In a story by washingtonpost.com today prominant Evangelicals, both liberal (relatively speaking of course) and conservatives joined in announcing a broader agenda including the environment, poverty, and even taking action to intervene in Darfur. First, I think this is great news. It's nice that even conservatives are finally admitting that there are more issues in the Bible than Homosexualtiy and Abortion. I'd love to see them go further and drop all political action on those two issues, but still, it's a welcome change.
The move hasn't been without it's opponents however. Just read this piece of the article, quoting the Rev. Michael Haseltine.
"I definitely don't like the widening of the agenda, because it muddies the water. Be good stewards of the environment? Sure, but how? These tree-huggers and anti-hunters think it's terrible to kill animals. Oppose poverty? Sure, but what's the best way to do it? We can't solve everybody's problems for them," he said. "Family and life issues -- abortion, sexuality -- they're much more clear from the biblical standpoint."
I think, Reverend, that if you read the Bible, nothing comes across quite as clear as the need to care for the poor. There's no muddying there. Not to mention the fact that, yes, as christians we should do everything we possibly can to solve other people's problems for them. Why not? It's what I believe Jesus did for me, and what you claim to believe. I'm not saying it's easy and I'm not even saying it's possible in this world, I'm just saying it's a noble goal. Far nobler a task for a Christian to undertake than thinly disguised gay bashing. It's positive rather than negative. Helping people rather than trying to force legislation that restricts them.
Fighting for legislation to "protect" traditional family values isn't the hard thing, it's the easy thing. It's getting off the hard road onto the grass in Pilgrim's Progress because they seem to go side by side. As Christians we're called to do the hard thing, because the hard thing was done for us.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Collaborative Work
I've discovered something about myself - well part of it I've known for a very long time. I have no self-discipline. I mean none. I do what I like, but I can't stop myself from doing it to excess. Or I can't make myself do something that's hard, even if I do like it. For example - I want to be in shape, but it's extremely rare that I can make myself get off my ass and do any serious exercising. So when I do, I feel so accomplished that I convince myself not to do it again for a week.
What I'm really talking about is writing though. I love to write. I really do. I have so many stories that I want to tell: simple stories, complex stories, rants about politics or religion (see below), didactic thoughts on the human condition, etc. Only it's a hard thing to do. Confronted with a blank page (or far worse, a blank computer screen) I panic and give in to one of my easier excesses (see below).
But the new thing that I've found is that I can steal discipline from other people. I'm like a discipline vampire, sucking creativity and drive from those more ambitious than myself. Or even if they aren't - somehow my sense of responsibility makes up the difference. If I feel that someone is depending on me, I work hard not to let them down.
Lately the Jubilate Basses have been working on our Act for Variety Show (saturday 3-5 at University Baptist Church). Basically the writing has come from Dan, Zach, Tad, and I (with some help last night by Joseph) sitting in the old apartment shooting ideas and lines back and forth. Even when it's been especially hard, I love it. I really enjoy working in that kind of environment, and the hours just slip past. Not only does it produce quality work (and it's not always easy to bring the funny) but we actually get it done. By myself I can't make myself work for more than 20 minutes so nothing ever finishes. Maybe I'm destined to work on a sitcom or some other TV show where most of the writing is collaborative.
Only...I still don't want to share the credit.
What I'm really talking about is writing though. I love to write. I really do. I have so many stories that I want to tell: simple stories, complex stories, rants about politics or religion (see below), didactic thoughts on the human condition, etc. Only it's a hard thing to do. Confronted with a blank page (or far worse, a blank computer screen) I panic and give in to one of my easier excesses (see below).
But the new thing that I've found is that I can steal discipline from other people. I'm like a discipline vampire, sucking creativity and drive from those more ambitious than myself. Or even if they aren't - somehow my sense of responsibility makes up the difference. If I feel that someone is depending on me, I work hard not to let them down.
Lately the Jubilate Basses have been working on our Act for Variety Show (saturday 3-5 at University Baptist Church). Basically the writing has come from Dan, Zach, Tad, and I (with some help last night by Joseph) sitting in the old apartment shooting ideas and lines back and forth. Even when it's been especially hard, I love it. I really enjoy working in that kind of environment, and the hours just slip past. Not only does it produce quality work (and it's not always easy to bring the funny) but we actually get it done. By myself I can't make myself work for more than 20 minutes so nothing ever finishes. Maybe I'm destined to work on a sitcom or some other TV show where most of the writing is collaborative.
Only...I still don't want to share the credit.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Tridentine Mass
So the Pope is apparently about to make it easier for Catholics to worship like they did in the old days - with the priest speaking purely in latin to the altar rather than the parishioners (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201563.html?referrer=email). First, not being Catholic, I don't really care too much. It's not like either my father or Tom Leland are going to start preaching in Latin. And second, I'm not saying that Latin mass can't be beautiful - I'm sure it can be very moving. Also, to be fair, the Pope is not saying that everyone must start speaking latin, he's only making it easier to do so.
Still, it seems like a bad idea in general to me. Services in English can be beautiful as well, and you know what's going on. Most Latin masses throughout history consisted of the priest mumbling to the altar in psuedo-latin. He could be saying anything he wanted. It's not like Latin is really the holiest of languages. He could easily just quote Roman graffiti:
Quisquis amat. veniat. Veneri volo frangere costas
fustibus et lumbos debilitare deae.
Si potest illa mihi tenerum pertundere pectus
quit ego non possim caput illae frangere fuste?
Whoever loves, go to hell. I want to break Venus's ribs
with a club and deform her hips.
If she can break my tender heart
why can't I hit her over the head?
How many people would really know the difference? I'm not anti-Catholic by any means - I know a number of devout Catholics whom I respect greatly (sounds like I'm saying I've got a black friend doesn't it?). Neither do I have illusions about protestantism. I just disagree more with the Catholic system in place, not to mention the insistance that it not be questioned. I think it makes it easy to assume that what's important isn't belief, but just showing up.
Still, it seems like a bad idea in general to me. Services in English can be beautiful as well, and you know what's going on. Most Latin masses throughout history consisted of the priest mumbling to the altar in psuedo-latin. He could be saying anything he wanted. It's not like Latin is really the holiest of languages. He could easily just quote Roman graffiti:
Quisquis amat. veniat. Veneri volo frangere costas
fustibus et lumbos debilitare deae.
Si potest illa mihi tenerum pertundere pectus
quit ego non possim caput illae frangere fuste?
Whoever loves, go to hell. I want to break Venus's ribs
with a club and deform her hips.
If she can break my tender heart
why can't I hit her over the head?
How many people would really know the difference? I'm not anti-Catholic by any means - I know a number of devout Catholics whom I respect greatly (sounds like I'm saying I've got a black friend doesn't it?). Neither do I have illusions about protestantism. I just disagree more with the Catholic system in place, not to mention the insistance that it not be questioned. I think it makes it easy to assume that what's important isn't belief, but just showing up.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Everlasting Man
I've been reading G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man over the past couple of weeks (it's taking me so long becuase I read it online when I'm at work, a paragraph here and there). If you haven't read any Chesterton, you should, if only to see that, yes, there are Christians (even Catholics) who use their brains. These days it's easy to find examples of so called Christians unwilling to use the reason that God gave them - worshipping not God but some psychotic bastard who hates the majority of his creations and doesn't believe in the natural workings of the world that he created and controls.
In the latest chapter I read he makes a very compelling argument for the divinity of christ, or rather, not for the divinity, but for the honest consideration of that divinity. There is a popular idea - popular in Chesterton's day as much as in ours - that the historical Jesus was a very learned and wise Jewish rabbi. He was a teacher, a wise man, even a prophet. The view stems from two things, both are rational assumptions. First, it is highly unlikely that Jesus the man, this historical Jesus as he is often referred to, did not actually exist. To say otherwise is simply ludicrous. It's to argue that shepherds and fishermen were able to dupe the world with a vast conspiracy that would have little point if they didn't believe it in the first place. In fact, it would have been a suicidal conspiracy - leading them largely to violent death at the hands of authorities or insane mobs, and certainly not leading them to riches and glory. This is like saying that the government caused 9/11 so that they could invade Iraq. As much as certain members may be capitalizing off tragedy, to say that there was a conspiracy involving hundreds of high level officials and no legitimate reporter has ever found out is basically retarded.
The second view of Jesus the teacher comes from reading the gospel. Anyone can see that the man must have been intelligent, as well as wise well beyond his time. The greatest atheist, if he honestly approaches it, cannot read the Parable of the Prodigal Son without thinking at the least - "Here was a great moral reformer." The longevity of his teachings elevates him far above the average philosopher and numbers him among the greats. His teachings are without exception, to my mind, beyond his own time and place: universally applicable. To love your enemy was as near an impossible thing but a uniquely insightful thing then as it is now. The greatest intellectual could not but look at his apparently paradoxical words about dividing with the sword and delight in the subtlty of his thought. As Chesterton points out, Jesus was a man of peace who knew full well that a good peace was better than a good war, but a bad peace infinitely worse. There is universal wisdom here.
That being said, I can agree with the popular view. However, those wanting to claim Jesus as great moral thinker run into a problem. He claimed, quite clearly, that he was the Son of God. This isn't the claim of a great man, this is the claim of a small man who might very likely be insane. One could never imagine a true thinker, whatever his pride, actually claiming to be the Almighty. That kind of egomania is the province of small minded men, unable or unwilling to see how they are men like everyone else. It is easy to discount, because it does not seem logical at all for a man to actually be the Son of God. If one approached the Gospels as someone who had never heard the name Jesus before, one couldn't discount it however. It would, in fact, be incredibly shocking. The speaker of the Sermon on the Mount - preaching wisdom, tolerance, love and moderation - suddenly makes the absurd and insane claim that he's God. There is a serious paradox here that can't be easily ignored.
The obvious option is to say that Jesus never said it. His followers must have added that bit later on. After all the Gospels were written some time after the fact. Only if that's true, and though I personally don't believe it to be true I'm willing to admit that in fact it could be, then it is the only mistake like it that has ever been made. Muslims don't confuse Mohammed with God, Jews don't confuse Moses with God, no one ever thought Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle were God. If it is indeed an error then it is a unique one. If it is a coverup written as it was after the fact, but when there were those who had lived through the events covered, it is an impressive conspiracy. Logic dictates that that is incredibly unlikely. How could one keep a stranglehold on all those who knew the truth?
If one accepts that Jesus was a great moral reformer, logically one must at least consider the possibility that he was telling the truth.
In the latest chapter I read he makes a very compelling argument for the divinity of christ, or rather, not for the divinity, but for the honest consideration of that divinity. There is a popular idea - popular in Chesterton's day as much as in ours - that the historical Jesus was a very learned and wise Jewish rabbi. He was a teacher, a wise man, even a prophet. The view stems from two things, both are rational assumptions. First, it is highly unlikely that Jesus the man, this historical Jesus as he is often referred to, did not actually exist. To say otherwise is simply ludicrous. It's to argue that shepherds and fishermen were able to dupe the world with a vast conspiracy that would have little point if they didn't believe it in the first place. In fact, it would have been a suicidal conspiracy - leading them largely to violent death at the hands of authorities or insane mobs, and certainly not leading them to riches and glory. This is like saying that the government caused 9/11 so that they could invade Iraq. As much as certain members may be capitalizing off tragedy, to say that there was a conspiracy involving hundreds of high level officials and no legitimate reporter has ever found out is basically retarded.
The second view of Jesus the teacher comes from reading the gospel. Anyone can see that the man must have been intelligent, as well as wise well beyond his time. The greatest atheist, if he honestly approaches it, cannot read the Parable of the Prodigal Son without thinking at the least - "Here was a great moral reformer." The longevity of his teachings elevates him far above the average philosopher and numbers him among the greats. His teachings are without exception, to my mind, beyond his own time and place: universally applicable. To love your enemy was as near an impossible thing but a uniquely insightful thing then as it is now. The greatest intellectual could not but look at his apparently paradoxical words about dividing with the sword and delight in the subtlty of his thought. As Chesterton points out, Jesus was a man of peace who knew full well that a good peace was better than a good war, but a bad peace infinitely worse. There is universal wisdom here.
That being said, I can agree with the popular view. However, those wanting to claim Jesus as great moral thinker run into a problem. He claimed, quite clearly, that he was the Son of God. This isn't the claim of a great man, this is the claim of a small man who might very likely be insane. One could never imagine a true thinker, whatever his pride, actually claiming to be the Almighty. That kind of egomania is the province of small minded men, unable or unwilling to see how they are men like everyone else. It is easy to discount, because it does not seem logical at all for a man to actually be the Son of God. If one approached the Gospels as someone who had never heard the name Jesus before, one couldn't discount it however. It would, in fact, be incredibly shocking. The speaker of the Sermon on the Mount - preaching wisdom, tolerance, love and moderation - suddenly makes the absurd and insane claim that he's God. There is a serious paradox here that can't be easily ignored.
The obvious option is to say that Jesus never said it. His followers must have added that bit later on. After all the Gospels were written some time after the fact. Only if that's true, and though I personally don't believe it to be true I'm willing to admit that in fact it could be, then it is the only mistake like it that has ever been made. Muslims don't confuse Mohammed with God, Jews don't confuse Moses with God, no one ever thought Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle were God. If it is indeed an error then it is a unique one. If it is a coverup written as it was after the fact, but when there were those who had lived through the events covered, it is an impressive conspiracy. Logic dictates that that is incredibly unlikely. How could one keep a stranglehold on all those who knew the truth?
If one accepts that Jesus was a great moral reformer, logically one must at least consider the possibility that he was telling the truth.
Womenfolk
Any girls that still read, maybe you can explain something to me. How is it that you can kick a guy right in the nuts (metaphorically speaking...or not) and then manage to convince him that no in fact, against all logic and the laws of physics, he managed to kick himself in the nuts. And he should be sorry to you for it.
...
That sounds bitter doesn't it? Don't worry I'm not bitter, I'm just trying to be funny. As someone recently pointed out to me, I think I'm funny, but I'm really not. I think I'm smart, but I'm really not. I think I'm clever, but I'm really not. I even think I'm sad and mysterious, but I'm really really not that. I'm just another asshole with a typewriter who thinks too much and maybe drinks too much but doesn't have the will or ambition to act. And there's nothing either inspiring or depressing about that.
...
That sounds bitter doesn't it? Don't worry I'm not bitter, I'm just trying to be funny. As someone recently pointed out to me, I think I'm funny, but I'm really not. I think I'm smart, but I'm really not. I think I'm clever, but I'm really not. I even think I'm sad and mysterious, but I'm really really not that. I'm just another asshole with a typewriter who thinks too much and maybe drinks too much but doesn't have the will or ambition to act. And there's nothing either inspiring or depressing about that.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Nutcracker
Not that anyone's reading anymore, but I'm bored at work and I found this especially funny. Checking my email I received the following from "Lizabeth":
"Do you want to fuck her until she is speechless?Generik Viagra will make your dirty fantasies come true.Erection with Generik Viagra is superhuman.With our Generik Viagra you can crack nuts with your penis."
Crack nuts with my penis? Who wants to crack nuts with their penis? Do people sit around thinking, damn if only my penis were harder, I wouldn't have to crack all these nuts by hand, I could do it by penis? How would that even work? And wouldn't it be painful?
I just think - some living human being must have written this - and probably spread his horrific genes around the planet. And I can't even afford cable.
"Do you want to fuck her until she is speechless?Generik Viagra will make your dirty fantasies come true.Erection with Generik Viagra is superhuman.With our Generik Viagra you can crack nuts with your penis."
Crack nuts with my penis? Who wants to crack nuts with their penis? Do people sit around thinking, damn if only my penis were harder, I wouldn't have to crack all these nuts by hand, I could do it by penis? How would that even work? And wouldn't it be painful?
I just think - some living human being must have written this - and probably spread his horrific genes around the planet. And I can't even afford cable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
