Biblical evidence against "Stone Tape Theory"

I recently read a good article that questions the assumptions most paranormal investigators make about "stone tape theory." Other than that, I recently came across a Bible verse in psalms that dispels the core logic of stone tape theory.

Stone tape theory, also known as residual hauntings, is the idea that a ghost repeats itself. Usually at a specific timed event, such as the anniversary of that spirit's embodied death, or at the stroke of midnight. Stone tape theory is the idea behind what causes it while a residual haunting is the phenomenon itself. What stone tape theory proposes is that the earth can record certain events if the conditions are right and play them back under some set of special conditions (similar or otherwise).

I've been a pretty strong proponent of STT until recently because of a misunderstanding of Genesis 4:10 where Abel's blood cries out from the ground. But what brought me back to looking at that verse was a recent wandering to Psalm 103:15-16. In both Psalm 103:16 and in Job 7:10, a specific reference is made that the place does not remember the deceased.

As a place, a bed of limestone - even a magnetically charged one - should not remember anything. That means one of three things.

1. People who "see" ghosts are mad, hence the surge of reports reflects the overall human race traveling down the road of insanity.
2. Supernatural occurrences are happening more frequently but being misinterpreted as ghosts.
3. The media is a lying and the supernatural/ghost craze is perceptual, or worse, is another instance of life following after "art" (if you can call anything on TV "art").

I have to admit, though, a riveting thriller from Ambrose Bierce, Washington Irving or Ray Bradbury gives me pause to think about mortality and the mysteries of a world bound to it.

Call me cynical but everyone is born inherently evil; selfishness, greed, envy, spite, anger, bitterness, arrogance and pride exhume themselves like Hollywood zombies from our rotting hearts starting the day we're born. It takes extraordinary care, work and divine intervention to draw us away from our own natural disaster.

Perhaps it's these ghosts in our mind that keep chasing us. We each have our own tell-tale heart. After all, that's what Stone Tape Theory is, isn't it? Rocks that tell a tragic tale over and over again until those who hear it go mad.

Web 2.0 Culture and the Curse of the Turing Machine

Back at the beginning of 1995 I created a website named "Romantic Gestures". The purpose was to draw people into a virtual community who wanted to share experiences and ideas with others about all things romantic. In that time I noticed that people are more open about giving personal details on the internet than they were in real life.

People who were only five years old around that time are now 18, and the internet isn't the primarily-academic-coddle-baby it was back then. It stemmed beyond being a tool into being a full-blown culture. The Web 2.0 craze that took off about four years ago and introduced a level of creativity, open structure and more importantly, virtualized community-style culture. It's this culture that changed the upcoming generation into something almost unnatural. People began to do everything online. It lacked physical, personal interaction.

Babies require a good deal of coddling. That touch builds a naturally emotional bond to others and forms as a sort of grafting into the world. Without touch, a baby's will to live wanes and (s)he becomes failure to thrive.

Although online communities and groups are amazing and wonderful, I think they've become the backwash of their physical counterparts. People need physical interaction as much as the emotional and intellectual stimulus provided by the internet's vast array of discussion groups and communities.

The future is in merging the two. Use Flickr to identify people in your area to meet with. Use Blogger to locate others nearby that you can karaoke with. There's already a somewhat successful meetup.com model that allows people to interact with one another - but their interface and navigation feels stale and cumbersome.

At least the frequent emails from meetup keep me abreast that there is a world out there where people meet - they have faces and feelings and can do amazing things without the internet. There is a sort of sick comfort in doing things alone, though. It's selfish in a way. But having a spouse and children provides a life-giving feedback that my life is bigger than me and even bigger than the internet.

Nietzsche's monster allegory

It's just a core question about the state of our souls that most theologians have to ask by trade. Who doesn't at some time in their life feel vanquished, as in empty.

Most have the experience of rejection. When our offerings have been rejected enough times and we've been "put in place" (which in this case means reminded that they have no say in the matter at hand) enough times, we can actually convince ourselves that we're worthless... at least for a time... for most of us. Some never come back.

I wonder about that emptiness. That dead state. It's a type of insanity that breeds an awareness. We are not as important as we may hope to be. Our accomplishments don't mean anything to the big picture. Our impact is infinitesimally small. No matter how intelligent you are on a matter, someone else has a more desirable opinion to listen to... because they're not you. Life is personal, so we take these rejections personally whether we should or should not.

With a fair amount of consideration (or distraction) of the matter, most people return back a little more somber ... a little less bright eyed ... a lot less enthused. That was the part about "Flowers for Algernon" that freaked me out the most. People can be so subjugated and diminished to the point that their purpose and meaning in life is stripped away with it. It's akin to breaking a wild stallion then tethering it to a basement grain mill for the rest of its life.

When I feel cramped up too much, or see others in that state I find it helpful to put energy into something creative - in a displayable way. It reminds me that no matter how far down people may push me or how much they crowd me out that I am unique and add to life in a way that they do not.

I admit that there are times at work and even at play that I have to "play dead", myself. Sometimes a business' survival is more important at a given time and my participation to help that business, though it may be doldrum or even maddening at times, helps out others - it expands my world and restates my belief that life is more than just myself.

Possums and birds play dead to survive. Like I mentioned before, sometimes we have to do that, too. But if people "play dead" for too long I've seen and experienced that the spirit is quenched and a more sinister death starts to settle in. We began to feel robotic and sense that we are only a cog in a cold machine. Adults aren't the only ones prone to this.

It starts when we are little. We go to a failing school system; we watch commercials that train us to believe we are unfit (without their product); any friends or family that buy into the culture second guess everything we do to the point that we second guess ourselves; we go to a university where professors almost strategically tell us that whatever we know/think/love is crap (unless you agree with their world view - or at least bribe them a little); in the corporate world you're told that your job is not to think (at least for most).

Each time these attacks wave and crest in consuming foamy hands to wrench our necks when we try to be creative. It's policy; it's bureaucracy; it's parenting and policing and mentoring gone wrong.

I look back at a week ago when one of my children were so excited about something they were doing. I shooed them off "Daddy has to work. Don't bother me right now." and they slump away a little. I became the very monster that bored its way into my life until I dolefully gave in. That sucks!

Nietzsche was incorrect about fighting monsters. It's when you're spirit is defeated by the monster that you become like it.

Superstition

I recently watched a show called "Trick or Treat", hosted by Derren Brown. For those who don't know who Derren Brown is, he's the most famous psychology magician in the UK and arguably in the world (other than Benny Hinn). In the last episode of the second season he talks about superstition and it's curious ties with human reasoning.

He showed strong evidence that we are so self-absorbed that we naturally believe that random events in this world are in response to our involvement - no matter how detached.

I had to think about this and the book of Job came to mind. Here is a righteous man being tortured by Satan and his friends are picking on him, accusing him of doing wrong things that he never even thought of doing.

So I think there are Biblical applications here. In religion, we try to build a relationship between man-kind and the unexplainable. In a relationship with God, we often find that the best miracles happen when we do nothing other than sit and wait. So again, religion does not equate to relationship. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that there is an overall result of our behavior. If we do evil, God allows evil to fall on us with more severity and recourse to ultimate destruction. If we do righteous, then our prayers have merit and God will offer some graces and blessings where there would otherwise be none. But it appears to stop there.

Like my children, if they behave then after a while if they ask something special from me I'm more willing to give it to them - but they're still getting fed, clothed, sheltered and educated regardless. If they continually misbehave and rebel, then I step back and watch them fall. Sometimes I lecture them afterwords and sometimes I don't. Again, they're still going to be provided for regardless.

There's a proverb that it rains on everyone - the righteous and the wicked alike. From that proverb I agree with Derren Brown. Most of life occurs and it's what we choose to do with that occurrence that demonstrates who we are, but our ability in tomorrow's ball game is not dependent on our unwashed lucky socks.

So I've been rethinking some of the traditions and rituals I go through in life. Is it because I believe something will happen from it or because I think it's the right thing to do? That puts a new perspective spin on life.

The Human Soul and the Denial of Monsters

The pain of denying ourselves the Supernatural comes in the price of becoming vulnerable without knowing it. Like poorly drawn statistics, we find explanations and evidence where in actuality there are none. As I browse through a series of UK shows one series entertains the belief of ghosts while professing to have the goal of disproving them. Another goes through a series of horrific creatures from folklore such as zombies, vampires, witches, werewolves and even demons with such an angle that anyone who does believe in their existence is reportedly uncivilized and stupid.

Derren Brown, the psychological illusionist mentioned during one of his shows that the power of suggestion is its greatest on those who don't have strong foundational faith - particularly one rooted in God. Those who are atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Buddhist or otherwise are more susceptible to being influenced through suggestive forces.

Life is more than living like an animal. Animals live in the immediate with little regard of long term consequence. Banks would like little more than to reduce the admirable qualities of being human to that of a base creature so that people live solely for immediate gratification; having a population seasoned to practice debt for pleasure enslaves them and sets them on a leash by which they can be guarded and controlled.

Without control, we are civilly untamed, wild like werewolves and vampires in a fury who grapple bankers and lawyers and politicians with an eye for fodder. In this, there is no other course of action than to allow the chaos to settle in and the public have our way. But indebted, we are subdued into a trance where we become the meat dinners for monsters.

All legends have their beginnings. Some are reasonably seasoned over time until their roots are unrecognizable in a shroud of myth. Others are still new enough that they are debated among scholars and conspiracy theorists. But given enough time, things that should not have become forgotten are erased from the records leaving only the lore behind. Did St. George really slay a dragon? Was there really a King Arthor? Do the spirits of the Nephilim walk the Earth today?

Lore and legends are important to decipher because they reveal our innermost needs. They attempt to answer questions that mold and shape our world view. What is a soul? At what point does the animal part of man end and the spiritual part of man begin? What happens to man when he dies? Is there life after death? If so what is it like? What is the purpose of man? Are we accountable to a higher power for our actions? Does God continue to be involved in the world today and how? There are many more questions at the root of our existence, but one common trend is a clear battle between good and evil. We don't see that in the dumb beasts, though their fate is wrapped up in crossfire.

Our need to battle and conquer evil may invoke the creation of monsters, or perhaps the monsters that make up the contents of Pandora's Box creates the need to battle and conquer such evil. We do know, however, that an evil exists out there and only those who treasure the liberty and goodness of God's grace find purpose in fighting it while the rest of us... the rest of us placidly watch the outcome of zombies, vampires, witches, werewolves and other powers of darkness on the silver screen as the real monster counterparts close in.

The Human Soul and the Frankenstein Effect

Movies are an amazing part of our culture. Each movie has a message through which directors, editors and producers take the art work of the actors, camera men, sound men, prop builders, makeup artists, etc and build out a (hopefully) coherent slant or idea. Sometimes it's as base as revealing our crass natures to be compelled to watch vile trash. Sometimes it's highly intellectual and perpetuates water cooler conversations about life's mysteries.

One recurring theme in science fiction and horror movies is the Frankenstein base. This book poses two questions: At what point is the act of science crossing the boundary of playing God, and at what point does the human soul exist or not exist?

There are certainly other aspects to Mary Shelley's story, and I don't want to typecast her novel into just these two ideas, but they are core concepts that have riddled philosophers for ages.

It appears that the first question is loosely tied to another theme. When man uses science to overcome mortal fear, the result is something to be infinitely more feared. In conjunction with this, the outset of the creation can never exceed the creator. In other words, we can't make humans better than they were created to be in the bounds of the natural laws and trying to do so creates a monster. Even in reality, medication has side-effects which include mortal danger. The balance and trade-offs that typify a "lesser of evils" concept is prevalent throughout nature. The question remains - where is that balance, and who are we to determine it?

In Robert Louis Stevenson's book "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde," a scientist tries to separate the mortal sin from the soul. The problem is that sin dominates our lives so instead of an angelic and benevolent personality surfacing, he split out a psychotic and horrific personality fit for the city of Sodom.

Frankenstein is not much different. A scientist is looking for a path to immortality, but discovers that with an immortal body comes an eternal pain. The monster is never given an identity, leaving it soulless. Though the experiment is a success, its level of suffering significantly outweighs the level of elation, and readers are left to view meddling with nature in such a fashion as a failure to all humanity.

These themes have only become more modern with scientific discoveries. The 1958 version of "The Fly" takes a scientist who intends to defy the laws of creation to disintegrate and rebuild molecules of living animals in a God-like manner but finds himself a victim of carelessness. This leaves those around him struggling with the concepts of morality and the limits of the human soul.

At first, Andre the scientist is arrogant. He claims to know God's purpose for humanity without acknowledging God's limits: "God gives us intelligence to uncover the wonders of nature." After catastrophic failure he denounces that statement: "There are things man should never experiment with. Now I must destroy everything, all evidence, even myself. No one must ever know what I discovered." His wife tries to convince him not to follow through: "You can still reason, Andre... You've still got your intelligence... You're still a man with a soul. You've no right to destroy yourself!"

"The Fly" equates intelligence and reason with having a soul. As long as the half-man-half-fly can reason and shows intelligence, the man-creature is considered to have a soul, and killing him/it is considered murder. In the movie, the truth is merely twisted to simplify the innocence of Helene, but even the Inspector, after squashing the fly in the web considered his act the same as murder. You can't murder a thing, so it must have still had a human soul in context.

The newer version of the fly from 1986 was much more atheistic and followed more of a "using science to overcome fear results in something more feared" approach. There are some thoughtful punches about how cognitive and intelligent behavior separate man from beast, but references to a human soul were absent. The Brundle-Fly transformation showed more of a reverse evolution effect, and the duration of Seth's transformation into a fly was prolonged only because it felt good rather than out of hope to return to a human state.

A new model of Frankenstein effect has come out recently under the context of zombies. Specifically, genetically altered humans. Movies such as "Resident Evil", "28 Days Later" and "I Am Legend" have been hitting the theaters since 2002 where everything from military experiments to pharmaceutical greed to philanthropic science has been the seed to bring about deadly results.

What makes these so frightening is that, like other Frankenstein effects of their time, it involves a science that most people know little about - even the scientists who currently explore these new venues. Creating life from the genetic level is also known to be problematic because of genetic mutation. Life that can change function or resistance over a few generations of reproduction is unpredictable and thusly, frightening. Using a virus as a mechanism to inject the genetic instruction amplifies the mutation and unpredictability because of its short reproductive cycle and its massive growth rate in a short period of time.

Because as a collective race we know so little about genetic based medicine, it has become a modern-day equivalent to technologies of electricity and surgery back in Shelley's time.

Nevertheless, the heart of the matter is the human soul. To be spoken of with any credibility or seriousness, zombie manifestation, like all apocalyptic events have to deeply coincide with faith and spirituality. If not from Biblical context (Revelation 9:6), it should at least be taken in the context by the merit of the soul.

If any one of us were to turn into a zombie, would we have a soul? What is a zombie? Could someone be both dead and alive at the same time? What is the essence of man and when does it leave the body and can the body survive without it?

Ghosts are easy - they're disembodied spirits. But zombies hold the paradox. Not only does it question life after death, but like in the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner", it questions life-in-death. At what point, if any, is man reduced to a dumb animal? At what point is the human soul lost beyond redemption? If it can be redeemed, then what's the price?

Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold :
Her skin was as white as leprosy,
The Night-mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.

-Rime of the Ancient Mariner

What's written on the stones

In Deuteronomy 27, Moses commanded the people to keep all the commandments and when they get to the promise land to write them clearly on large white-washed stones from which an alter is made and burnt sacrifices are performed.

The account of the event was scribed in the book of Joshua (8:30-35). Half of Israel stand in front of Ebal, where the alter is made and towards where curses are announced while the other half stand in front of its twin mountain, Gerizim where the blessings are directed.

It's important to note that the Bible makes it clear these people included the elders, officers and judges. These are the people of political and social responsibility. Others of spiritual responsibility, the priests and the Levites with specific mention of those who bore the Ark of the Covenant, stood in the middle valley between them.

Here they gave a blessing and a curse. The curse was towards the mountain Ebal and the blessing towards the mountain Gerizim. Today Ebal stands bald and lifeless while Gerizim is green and lush[1].

There is so much more detail here, and the word picture is elaborate on many levels. But I'll only address a few of these points and hope that it interests you enough to do more research.

First, the law was written on heavy white-washed stones. The stones are heavy and burdensome, but they can still be carried with you. They can be broken. They are solid and immalleable. These are all properties of the Law. Another thing - the people weren't allowed to use hammers or chisels. These are laws that are unshapable by man.

As a sacrifice is made on top of these stones the blood drips down over all of them, covering the Law. An alter wasn't built on the mountain that received the blessing, but specifically the mountain that received the curse. Righteousness requires no sacrificial penalty because it doesn't get cursed, and thereby doesn't require atonement.

Jesus sacrificed His life to cover the Law and all the nooks and crannies - the grey areas - between them. The Law is pure and clean, like the white-wash on the stones, but we aren't perfect enough to keep them all the time. With sin comes the curse. God made the sacrifice available for this atonement. Many years after this event, His own blood covers that curse.

Second, there is a clear dividing line between blessings and curses; right and wrong are indisputable. One mountain demonstrates the richness of life while the other exists in barrenness. The mountains aren't connected. They even have different physical demeanor to separate them.

These blessings and curses are real. Our actions have consequences - actions that are categorized as righteous or sinful. Obedience to God produces blessings while disobedience brings a curse.

Rabbi Riskin identifies the very existence of our choice of actions to be a blessing as well.

Undoubtedly built in within the very structure of free will is the possibility of one's taking the wrong path and bringing about the curse of destruction. However, without free-will, the human being would be no different from a rat in a maze, a mere puppet or pawn; with free will - despite its concomitant dangers - the human being is a partner to the Divine. [2]

Third, the spiritual leaders are in the valley dividing the two mountains. For anyone to say "what feels right to me is accounted to righteousness and what feels right to you is also accounted to righteousness" is missing the whole meaning of righteousness. It isn't what feels right or wrong, it is subject to a universal law. Relativism and basing truth on feelings only confuse the issue. God gives us His word (such as that represented in the Ark) and He provides spiritual leaders (such as the Levites) to identify that dividing line for us.

Lastly, the people celebrated during this event! It was an occasion of joy and feasting. When God identifies our purpose in life and gives us boundaries it isn't an issue of what we aren't allowed to do but an essence of being a part of His people. Boundaries protect and guide and work as a benchmark - this is true no matter what aspect you're talking about. From database design to surgery to school playgrounds. Everything needs some type of boundary to excel and become beneficial for everyone.



[1] A Tale of Two Mountains By Yosef Y. Jacobson, http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?print=true&id=2292
[2] Shabbat Shalom: Parshat Re'eh (Deuteronomy 11:26-16:17) By Shlomo Riskin, http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5764/reeh64.htm

Spiritual flaws and support for character assessment

OK. Here's the first part of a hot rant response on the career path program that occurred in my work place. Before I begin, I want to mention that the owners of the company are incredible. You will hardly ever find two more dedicated and wonderful people who love their work almost as much as they love helping others. They paid to have this executive level program brought to everyone in the company because they believe that it helps us in our walk of life.

Secondly, I want to mention that statistics can be deceptive. Without a full report on the target of the assessment and mention of the process with who was admitted and who was rejected from the sample, it's difficult to ascertain a full body of truth from the numbers. All the same, statistics and psychoanalysis are interesting and shouldn't be entirely rejected.

So to the first step - DiSC assessment. Well, I believe this is another facet of generalization that has similar pinings as astrology. I'm born in early August, which sticks me at the Leo portion of the astrology circle. But to be honest, I am more like a Capricorn than anything else. I haven't tried business matters, so I'm unable to determine how well I'd do there, but when I think I know what's best, I'm stubborn as a mule; it takes a very persuasive argument to lean me towards anything else. I also over think everything and you'd have to get through me first before you come close to hurting my family. Oh, and I'm also much like a Taurus - it is so me. I might have been civilized over the past seven years, but I am so passionate about certain aspects of life that I can't keep my mouth shut, which often leads me to trouble. Although I strongly believe people of all ages can change if they want to, I also believe that there are certain universal truths that should never change. I steam up quickly and hotly. But I also forgive others at a drop of a hat when they ask for it or when new evidence comes to light - I look for reasons to forgive them.

OK - cutting to the chase. It could be just me; I won't rule out that there are some people in this world like "The Pretender" who could slip into almost any role, and when I took the DiSC assessment, I sat almost perfectly in the center of the wheel. Supposedly that means I have the ability to become any personality I want to with the right motivated effort and environment. But I believe that God gave us an incredible ability to change.

He wouldn't give us commandments, especially through His Son, if He didn't believe it was possible for mankind to follow them to some extent. None of His commandments say we have to be able to fly or that we aren't allowed to love if we want to be saved. He does say, however, that He doesn't expect us to perfectly follow the basic ten commandments - so He sent someone to intercede for us. Interestingly, the message in the Gospel of repenting is common throughout the entire Bible. If He believes we can change - repent means to change direction back to Him - then we can. He made us and knows what we're capable of. End of story.

The trick is you have to head towards a goal. In this case, it's obvious that the Bible is referring to turning back to God and His righteousness. But it seems reasonable to me that anyone having faith enough can move in any direction they choose. The problem I have is having faith in a world of will-nots and can-nots. It's difficult to believe that I can change into who I know I can, and should, be when people are constantly telling me I will-not change because I'm too old or I can-not change because that's just not the way things happen.

Bah! Who said it would be easy!? In a society where instant gratification is the norm, they've lost touch with the real issues. People don't always change on a dime. We are wired to repeat an act until it becomes a habit, then repeat a habit until it consumes who we are, but with God all things are possible. I've seen people drop some really nasty habits without anything other than sheer willpower. They had no help from patches or therapy, and in some cases, not even help from a friend or an accountability partner.

I've been systematically tamed out of passions to the point that I'm more effectively controlled in the business world. That's not entirely bad. Even a wild stallion, as magnificent a creature as it is, is useless until it's been tamed. Meekness, I'm finding, is a valuable trait when used properly.

However, after watching people in the work place it's obvious that there are benefits at times to breaking the rules. People at work have become praised, if not marked as little heroes, for their willingness to do something clever that hadn't been suggested to them. That means there are certain unspoken "soft" boundaries, that although the general mantra in the work place is "do as you're told and nothing else", we can find something outside of that rule to bring laughter and joy and ease to others. Just don't toot your own horn. Even when you fix something important, it backfires in animated proportions.

My biggest challenge is keeping focused on the vision and keeping a motivated faith on it. My second biggest challenge is to regain the outside-the-box mentality that's been put aside for the sake of business, then learn how to wield it properly to the benefit of others to bring more joy and humor to the world.

Twenty touches

Each night my children and I spend anywhere between fifteen minutes and two hours together. Most of that time is spent reading before bedtime, but that time is also used to reconnect.

Many years ago, my wife and I attended a Gary Smalley seminar where he briefly mentioned the importance of touch. It's something we all need to live. So I thought to myself that if I don't supply my children with enough positive words and touches each day then there may come a time in their teen years that they look for that need elsewhere and end up experimenting with touch in ways that isn't allowed outside of marriage.

So I asked my kids, "Do you get enough loving touches throughout the day: pats on the head, pats on the back, hugs, kisses... stuff like that?" They all answered "no". So I wondered - how much do they need? Then came the question. "How many times do you feel you would need to know you are loved?" The eldest child only thought briefly before saying her answer: "Twenty times!".

That's quite a bit of touching to take place over the two to three hours I have available for them during the week days. With the size of my family, if everyone got 20 touches a day that would add up to 100 touches a day - not including our dog.

If that were spread throughout a three-hour-twenty-minute period it comes out to touching someone every 2 minutes.

I only remember getting a meaningful touch about once every other week growing up, which was still more than most of the kids I knew. I'll bet our society has even pulled back to the point that children are only given a meaningful touch once a month, and that's reserved for when the child initiates the hug.

One last thought - giving my children that access to my personal space makes me a tangible figure for them. I become more real and more accessible in ways beyond the physical. Hopefully they'll learn that and come to their real accessible Dad during the more trying years ahead.

Sigh

I'll get back to the habit post later, but something struck me that I really want to share and remember.

Why do people sigh? If others are like me, they sigh when they're about to face an event or person that brings a sense of trouble or frustration during a time when they are already tired or they sigh in relief after a good amount of tension has passed.

It's sort of like saying "As tired as I am, I'll step up to take care of this tedious task, but I wish it wasn't necessary." For example, if the dishes in the sink are flowing over and the dishwasher is full, either I sigh or my wife does. The one who sighs is generally the one who takes the responsibility.

Sighs of relief are a bit more rare. It's like holding your breath in anticipation, then when the event is over letting it out. It's that moment at the end of a good movie or sports game when you say "Whew! That was close."

While reading through Mark I came across something that stood out. Jesus sighed. It's mentioned twice in the Bible - both times in Mark, almost back to back in scripture (Mark 7:34, Mark 8:12). Jesus apparently had moments of exasperation. He didn't get angry, but you can see his disappointment.

Mark 8:12 is obvious, so I'll address that first:

And the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him (Jesus), seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him. But He sighed deeply in His spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." And He left them, and getting into the boat again, departed to the other side... Then He charged [the disciples], saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

There are other issues going on through this verse, such as bickering about a loaf of bread, hardened hearts, and selfish ambitions amongst his disciples. Though that contributed to Jesus' frustration, I don't think it was the root of His sighing.

Jesus shows frustration on two specific related issues. At first it appears that it might be because the Pharisees are being a pain, but Jesus has dealt with these jerks before. I think it specifically has to do with them demanding a sign and spreading some idea that even though Jesus heals the sick, the lame, the blind, the possessed and has miraculously fed thousands that unless He can make some super-miracle sign from heaven (like maybe turning the sky green or something goofy like that) then He can't really be (from) God. And I think the second issue is that his disciples and others were starting to believe that the Pharisees had a point.

It's obvious from these troublemakers that even if Jesus gave them a bigger sign than He already had through His ministry that they wouldn't be satisfied and would want an even bigger sign. They didn't want a Savior, they wanted a magician.

Jesus could have given a big enough sign that it would have overthrown the Roman Empire. This should all sound familiar - it was a temptation from Satan when Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days (Luke 4:5-6). He wasn't here to do that, and doing so would have gone against the will of God The Father.

That second issue is about leavening. These Pharisees and Herodians are trying to devalue the works of God. When they start spreading thoughts that what Jesus is doing isn't good enough evidence of who He is and others start believing it - even His own disciples - that's a great disappointment.

How should we apply this? We need to be steadfast in God's word and get to know His character. Most churches teach what the Bible says, and the good ones go as far as how to apply it - but how many really go into the character of God? We need to be on lookout for that. It's our individual responsibility... and let's stop putting conditions on God.

We shouldn't say that if God is really God then He wouldn't allow some event to happen or that He would have performed some crazy sign. That's what the Pharisees and Herodians did. Sometimes He does give us signs, but I don't see evidence that He does it to show off who He is, but rather to help us know who we're dealing with. I doubt that's the type of sign the Pharisees would be willing to, or want to, accept. Even when Jesus was crucified and the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom they didn't take it for a sign and just sewed it back up.

Mark 7:34 is tougher to get through. Partly because the man's heart isn't revealed until well after Jesus sighs, but remember that God can see into the heart of man and that He can tell what state it's in. The gist of this passage is that Jesus heals a deaf and mute man who had nothing more than the selfish expectation to be healed. Jesus tells him not to tell anyone (this has caused trouble in the past - and I believe it ultimately led to the Pharisees confronting Jesus in chapter 8, see above).

You'd think this guy could at least be quiet - after all, he was so speechless that he didn't even take a moment to thank the LORD for healing him. But he immediately runs off and disobeys Jesus' command with the very tongue that was just healed. How many times do we beg God to do this - or to do that and expect it to be done, then get angry with God when it isn't to our liking... or when He does answer our prayer we go off sinning just like before - perhaps with the very part of our life that God just healed?

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask. God makes it clear that asking Him is good. When we come to expect it from Him is where we go wrong. We can't put our sinful man-limited expectations on the creator of the Universe and expect any good to come of it.

Then, when God does pull through we should turn to Him in gratitude and ask Him what we could do for Him . What He wants usually isn't what we think He wants. Our society is selfish by nature. We tend to quickly forget the good that others do and remember the bad. Apparently this neither new, nor specific to our culture.

Go against that selfish grind. Pay close attention - people are doing thoughtful things for you that you have no idea of. Find out about those things, then when you discover someone doing something kind, thank them and ask what you could do for them. In the meantime, list out specific times in your head when something happened (or didn't happen) to save you from trouble... chances are, that was God. His greatest miracles happen when there is the least expectation.