RIP Stripey

This mongrel cat of dubious parentage… He loved to eat things he shouldn’t, starting with plastic shopping bags, then onto butter, and ice cream, and cookies, and cake. A few houseplants here and there to satisfy his mouth from time to time. He would find ways to climb onto counters, tables, and anything for a forbidden, tasty treat.

Amy named him Stripey when she was about seven years old. In an accidental litter, he was the first of the kittens to start showing some stripes.

He was born in Aloha, Ore., then made the ferry trip to Petersburg, Alaska when we all moved up. Vivace, our Bengal was his constant companion from the time they were kittens together.

Shelley was his favorite person. When we first brought him home, we had an older cat, a Siamese named Tora. In order to try to get the two used to each other, Stripey was given a home in Shelley’s room. From that time on, she became “his person.”

No huge wonder that at age five his obesity caught up with him, getting him sent on Alaska Airlines to Juneau Veterinary Hospital for emergency treatment. His long-term prognosis at this time was already questionable.

His defective heart, whether born that way or caused by his obesity, threw out occasional clots, resulting in thromboembolism. Cats that suffer this condition don’t typically have a very long future, if they survive at all. But he managed to survive almost three years after the first episode.

He loved laps. Complementing his love of food was his love of inactivity. Naps on laps: his favorite activity.

Oh, he would engage cat toys from time to time if he felt like it. He had a habit of yawning once or twice in preparation for play with a toy.

He never did learn to properly cover up his business in the litter box. (Bad parenting, I imagine…) He often leapt out of the box, scattering litter all over the floor.

Yes, he had annoying habits, he was messy, he cost us a lot of vet payments, and resulted in quite a bit of lost sleep and anxiety these past couple of months. But we loved him anyway. He was a fighter. Until this very last time he wouldn’t give up. He fought to live; much longer than any of the professionals thought he would.

We will miss your adorable, pretty blue eyes; the luxurious and silky coat; the hefty warmth; the plaintive, quiet meows; the intensely loud purrs; and the nightly ritual of sleeping on someone’s legs and sometime their neck.

It was so wonderful to have you around for eight years and nine months.

RIP, Stripey.

God suffers too (reflections on our cat, Stripey)

Our mixed breed cat, Stripey, not quite nine years old, has had health problems for that past three years.

Three years ago, due to his obesity, he came down with hepatitis (fatty liver syndrome) which required him to be flown to Juneau for emergency treatment and surgery to put a feeding tube into him.

A short while after his return he experienced his first episode of feline thromboembolism (blood clot blocks the arteries where it divides and goes down into his limbs, usually the hind ones) due to his heart murmur. It resulted in paralysis of his hind legs for a short period of time. With some injections of Heparin he recovered from this episode.

It was this first episode that I took as a sign that I needed to go visit my mother. I consider it a sort of miracle because it was only a few months later that she passed away due to ALS.

From then until last Thanksgiving Stripey was fairly healthy though he experienced a few minor thromboembolism episodes. Each time he recovered fully.

But since last Thanksgiving (2011) he has been experienced more frequent and severe episodes. Around Christmas time he experienced a series of episodes, some more severe than others.

Around the middle of January he experienced his worst case yet. He was in severe pain and appeared to be suffering greatly. (Why is it that this nearly always happens in the middle of the night, on weekends, and/or when the vet is out of town; i.e., higher vet bills?) It was to the point where I didn’t think he would recover and euthanasia was the only reasonable course of action. Elise and Shelley were in Hawaii at this time and Stripey being “Shelley’s cat” I debated whether or not to try to keep him alive until they got back (It was just a couple of days to wait).

Surprisingly his suffering decreased dramatically about 24 hours after the onset, so I chose to wait it out. Over the four weeks since then he has recovered and this past week he has been acting more like his old self.

However (the big word…), this evening (Feb. 14) approaching midnight as I was on the phone with Shelley, right after he was being himself, trying to jump on my lap he showed some suspicious signs that something was again the matter with him. I still had Heparin from the last episode so I injected that into him immediately. Unfortunately as the minutes and hours passed, his condition, rather than improving or even remaining the same, appeared to get worse. As I write this he appears to be in considerable discomfort and pain.

There is nothing I can do except to watch him, be with him (though I can only handle that for very sort periods at a time), try to comfort him, and pray that his suffering will somehow be reduced.

I suffer with him.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the parallels between Stripey and me, and with me and God.

I am sick and suffering. There is only so much God can do (I realize some readers will disagree, but this is what I believe) while preserving the freedom of all by allowing sin and all its consequences to run its course. Just as I stand by wanting to fix all that is wrong with Stripey, I believe that in most cases God must stand by, wanting to fix everything but unable to do so because to do so would violate freedom of conscience.

So God suffers with me (and with Stripey, I’m certain).

I cannot fix Stripey, but God, potentially, has the power to fix everything that is wrong in the world. I hear Stripey’s wails, and I hurt – deeply. God hears our cries, yet he is unable to fix things – at least not yet. How much greater is his suffering…

Stripey can’t understand why he is suffering. But he loves me (as much as a cat can) and he wants me to be with him.

I may not fully understand why I go through all the suffering, disappointments, hurts, and difficulties of this life. Hopefully I have a bit more grey matter in my brain that I can partly grasp some understanding, but in the end all I can do is love God and want to be with him, and he with me so that I can simply take comfort in his presence as he suffers with me.

The Bible doesn’t discuss whether or not our beloved pets will be reunited with us in the world recreated. I trust God will do what is best, yet I hope that I’ll be reunited with Stripey, with Tora (our first cat), and with Vivvy (if our time here lasts long enough for her to pass to death).

I can only tell Stripey (and I doubt he understands) that soon, his suffering will be over when he is euthanized.

We have a better hope. While we may suffer in this world, we can have hope and joy because we are promised that once sin is seen to be what it truly is, God will come to eradicate sin and all that is wrong with the world.

While I do the best to live each day in joy and peace today, I look forward to the tomorrow when the promise of recreation and restoration will be fulfilled in its entirety. I look forward to being reunited with my mom and my beloved pets.

What is Omnipotence?

Encarta Dictionary --

All-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority.

Wikipedia --

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

[Thomas] Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities… Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity.

---

Last night while in bed, I was awake for quite some time pondering the meaning of God’s omnipotence. I’ve heard from time to time challenges such as:

“Can God create something too big for him to life?”

“Can God sin?”

As shown by the Wikipedia excerpts given above, challenges such as these two examples are considered nonsensical and meaningless since it derives from a faulty and rigid interpretation of omnipotence.

A more realistic challenge to the meaning of God’s omnipotence is how God can be omnipotent and at the same time allow for human beings to have freedom of choice. On the surface it would appear that if humans had absolute freedom of choice, God’s power is severely limited, not just in the choices human beings make, but in the effects of those choices upon the world and the universe. (Once omniscience is thrown in, the size of the dilemma only seems to increase.)

This dilemma is resolved in a number of ways within the Christian tradition. Here I present three. First, and perhaps the most widely held explanation, is that human beings don’t have absolute free will; that is, human freedom is limited by what God allows. A second explanation is that God is in control of the flow of history, but not in control of individual human decisions. In this scenario God can intervene to maintain the proper course of history. A third explanation is that there exists a principle (or law) that supersedes God’s omnipotence (and consequently limits it), and it is this principle that allows for absolute free will in humans.

The objection I have to the first explanation is that in my mind, God is only playing with humanity. In this scenario free will is an illusion, no matter how it is cast. A limited free will is no free will at all.

The objection I have to the second explanation is again, God reserves for himself the right to reverse human choices that might throw off God’s vision of the flow of history. Logically, this line of thought leads to the conclusion that there is no free will; if God cannot allow anything that might ruin his plan for history, is there truly free will?

I also see in the first two explanations a paradox: By God limiting free will, he is in fact admitting that he is not all-powerful. By God admitting that he might at some points in time, have to resort to the use of force and coercion, he is also admitting that free will is more powerful than himself.

This is why I believe, for myself, that the third explanation fits most closely with what is meant by God’s omnipotence. I reject the definition of omnipotence found in Encarta (and other dictionaries). I also reject the traditional explanations of limited free will. I believe there is a principle under which both omnipotence and free will are subject. This principle I believe to be the dominion of God’s love. Love is the first principle under which all other attributes and actions of God must be subject, including omnipotence. I believe that God’s love demands that human beings have absolute free will to the extent that it can and will limit God’s power and actions in the world.

The principle can be illustrated (imperfectly, I hasten to add) by human kingdoms. How much power does a king have? He has absolute power over his domain. What is his domain? From a human monarchial standpoint, a king’s domain includes those that willingly submit to him, those whom through fear voluntarily submit to him, and those whom are involuntarily coerced into submitting to him. The king has no power over those outside of his domain. He can attempt to exert power over those outside his domain through persuasion or through force. In either case, the king’s power is exerted by bringing those outside of his domain inside.

What I am getting at is that God’s omnipotence extends as far as his domain and no farther. He has power over those who willingly submit to him. Unlike human kings, I do not believe God ever uses fear or force to manipulate humans into submitting to him. Therefore, God has no power over those who have not submitted, or are unwilling to submit, to him. Again, because God’s power is limited by love, he cannot employ force to attempt to bring those outside his domain inside. The only avenue left to him is persuasion.

The Bible never explicitly dismisses the concept of multiple gods. The entire Old Testament is framed within the context that multiple gods exist and that they each have their own domains. It is within this context that Yahweh declares himself to be the God of Israel and that they are his people. It is within this context that God demonstrates that the various aspects of nature attributed to various gods, are actually within God’s domain.

God’s domain includes what is created, but there is one thing it does not include automatically: beings given free will. In the story of the Fall, in Genesis 3, when the serpent claims to Adam and Eve that “they will be like God,” he is not lying. Surprisingly the serpent may even be showing some restraint, because by claiming independence from God, Adam and Eve actually become their own little gods, claiming for themselves a domain that is no longer under God’s power. In Ezekiel 28 the prince of Tyre is accused of claiming, “I am a god.” Although the response is, “You are but a man, and no god,” within the context of free will the prince of Tyre is speaking the truth.

God’s plan and purpose is to bring all under his dominion. The only means he can use is persuasion through love. That is why the Father sent his Son, to be incarnated as a human being in Jesus Christ. I believe this is what Paul had in mind when he penned (quoting an even earlier Christ-hymn):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

Philippians 2:10-11 reads (quoting and interpreting Isaiah 45:23; also quoted in Romans 14:11),

So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

To me this is a critical passage because this is what gives God the right, authority, and power to judge and execute judgment over all creation. (The context in all three locations where this idea is found is the context of a final judgment.) What the Bible says is that at the very end all will willingly (all will be convinced of God’s rightness and justice, though many will continue to hate him) submit to the domain of God. Until this happens, God cannot execute final judgment because there are beings outside of his domain and consequently outside of his power and authority.

From a perspective of theodicy this is also critical because how can God rightly execute judgment upon a being who does not acknowledge God’s authority? Question will forever remain on whether or not God was good and just in executing judgment upon a being who did not acknowledge God’s authority.

This is my explanation on what I believe God’s omnipotence means, and why I believe humans have absolute free will.

What is faith?

“You’ve just got to have faith.”

“Just believe.”

These and similar phrases are often thrown about within Christianity. These statements assume that in many ways faith is opposed to reason, logic, science. Rightly, critics criticize Christianity (or at the very least its more public and vocal front) for its anti-intellectualism.

I don’t buy into that.

I believe faith is a logical extension of what can be experienced and reasoned.

A few days ago I watched The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? on PBS. The gist of the program was about whether or not our universe is singular or not. Scientists line up on both sides of the issue because the existence or non-existence of the multiverse cannot be empirically tested. There are multiple pieces of evidence that point toward its existence, however, and its existence would in turn explain many of the observed mysteries about our universe.

Towards the end of the program it discussed the role of mathematics: mathematics has often served as a predictor of scientific realities when those realities at the time could not be tested empirically. Many times these mathematic predictions contradict accepted science of the day but are later found to be true.

Some may choose to disagree, but I believe religious faith is similar to mathematics described in the preceding paragraph. Faith is never a leap beyond reason and logic, it is never wishful thinking, but an extension of reality. It integrates what is known and what has been experienced to project a future reality that is based firmly on the past. Just as mathematics models what is already known, and through those models discovers new realities, faith models what is already known and through it projects what the greater, unseen reality ought to be.

That is what I believe Hebrews 11 to be saying to us as it opens, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (ESV)

Thanksgiving 2011

This year’s Thanksgiving was different from previous years in at least one way: Shelley is no longer home. Because it costs so much and the holiday is so short, it didn’t make any sense for her to come home. Thus it was the three of us remaining plus a couple of friends that celebrated Thanksgiving together.

In the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Petersburg found itself under thick blankets of snow. After the first dump I spent quite some time digging the driveway out while Elise shoveled the path to the back of the house and cleared off the deck. It didn’t stay that way for very long as the second large snowfall came not too long afterwards on Thanksgiving morning. I was going to be busy and Elise didn’t want to shovel. She saw our neighbor plowing with his 4-wheeler so she gave him some money to have him clear out our driveway.

This year’s Thanksgiving dinner menu was -

• Cheese (key lime and cranberry) and crackers
• Green beans with white miso and mustard dressing
• Cranberry chutney with apples and ginger (requires subscription)
• Braised turkey breast and gravy (requires subscription – I used the slow cooker version found in Slow Cooker Revolution)
• Black wild rice stuffing
• Fennel and pearl barley stuffed acorn squash (found in Best of America’s Test Kitchen, 2011)
• Mashed potatoes
• Rolls
• Pumpkin squares

The day after Thanksgiving is Black Friday for much of the rest of the country. There wasn’t much black about Petersburg though. We have no malls, no crowds, and no one attacked anyone else with pepper spray.

I had a “50% off any regularly priced item $50 or less” coupon at TrueValue and searched the store for something close to $50 that I needed or wanted. I found some toys but they were just over $50. There was nothing in the kitchenware section that caught my eye that fit the criteria. I finally found a Black & Decker corded Dustbuster with a hair-removal attachment meant to be used for pet hair. Since all such attachments for our current vacuums no longer seem to function, I figured it fit the “need” category. I also picked up a set of plastic food storage containers that were on sale.

I wandered about the town and stopped in at Lee’s Clothing where I tried on some Nordic sweaters. Now you have to realize that these things run well over $200 at regular prices, thus not making them a casual purchase. However, they were 20% off on Friday and Saturday. I’ve been in Petersburg now for over five years and I still didn’t have a Nordic sweater. It may not seem that important but it is kind of like formal wear here. It can be worn to church, to weddings, to funerals, and to public functions. With the Oxford Caroler performances coming up (in which I’ll be singing for the second year), the sweater moved into the “need” category. As an added incentive I had signed up my American Express card for Small Business Saturday’s $25 credit offer. I found one sweater that I liked but needed to wait until the next day to make the purchase.

Trading Union had coupon offers this week as well. For each $10 spent there was a coupon for a free item: laundry detergent, first pound of ground beef, 1/2 gallon milk, 3# apples. I spent a bit over $30 and got the detergent, beef, and milk.

Friday evening was the traditional festival of lights parade and tree lighting ceremony. The weather cooperated nicely: not too cold and no rain or snow. There was a great turnout of people – much more than on some years when it was wet and soggy.

Late Saturday afternoon after collecting the mail at the Post Office I went back to Lee’s Clothing where I purchased the Nordic sweater I had picked out.

Perspective: Once Upon a Time vs. Grimm

I’ve now watched all currently broadcast episodes: that is three for Once Upon a Time (OUaT) and two for Grimm.

My impressions after watching the first episode of each was that I preferred OUaT over Grimm. After watching what is available up to now, my impression remains the same. Why is that?

A few days ago our younger daughter mentioned something about character-driven vs. action-driven plots in regards to writing a novel. That got me thinking about these two TV shows. Both have a similar point of origin: take fairytale and fantasy characters, place them in the modern world and develop stories around them. But the two shows couldn’t be any similar beyond that point.

In OUaT the characters suffer a curse, cast by the Evil Queen, in their home world and are dumped into a small town of Storybrooke in Maine. Their memories of their pasts are forgotten, and it is going to take the daughter, Emma (who knows nothing of the curse), of Prince Charming and Snow White to break the curse. The story contains action (mostly in the fantasy world), certainly, but that is not the primary focus. The focus is on how these characters interact with one another and grow. The interactions between the protagonist, Emma, and the antagonist, Regina (mayor, formerly the Evil Queen) primarily push the plot forward.

Grimm is a detective drama set in Portland, Oregon. It would be an ordinary crime-fighting drama except for the twist that characters from Grimm’s Fairy Tales are alive and well in the present day world, and most of them are not nice. It is up to the descendants of the Grimm family to destroy these evil creatures. Nick, the protagonist and detective, is one of them. At the opening of the series he does not know this, and only slowly begins to accept that he is different. Nick’s character develops as he responds to the surprises and challenges thrown at him. Nearly all of the antagonists exist for just a single episode, to fulfill parts required by the action. The only antagonists that have appeared in both episodes so far, and only briefly, are the shadowy Police Captain Renard and a hag.

OUaT seems to better fit the character-driven story while Grimm is more an action-driven one. OUaT feels innovative and new whereas Grimm seems more a reinvention of a standard crime-suspense drama.

My personal taste apparently runs toward character-driven stories. Of all the Star Trek TV series, I preferred Deep Space Nine because the characters really grew and fleshed out over the seven seasons. My favorite series was Babylon 5, again because it was about the characters and their interactions.

Or maybe because I’m Japanese and have been raised on and exposed to character-driven dramas. NHK’s Sunday evening epic historical-fiction dramas would be a prime example. A single series runs weekly for a year. Everyone knows the story already so it is definitely about the characters, often minor ones that are given life through the series. NHK also airs a series that runs 15-minutes a day, Monday through Saturday, for six months per series. There can’t be much action that takes place in 15 minutes (actually less because there is intro and closing), so again it is about the characters.

The point of my rambling is to report that both OUaT and Grimm are worth watching, depending on your tastes. I personally hope that OUaT is picked up for the rest of the season and gets additional ones, unlike so many ABC series of late.

Japan Trip Memories

		Japan Trip 2011 VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

Calm Between Storms

The past week has been quite rainy and stormy. The clouds broke and the sun came through this morning, however – a respite before another storm system is forecast to hit this evening.

I went out to the beach and walked to Hungry Point and back. Click on image below to view the album.