just goes to show what happens when people are not truly educated as to what information they are holding in their hands.

The female presenter first stereotyped males as wanting to give advice when asked a question. I have heard this said before by people outside the counseling profession, but scholars in the communication field know that relying on context rules out stereotyping. So, if a professional counselor or communication scholar were to make the same statement, it would not be generalized information, but specific information to a client or scholarly audience. But, I kept listening instead of tuning out immediately on the stereotyping comment.

Then, the presenter wanted to go into embedding phrases in statements that change how people perceive what is being said. It was pure manipulation doctrine. While it is true that how something is said can make a difference, rerouting a person's thinking to a reduced list of phrases to say a different way misses the point. Then, unbelievably, she crossed the line. She started saying how embedding certain phrasing was getting her husband to act a certain way and that sometimes her husband didn't respond to her pet embedded phrases. She crossed two lines, actually. She brought something personal into a professional setting. That alone is so-o-o unethical.

But then, she crossed into an area she apparently had very little knowledge of (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing [Alexander Pope]). She went from giving tips for communication in a quasi-counseling session to applying those tips to private and casual, even intimate, conversation. That is over the line, over the top, out of bounds, taboo, and otherwise academically sloppy. What is good for counseling sessions should never be applied to natural, casual conversation. The analyses of natural conversation is the subject of a whole body of scholarly work. She probably doesn't know that. But, too late. I was gone.

I left the session and did not return. At my age I don't have to attend a professional development session presented by someone who doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg about ethics or her subject matter. I guess I could chalk this up to a gender difference. But, that is a whole other matter with a body of literature all its own.

Looking for what fits best

There is no better book than Ecclesiastes to show how conservatism works in the interpretation of ancient philosophical books. The following is the text for chapter 4.1-3 of Ecclesiastes.

Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.

Conservatism requires one to take the surface meaning if at all possible. On the surface of the above passage, one is bound to see the pessimism or futility of living. "A person can't fight city hall" is the underlying message of the passage. In the second part of the passage, the dead and unborn are in better states than the living are. Have humans really stooped to such depths of depression as a group. The book is purported to have been written by a renowned philosopher. The first several verses of chapter 1 point this out. Does that mean that the prevailing philosophy of the time was one of bleakness, darkness, and futility? Even if the people didn't feel the way that the philosopher felt, the book that people of the generation wanted to pass on to posterity was filled with pessimism. That does say something about the people.

But there is another way of looking at the book and passages like the one cited so that it makes more sense that people would be proud to pass down such a book for the next generation. But, to do so, one has to throw the surface value out the window. One has to drop conservatism and take a more liberated approach. One needs to assume that literature was not being born as this philosopher was writing. The Iliad and the Odyssey were being written in a different part of the world about this time. The Indus Valley in India was experiencing some of its enlightenment and keeping records during this period. The Sumerians had recorded all kinds of stories a millenium and a half before Ecclesaistes came to the mind of the philosopher. So, people were fully aware of literary devices used in writing. Figurative language had been extant in languages of all kinds of people. Likely, the people of Israel were no different from their neighbors in understanding the elements of writing.

In every known society, injustices have existed. By bringing up the subject, the philosopher is not saying it is new or even overlooked. He makes a "life goes on statement" at the very least or he makes a broad generalization to denote a problem by stereotyping. Authors still do this in the modern era. It's a way get people to identify with a general set of characteristics so that they will stay interested in the book. He simply wanted people to say, "I have felt like this before" so that they would read what came next.

Another way to look at the passage is to capsulize it as an ancient document that reflected the philosophy of an era. Ideas from the book are bound by a context. Only if the ideas represent the universals of history should they be delivered to a future or applied to a past civilization. So, even if it was true that the philosopher was commenting about the harshness of life for most people, to say that he envied unborn or dead people presupposes that there is no afterlife. After the time of Jesus, the largest religion in the world values the afterlife. Thus, the reading is not to be taken univerally.

Yet a third way to look at the passage is to say that the philosopher is using the literary technique of hyperbole—exaggeration for an effect. He overstates the case so that people will see that the point of the passage is actually the opposite of what is being said. People should not feel so hopeless although circumstances could dictate that they do so. But who really wants to envy the dead or the unborn?

Even at the very end of chapter (vs. 16), the philosopher wants to make a point about leaving an imprint on the world.

There may be no limit to the number of people a king rules; when he is gone, no one will be grateful for what he has done. It is useless. It is like chasing the wind.

At face value, the passage is still very negative. Who can hope to be more than a mere speck in the sands of time? Give it up. No one is anybody. Percy Shelley said about the same thing in the beautifully written poem of the early 1800s, Ozymandias. If the great people cannot hope to be remembered, why would the ordinary person think he or she could? The second way takes the above cited verse and says that it has limited effect. The Jews in a little later time period came to understand that their way to be remembered was through their children. Their way to leave an imprint on the world was to perpetuate it through their lifestyle which lived on through their children, their children's children, etc. So, the passage is not universal but reflects only beliefs of a certain time period. The third way to understand the passage allows for one to say the philosopher is making an overstatement. He wants everyone to leave an imprint, but he knows that they will have to work hard to do so.

So, conservatism doesn't always work in interpreting ancient books. Sometimes the message of a book is like looking out at a certain terrain and finding features that don't fit the rest of the landscape. A person knows that there is an explanation for the anomaly of pointed rocks in a desert plain, but one has to go to the trouble of finding the explanation. Tolerance is the watchword I am trying to point to. Interpretation matters because it drives one's belief system. But, allowing for various supported conclusions takes maturity, education, or both.

The after-life place

At the heart of Christianity is the life after this one that is offered by the Teacher who said that he was from this after-life place. There is a monolog of Hamlet from the Shakespearean play by that name that expresses well what thoughts cross the minds of Christians about this after-life place. Hamlet refers to this place as "the undiscovered country," and hints that we would be worse people if this place did not keep us in check.

"For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourne
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
(Act 3, scene 2)

Hamlet is also thinking that life is so harsh that he would take his own life if he knew that he would not end up in a worse place in "the undiscovered country."

I think both of the aspects reflected in the thinking of Hamlet are true, but there's more to it when thinking of this after-life place. The Great Teacher told one of his twelve followers that he had clearly taught his followers in knowing how to get to this place. But, still people view this part of their belief as if they were a traveler looking at the ostensible parts of Christianity without knowing what is behind the viewable facade. It's as if a traveler were to look at a colorful shelter built in a paradise setting, wondering what the inside looks like. The outside is so inviting that surely the inside is at least as attractive. But no one knows for sure, so it makes the traveler a bit tentative.

It certainly gives us an occasion to reflect when someone close to us goes through the door of the beautiful house where we cannot follow. Our imaginations run wild. Our longings to be with them drive our pensive thoughts. What's on the inside? But, really, the journey is ultimately a solitary one. We have many cheerleaders in our lives, but we still choose for ourselves what to believe in life and how to act on that belief.

So, we arrive at the paradise island house alone with our deeds on our back. In the few moments before opening the door to the inviting house, my mind is going to be spinning, but I hope that I will be saying, "Think of a brilliant, white room. Think of a golden crown..."

Measured Words

Today gave pause to a really rare commodity—honesty. Many conversations don't have that quality or they scratch only the surface of a topic so that honesty comes easily. But, the conversation today was hard in some ways. So much of the time, I have to measure what is said because people anticipate what is going to be said. They think you said something you didn't. Or, people will take what you said and decide they don't like it. Then, they think you shouldn't have said what you did even if it was honest.

So, I look at nature and take a lesson in honesty from nature. Most of the time, what you see is what you get. I guess jungles might be an exception. Of course, if you understand the jungle, it doesn't really hide anything. If nature is rugged, it has a beauty. If nature is soft, hilly, or liquid, it is also beautiful because you can trust what you see. The beauty is a straighforward beauty.

So, I toast those rare moments of complete honesty—words that don't have to be measured.

At the intersection of learning

I had a chance to talk about what makes children learn today. It's really not good teaching although a good teacher can enhance learning. It's not really presenting information in a way that makes someone want to learn the information. It's what has been true since day one. People just like to put masks on learning. And learners are not to blame for being lazy. If someone is exposed to an idea, then it's a matter of how 5 factors combine. Those factors? Opportunity to proceed, personality of learner and teacher, interest in subject, intrinsic motivation to continue, extrinsic motivation to continue. If the combination of factors is negative, learning is minimal. If the combination is positive, learning is maximal. It's that simple no matter how many programs are sold or how many veterans learn their craft well.

Break it down for yourself. Why are you in the profession you are in? Did extrinsic motivation put you where you are? What factors combined for you to learn what you have learned? Interest in the subject? If you could learn in a field that you felt you were good in but that you felt you were cheated out of, then what factors would have to combine? Intrinsic motivation and opportunity to proceed?

So, it's true, no matter what the current wisdom of the professional educators is.

Looking back with no regrets?

I don't know about regrets. The word was coined because people have a tendency to look back on events and say that they wished that things had happened differently or that they wished that they could have said something more, or less, or not at all. Oedipus Rex has a scene at the very end of it where the chorus wants to give a moralistic lesson to the play. The last lines are to the effect that a person should conisder himself or herself fortunate if he or she can look back at the end of his or her life and find no regrets.

We've all had those moments in which we wish we could take something back. But, we all make choices as we go through life. We, most of the time, know what we are saying or doing at the time. But, to have regrets? I know a woman who has made it her goal to live life without regret. Her idea is that you make your decision at the time in the best manner you know how. If a mistake is made, you just ask forgiveness and go on. No regrets.

Maybe it's that simple. But, some tiny, little voice in my head tells me different. Life is challenging at best. In the case of Oedipus, destiny caused his demise. I sure don't believe that. But, is there a middle ground between destiny and always asking forgiveness and going on? I guess that middle line would be remembering what happened wrong and evaluating it so that it doesn't happen again or so that damage can be minimized or both. Self-evaluation is a human trait. Even though evaluation cannot stop something from happening again, it can help in minimizing the chances of something happening to the magnitude it did, again.

So once again, I am in the middle on this one. Maybe that's good, but it is a pattern - stiking the middle ground. Well, it limits regrets.

Believe it

"I can't believe what I just saw."

Such were the words of a colleague of mine today. Of course, it grabbed my attention. I had to ask what it was she saw. After she related the story, I couldn't believe my ears either.
"It's unbelievable." That was a favorite song of mine a few years back. I'm beginning to see a pattern form here. And then, there's the refrain in my mind I am reminded of whenever I decide to write something. A professor once wrote on my paper, "Incomprehensible." I really couldn't believe that comment since I was taking her for graduate credit. Amazing how I had made it that far in school and made other writing of mine comprehensible for other professors.

But most everything we experience goes in one of two categories—believable/unbelievable. The trouble is that the game is a guessing game, a game of perception, a game of illusion. Do I believe an experience because I want to or because something truly happened. Sometimes I look at my own, very real history and shake my head and comment inaudibly, "I can't believe that happened." So, to all who happen onto this blog, once you leave, tell yourself you had an unbelievable experience.

Into perpetuity

Easter is all about breaking the chains of death and seeing how God can tamper with the laws of nature He has set in motion. Easter is a perpetual reminder that the Son of Man visited but has gone ahead of us to prepare a place. Easter takes the symbol of the Great Teacher and lets it stand on coffins letting the world know not to seek the living with the dead.

I want my voice to join the millions of people worldwide both in this era and the great number of past eras in announcing our faith in the words of the apostle Thomas upon realizing that Jesus actually did go through crucifixion and resurrection, "My Lord and my God!" I want my eyes to look beyond this limited life to the world that remains an enigma and peer into Jesus' eyes like Thomas', when he said he didn't know how to get to where Jesus was going, and see Jesus say, "You have been with me; you know the way."

Yes, today is Easter and has been for 2000 years. It's the day that tells the world that the forces of evil will not win in the end. Someone is more powerful than the Controlling One from the Dark Side. The original apostles stared at Jesus' ascension with sheer amazement and wonder as he left the earth. They were silent with the inspirational awe that drives a life through its course come what may. Into perpetuity I will remember the last supper in which Jesus said, "In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me; and because I live, you also will live."

Hallelujah!

(The words of Jesus and Thomas have been taken from John 14 and 20).