Monday, March 8, 2010

Though You May Not Feel

Dear Friend,

I wrote this short poem last night; let me know what you think. It's a poem about disconnectedness and consistency. Often I don't feel God's love in any real meaningful sense; that's what this poem is about.

"Though You May Not Feel"
Daniel R. Diffenderfer

Though you may not feel the warmth of summer on your face

The sun still shines beyond the lines of trees and cityscapes

Though you may not see the stars sparkle in the sky at night

The heavens still glitter above litter-ing clouds and citylights

Though you may not feel the breath of earth kiss gently upon your face

The wind still dances beyond these trenches, the urban cityblockades

Though you may not feel the warmth of my hands, the light of my eyes, the touch of my lips

My love still burns.

Be good,


Saturday, February 13, 2010

Dear Soulmate: An Open Letter to My Better Half

Dear Soulmate,

Forgive me if I sound rude, but I must be honest with you when I say that I often doubt your existence. The idea of a soul existing in some eternally-generating haze that is spliced in two and thrust into two separate bodies that will somehow stumble upon each other due to some cosmic aligning of the stars sounds sounds far-fetched to me. Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of you immensely. In fact, I've spent many hours writing you songs and poems that I will one day use to woo you. However, the issue behind my belief in your nonexistence lies largely in the fact that I am not a Calvinist. If I believed in predestination, then believing in you would be a foregone conclusion.

If I believed in predestination, our love story would be perfect. We would meet doing missions work at an orphanage in India, and you would fall madly in love with my handsome... character. Love itself would be blind. As such, I wouldn't notice the fact that you were incredibly hot and would instead constantly dwell on your... Godliness. At dusk, we would hold hands and walk through the streets of Mumbai, smiling at all the dark-haired children scavenging in the trash for their next meal. We would return to the United States and get married in a white country chapel. At our reception, we would slow dance to "I Want You To be My Love" by Over the Rhine. My arms would be wrapped around your waist, as I gently whisper in your ear my undying love. We would honeymoon at the neighborhood Motel 6, as they would have left the light on for us all these years. I would get a job at the local Kinkos, and you would listen to me complain day-by-day as I came home from work. My gym membership would come into good use, because I would constantly be working on my physique to stay as sexually appealing as possible. At age forty, I would support you as you ran for the Mrs. Tennessee pageant. You wouldn't win, in part due to your commitment to our sixteen children, but I would convince you that the judges were bribed by the surgically enhanced Canadian contestant and would comfort you. Nine months later, we would welcome our seventeenth child into the world with moderate excitement. At age seventy-nine, I would pass away unexpectedly after four years of hiding my pancreatic cancer from you. At my funeral, our eighteenth child would offer a stirring eulogy in my honor. You would place a single white rose and the bundle of love letters I wrote on my casket as tears fell from your eyes--only I wouldn't be able to brush them away this time.

But I'm not a Calvinist. Goodbye, nice thoughts!

Reality is, the idea of a soulmate itself is quite troublesome. Given the Bible, I just don't see any real support for the idea. I'm nearly certain that Walt Disney, Jane Austen, and Mr. Hallmark invented it in a boardroom meeting as a stroke of marketing genius. Throw the polygamy from the Bible into the mix, and it's even harder to argue for soulmates. I mean, it's easy to figure out who the soulmate is in Jacob's Leah-Rachel relationship. However, once you throw a couple concubines into the tent, things really get crazy!

You see, I'm torn. The romantic side of me really wants to believe we'll meet in that orphanage in Mumbai, but the realistic side of me says I'll probably bump into you at a Pilot gas station somewhere south of Mobile Alabama. At that point, things will get really awkward because I won't quite be sure what to call you. I mean, I couldn't call you my soulmate because I would still stubbornly cling to your nonexistence. Therefore, I would be stuck affectionately referring to you as "bestie." After all, there is no predestined, cosmic aligning of the stars that has to arrange for you to meet your best friend. Thus, with the whole soulmate concept firmly off the table, we would live a life of happiness knowing that there was absolutely no divine intervention in our relationship.

Problem is, I don't like that thought. Though it may counter all of my reasoning, I actually quite like the idea of you. I mean, it's probably ridiculous and will never really happen, but I still like the thought of you. I guess that's why I'm writing you this post in hopes that you will one day you will stumble upon it by sheer accident some day during a game of chess with your brother. More than likely, you will have just captured your brother's queen. Due to his ongoing anger issues, he will throw the board across the room in a fit of rage at which point the pawns and the rooks will conspire to land sequentially on your open laptop keyboard and type "Daniel Diffenderfer Solemate," and a stray knight will Google it. Despite the rook's lack of ability to spell, the Google spell checker will providentially catch the error and redirect you here. Welcome, bestie.

The more I think about it, I think I might just convert to being a Calvinist. It would make things a lot easier all the way around. And this note wouldn't be half as long.


Saturday, February 6, 2010

Unmasking Paul: An Introduction to the Most Misunderstood Man in the Bible

Dear friend,

One of the most misunderstood writers in the entire Bible is the Apostle Paul. The retort that I most often hear to respond to my Messianic theology is, "What about Paul?" After all, the entire basis for Christianity's rejection of Mosaic Law rests squarely on the Apostle Paul. I mean, of course Jesus rebukes a few Pharisees here and there, but the verses Christians most often quote to absolve themselves of any possible commitments to Mosaic Law are all found in the writings of Paul--especially Romans and Galatians.

In order to understand Paul, we must have a grasp of who Paul is in terms of his religious and historical background. If we don't understand who Paul is, we won't understand what Paul is saying. In the same sense, if we don't understand that Jesus is Messiah, we won't grasp the authority with which he speaks.

After his conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul joins an early church sect called the Nazarenes. Not only does Paul join this group, but also at his trial before Felix in Acts Paul is explicitly described as their leader.

"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Acts 24:5

Now, if the contemporary Christian understanding of Paul is correct, the Nazarenes could be described as Believers in Jesus who reject the ongoing validity of Mosaic Law. Rather than being subjected to the beggarly elements of the flesh (Galatians 4:9), these people are under the law of the Spirit and are therefore not enslaved according to the flesh. Paul, after all, teaches us that Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4). These claims must be accurate or Paul would not be described as their ringleader.

This description of Paul and the Nazarenes is not accurate in terms of Church history, however. In the fourth century, Jerome wrote, "The Nazarenes... accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law" (Jerome, On. Is. 8:14). The Nazarenes themselves were actually a sect of Judaism. Paul himself leads this sect that actually honors Torah rather than rejecting it.

Much is made of the conflict between Paul and the Jewish people. Though the conflict certainly exists, it exists for reasons entirely apart from what most Christians believe. In order to properly understand the conflict between the Jewish people and Paul, we must understand the historical conflict between the Nazarenes and the Jews.

"Not only do Jewish people have a hatred of them; they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening, three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues, and curse and anathemize them. Three times a day they say, “God curse the Nazarenes.” For they harbor an extra grudge against them, if you please, because despite their Jewishness, they proclaim that Jesus is the Christ" (Epiphanius Panarion 29).

The actual curse that was recited over the Nazarenes three times a day was found at the Cairo Genizah and is the old version of the Jewish Birkat haMinim:

"For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Nazarenes and the Minim perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed. Blessed are you, O Adonai, who humbles the arrogant."

The reason why the Jews hated the Nazarenes so intensely was not for their rejection of Torah. Instead, it was for their acceptence of Jesus while continuing to remain Jewish in terms of their Torah-based ethical perspectives. When Epiphanius wrote Panarian, he completed it around the year 375 A.D. At that point, the Jewish people still cursed the Nazarenes three times a day--nearly 350 years after Christ's death and resurrection.

If you consider the threat that the Nazarenes posed to the Jews, it is of little surprise that they hated the Nazarenes so intensely. Paul and the rest of the Nazarenes by honoring Torah while accepting the Gospel of Christ had the greatest ability to convert the Jewish population to Christianity. After all, the Jewish people know that the promised Jewish Messiah is not the man of lawlessness (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Given the simple understanding that Paul is a Nazarene, we already begin to see the error in how Paul is read. Paul, by virtue of him being the leader of the Nazarenes, isn't writing to advocate a rejection of Torah by any stretch of the imagination.

Paul's epistle to the churches in the province of Galatia is seen as the foremost convincing argument against the Mosaic Law. To you, the educated reader, this should already be sending up red flags by virtue of the fact that you know who Paul is. The common error people make is viewing Galatians and Romans as being epistles on the topic of nullification rather than justification. When you actually examine the scriptures, the theme of justification is everywhere.

"You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

Clearly, Paul is arguing that justification before God can only come through Christ. The legalists would say that it is through commandments such as circumcision that we attain salvation from sin. However, Paul argues that it is by faith alone that Christ saves us. In fact, Paul's very definition and understanding of sin is rooted in the law:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). Notice the ongoing theme of justification in Paul's epistles.

Paul's definition of sin reflects that of first-century Christianity. Sin is not some vague concept, but is instead concrete and can be found directly in the Torah (1 John 3:4). Thus, Paul is arguing that our sinful human nature is incapable of redeeming itself by simply not sinning "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

If Paul is a devout Nazarene but yet at the same time is arguing against justification by the law, then the question must arise as to whether the Torah fits into Paul's theological understanding.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31).

Paul did not see faith and the law as being mutually exclusive. Instead, faith is the foundation by which we establish the law.

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2)

Paul argues that we cannot allow grace to abound by continuing in sin. If we use the grace of Christ as a license to sin--or violate God's law--then we have disgraced the sacrifice and intent of Christ.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." (Romans 6:14-15).

Many dispensationalists hold that Romans 6:14-15 paints out a law vs. grace paradigm. This is a logical fallacy. If you consider it, you cannot have grace unless you also have law. For grace to continue to be valid, we must also have law. The reason for this is because grace is unmerited favor to cover transgressions. By admitting that transgressions still exist, we admit that grace is still a necessity. As we've already covered, the definition of sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Thus, if we have grace to cover our sin then we admit sin is still binding and if sin is still binding then the law is still valid. Grace and law are complimentary and are not separate concepts. In fact, the stricter the law, the more grace is extended as transgressions multiply when law increases.

Paul's argument is that we are no longer under the curse of the law (see Galatians 3:10). The law itself is only a curse if we neglect to obey its commandments (Deuteronomy 30:19). If sin is transgression of the law--or failure to keep the commandments of God--then Paul is referring to sin and its damning spiritual consequences when he speaks of being under the law. While Christ redeems us from the consequences of our sin, the important thing to remember is that Paul and the early church recognized the law itself as being good. By choosing to honor the Torah, you come into blessing and reject the curse. By rejecting the law, you place yourself under the curse of the law. Either way, Christ is our justification, but we cannot allow Christ to be a license to sin.

"And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" (Acts 21:21).

Towards the end of Acts, Paul is falsely accused of breaking the law and teaching others to do so. The verse above is directly after it speaks ecstatically of many Jews coming to Jesus and being "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). Obviously, the question here is whether or not Paul is teaching people to obey the law or to disobey it.

"Then take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." (Acts 21:24)

At this point, Paul is given the opportunity to publicly demonstrate his Torah-honoring lifestyle. If he rejected the Torah, this would have been a perfect opportunity for him to instruct his followers. Instead, Paul continues to perform the Nazarite vow as a demonstration that he "walkest orderly, and keepest the law." Of course, by now you know that Paul was the leader of the Nazarenes so this should be of little surprise, but it is a point that often goes unnoticed.

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14).

In conclusion, Paul obeyed God's commandments and held to the Gospel of Christ--the definition of a Nazarene. It is prophesied that the dragon in Revelation will make war with the same people.

"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Revelation 12:17).

Bottom line: If you want to piss off dragons, honor the Torah in the manner Paul and the early Church did.

All the best,

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Daniel Diffenderfer's Guide to Poker

Dear Mystical Reader,

As I mentioned yesterday, I've been playing Texas Holdem Poker quite a bit lately. This post is going to be my field guide for how to win at it. It basically just takes everything I've learned the last three weeks and condenses it down into five categories’.

1. Fold Often. The mistake that people make the most often is simply not folding. If you were dealt a great hand like a jack and an ace of clubs but on the flop there are three low cards suited differently than yours, there is no point in staying in. If anyone raises it a dime, you should fold without a second thought. A huge problem that people have is that they get so emotionally invested into their two cards that they simply let the logical decision to fold evade them. Also, don't be afraid to fold before the flop. Even if you have a relatively good hand (say, nine queen off suit), there is rarely an instance in which it ends up being worth it too invest too much before the flop. The exceptions are if you have suited royals or a pair of royals.

2. Bet Sparingly. One of the worst things that can happen in a game of Texas Holdem is that you scare off the competition. Even if you are dealt a pair of aces, you should be hesitant to raise it. Generally speaking, your goal should be to bet as little as possible but to achieve the maximum results. One of the best strategies I have come up with I actually borrowed from my brother John. His theory is that you are better off checking all the way through so that way you won't arouse suspicion. If you have a great hand (say, three of a kind, flush, straight, etc.), your goal is to not be seen as a threat. In theory, if they don't suspect you have anything because you checked, they may be inclined to raise it, go all in, or suspect you of bluffing when you jack it up at the end. At the end of the day, your goal is to keep as many players in the game as you possibly can. There have been many hands where I've had the winning cards--and known it--but I've waited until the last round.

During the last round, there will normally be that one guy who has a mediocre hand who tries to buy the pot by raising the bet drastically. If that occurs, you have a perfect opportunity to capitalize. Whatever he bets, you need to double--or triple depending on the person. Odds are, he will either think you are bluffing or will be too committed to his bet to fold and will match you.

Granted, there are exceptions to this. I've played many hands where you have no choice but to eventually begin the betting. If everyone checks after the flop--yourself included--then you are going to have to do something after the turn. At this point, I would introduce the double-triple rule.

3. The Double-Triple Rule. If you have got a good hand but one of your opponents isn't kindly raising the pot for you, then you should make use of the double-triple rule. The basic idea behind the double-triple rule is that people are hesitant to fold when they've already invested a decent amount of money into the hand. People get hooked. The double triple rule basically plays out like this:

If after the flop I can see no one is raising it but that I've got a decent shot at the hand, I double the blind. If we're playing with blinds of ten, then my next bet should be twenty. People have already committed fifty percent of my bet into the game, and twenty is seen as a reasonable raise that ninety percent of people will call. On the turn, I double my bet again to forty. Once again, people who otherwise would have folded if you had raised it sixty in single round will continue to call despite the status of their hand. Now, the bet on the river card should triple the previous bet. If the previous bet was forty, then you should raise it to 120. Most people will continue to match--or hopefully raise you. By following the double-triple rule, you will end up getting the most money from the most people. If you're playing in a large game, these bets can often become quite large in no time. You can also do this on a raise at any point. If most people have called a raise, feel free to double it and then triple it on the next bet. Of course, you should only do this if you have a hand that you are fairly certain will win the round.

4. Check Your Ego. When I was playing in the tournament at Lee, there was a guy who came over to my table that had just completely knocked out two other tables. At this point, he had probably ten times the chips of the next closest guy--me. He came feeling bulletproof. After just five hands, he walked away from the table without a single chip. The fundamental error that he made was that he began to think he couldn't lose. Winning is a drug you can't get hooked on. If you win one hand by getting lucky on the river, you are no more or less likely to win the next hand. In fact, I would argue that getting lucky twice in a row is much less likely--so you're more likely to lose. Don't ever read more into the cards than actually exists, and never assume that you're going to get the cards you need. If you don't have anything off the flop, don't bet. If raised, just fold. Of course there will be a hand or two that you'll wish you could have taken back, but on the whole you will be glad to have folded nine times out of ten. One thing that I've actually taken to doing is directly after I get a big win simply folding on the next hand regardless of how good of a hand I'm dealt. This keeps me from feeling bulletproof and gets my head back down where it needs to be for the next round.

5. The Flop. One last note is that you really don't know the quality of your cards until the flop. There have been many times where I will fold instinctively on what I feel is a poor hand (like a nine-five off suit) and then ended up having a straight right off the flop. I even once had a four of a kind in tens off the flop once that I folded on. My general rule is that your goal should be to make it to the flop as cheaply as possible and as long as doing so doesn't cost more than ten percent of your total chips. However, when you are trailing--especially in a competition--your goal needs to be to get as many hands as possible and only to play the very best. If you are in the lead, then you should simply play as many hands as you can for as cheaply as possible. Also, even if you get a great hand, raising it before the flop can be disastrous. If you have suited royals and you raise it before the flop, you run the risk that the flop itself may totally ruin your hand. In this case, call but don't go all in until you've at least seen the flop and are confident that you will win.

Hope it helps,

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Genesis: This is the Beginning

"In the beginning Diffenderfer created the blog and the post. And the blog was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Greetings World,

I am currently sitting on the floor of my friend Danielle's apartment typing. I have been wanting to create a blog for some time, and this is the beginning.

I'm the kind of guy who has many things that interest him, get him excited, and drive him to study. It's my goal to allow my blog to be my catch-all for what I'm currently interested in.

For instance, a few weeks ago I got hooked on Texas Holdem. I wanted to know absolutely everything there was to know about it. Consequently, I played nearly 2000 hands of Texas Holdem online in a week. At the end of that week, I found out about a Texas Holdem tournament taking place at my school. I didn't even know about this tournament until two hours before it began. However, I showed up and played just the same. After starting with six full tables and around forty people participating, I slowly began to knock people out one at a time. Eventually, I made it to the top table. At this point, I was so overwhelmed that I was hyperventilating and felt nauseous. To make a long story short, I ended up qualifying for the southeast regionals in Texas Holdem that night after only playing poker for a week.

Earlier this week, I picked up my roommate's Rubik's cube. I found myself hooked. I spent about four hours trying to solve it the first night (accidentally forgetting that I had a meeting in the process), three hours trying to solve it the next day, and four hours trying to solve it on day three. When I finally did solve it, I was so incredibly happy with myself. It was a bit after midnight and my housemates and neighbors were undoubtedly shaken by my screams of jubilation.

I mention both of these to say that I hope to document all of my quirkiness onto this blog. Whether I'm reading a book, trying to figure out a new skill, or just sharing life experiences, I hope to always provide entertainment at the randomisity that is Daniel Diffenderfer.