Danger, in the big picture sense

Most of us have the sense to avoid a dangerous situation, if at all possible.  But what is curious about this is how we define dangerous and how we categorize something as dangerous.
I was recently introduced to an opportunity to do humanitarian work in the Middle East.  In the midst of that discussion, the danger of the situation was articulated.  While it is true that the situation in Syria is extremely unsettled and dangerous, this is true only in one sense.  It could be argued that the situation in the US is just as, or even more dangerous, than Syria.  How so?
This question comes up because of the different ways we identify danger.  Yes, Syria is dangerous because one could be killed by a bombing, shooting or fanatic Muslims.  But in the US, one could pollute and eventually destroy their soul via distraction, the corruption of entertainment or perversion.  Considering this from a Christian perspective, which really is the most dangerous?  I believe Jesus said something about this... "gain the whole world but lose your soul."

One dimensionality

As you all know, we can easily access a multitude of Protestant church services on TV or on the internet.  They seem to be very popular.  But we don't see a weekly broadcast of the Divine Liturgy, anywhere. 
The reason for this struck me today during the Divine Liturgy.  As the priest was censing the icon of the Theotokos, one vast difference between a regular Protestant service and the Divine Liturgy is the dimensionality.  The Orthodox service consists of an interaction of the whole of a person with God, while the Protestant/Evangelical service, for the most part, consists of hearing.  You hear the songs (and maybe sing along), you hear the prayers, and you hear the sermon (by far, the bulk of the service). 
So really, in practice, a televised Protestant service, works.  A televised Divine Liturgy does not.  Hearing the singing, singing along, bowing to and kissing the icons, smelling the incense, responding verbally and physically to the words and actions of the priest, and the receiving of the Eucharist (the climax of the service).  All of these things make up the historic church service.
I don't think this leads to any final conclusions but it was thought provoking, at least for me.

Self defined

I wonder, why is it that so many people think that they can define for themselves, the character of God, the picture of heaven, the form of worship and the structure/laws of faith?  As Dr. Bahnsen (one of my religious mentors) used to say, "The Christian faith is not a wax nose.  We cannot form it however we please."  The historic Christian faith has been defined and articulated by the apostles, the seven ecumenical councils and the living Church.
As feeble, inarticulate and vascillating individuals, with an incredibly limited knowledge of history and even ourselves, we cannot, even must not, think that we can rightly articulate the Christian faith.  We must think of ourselves as one in the body of Christ, not individuals.

Objectifying the subjective

While I am not sure if the title of this article is exactly accurate, hopefully I can go on to clarify what it is that I am trying to communicate.
One thing that I have learned in the past five years of being Eastern Orthodox is that of objectivity.  The Protestant denomination of which I had previously been involved, prided itself on identifying and living out an objective faith built on an objective covenant theology.  But their doctrinal distinctives were, to put it bluntly, subjective, like all other Protestant denominations.
What I have learned in the historic church is that those things which may be seemingly subjective to us, are actually foundational and concrete within the Orthodox faith.  In practical terms this means that the experience and relationship we have with God manifests itself in seeming subjective ways, but these manifestations are, in reality, very objective.  Drawing into God's presence through active involvement in the Divine Liturgy is an objective reality that appears like a subjective experience.  Fasting and prayer draws us closer to God by focusing our attention away from the distractions of the world and into our hearts.  We love and interact with our Triune God relationally. This is not a legal arrangement like that of a judge and a criminal.  A much clearer picture was given to us by Jesus himself in the story of the prodigal son.  Ours is a loving father yearning to draw us to himself. 
So the real point of all this is the manner of relationship we have with our God.  The historic church has articulated and defined the way we live in relationship with our God.  It is not a privately defined, subjective experience.  It is a personal experience, for sure, but it is an objective reality that, in reality, draws us into deeper and deeper relationship with God.

The sins of others

If we think of others peoples' sins as a tiger that is attacking them, then we may have a little more mercy and sympathy in our interactions.

What is anger?

Maybe it is obvious, but I've been thinking about anger lately and am wondering what it is, exactly.  For one, we could say that anger is an emotion.  And that would be true.  But what is going on with it?  I'm thinking that anger is usually a response to a situation that we believe to be wrong or contrary to what we want.
Along the same lines, why is it that we are now seeing anger so prevalent in music?  Looking back over the centuries, I cannot identify any music that expressed anger.  All of the classical genres and all of the folk music, from the various cultures, does not express anger but instead, usually, joy, fun, or grief.  I wonder why this is. 
I don't believe our culture is really any different than multiple cultures in the past.  We have the same kind of sins and inclinations as everyone else.  Why is angry so prevalent now?  Have we become so self centered that we only think of ourselves and what we want?  One variable that we have, that other cultures have not had, is electronic technology.  This does allow us to focus on our own little world, of our own creation.
The Orthodox worldview calls for the living out of one's faith within a community.  This is centered on loving others.  Could it be that technology is drawing us away from life in a community?

Celebration

We have just completed our Pascha celebration, but really the celebration is just beginning.  For the next six weeks, the Antiochian Orthodox Church refrains from fasting.  My family, in turn, has chosen social, celebratory meals, which we will enjoy over the next several weeks.  This is simply something we have fabricated to make Pascha time special and memorable.  I'm sure there are many other possible manifestations of paschal celebration.  What do you do?  If nothing, I would urge you put together, something special to you and/or your family.
Pascha is, bar none, the most important day in all of history.

Pascha

Christ is risen!  It is, bar none, the most important day in history.  Christ has risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tomb, bestowing life!

The voices

The voices to which we have listened during our lives will be the same voices to which we listen in eternity.  This means that the call and pull of demonic influence will lead us into hell, just as they lead us into sin in the here and now.
One would think that the glory and beauty of eternal life would greatly outweigh the darkness of hell.  This will only be true in eternity if it is true now.  What we find appealing and enticing in this life, will be appealing in eternity.
Do we love God?

The world

We need to start really considering and taking seriously the idea of having the world but losing our souls.  The idea of loving God or mammon.  Living in a post Protestant America has made it very easy to be a moderate Christian.  Maybe moderate is too strong a word.

Killing in the name of...

I just finished reading a news article about how, at the current rates, Islam will out grow Christianity by 2070.  On the legitimacy of such predictions, I don't know, but what I do know is that many people have seriously wrong ideas about the role of religion in the history of war.
Many of the reader comments regarding this news article lay blame upon organized religion for many of the wars.  This mentality can be blamed on the Protestant worldview.  Protestantism began, in a practical sense with the great schism in 1054.  With the Protestant mindset came the idea that the individual can define Holy Scripture.  That very concept has been plaguing the world since.  And that very concept has led to innumerable wars, division and grief. 
The sad thing about all this (not that war and death is not sad) is that the modern American pretty much defines Christianity by the Protestant worldview.  And this has led to the need for the historic church to articulate itself as Christian but not Protestant.  IT is too bad that Christianity cannot simply be defined as one who practically follows Christ.
When people denigrate the Christian faith because of the hatred and violence that has been propagated by many in the name of Christ, they are making a massive logical error.  Claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian.  Much of what is done in the name of Christ is exactly contrary to what Jesus taught.
People that reject Christianity because of the errors or faults of those that claim to be Christian, are mistaken.  Read the Bible and see what the Orthodox church has to say about the Christian life and then decide what to think about Christianity.  Anything else is simply not honest.

Spending time

I've been pondering the spending of time, as of late.  Time, like money, is limited. It only makes sense to be aware of this fact and use the limited amount of time to our best advantage.  To make that decision, one must know what IS to one's advantage.
Sometimes I hear from my children that they are bored or that there is nothing to do and I have been wondering what is the best response.  I never had this trouble as a child/teen because I was a musician and spent a lot of time practicing.  But what really is the best way for a child to do spend their time? 
On one hand, I can see the wisdom of teaching a child to work hard.  But on the other hand, I want my children to enjoy their time at home and not see life a drudgery.  One thing that I am afraid of is allowing a child to make a "time use" decision on their own, when they don't have the wisdom to do so well. 
I have some ideas, but I really don't know what is the best answer.  Sports, music, hobbies, volunteer work, time with friends, and time with family are some options.  I suppose every family is different, but there are some obvious wrong answers to this question.  I'm thinking that tv and video games are not good choices. 
Any thoughts?

Nice?

This question has bothered me for quite some time and I'm not even sure if it's legitimate or reasonable, or even sane.  But after quite some time, I need to ask it.
"Why are people nice?"  We all know people like this.  They smile all the time.  They greet you warmly.  They always seem cheerful.  They never fail to say hello.  What is going on here?  Are they so friendly because they like to be that way?  Are they friendly because they have been taught to be so?  Are they friendly because they know they are supposed to be?  Do they do it because it makes THEM feel good?  Do they do so because it makes others feel good?
I suppose that the answer could be any of these or a combination of these or something else.  But, to me, it's a ponderous situation, especially since we are told that people tend to be self centered.  Maybe it's cynical to even ask the question or suspect ulterior motives but the question is still there.