Thinking out loud here, so to speak. Proposal for thought:

Science is the process of turning magic into reason

For example, many people joke that computers operate by magic. Of course, this is not true, but then again, for many individuals, it might as well be. When one supposes that the rains come from a magical incantation, then later learns the processes of clouds and dew points and such, has anything happened to the rain? Of course not. But the perception has changed from magic to reason. Scientific study is responsible for this alteration.

I mention this in respect to the Biblical prohibitions against practicing magic. Consider Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (CEV):

When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to

imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

The immediate reaction of many Christians is to reject anything that our culture throws into the concept of magic. At any rate, this is a prohibition that I don’t think is harmful. And while I also don’t think reading fantasy novels should be rejected out of hand for this reason, I understand when a Christian makes that choice.

I rather have another point that I think is worth considering. Instead of reading “do not…[engage] in witchcraft,” read instead (for the purposes of this article) “do not engage any power which you do not understand.” Because you may be engaging a power which is antithetical to God’s work and holiness. In this case, the prohibition would become much larger, if we give the name “magic”–and we often do–to anything that does not seem understandable. But it also allows an additional path. Prohibitions need not be permanent, but to lift them requires understanding the power behind the operation and asserting that it is not something against God and his work.

I acknowledge that these thoughts may be misguided and incomplete, but I think it’s worth at least a few moments of consideration.

Ever since launching my poorly-planned website business (and perhaps before then), I’ve gone from one idea to another of websites that will make lots of money, and that–here’s the key–are not custom client sites. Because building custom sites is not my thing. I’m even working on one now. Although I have made a commitment to myself to stop (or at least back off) after this one, due out pretty soon. This intent will be helped by the forthcoming first child of my wife and I. The time for my silly business ideas is going to decrease significantly, I imagine.

Anywho, there’s no intended point to this article. Just rambling.

Part of the temptation is that of any “big deal”. If you can just do one, or two, or three, you’ll be set for life. And there are people who do it. Never mind that the odds of me being one of those people is rather low. Besides, being just set for a year or two is nothing to sneeze at, right? Right?

Another appeal for me is that websites are something I can do, on my own, in my spare time. Fortunately, I’ve finally realized that the really big websites rarely work that way, and even if they do, they turn into large, organized companies quickly if they’re really going to survive.

In the end, one of the biggest reasons for pursuing the next big website is that doing so justifies time spent on a hobby.

One of the things I particularly like about Financial Peace is the absence of “big deals” in the plan. You make a reasonable plan with some reasonable restrictions and investments and you just stick to it. But that’s not as fun is it? That doesn’t give the adrenaline rush. For me, being young, it’s easier to see Financial Peace as exciting because I can follow that plan to a very nice retirement.

I’d like to retire early, but, then, I don’t want to miss the years in between trying to get there. Especially when my wife and I have better investments than my crazy ideas and a bit of time.

To begin: I’ve been very frustrated this recent election cycle with the willingness of Christians to easily accept lies. For example, the “Obama is a Muslim” thing. Quite aside from the fact that I, as a Christian, am more than willing to vote for someone with differing religious beliefs (I voted for Bush in 2000 on the theory that I felt more confident that he had similar beliefs to mine and later concluded that was a mistake), the reality is that that rumor is a lie. And not a very difficult one to uncover. It was also a lie spread by Christians with the clear aim of deceiving other Christians. How utterly sick is that?

For the record, as a Bible-believing Christian, I hereby disown the religious right. Not all the people who consider themselves as such, but the certainly all the politicians and pundits who take advantage of that identity.

Anyway, sorry, way off topic. What I’m actually thinking about is recognition of lies. James 1:5 tells us, “If any of you need wisdom, you should ask God, and it will be given to you. God is generous and won’t correct you for asking” (CEV). So, number one and cheif is asking Yahweh for wisdom.

But another element, one right beside that, is a willingness to be aware of lies. Or, to put it another way, I must make a decision to test even those ideas and purported knowledge that fit my prejudices. Paul, in closing on his first (at least first listed in the Bible) letter to the church of Thessalonians, throws out a series of general instructions. One of them is simply “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, CEV). Now, for a one liner, it’s probably best not to make sweeping applications, but it is a reminder to not let my prejudices determine my belief.

It’s easy to research to death claims with which I disagree, finding any reason to reject those claims. Just as easy (indeed, easier), is to see a purported fact that is “what I want” and add it to my “base of knowledge”, thus exagerating the support for my pre-conceived ideas. There is no doubt a balance between being too quick to find problems with any idea and being too quick to accept an idea.

Perhaps, then, one key is simply taking time to consider. If I don’t let any new piece of purported knowledge into my general accepted knowledge of a subject for at least, say, a day, I have a much better chance of evaluating it properly. If I instead accept or reject it immediately, my pride (which is yet another issue) dictates that I now find any reason to support the claim I’ve already accepted. No good, that.

So, ask God for wisdom, examine new information regardless of my prejudices, and wait before accepting any new information as definite fact. That’s a start, there.

Ah, yes, I live in Oklahoma. And most of my co-workers are very much into college football. I, for one, enjoy watching the game, but don’t have a particular attachment to any team. But since most people I know do so, I tend to root for OU (I suppose then, if I have a bias in this article, it’s in favor of OU). So, anyway, naturally I’ve heard some of the recent debate/fiasco over the Big 12 method of deciding the division championship in the case of a round-robin three-way tie. I actually have a few comments on that method as opposed to the SEC method (eliminate third in the standing, then take the head-to-head winner of the other two) as I’ve listened to the discussions.

Problems with Elimate-the-Last method

My understanding of the SEC method may be incorrect, as I’m not interested enough in this thought problem to actually research it, so I’m examing what I understand to be the process (as noted parenthetically above). It has some problems.

1. The team that has the best (point wise) round-robin victory is very likely to lose the division championship, and the team with the least impressive point wise victory is likely to win. Because the team with the most significant loss (unless all games were pretty close) is probably going to be ranked third in the polls of those teams, and it’s likely that loss was to the top-ranked team. Guess who wins the division? The team not involved with the most lopsided game. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s likely.
2. A team is punished for winning a lopsided victory. Because the loser is of that game is likely the one to be elimated (in essence, this is just a different angle of considering point #1).
3. In a round-robin tie, there’s no way to logically use head-to-head victories as a metric. They’re all in the same boat. Eliminating a team using polls is not inherently different than choosing a winner based on polls (The poll voters essentially choose the winner in either case).

So, I think the SEC method is problematic, but what about the Big 12 method. Well, obviously, it’s not satisfactory to everyone. But at least it leaves the voters and computers trying to choose the best team of the three instead of the worst. The reality, though, is there’s just not enough games to come up with a non-controversial strategy. Some 120 teams with each team playing only 10% of the others. I imagine it’s simply not possible to effectively judge between them all. Even within a division, the teams play each other only once. There’s just enough games to ensure that every weakness will show up once, but not enough games to determine which weaknesses are general and which are one-time.

To me, the most sensible approach to a round-robin tie is point spread. Compare the margin of each team’s victory minus the margin of it’s defeat. After that, let the polls decide.

But, it must be acknowledged that determining clear champions in college football is a losing battle.

Discipline seems to have been a theme lately in my life. At a home church sort of group that my wife and I are a part of, it’s been a major topic the last month or two (ironically, we’ve missed the past few weeks). And it has been a key part of several recent sermons by our pastor. It’s also something I’ve thought a lot about lately in terms of money, having recently coordinated a Financial Peace University class at church, and also in my own emergent adventures with stock trading.

And, of course, my wife and I have a son on the way.

Discipline’s a hard concept because, at least from some approaches, it’s easy to overdo or misapply entirely. That is, I find myself asking, “In what situations and to what extent should my decisions be flexible?” Certainly, in some situations, they must, and in others (related to God’s commandments), they must not.

Some situations are tricky, though. Say in stock trading. I’ve decided to sell at X, but the stock is trading in an unexpected range. How long should I wait? Or should I stick with the strategy? Is that discipline or stubborness?

It’s not always easy to tell.

I want to be chiefly disciplined in my obedience to God and my relationship with him. Then there are disciplines related to my family and to my health. And then those related to my career and other financial matters (note, things like keeping a budget are disciplines related to my family). And it seems easier to judge when a discipline is appropriate higher up that ladder.

Just thoughts.