I am a fan of the Phil Vischer Podcast, and have followed the career of the creator of Veggietales through his formation of Big Idea picture group, his lost of the company, and continuance in Big Idea while forming his new venture Jelly Telly. I own the entire set of What's In the Bible? videos and had given a review of one of them. While I appreciate his efforts to defend and expand the Christian faith, I am put off by the general tone his podcast has toward conservative elements in the Christian Church. He points out the wild-eyed "crazy Christians," and notes the off-hand comments of Westboro Baptists (deserved) and Phil Robertson (undeserved). Concepts of power-bases and cultural adaptation of the faith are difficult concepts to use as filters for authentic Christianity, but I have this disdain for those who label the fundies" as rabble-rousers who distort the faith.
I hold to conservative Christianity, but would strain at the "conservative" label. Too politically charged in these Political Correctness days. I would hold to the concept of "confessional." To me, Christianity is creedal, a fellowship of believers in the "one true faith." Mr. Vischer lays a great deal of importance to the "personal relationship in Christ. Important, but equally solipsistic. To cast dispersions on those who don't wish to conform but be transformed, the cultural issues are quickly reduced to a matter of loving the world and those things in the world. We must debate between the doomed present world (the Titanic version) and the world to be restored in Christ (a true version of Christian utopia). But to his credit, Mr. Vischer does his thing with a sufficient amount of tact, if it does get laced by humorous quips (and perhaps too many of these, as they tend to break into the comments of his fellow hosts and infrequent guests).
Mr. Vischer's criticisms of the fundamental branches of the faith needs to be tempered with maybe one thought. This past Sunday, one of the hymns was "It is Well with My Soul," by Horatio Spafford. The fellow was part of the conservative evangelistic movement of Dwight Moody. The hymn was written in response to a horrible tragedy that took the lives of his four daughters in the sinking of the Ville du Havre (which is the name of the hymn's melody). Mr. Vischer suffered the lost of his original business venture Big Idea, much in the same way Spafford endured much financial and personal loss in 1871. Whatever one may feel towards the doctrinal tenets of the other, each has walked in the shadow of despair, but overcoming same.
Modernists may lampoon fundamentalists views on literal interpretation. Fundamentalists may question the modernists' definition of omnipotence. Both sides need to grow firmer in the faith, and life's blows may be divine impulsions to bury the rancor and appreciate the views the other may hold and express.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The Fraudulent Hermeneutic
About two years prior, in a running exchange of posts dealing with the reliability and inspiration of Scriptures, after a series of salvos centered on perceived Biblical errors (and their resolutions), one atheistic post remarked, almost in an accusatory tone, "You have answers for everything." Shortly afterwards, I was introduced to the concept of "confirmation bias," a trend to find rationale for details of belief. We hold to our faith and are willing to draw up elaborate defenses to preserve what we hold to, leading to circular paths of reasoning.
I considered the concepts, but rejected them for what I determined was the ground of failure to diminish claims of reliability in the Bible.
The whole hermeneutical scheme that atheists use to devalue Scriptures is flawed.
The premises behind such a method hinge on two basic beliefs, 1) a dismissal of God as real, and 2) the rejection of the supernatural as possible. In some respects, this methodology resembles much of an idea of journeying to France with a feeling that knowing French is unnecessary.
The approach to view Scriptural content and teachings from a secular eye has met with a series of disastrous results since the initial studies of the German schools in the late 1800's. The concepts of the documentary hypothesis (remember JEDP?) have been proven inadequate, the forces of late-dating are approaching dating of the Gospels much closer to the conservative estimates (another twenty years and they will be ours!) than the original second century estimates. The trend to link Christian developments toward a Gnostic base are still looked on as ludicrous. With a core understanding of the Bible producing extreme and extremely inaccurate suppositions, it isn't unusual that a "you have answers for everything" response to such ill-formed claims to be difficult. Scriptural quotes addressed to me seem forever out of context and radically applied to situations completely unreal.
Bart Ehrmann once questioned the approaches of conservative scholarship over against secular research. But his latest book, How Jesus Became God, was duly and quickly answered by a team of Biblical scholars with their How God Became Jesus. Ah yes, an answer for everything. It is important to relate to media sources the ease in which wild speculations, drafted for popular consumption and financial remuneration, are trumped. But only in a land were both sides are offered, where strawman arguments cannot exist.
I considered the concepts, but rejected them for what I determined was the ground of failure to diminish claims of reliability in the Bible.
The whole hermeneutical scheme that atheists use to devalue Scriptures is flawed.
The premises behind such a method hinge on two basic beliefs, 1) a dismissal of God as real, and 2) the rejection of the supernatural as possible. In some respects, this methodology resembles much of an idea of journeying to France with a feeling that knowing French is unnecessary.
The approach to view Scriptural content and teachings from a secular eye has met with a series of disastrous results since the initial studies of the German schools in the late 1800's. The concepts of the documentary hypothesis (remember JEDP?) have been proven inadequate, the forces of late-dating are approaching dating of the Gospels much closer to the conservative estimates (another twenty years and they will be ours!) than the original second century estimates. The trend to link Christian developments toward a Gnostic base are still looked on as ludicrous. With a core understanding of the Bible producing extreme and extremely inaccurate suppositions, it isn't unusual that a "you have answers for everything" response to such ill-formed claims to be difficult. Scriptural quotes addressed to me seem forever out of context and radically applied to situations completely unreal.
Bart Ehrmann once questioned the approaches of conservative scholarship over against secular research. But his latest book, How Jesus Became God, was duly and quickly answered by a team of Biblical scholars with their How God Became Jesus. Ah yes, an answer for everything. It is important to relate to media sources the ease in which wild speculations, drafted for popular consumption and financial remuneration, are trumped. But only in a land were both sides are offered, where strawman arguments cannot exist.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Interpretation and "Filters"
One recent read, That's a Great Question by Glenn Pearson, has much to reveal about a recent post in Stand to Reason blog. In the article concerning five erroneous ideas about the celebration of Easter, one blogger rejects the nativity narrations of Matthew and Luke due to the lack of inclusion of such stories in Mark, credited as the first drafted gospel.
Pearson notes in his book that readings of the Bible is unduly charged with presumptions that color the interpretation of Scriptures. He calls these foundational approaches to literature filters, and cites five key ones:
This approach to interpretation is pattently dishonest. The Bible attests the content of its own material as difficult to follow, difficult to accept. This content is not to be deemed therefore being illogical. The concepts of God need to be shaped by logic (the doctrine of the Trinity comes to mind). Thus those people who must follow all things logical may have a difficulty with a full understanding of Biblical concepts.
But to deduce that a portion of the Scriptures must be removed due to a perceived lack of logic is a huge assumption to accept. Scriptures say that the ways of God transcend the thinking patterns of men. It also has been a historical fact that alterations to the concept of the Godhood come frequently, all in a quest that is on-going, never accepting for a fact that many truth have been expressed about God from material insisting on its divinely guided origins.
Man is foundational idolatrous, seeking a deity that resembles himself. Noting this, acceptance of ideas that pursue this quest for understanding God results in understanding a god made in our own image.
Pearson notes in his book that readings of the Bible is unduly charged with presumptions that color the interpretation of Scriptures. He calls these foundational approaches to literature filters, and cites five key ones:
- The Filter of New Revelation
- The Filter of Outlandish Speculation
- The Filter of Atheism
- The Filter of Anti-Supernaturalism
- The Filter of Selective Christian Theology
This approach to interpretation is pattently dishonest. The Bible attests the content of its own material as difficult to follow, difficult to accept. This content is not to be deemed therefore being illogical. The concepts of God need to be shaped by logic (the doctrine of the Trinity comes to mind). Thus those people who must follow all things logical may have a difficulty with a full understanding of Biblical concepts.
But to deduce that a portion of the Scriptures must be removed due to a perceived lack of logic is a huge assumption to accept. Scriptures say that the ways of God transcend the thinking patterns of men. It also has been a historical fact that alterations to the concept of the Godhood come frequently, all in a quest that is on-going, never accepting for a fact that many truth have been expressed about God from material insisting on its divinely guided origins.
Man is foundational idolatrous, seeking a deity that resembles himself. Noting this, acceptance of ideas that pursue this quest for understanding God results in understanding a god made in our own image.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The "Aura" of Science
In the recent "Skeptical Enquirer," Bill Nye recounted his version of his debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. As could be expected, he crowed over the victory in the arena of his opponent. He recalled the array of scientific evidences that concluded that the earth could not possibly be 6000 years. He relished the thought that the statified limestone formation on which the museum was constructed was definitive proof. He also claimed that the scope of the debate on which both parties agreed made creationism, not evolution, the concept under consideration. While granting that the debate was not scored, most observers gave Nye the victory.
I have watched a fair portion of the debate. While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well. Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.
On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well. His claims of victory would be awkward. To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived. If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.
This is the fatal flaw of science. It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability. It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops. This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics." Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory. But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history. The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's. Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.
The results are predictable. Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster. This is down from 36%. Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver. This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry. Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."
But the bloom is off the rose. If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor. If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.
I have watched a fair portion of the debate. While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well. Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.
On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well. His claims of victory would be awkward. To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived. If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.
This is the fatal flaw of science. It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability. It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops. This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics." Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory. But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history. The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's. Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.
The results are predictable. Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster. This is down from 36%. Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver. This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry. Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."
But the bloom is off the rose. If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor. If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.
Monday, April 14, 2014
The "Grounded" Ontological Argument Part Three: Beyond Imagination
A quick review. The previous lines of posts dealt with the thrust of the Ontological Argument and the view of the definition linked to reality. With a quick undetstanding of the ontological argument, we examined briefly the historical background of how the imaginary entities gained definition, a uniform understanding of things unreal. Events in history lead to conceptions of things that were legendary, events that were reconstructed or embellished.
But now it comes to the issue of God. What is the basis of a historical defining of God-hood? It is a simple case of what we have noted in all things else. We saw short people. We conceived dwarfs and embellished to fairies. We saw large lizards. We conceived dragons. We were deluded in conclusing so.
But in God, we have such difficulty, as God in His attributes is transcendent. But in the case of theophany, such impossibility becomes improbable at best. Theophanies are rare, but only one proves the Deity. Such phenomena would be awesome in presentation. But we cannot handle it as a unicorn. (That was a horse and a branch that you saw in a strange agle making it look like a horn in the forehead). To say, "Thunderstorms are awesome, but merely natural displays of power ..." misses the point. We aren't speaking of thunders crash and lightnings flash, but an appearance with conversation. What occurred to Abraham, Moses, Jesus can't be reduced to meteorology.
We can cull out phony theophanies as certain micickings of desirable events. The crude appearance of gods to copulate with young women is nothing compared to the assuming of the role of chariot driver to talk over the role of warfare. We may note the varieties, but must conclude the likelihood of the theophanic situation.
God can be defined from historical grounds. These occasions can be reasonable assumed to be probable. If God has been presented to anyone, such can be historically true. The fact the God is definably uniform hold this case together.
But now it comes to the issue of God. What is the basis of a historical defining of God-hood? It is a simple case of what we have noted in all things else. We saw short people. We conceived dwarfs and embellished to fairies. We saw large lizards. We conceived dragons. We were deluded in conclusing so.
But in God, we have such difficulty, as God in His attributes is transcendent. But in the case of theophany, such impossibility becomes improbable at best. Theophanies are rare, but only one proves the Deity. Such phenomena would be awesome in presentation. But we cannot handle it as a unicorn. (That was a horse and a branch that you saw in a strange agle making it look like a horn in the forehead). To say, "Thunderstorms are awesome, but merely natural displays of power ..." misses the point. We aren't speaking of thunders crash and lightnings flash, but an appearance with conversation. What occurred to Abraham, Moses, Jesus can't be reduced to meteorology.
We can cull out phony theophanies as certain micickings of desirable events. The crude appearance of gods to copulate with young women is nothing compared to the assuming of the role of chariot driver to talk over the role of warfare. We may note the varieties, but must conclude the likelihood of the theophanic situation.
God can be defined from historical grounds. These occasions can be reasonable assumed to be probable. If God has been presented to anyone, such can be historically true. The fact the God is definably uniform hold this case together.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
The "Grounded" Ontological Argument: Part Two "Explanations"
I raised the issue of the basic weakness of the Ontological Argument in the sense of linkage of reality via definitions. We have many words and terms of items that are imaginary, trolls, dragons, flying spaghetti monsters. It would be a case of difference between these and words dealing with abstract objects and concepts, compassion, liberty, intuition. With the latter, we could make demonstrations of these qualities to an extent. We can make case studies of acts of mercy, perform outrageous acts to show we are not locked into determinant actions, review cases of blind guesses reaping positive results. But there is a problem with pixies. Such as these can not be pointed out. Their stories would be charming, but we would be "in the know" that pixies don't exist.
Still, there is a matter of ultimate origins even of these creatures. If a class of students were given paper and asked to draw a pixie to the best of their abilities, there would be a close similarity of appearances. We probably have Tinkerbell to thank for this. But I would like to imagine (pun intended, perhaps) the concept of pixie before Disney. If drawings were made of pixies every decade for a few centuries, would the appearance change? Let us go so far as to lock up all the Disney footage of pixies, and conduct this experiment. Let us examine the origins when we first used the word "pixie," and study all illustrations from that point onward.
The crucial question behind the "grounded" ontological argument is this: If such imaginative creature is current, how was it first conceived? How came we by "pixie," or "dragon," or "elf," or whatever? After all, something must have gone bump in the night to get us to think about "things that go bump in the night."
I would consider that midgets and short people got mankind to imagine leprechauns and dwarfs. Certain reptilian creatures could have gotten us going with dragons. But, in he end, something factual gave rise to these imaginary creatures. I hold two rudimentary forces for this: 1) imaginative reconstruction, and 2) imaginative embellishment.
Unicorns would be a good example of imaginative reconstruction. Consider that many animals are horned. It could be that one beast was reduced to one horn after combat or injury. Or consider that the angle of head or glare of the sun granted the viewer to see but one horn. The man who saw this strange alpaca related this story to a friend who managed horses. By transference, the animal with the horn was everything to the man. Such an explanation is fanciful in itself, but it does satisfy the single requirement. Is there anything in daily life that would draw people to consider the existence of unicorns? Later review of the sightings would lead to an explanation of unicorn sightings, thus affirming the imaginary nature of the beast.
Santa Claus is a prime example of imaginative embellishment. This man historically existed, a bishop of the church in Myra, now Demre in modern Turkey. A man of generous disposition, the acts of giving gifts secretly developed into legendary proportions. The creation of Santa Claus literally took on Hollywood-like proportions to the present wonder-worker of December 25th. Even back in that day he was called Nicholas the Wonderworker. We have even today to sift through the acts to see what actually occurred, and what has been embellished.
Thus there is a historical ground for such as these, granting a form of realism. This is why our conceptions of these are usually uniform.
But the ground still centers on the imaginative, which was the lesson behind the flying spaghetti monster of Richard Dawkins. We need one more point to offer on historic grounds of things identifiable. This I hope to cover next time.
Still, there is a matter of ultimate origins even of these creatures. If a class of students were given paper and asked to draw a pixie to the best of their abilities, there would be a close similarity of appearances. We probably have Tinkerbell to thank for this. But I would like to imagine (pun intended, perhaps) the concept of pixie before Disney. If drawings were made of pixies every decade for a few centuries, would the appearance change? Let us go so far as to lock up all the Disney footage of pixies, and conduct this experiment. Let us examine the origins when we first used the word "pixie," and study all illustrations from that point onward.
The crucial question behind the "grounded" ontological argument is this: If such imaginative creature is current, how was it first conceived? How came we by "pixie," or "dragon," or "elf," or whatever? After all, something must have gone bump in the night to get us to think about "things that go bump in the night."
I would consider that midgets and short people got mankind to imagine leprechauns and dwarfs. Certain reptilian creatures could have gotten us going with dragons. But, in he end, something factual gave rise to these imaginary creatures. I hold two rudimentary forces for this: 1) imaginative reconstruction, and 2) imaginative embellishment.
Unicorns would be a good example of imaginative reconstruction. Consider that many animals are horned. It could be that one beast was reduced to one horn after combat or injury. Or consider that the angle of head or glare of the sun granted the viewer to see but one horn. The man who saw this strange alpaca related this story to a friend who managed horses. By transference, the animal with the horn was everything to the man. Such an explanation is fanciful in itself, but it does satisfy the single requirement. Is there anything in daily life that would draw people to consider the existence of unicorns? Later review of the sightings would lead to an explanation of unicorn sightings, thus affirming the imaginary nature of the beast.
Santa Claus is a prime example of imaginative embellishment. This man historically existed, a bishop of the church in Myra, now Demre in modern Turkey. A man of generous disposition, the acts of giving gifts secretly developed into legendary proportions. The creation of Santa Claus literally took on Hollywood-like proportions to the present wonder-worker of December 25th. Even back in that day he was called Nicholas the Wonderworker. We have even today to sift through the acts to see what actually occurred, and what has been embellished.
Thus there is a historical ground for such as these, granting a form of realism. This is why our conceptions of these are usually uniform.
But the ground still centers on the imaginative, which was the lesson behind the flying spaghetti monster of Richard Dawkins. We need one more point to offer on historic grounds of things identifiable. This I hope to cover next time.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
The "Grounded" Ontological Argument -- Part One "Definitions"
I have never felt the ultimate power to convince a skeptic using the ontological argument. This is a proposition expressed in many ways, beginning with the original argument of Anselm:
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding (example: the painting in the painter's mind vs. the painting in the painter's mind and on canvass).
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding, for if He did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater. But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable.
5. Therefore, God must exist.
This argument has been refined through the ages to Plantiga's recent development:
1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence, either God's existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.
4. If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.
The grounds for rejection of the argument is the connotations of definition. We cannot merely grant reality for anything by presenting a definition of it. This was the thrust of Dawkin's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" assertion. The imagination is capable of creating many illusions, hardly grounded in reality.
But then, something bizarre happened, and it gave pause to the low opinion of Anselm's argument for God.
And it had everything to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For in making such mocking attacks on God with such an approach, solid understanding of this being began to jel. We saw drawings of the creature, observed "emissaries" of this pseudo-deity practice their pseudo-faith in garb drawn from this conceptualization of the FSM. Slowly, this figment grew into the realm of reality, that at the name of the FSM, we pretty much had an idea of this being. It was a realistic presentation of the unreal, consistently and patterned.
We had defined the FSM, drew lines of understanding about the FSM, and brought the FSM into the real.
In short, the FSM became a victim of the ontological argument.
This is an approach to the ontological argument that needs examination. We have a bevy of imaginary creatures which, on mention, draws identical imagery, similar patterns of understanding. How so? This is what I call the "Grounded" or "Foundational" aspect of the ontological argument. Why have we identical understanding of things that we perceive to be imaginary? Is there a basis to this understanding, and does it eventually ground them in reality?
It is the epistemological "leap" that I would explore.
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding (example: the painting in the painter's mind vs. the painting in the painter's mind and on canvass).
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding, for if He did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater. But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable.
5. Therefore, God must exist.
This argument has been refined through the ages to Plantiga's recent development:
1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence, either God's existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.
4. If God's existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.
The grounds for rejection of the argument is the connotations of definition. We cannot merely grant reality for anything by presenting a definition of it. This was the thrust of Dawkin's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" assertion. The imagination is capable of creating many illusions, hardly grounded in reality.
But then, something bizarre happened, and it gave pause to the low opinion of Anselm's argument for God.
And it had everything to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For in making such mocking attacks on God with such an approach, solid understanding of this being began to jel. We saw drawings of the creature, observed "emissaries" of this pseudo-deity practice their pseudo-faith in garb drawn from this conceptualization of the FSM. Slowly, this figment grew into the realm of reality, that at the name of the FSM, we pretty much had an idea of this being. It was a realistic presentation of the unreal, consistently and patterned.
We had defined the FSM, drew lines of understanding about the FSM, and brought the FSM into the real.
In short, the FSM became a victim of the ontological argument.
This is an approach to the ontological argument that needs examination. We have a bevy of imaginary creatures which, on mention, draws identical imagery, similar patterns of understanding. How so? This is what I call the "Grounded" or "Foundational" aspect of the ontological argument. Why have we identical understanding of things that we perceive to be imaginary? Is there a basis to this understanding, and does it eventually ground them in reality?
It is the epistemological "leap" that I would explore.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
The Galahad Effect
Christians are easily misunderstood people. The chief reason is the general inaccessibility of a person who is a Christian, authentic, not nominal, nor traditional, nor customary. It is easy to go by the name of Christian, to be born into Christian families, to attend services regularly (or irregularly enough).
But to be a Christian -- this is a trick.
Thus, I can agree with the general confusion when one Christian claims A, and another "Christian" asserts non-A. True Christians can be conservative or liberal as long as they are not consumed with matters political. But this leaves to a problem of perception. Will the real Christian please stand up? And when a mass of humanity rises to this request, we probably will need to undergo further sifting to cull the sincere from the insincere, the divine from the delusional.
Perhaps a telling clue is defined by what I term the "Galahad Effect." I used the phrase in a recent STR blog post to refer to possible negative encounters with Christians due to never understanding the merits of such a person, ONCE HE HAS BEEN FOUND. It is founded on this portion of T.H. White's Once and Future King, where Arthur speaks with Lancelot about some of his knights.
___________________
"I am told that Galahad and Percivale were virgins, and Bors, although not quite a virgin, turned out to be a first-class theologian, I suppose. Bors passed for his dogma, and Percivale for his innocence. I know hardly anything about Galahad, except that everyone dislikes him."
"Dislike him?"
"They complain about his being inhuman."
Lancelot considered his cup.
"He is inhuman," he said at last. "But why should he be human? Are angels supposed to be human?"
"I don't quite follow."
"Do you think if the Archangel Michael were to come here this minute, he would say: 'What charming weather we are having today! Won't you have a glass of whiskey?'"
"I suppose not."
______________________
Luther once stated, "Man muss fern ein Christ zu finden." One must go far to find a Christian. And once found out of the masses that claim Christian status, what would be the world's opinion of such a one? Jesus said that His followers would be hated by the world. So be it.
It would be a delightful change from the annoyance that the world perceives in its vision of modern Christianity.
But to be a Christian -- this is a trick.
Thus, I can agree with the general confusion when one Christian claims A, and another "Christian" asserts non-A. True Christians can be conservative or liberal as long as they are not consumed with matters political. But this leaves to a problem of perception. Will the real Christian please stand up? And when a mass of humanity rises to this request, we probably will need to undergo further sifting to cull the sincere from the insincere, the divine from the delusional.
Perhaps a telling clue is defined by what I term the "Galahad Effect." I used the phrase in a recent STR blog post to refer to possible negative encounters with Christians due to never understanding the merits of such a person, ONCE HE HAS BEEN FOUND. It is founded on this portion of T.H. White's Once and Future King, where Arthur speaks with Lancelot about some of his knights.
___________________
"I am told that Galahad and Percivale were virgins, and Bors, although not quite a virgin, turned out to be a first-class theologian, I suppose. Bors passed for his dogma, and Percivale for his innocence. I know hardly anything about Galahad, except that everyone dislikes him."
"Dislike him?"
"They complain about his being inhuman."
Lancelot considered his cup.
"He is inhuman," he said at last. "But why should he be human? Are angels supposed to be human?"
"I don't quite follow."
"Do you think if the Archangel Michael were to come here this minute, he would say: 'What charming weather we are having today! Won't you have a glass of whiskey?'"
"I suppose not."
______________________
Luther once stated, "Man muss fern ein Christ zu finden." One must go far to find a Christian. And once found out of the masses that claim Christian status, what would be the world's opinion of such a one? Jesus said that His followers would be hated by the world. So be it.
It would be a delightful change from the annoyance that the world perceives in its vision of modern Christianity.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Blog Resurrexit!
It is time to restore the Now More Strawmen blog.
There were two reasons for the cessation of the original blog. First, it was the flagship blog in the blog creation assignment conducted at St. Paul's Ixonia computer class. It was the alpha guinea pig of the blogs created by the upper grades at this school in the last year of my instruction. This would lead to the second reason: with my dismissal, the blog project was also shelved. The original impetus for the blog was lost, and interest eventual waned.
It's resurrection was caused by the times. Fine blogs have been created and I have followed excellent sites, some of which seem to be losing steam. I would wish to contribute to the discussion, but these avenues of exchange are becoming few and far between. And the chief cause is the weakling of all lines of argument: the Strawman. These blogs had done great service in offering places to exchange ideas, to see how the other side thinks, rather than credit all sort of deficiencies to their intellect and moral character.
It remains my mission to offer a place to offer my viewpoint, much like a bank in which one's views appear and improve with the exchange. To this I again switch on the lights to this blog and hope that business proceeds with all diligence.
There were two reasons for the cessation of the original blog. First, it was the flagship blog in the blog creation assignment conducted at St. Paul's Ixonia computer class. It was the alpha guinea pig of the blogs created by the upper grades at this school in the last year of my instruction. This would lead to the second reason: with my dismissal, the blog project was also shelved. The original impetus for the blog was lost, and interest eventual waned.
It's resurrection was caused by the times. Fine blogs have been created and I have followed excellent sites, some of which seem to be losing steam. I would wish to contribute to the discussion, but these avenues of exchange are becoming few and far between. And the chief cause is the weakling of all lines of argument: the Strawman. These blogs had done great service in offering places to exchange ideas, to see how the other side thinks, rather than credit all sort of deficiencies to their intellect and moral character.
It remains my mission to offer a place to offer my viewpoint, much like a bank in which one's views appear and improve with the exchange. To this I again switch on the lights to this blog and hope that business proceeds with all diligence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)