What caused the prodigal son to leave? Was it that he wanted to be independent, or merely free from his family, or merely free from the law? I've been contemplating his character for some time now- he may be some sort of existential hero, I think, if seen in the right light. In the original story, of course, the father is the hero. Still, the son has a certain boldness to him, a desire for change, that is far more honest than his brother.
The son practically wishes his father dead; rude, of course, but not pretentious. He blatantly shows who he is, how decadent, how degraded. The older brother has the same base desire as the younger. A good portion of the story details what a hypocrite he is, how painfully hateful. The older brother is the hateful hypocrite, without the either the brutal honesty of the prodigal nor the love of the father.
The father is the happy medium- the Christian medium- both loving, and just, and honest. Which he should be, since he allegorizes God according to the traditional interpretation. The prodigal has some redeeming value in his own right, I feel, and he ought to be praised for his boldness, his acceptance of life. He is closer to the hero, flawed but persistent, seeking to repay what he owes on every count. He is saved by mercy- but he would have settled for less as a consequence of his actions. He is a sort of hero, because he is consistent. He would have been the same man if his father had only made him a servant in the house.
The father is highlighted in the parable. But the prodigal deserves some recognition for his existential essence.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Brief and Mostly Fictional Story
I hope my readers will forgive my story. I promise that the events are fictional. It is just a diary of the soul, really. Specifics weigh things down.
It’s long and bony, and attached to an even thinner branch of bone. I just sit down and look at my hand. It looks like my arm is too small, more than that my hand is too big. Wearing a too-big jacket doesn’t help at all. The sleeves drape over my arm. It’s wasting away. I’m wasting away. Not like tuberculosis, or anorexia, or leprosy. Those things are diseases of the body. A soul disease, man, but who has ever had one of those? Either everybody or nobody. A soul disease, man.
It’s not even like my body reflects my spirit. Probably just my mind reflects my spirit onto my body. My eyes see through a wasting-away lens. That’s about right. I can feel and see my own decay.
It’s peculiar-like, turning into a skeleton. The thing about a skeleton is that you can add meat to it, shape it how you like. This is different. You can’t control it. The skeleton is the created thing, the end, not the foundation. You build your skeleton as the rest of you burns. The skeleton is you.
This skeleton is me. It has long bony fingers and too small arms. Too thin arms. It is gangly and tall and cannot convince anyone that it is tough. It knows it is all askew, but hates to accept it. The skin is filled with pallor, and the too long hair is the only thing growing on it. Everything else pulls taut on the gaunt frame.
I have perfect vision, but it’s blurred like a funhouse mirror when I look at myself. I see shadows of myself, or half a man, or some such illusions. Maybe I read too much, and all these books around me fill themselves on my soul, giving me vampiric ideas. Over here is “The Seducer’s Diary,” and here is Werther. All of the books are so terribly beautiful. I tremble when I read them, out of excitement to melt my flesh the way Dr. Faustus did. Dorian Gray, too, although his is just a retelling of Faust. The way Adam and Eve found knowledge was by fruit. My knowledge comes from aesthetic experience. It is wonderful, really.
I mean, the other night, I was wandering the streets. It was raining, so that this story can have a little atmosphere. That light misty rain that darkens the streets, without really making you miserable by soaking your bones. The blood on my hands warmed them a little. But it wasn’t really blood. Metaphorical blood, maybe. A young girl who trusted me, who I even convinced to love me. I ruined her entirely. Her blood, or body, or heart, was hot with a passion I could not understand. That is what it means, I thought, to be an aesthetic. To give in, as she did, to the desires of the soul.
She was wiser than me, even though she woke up colder, and more alone, and without comprehension as to where her lover had been spirited away. I didn’t try to make her suffer. But I didn’t mind enough to change anything. That there is hate, a really terrible hate, not to care enough about someone to even desire their suffering. A man who kills another man, is not guilty of hate. He is guilty of love. He loves the man so much that he changes the man. A man who does nothing to benefit or suffer another, he is a hater, in his apathy worse than any man of the passions.
The seducer has no real feel for art. Or should I say, I have no feel for art. Art is felt. Emotion doesn’t have to be suppressed to never love. Art is love. Art is passion. Emotion, fun, happy, these things are not art. I am not an artist.
I am the seducer, but I can never really make it an art.
It’s long and bony, and attached to an even thinner branch of bone. I just sit down and look at my hand. It looks like my arm is too small, more than that my hand is too big. Wearing a too-big jacket doesn’t help at all. The sleeves drape over my arm. It’s wasting away. I’m wasting away. Not like tuberculosis, or anorexia, or leprosy. Those things are diseases of the body. A soul disease, man, but who has ever had one of those? Either everybody or nobody. A soul disease, man.
It’s not even like my body reflects my spirit. Probably just my mind reflects my spirit onto my body. My eyes see through a wasting-away lens. That’s about right. I can feel and see my own decay.
It’s peculiar-like, turning into a skeleton. The thing about a skeleton is that you can add meat to it, shape it how you like. This is different. You can’t control it. The skeleton is the created thing, the end, not the foundation. You build your skeleton as the rest of you burns. The skeleton is you.
This skeleton is me. It has long bony fingers and too small arms. Too thin arms. It is gangly and tall and cannot convince anyone that it is tough. It knows it is all askew, but hates to accept it. The skin is filled with pallor, and the too long hair is the only thing growing on it. Everything else pulls taut on the gaunt frame.
I have perfect vision, but it’s blurred like a funhouse mirror when I look at myself. I see shadows of myself, or half a man, or some such illusions. Maybe I read too much, and all these books around me fill themselves on my soul, giving me vampiric ideas. Over here is “The Seducer’s Diary,” and here is Werther. All of the books are so terribly beautiful. I tremble when I read them, out of excitement to melt my flesh the way Dr. Faustus did. Dorian Gray, too, although his is just a retelling of Faust. The way Adam and Eve found knowledge was by fruit. My knowledge comes from aesthetic experience. It is wonderful, really.
I mean, the other night, I was wandering the streets. It was raining, so that this story can have a little atmosphere. That light misty rain that darkens the streets, without really making you miserable by soaking your bones. The blood on my hands warmed them a little. But it wasn’t really blood. Metaphorical blood, maybe. A young girl who trusted me, who I even convinced to love me. I ruined her entirely. Her blood, or body, or heart, was hot with a passion I could not understand. That is what it means, I thought, to be an aesthetic. To give in, as she did, to the desires of the soul.
She was wiser than me, even though she woke up colder, and more alone, and without comprehension as to where her lover had been spirited away. I didn’t try to make her suffer. But I didn’t mind enough to change anything. That there is hate, a really terrible hate, not to care enough about someone to even desire their suffering. A man who kills another man, is not guilty of hate. He is guilty of love. He loves the man so much that he changes the man. A man who does nothing to benefit or suffer another, he is a hater, in his apathy worse than any man of the passions.
The seducer has no real feel for art. Or should I say, I have no feel for art. Art is felt. Emotion doesn’t have to be suppressed to never love. Art is love. Art is passion. Emotion, fun, happy, these things are not art. I am not an artist.
I am the seducer, but I can never really make it an art.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
To Steve, Brian, and B----
Just completed my essay, or most of it. Maybe some stylistics left to correct, or paragraphs to add. Still, the most of it is out of the way. It was quite a juggernaut. A large project. And some good work, if I'm allowed to self congratulate, in both setting up a single analyctic argument by telling a story about Steve. I'd like to thank Brian N. for helping me work through my first draft, and anyone who can see how much fun I had with the essay.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Against Self-Contradictory Forms of Specific Philosophies (PHL 123 Essay)
Against Self-Contradictory Forms of Specific Philosophies
Zachary Teela
In this day and age, many people claim that there is no truth. The same people who hold this belief then go about proclaiming that as gospel truth, and being rather difficult towards people who don’t hold the same view. This essay isn’t to say that there is absolute truth, but rather just to say that those people, we’ll call them militant relativists, are rather hypocritical by definition.
Thus, militant relativism is untenable. I will spend the next few pages elaborating on this statement. Of course, relativism is a rather broad term. It is easier to prove that naturalistic atheism leads to a nihilistic or existential attitude towards life and further, to a general relativism in theory. From there, militant forms of these positions can be shown to be inherently untenable.
The easiest way to go about a critique of militant relativism is to evaluate the assumptions leading to it (in theory) and from there to follow through the results of these assumptions. The epistemic assumption that leads to naturalism and the narcissistic assumption that leads to humanism seem to be at odds with each other, but must still be evaluated and shown hypothetically working within the same person.
Naturalism may be a slightly loaded term. A redefinition is in order. Naturalism will describe the philosophy that denies the existence of any idea that is spiritual in nature. Materialism is a better term for this philosophy, but has a more consumption-culture connotation.
Knowledge is a fun word to define within the context of epistemology. It has been defined as properly justified true belief1,2. Where the proper justification comes from is what separates the naturalist from any form of spiritualist. The naturalist holds that proper justification is grounded in empirical experience (e.g. scientific experience), This assumption is sound enough for most naturalists even though it is only self-evident. Many of these naturalists also assume that evolution is a fact. Evolution and a chaotic universe make perfect sense to the naturalist. In fact, these are the only things to be accepted!
According to this line of thinking, evolution happened, and the human race has happily and randomly evolved from its initial state. Because man is inherently built only to propagate the species (as any higher meaning would concede a degree of spirituality), the naturalist joyfully contributes his part to the propagation of the race and moves on with his life. Unfortunately for him, this doesn’t satisfy his desire for meaning or his gut belief that humans have some greater value in the universe. So he decides to pursue a higher valuation of man than his belief system will allow normally.
Perhaps he finds a fellow skeptic such as Kurt Vonnegut, who says, “Some of you may know that I am a Humanist, not a Christian. But I say of Jesus, as all Humanists do, ''If what he said was good and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what can it matter if he was God or not?'' If Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being. I would just as soon be a rattlesnake.”3 This philosophy is remarkably common in popular culture, and so it is this humanistic philosophy of love to which our friend subscribes.
It is here that we put the naturalistic philosophy away for a while and discuss the narcissistic philosophy that leads to humanism. I only call it narcissistic due to the fact that it is self-valuing of the human race. It is a form of self-worship, and little more. Ultimately, it is a kind of philosophy of the gut, as with the aforementioned scientific valuation. It feels right, for whatever reason, to value oneself and one’s species. And it has as much value as any alternative, in regards to initial reasoning. Thus, our naturalistic friend simultaneously accepts this skeptical humanism.
His philosophy is built well enough. Deism still has a sort of leap, and as it is another very easy idea to encounter (practically speaking. No one actually calls themselves a deist anymore) is a nice pseudo-antithesis to naturalistic humanism. They are both tenable philosophies in the same vein as each other.
In defense of deism, the idea of a Creator is very easy to hold, without any need for evidence (because He left long ago). In fact, deism is practically indistinguishable from naturalism, excepting that it is an older, more spiritual philosophy that allows more meaning to man. But our friend, who I will call Steve from now on, is not a deist. He doesn’t technically believe in any inherent meaning within a man, and therein lays his problem.
The existentialists justify this by suggesting that man must make meaning for himself and in doing so value the individual choosing for himself. “Existentialism is a form of humanism”4 according to Sartre, in that the individual human must create himself. The application of the term existentialism generally referred to the “existence before essence” that Sartre always discusses, and the individual’s relation to the universal5.
All this probably seems like a digression into the nature of a distinctly separate philosophy. Existentialism is a necessary part of understanding the dilemma of Steve, because it allows a morality, but also relativism with respect to truth. Every philosophy that Steve can indulge in leaves room for some form of relativism.
Relativism is shorthand for “relativism with respect to truth.6” In short, the belief that man cannot know all truth or that there is no truth to be known. This especially applies to such things as moral truths, which become irrelevant to meaningless (philosophically) people in a spiritless universe. Why is relativism necessary for a humanistic stand? Because an ant certainly doesn’t value humans as much as the human values himself. Because the moon doesn’t exist for the sake of man, nor even does man exist for the sake of the moon. Man exists for man, and the ant for the ant, and the moon for the moon. In order for man to value himself, he must realize that he is the only value to himself.
Relativism can be avoided if man values something higher, and in doing so values himself. That is the premise of the Theist, that man finds his own value by valuing God. The problems of naturalistic humanism are solved by a theistic approach towards life. Steve, however, is not a theist, or a deist, and so his naturalistic humanism must be differently approached.
The problem that relativism faces if it tries to purport itself as true is that it doesn’t leave itself a leg to stand on. If I made a proposition P “no propositions are true,” then P could not be true (or any other proposition D or ~ D). It is a singularly unique form of difficulty this causes. Since he is a naturalist, though, Steve believes that there is truth. As a humanist, only moral truths are relative, not truths grounded in empirical experience (naturalistic knowledge),such as gravity. So P could be redefined as Pm: “no moral propositions are true.” This is not a contradictory proposition, less likely to make logicians cry.
The final step that turns Steve into a militant relativist is moving from Pm as Mw: “Making a moral proposition is morally wrong.” The problem that arises here is the exact same contradiction that made P wrong. In supporting Mw, Steve comes to hold an inherently self-contradictory statement. As such, his whole position dissolves into contradiction.
To be fair to Steve, it isn’t necessary that he be a naturalist, or a humanist. If I take a naturalist named Brian, who reached his position in the same way Steve did, without going further by making the humanistic leap, his argument is different. Brian can hold moral truths by claiming that they have an evolutionary value, or by helping the species to survive. For example, Brian can say “murder is wrong because it prevents the propagation of the species, and eliminates productive members of society.” Or he can ignore moral truths since he only believes in empirical truths, and can spend his life studying those. Brian doesn’t claim that humanity has any inherent value, and so he avoids the contradiction found in Mw.
We have a man named Tom, who is only a humanist. Proposition P can do him in entirely. The reason that Steve wasn’t found contradictory until Mw was because he held that naturalistic knowledge could be true. Tom doesn’t have the naturalistic leanings of Steve though, and cannot claim that naturalistic knowledge is true. Thus, he can state P with a rather straight face, that no proposition is true. That is the problem with the entirely relativistic viewpoint.
Relativism has a fundamental flaw in calling an anti-truth statement true. It is not impossible to claim that something is true. Brian can hold that a statement is empirically true, and Dan the deist can as well. Steve and Tom cannot hold P without holding a proposition as true.
Dan’s deism might offer a solution for Steve. It allows empirical truth, as well as a meaning for mankind, without demanding utter worship of a Creator. It allows room for moral truth without stating specifics. This might be the ideal position for Steve, a naturalistic deism.
All of this is not to say that no atheist can rationally hold moral truths. Although my own standpoint as a theist would love to say that, I cannot reasonably say that. A naturalist can hold a normative belief, that we ought not to kill, or should not steal, for practical reasons. Whether or not he calls it true, he never denies that a moral idea could be true. In fact, he could still empirically justify morality within the science of psychology or opinion polls. Both offer forms of empirical evidence. Whether they are sufficient to make moral claims is up to the naturalist to decide. I personally am in no position to say anything about real moral truths. Essays and books can be written to discuss that kind of material.
Still, Steve cannot make any normative statements without contradicting himself. That is the position I’ve worked to advance. And, if any person really tries to hold Mw, or acts as though he holds it, he falls into Steve’s position.
1Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993) 1-48 2 Edmund Gettier: "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" in Analysis, v. 23.
3Kurt Vonnegut “Agnes Scott Commencement” May 15th, 1999
4Walter Kaufmann, trans., Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (Cleveland, World Publishing Company, 1956), 287-292 (“Existentialism is a form of Humanism”, Sartre)
5 Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling Trans. Alastair Hannay (New York, Penguin Group, 1985) 62-65
6 Alvin Plantinga, “What is Christian Philosophy?” November 17th, 2011
Zachary Teela
In this day and age, many people claim that there is no truth. The same people who hold this belief then go about proclaiming that as gospel truth, and being rather difficult towards people who don’t hold the same view. This essay isn’t to say that there is absolute truth, but rather just to say that those people, we’ll call them militant relativists, are rather hypocritical by definition.
Thus, militant relativism is untenable. I will spend the next few pages elaborating on this statement. Of course, relativism is a rather broad term. It is easier to prove that naturalistic atheism leads to a nihilistic or existential attitude towards life and further, to a general relativism in theory. From there, militant forms of these positions can be shown to be inherently untenable.
The easiest way to go about a critique of militant relativism is to evaluate the assumptions leading to it (in theory) and from there to follow through the results of these assumptions. The epistemic assumption that leads to naturalism and the narcissistic assumption that leads to humanism seem to be at odds with each other, but must still be evaluated and shown hypothetically working within the same person.
Naturalism may be a slightly loaded term. A redefinition is in order. Naturalism will describe the philosophy that denies the existence of any idea that is spiritual in nature. Materialism is a better term for this philosophy, but has a more consumption-culture connotation.
Knowledge is a fun word to define within the context of epistemology. It has been defined as properly justified true belief1,2. Where the proper justification comes from is what separates the naturalist from any form of spiritualist. The naturalist holds that proper justification is grounded in empirical experience (e.g. scientific experience), This assumption is sound enough for most naturalists even though it is only self-evident. Many of these naturalists also assume that evolution is a fact. Evolution and a chaotic universe make perfect sense to the naturalist. In fact, these are the only things to be accepted!
According to this line of thinking, evolution happened, and the human race has happily and randomly evolved from its initial state. Because man is inherently built only to propagate the species (as any higher meaning would concede a degree of spirituality), the naturalist joyfully contributes his part to the propagation of the race and moves on with his life. Unfortunately for him, this doesn’t satisfy his desire for meaning or his gut belief that humans have some greater value in the universe. So he decides to pursue a higher valuation of man than his belief system will allow normally.
Perhaps he finds a fellow skeptic such as Kurt Vonnegut, who says, “Some of you may know that I am a Humanist, not a Christian. But I say of Jesus, as all Humanists do, ''If what he said was good and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what can it matter if he was God or not?'' If Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being. I would just as soon be a rattlesnake.”3 This philosophy is remarkably common in popular culture, and so it is this humanistic philosophy of love to which our friend subscribes.
It is here that we put the naturalistic philosophy away for a while and discuss the narcissistic philosophy that leads to humanism. I only call it narcissistic due to the fact that it is self-valuing of the human race. It is a form of self-worship, and little more. Ultimately, it is a kind of philosophy of the gut, as with the aforementioned scientific valuation. It feels right, for whatever reason, to value oneself and one’s species. And it has as much value as any alternative, in regards to initial reasoning. Thus, our naturalistic friend simultaneously accepts this skeptical humanism.
His philosophy is built well enough. Deism still has a sort of leap, and as it is another very easy idea to encounter (practically speaking. No one actually calls themselves a deist anymore) is a nice pseudo-antithesis to naturalistic humanism. They are both tenable philosophies in the same vein as each other.
In defense of deism, the idea of a Creator is very easy to hold, without any need for evidence (because He left long ago). In fact, deism is practically indistinguishable from naturalism, excepting that it is an older, more spiritual philosophy that allows more meaning to man. But our friend, who I will call Steve from now on, is not a deist. He doesn’t technically believe in any inherent meaning within a man, and therein lays his problem.
The existentialists justify this by suggesting that man must make meaning for himself and in doing so value the individual choosing for himself. “Existentialism is a form of humanism”4 according to Sartre, in that the individual human must create himself. The application of the term existentialism generally referred to the “existence before essence” that Sartre always discusses, and the individual’s relation to the universal5.
All this probably seems like a digression into the nature of a distinctly separate philosophy. Existentialism is a necessary part of understanding the dilemma of Steve, because it allows a morality, but also relativism with respect to truth. Every philosophy that Steve can indulge in leaves room for some form of relativism.
Relativism is shorthand for “relativism with respect to truth.6” In short, the belief that man cannot know all truth or that there is no truth to be known. This especially applies to such things as moral truths, which become irrelevant to meaningless (philosophically) people in a spiritless universe. Why is relativism necessary for a humanistic stand? Because an ant certainly doesn’t value humans as much as the human values himself. Because the moon doesn’t exist for the sake of man, nor even does man exist for the sake of the moon. Man exists for man, and the ant for the ant, and the moon for the moon. In order for man to value himself, he must realize that he is the only value to himself.
Relativism can be avoided if man values something higher, and in doing so values himself. That is the premise of the Theist, that man finds his own value by valuing God. The problems of naturalistic humanism are solved by a theistic approach towards life. Steve, however, is not a theist, or a deist, and so his naturalistic humanism must be differently approached.
The problem that relativism faces if it tries to purport itself as true is that it doesn’t leave itself a leg to stand on. If I made a proposition P “no propositions are true,” then P could not be true (or any other proposition D or ~ D). It is a singularly unique form of difficulty this causes. Since he is a naturalist, though, Steve believes that there is truth. As a humanist, only moral truths are relative, not truths grounded in empirical experience (naturalistic knowledge),such as gravity. So P could be redefined as Pm: “no moral propositions are true.” This is not a contradictory proposition, less likely to make logicians cry.
The final step that turns Steve into a militant relativist is moving from Pm as Mw: “Making a moral proposition is morally wrong.” The problem that arises here is the exact same contradiction that made P wrong. In supporting Mw, Steve comes to hold an inherently self-contradictory statement. As such, his whole position dissolves into contradiction.
To be fair to Steve, it isn’t necessary that he be a naturalist, or a humanist. If I take a naturalist named Brian, who reached his position in the same way Steve did, without going further by making the humanistic leap, his argument is different. Brian can hold moral truths by claiming that they have an evolutionary value, or by helping the species to survive. For example, Brian can say “murder is wrong because it prevents the propagation of the species, and eliminates productive members of society.” Or he can ignore moral truths since he only believes in empirical truths, and can spend his life studying those. Brian doesn’t claim that humanity has any inherent value, and so he avoids the contradiction found in Mw.
We have a man named Tom, who is only a humanist. Proposition P can do him in entirely. The reason that Steve wasn’t found contradictory until Mw was because he held that naturalistic knowledge could be true. Tom doesn’t have the naturalistic leanings of Steve though, and cannot claim that naturalistic knowledge is true. Thus, he can state P with a rather straight face, that no proposition is true. That is the problem with the entirely relativistic viewpoint.
Relativism has a fundamental flaw in calling an anti-truth statement true. It is not impossible to claim that something is true. Brian can hold that a statement is empirically true, and Dan the deist can as well. Steve and Tom cannot hold P without holding a proposition as true.
Dan’s deism might offer a solution for Steve. It allows empirical truth, as well as a meaning for mankind, without demanding utter worship of a Creator. It allows room for moral truth without stating specifics. This might be the ideal position for Steve, a naturalistic deism.
All of this is not to say that no atheist can rationally hold moral truths. Although my own standpoint as a theist would love to say that, I cannot reasonably say that. A naturalist can hold a normative belief, that we ought not to kill, or should not steal, for practical reasons. Whether or not he calls it true, he never denies that a moral idea could be true. In fact, he could still empirically justify morality within the science of psychology or opinion polls. Both offer forms of empirical evidence. Whether they are sufficient to make moral claims is up to the naturalist to decide. I personally am in no position to say anything about real moral truths. Essays and books can be written to discuss that kind of material.
Still, Steve cannot make any normative statements without contradicting himself. That is the position I’ve worked to advance. And, if any person really tries to hold Mw, or acts as though he holds it, he falls into Steve’s position.
1Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993) 1-48 2 Edmund Gettier: "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" in Analysis, v. 23.
3Kurt Vonnegut “Agnes Scott Commencement” May 15th, 1999
4Walter Kaufmann, trans., Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (Cleveland, World Publishing Company, 1956), 287-292 (“Existentialism is a form of Humanism”, Sartre)
5 Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling Trans. Alastair Hannay (New York, Penguin Group, 1985) 62-65
6 Alvin Plantinga, “What is Christian Philosophy?” November 17th, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
I've always played with the idea of writing fiction. I'm not that kind of writer, though. I don't care enough about the story. I care about the ideas. I care about the dialogue, or whatever. The plot is irrelevant. Read "Waiting for Godot" for a play like that. It's hard to write a postmodern piece, I'm sure. I'll just stick to writing dialogues. Read "The Alchemist and the Metaphysician" for an example I wrote... so... long... ago...
Time feels like it goes too fast. I feel I've aged so much, yet not at all. What a pain.
Time feels like it goes too fast. I feel I've aged so much, yet not at all. What a pain.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
What a Brave new Idea!
Is a brave idea a good idea? Not necessarily. But a brave idea, a new valuation, is certainly interesting. A beautiful idea, too, holds an aesthetic value. Does that make it right? Certainly not. But a brave idea is almost more worthwhile to consider. Certainly more attractive than a normal idea. What is a brave idea, you ask? Well, a brave idea is one that makes you suspend your current beliefs in order to consider it. A beautiful idea is simply that: an idea found to be beautiful. Brave ideas are dangerous. Existentialism and humanism are brave ideas. So is relativism. Ethics is not. Morality is not brave- it follows from a system. Perhaps the Cogito is brave.
But I digress. Figure out for yourself what a brave idea is. Form a new system of thought. And, if it makes sense to you, follow it. A brave idea is a foundation, not an end.
But I digress. Figure out for yourself what a brave idea is. Form a new system of thought. And, if it makes sense to you, follow it. A brave idea is a foundation, not an end.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Postmodern Boredom
I find myself with very little to say. That is the problem with Ecclesiastes. Can I ever do more than point to something else? Invoke an old emotion? Not really. I might be witty, but I can never be original, and I'm probably not even witty. What a pain. Some people write grand stories. Joyce was a fan of invoking old myths, but allegorically, subtly. That's witty. It means something. But I am too tired of it all to think.
The only thing really personal, really vulgar, anywhere close to original, is a journal. I keep one. Under lock and key, though. I don't trust you enough. You shan't read it. I like you to much to tell you the truth. Truth is a blessing, but the truths I keep are my own little secrets. I don't want to hurt the status quo.
The only thing really personal, really vulgar, anywhere close to original, is a journal. I keep one. Under lock and key, though. I don't trust you enough. You shan't read it. I like you to much to tell you the truth. Truth is a blessing, but the truths I keep are my own little secrets. I don't want to hurt the status quo.
Friday, November 4, 2011
I don't think it's wrong to be a bit postmodern here, do you? I will let myself have fun with ideas. This is, after all, a blog, a journal, personal, without any of the weight of academia resting on it. It's amazing anything at all can get done, with any ideas, let alone put to paper. So many thoughts can't be put to paper- they are the sensational thoughts. So the ones I can give you, I should. Hence, my last post.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Within the Vein of the Surrealist
I'm not asking where reality comes into play, or fantasy does. Logic still applies, no matter the argument. This post does not contain words. But that is illogical, and false. I have never eaten anything- that could be logical, even if false. The truth of propositions is entirely seperate from their logic. A logical proposition is false, and the illogical one true. The better argument is the one that is true and logical, but there is nothing worse than the true and illogical. There is a God, but what greater injustice could I do Him than to argue for his existence? Twould be better to argue logically that He does not exist!
A Revision of Principle
It used to always be my principle, if I recall, to be full of grand style in writing, to speak only of high things. I am abandoning that principle, allowing my mind to wander into the surreal. I really am a surrealist at heart, digressing at will, thinking of every word I say, but writing words I never thought. Writing paradoxes and incomplete sentences. Guilty. Anyway, as such, this way I can better communicate, I hope. I won't be vulgar. I am merely eliminating stylistic principle.
Love,
Zach
Love,
Zach
Force Restart
I think I started this project, for some reason or other, to emphasize my own philosophies. I posted my last post a long time ago, and somewhat changed, more recently. I don't know myself to what extent I've changed, and I'm sure it will take me somewhere. But it is here that I start anew. I'm perfectly prepared to retread old topics of conversation or thought. I'm perfectly willing to write in new ways. I just want to always keep writing. It's a purifying act. I journal, but a journal doesn't force the writer to hide. I can play with irony here: I know things you don't. You know things I don't. We're locked in battle, dear reader, yet the better for it.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
On Church Music
What is the best way to "do music" in church? I don't propose to answer that in one blog post. But we have made music such a big part of church that it is worth noting. Every Sunday at church, a good fifteen minutes of the hour long service (a rude estimate, I know) are devoted to worship. People get angry if that changes, but other people get angry if it stays the same. Music becomes a point of divisiveness. Some of the biggest splits are over "contemporary versus traditional" music and simple amount of music.
Now, I'll admit that I don't care much for Christian music, and therefore probably one of the less suited commentators on the "issue." I'll also admit I don't listen to much contemporary music at all, so have a natural bias against it. Modern music seems to grow shallower, especially as the chorus is repeated some fifty odd times over the course of a two verse song (pardon the mini-rant.) The fact that the chorus is so often repeated tends to lessen the impact, causing it to become simply words if one doesn't concentrate. Hymns traditionally don't repeat so much (Note especially "Come Thou Fount" and "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing") and so convey more material in the same amount of time. And I would personally love to see modern hymns, but that's another point entirely. Either way, worship is worship, and everyone ought to stay in community, regardless of the type of music.
Now, the amount of sheer face melting noise that us old people can take is rather low. Especially for those of us who are naturally introverted. Worship that is prolonged can seem to be simply excessive. Cut it too short though, and others complain of the lack of music. All I can say is, we get used to our situation. The thing about music is that church members take the music personally. We ought to evaluate theology, not mode of delivery. There is no community if everyone is out for his own tastes. Then we just have the consumer culture spilling over to the church. I would like to see a depth in my own music, but accomplishing theological depth at a church should seem simple. I should care not for the package, but the message.
Now, I'll admit that I don't care much for Christian music, and therefore probably one of the less suited commentators on the "issue." I'll also admit I don't listen to much contemporary music at all, so have a natural bias against it. Modern music seems to grow shallower, especially as the chorus is repeated some fifty odd times over the course of a two verse song (pardon the mini-rant.) The fact that the chorus is so often repeated tends to lessen the impact, causing it to become simply words if one doesn't concentrate. Hymns traditionally don't repeat so much (Note especially "Come Thou Fount" and "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing") and so convey more material in the same amount of time. And I would personally love to see modern hymns, but that's another point entirely. Either way, worship is worship, and everyone ought to stay in community, regardless of the type of music.
Now, the amount of sheer face melting noise that us old people can take is rather low. Especially for those of us who are naturally introverted. Worship that is prolonged can seem to be simply excessive. Cut it too short though, and others complain of the lack of music. All I can say is, we get used to our situation. The thing about music is that church members take the music personally. We ought to evaluate theology, not mode of delivery. There is no community if everyone is out for his own tastes. Then we just have the consumer culture spilling over to the church. I would like to see a depth in my own music, but accomplishing theological depth at a church should seem simple. I should care not for the package, but the message.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
The Alchemist and the Metaphysician
Metaphysician: Good evening, friend alchemist. How fares the world?
Alchemist: Quite well: never was there an age of greater industry than ours. Of this I am sure. Friend metaphysician, how does the world to you seem?
M.: It seems in a state of despair never witnessed before this grand age of decadence. It can only worsen its condition as the ages pass.
A.: Perhaps the decadence allows, nay, fuels! the industrial age that I do love.
M.: So I fear.
A.: Ease yourself, friend. Youth flows through our veins.
M.: And, age does not burden us so much as that foolish ignorant blood of vigor. Accursed vigor!
A.: Are you quite alright, sir?
M.: We are not decrepit with age, but neither are we blessed with the wisdom and discernment of such an estate.
A.: My friend, leave wisdom for the philosophers and court jesters. The world is progressing. Can you not see that?
M.: I observe the same, but though you see the world marching forward, I see it marching back. And in case you have forgotten, I am a philosopher by trade.
A.: But in your soul you lack the weariness of a philosopher. Perhaps not his bitterness or anger, but those are also the traits of critics as well.
M.: So what is the difference between a critic and a philosopher?
A.: The philosopher doesn’t care quite so much. He is detached from the world, having abandoned hope in his prime.
M.: But I don’t care, I am detached from the world.
A.: Quite right, but so are many men. What makes you a philosopher, and not simply an outcast?
M.: The question of the hour, I understand. I am a metaphysician in name, at least. Not that it matters. Perhaps the only way to respond truthfully to that question is to ask it again at the gates of heaven.
A.: Fair enough. My science cannot tell a beings quintessence.
M.: To understand the veritas of a matter, and of all matter, is that to be God?
A.: You fool!: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
M.: That seems a bit ahead of our time. And you are a fool to think that. Just as Lucifer was the most beautiful of all the angels- yet not the truest.
A.: I have no time for your petty metaphysics, not while the physical world yet strives to comprehend all things, not while the air is rife with revolution.
M.: But if you understand your beliefs, humanist, then you understand that that revolution only begins when one man thinks of metaphysics and attempts to lead a hundred thousand to bend the world to his will. I just noticed: the man who leads the world to accept his truth, does he not try to surpass God?
A.: Enough now, of your musings. Will you pour me another glass?
M.: Certainly. But why do you desire another glass?
A.: As I am thirsty. But why should it matter? I have a desire, and I work to fulfill it. Or, in this case, you work to that end.
M.: Ye speak in jest in your latter phrase, yet do not realize the joke of the sentence preceding. You “have a desire, and work to fulfill it,” eschewing the metaphysical implications!
A.: But whenever you work to an end, whether in argument or in desire, you yourself eschew the scientific implications.
M.: Now here, if I state, science matters not, then you will say the same of my discipline.
A.: Verily.
M.: But if I said that my doctrine had a greater affect on man, would you allow me to continue.
A.: I will humor you for a moment. I am a bit thirsty, as well.
M.: Thank you. Men could see fire, long before science ever understood oxidation. But it was philosophy that first allowed men to see God.
A.: Greater impact? That I will not deny. I will negate a claim that philosophy is more healthful to mankind. Science does not launch wars.
M.: Fools on any side of truth launch wars. Those desires that you do not restrain also cause battles. Helen of Troy being the first such desire to come to mind.
A.: Then both my humanism and your philosophy have hurt all of mankind. But my science seems above that reproof.
M.: But your science can not find you eternal life.
A.: That is most likely the truth, though my fellows and myself seek for immortality, however unlikely.
M.: I would say immortality is found in heaven, in God.
A.: You can say what you like. The earth is my domain. It is all I can see before me.
M.: I study theology and metaphysics in an effort to see that which you cannot.
A.: Perhaps a foolish effort.
M.: Perhaps. But we both run that same risk. I gain my satisfaction through my understanding of things, and you through the increase of truth you experience. Ultimately, whether we fail or not, we strive, both of us, for truth and renown.
A.: I would prefer truth. If we can agree, for once, we can agree that renown is the surest way to hell.
M.: The valuation of renown above all things. Prophets are renowned, though we would also call them sagacious, wise, and heaven bound.
A.: You are a frustrating man.
M.: And you as well.
A.: Don’t you know how to laugh, and not seek so rabidly for truth? Leave your work behind you! Laugh!
M.: I do laugh, when I can release truth, and not be negated at every turn.
A.: Then you shall never laugh at all. The world is there to suppress all truth you might conjecture.
M.: I will laugh in heaven, when I am found right.
A.: That, or you will never laugh at all.
Alchemist: Quite well: never was there an age of greater industry than ours. Of this I am sure. Friend metaphysician, how does the world to you seem?
M.: It seems in a state of despair never witnessed before this grand age of decadence. It can only worsen its condition as the ages pass.
A.: Perhaps the decadence allows, nay, fuels! the industrial age that I do love.
M.: So I fear.
A.: Ease yourself, friend. Youth flows through our veins.
M.: And, age does not burden us so much as that foolish ignorant blood of vigor. Accursed vigor!
A.: Are you quite alright, sir?
M.: We are not decrepit with age, but neither are we blessed with the wisdom and discernment of such an estate.
A.: My friend, leave wisdom for the philosophers and court jesters. The world is progressing. Can you not see that?
M.: I observe the same, but though you see the world marching forward, I see it marching back. And in case you have forgotten, I am a philosopher by trade.
A.: But in your soul you lack the weariness of a philosopher. Perhaps not his bitterness or anger, but those are also the traits of critics as well.
M.: So what is the difference between a critic and a philosopher?
A.: The philosopher doesn’t care quite so much. He is detached from the world, having abandoned hope in his prime.
M.: But I don’t care, I am detached from the world.
A.: Quite right, but so are many men. What makes you a philosopher, and not simply an outcast?
M.: The question of the hour, I understand. I am a metaphysician in name, at least. Not that it matters. Perhaps the only way to respond truthfully to that question is to ask it again at the gates of heaven.
A.: Fair enough. My science cannot tell a beings quintessence.
M.: To understand the veritas of a matter, and of all matter, is that to be God?
A.: You fool!: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
M.: That seems a bit ahead of our time. And you are a fool to think that. Just as Lucifer was the most beautiful of all the angels- yet not the truest.
A.: I have no time for your petty metaphysics, not while the physical world yet strives to comprehend all things, not while the air is rife with revolution.
M.: But if you understand your beliefs, humanist, then you understand that that revolution only begins when one man thinks of metaphysics and attempts to lead a hundred thousand to bend the world to his will. I just noticed: the man who leads the world to accept his truth, does he not try to surpass God?
A.: Enough now, of your musings. Will you pour me another glass?
M.: Certainly. But why do you desire another glass?
A.: As I am thirsty. But why should it matter? I have a desire, and I work to fulfill it. Or, in this case, you work to that end.
M.: Ye speak in jest in your latter phrase, yet do not realize the joke of the sentence preceding. You “have a desire, and work to fulfill it,” eschewing the metaphysical implications!
A.: But whenever you work to an end, whether in argument or in desire, you yourself eschew the scientific implications.
M.: Now here, if I state, science matters not, then you will say the same of my discipline.
A.: Verily.
M.: But if I said that my doctrine had a greater affect on man, would you allow me to continue.
A.: I will humor you for a moment. I am a bit thirsty, as well.
M.: Thank you. Men could see fire, long before science ever understood oxidation. But it was philosophy that first allowed men to see God.
A.: Greater impact? That I will not deny. I will negate a claim that philosophy is more healthful to mankind. Science does not launch wars.
M.: Fools on any side of truth launch wars. Those desires that you do not restrain also cause battles. Helen of Troy being the first such desire to come to mind.
A.: Then both my humanism and your philosophy have hurt all of mankind. But my science seems above that reproof.
M.: But your science can not find you eternal life.
A.: That is most likely the truth, though my fellows and myself seek for immortality, however unlikely.
M.: I would say immortality is found in heaven, in God.
A.: You can say what you like. The earth is my domain. It is all I can see before me.
M.: I study theology and metaphysics in an effort to see that which you cannot.
A.: Perhaps a foolish effort.
M.: Perhaps. But we both run that same risk. I gain my satisfaction through my understanding of things, and you through the increase of truth you experience. Ultimately, whether we fail or not, we strive, both of us, for truth and renown.
A.: I would prefer truth. If we can agree, for once, we can agree that renown is the surest way to hell.
M.: The valuation of renown above all things. Prophets are renowned, though we would also call them sagacious, wise, and heaven bound.
A.: You are a frustrating man.
M.: And you as well.
A.: Don’t you know how to laugh, and not seek so rabidly for truth? Leave your work behind you! Laugh!
M.: I do laugh, when I can release truth, and not be negated at every turn.
A.: Then you shall never laugh at all. The world is there to suppress all truth you might conjecture.
M.: I will laugh in heaven, when I am found right.
A.: That, or you will never laugh at all.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Praise and Indifference
Let us laugh and sing and glorify God, while we weep for what once we were. Slaves to sin, that's all the Bible says we are. That is, until Christ freed the body. We are no longer that, and we have reason to glorify God for our gift. But how can we cease praising God? We manage to anyway. We have taken so much real joy out of the Church by replacing it with songs of praise, that become worthless as the worshippers lack any real joy to put into the songs. When we should be focused on a heavenly beautiful eternity, we cry at funerals where there should be rejoicing. The dead are lucky, for they can truly experience the fullness of God. There is no wonder that the church is failing in America. Here, we are without joy in worship. We are insecure because we are safe, but desire yet more safety. And we have the same loveless insecurity as the world around us, and it is killing our souls.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
A Manifesto
The church in America has been weakened. That much ought to be clear. We preach extremes, and we have all the relentlessness of the Pharisees or all of the ignorance of the masses. We preach too much, or nothing at all. The former is Religious Legalism, and the latter is fluff. Both are unacceptable- We must be a part of the world more than the Religious Right, and less than the Religious Left. We are a nation of agnostics and heretics. We know what we should about theology, but not a thing about love and justice.
The God of the Bible is both loving and just, but one aspect is weakened by everyone. We either pity and do nothing else, or we call judgement worthlessly. We have become lonely because we don't understand how this God can be. So, this is really a call to understand and preach a true, mighty God, but not a God without mercy. We ought to fear our Creator, but also to love our neighbor. To do anything less is heretical.
The Church has become a part of society in a negative way- people come not for God, but solely for appearence's sake: "It's what we've always done."
To change this, the Church must challenge herself to daily grow more Christlike, and not pander to the world or cast grave justice on the world. "Love the Lord your God, AND Love you neighbor." One without the other is useless.
The God of the Bible is both loving and just, but one aspect is weakened by everyone. We either pity and do nothing else, or we call judgement worthlessly. We have become lonely because we don't understand how this God can be. So, this is really a call to understand and preach a true, mighty God, but not a God without mercy. We ought to fear our Creator, but also to love our neighbor. To do anything less is heretical.
The Church has become a part of society in a negative way- people come not for God, but solely for appearence's sake: "It's what we've always done."
To change this, the Church must challenge herself to daily grow more Christlike, and not pander to the world or cast grave justice on the world. "Love the Lord your God, AND Love you neighbor." One without the other is useless.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Ecclesia
A call to abandon the church in order to find the Church-
What if I said that the spirit is dead in the modern church? Would that claim be believed? I am not saying that God is not in any believers, but rather that he is not in the community as a whole. How are we to establish this community? It cannot be done simply sitting and listening to someone with a theology degree speak. It must be engaged in spiritually, and not simply emotionally as worship leaders would have us believe. The modern church has two problems, three traits which cripple it: It is selfish, it is focused on emotion (and when taken together, focused on individual emotion) and it is religious (that is, legalistic). Let the church in America cry out against this, for we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
What if I said that the spirit is dead in the modern church? Would that claim be believed? I am not saying that God is not in any believers, but rather that he is not in the community as a whole. How are we to establish this community? It cannot be done simply sitting and listening to someone with a theology degree speak. It must be engaged in spiritually, and not simply emotionally as worship leaders would have us believe. The modern church has two problems, three traits which cripple it: It is selfish, it is focused on emotion (and when taken together, focused on individual emotion) and it is religious (that is, legalistic). Let the church in America cry out against this, for we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Aut Deus aut Machina
If causality holds true, and one thing causes another, even outside this universe, then whatever entity is postulated as the creator of the world must have the same questions asked of it. The first is: What created this entity? But we find that God is eternal and therefore improbable, and a universe-generating equally improbable. Supposing that these are the only possibilities, for the sake of argument, we first see that neither is obviously more likely than the other. Next, ignoring any mathematical objections to either the Multiverse or God, we ask, "which is more intuitive with my philosophy?" The easiest test for the Creator of all things is the personality argument.
We start this line of thought with man. Man assumes his own existence. He must then decide whether he has a personality, and would therefore come from a personal Creator, or whether he comes from an impersonal "machine," such as the supposed multiverse. If he assumes the former, he finds God. The latter, however, offers several conclusions. Man is labeled a machine, "God is Dead," and it becomes absurd to postulate things, since we are machines anyway. If God is dead, then man simply becomes a hedonistic, impersonal machine, tearing down every intuitive argument for ethics and goodness, and overall debasing man.
In order to have any belief in Love or Goodness, then, we must realistically postulate a Creator, a Personal God, or we must deny everything which we have ever believed. Aut Deus aut Machina.
We start this line of thought with man. Man assumes his own existence. He must then decide whether he has a personality, and would therefore come from a personal Creator, or whether he comes from an impersonal "machine," such as the supposed multiverse. If he assumes the former, he finds God. The latter, however, offers several conclusions. Man is labeled a machine, "God is Dead," and it becomes absurd to postulate things, since we are machines anyway. If God is dead, then man simply becomes a hedonistic, impersonal machine, tearing down every intuitive argument for ethics and goodness, and overall debasing man.
In order to have any belief in Love or Goodness, then, we must realistically postulate a Creator, a Personal God, or we must deny everything which we have ever believed. Aut Deus aut Machina.
Which Transcends All Understanding
It has been observed that the love of Christ creates some sform of emotion in many people- some react very charismatically, for example. However, when that sensation which evinces Christ is not seen, then what emotion could replace it? I suppose that the "Peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (Phil. 3:7, ESV) is an apt substitute. Being less inclined myself towards outward displays of emotion, I find this hypothesis appealing. Emotion is a large part of the Christian walk, especially love. But if peace is joy, and joy an emotion, then in some cases we can observe this quieter, more subtle emotion.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Find the Time for Healing
Something happens, and you are deeply hurt. Your boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on you, things are going bad at home, someone dear to you is in a bad situation, you name it. There are good ways to deal with stress, and there are bad ways. First off, do not go around spreading rumors if someone hurt you, or telling everyone your story in any case. It will do you no good to lie or to "get sympathy." If something is hurting you, the best thing to do is to pray. God can solve any problem, no matter how trivial or how important.
For people that have hurt you, forgive them. For your enemies, forgive them. If you do not forgive your enemies and your transgressors, then God will not forgive your transgressions. It says so in the Bible, "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors" -Matthew 6:12. If you feel that God is not doing enough, or you feel the urge to talk to someone about it, go to your counselor, parents, best friend, or loved one. But do not tell all, pick one. Keep everything you need to talk about isolated to one or (at most) two people. That way if rumors spread from it you know who said something, and you can easy stop them.
Do not get me wrong, I am at fault of not following these guidelines just as much as the next person (maybe even moreso). But this is somewhere I can warn you to not make the same mistakes as me, and where I can remind myself not to make the same mistakes.
For people that have hurt you, forgive them. For your enemies, forgive them. If you do not forgive your enemies and your transgressors, then God will not forgive your transgressions. It says so in the Bible, "And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors" -Matthew 6:12. If you feel that God is not doing enough, or you feel the urge to talk to someone about it, go to your counselor, parents, best friend, or loved one. But do not tell all, pick one. Keep everything you need to talk about isolated to one or (at most) two people. That way if rumors spread from it you know who said something, and you can easy stop them.
Do not get me wrong, I am at fault of not following these guidelines just as much as the next person (maybe even moreso). But this is somewhere I can warn you to not make the same mistakes as me, and where I can remind myself not to make the same mistakes.
Monday, January 10, 2011
New Year: New You
On New Years Eve I promised myself that this year I would be different; I would be happy and stress free, I would not care what other people thought of me, I would not ruin my relationships, and most importantly I would be close to God and stay that way. But instead of going straight to fulfilling these "resolutions," I almost broke one of them on New Years Day, found myself breaking under stress in the first week, cared more about what people thought about me than I usually did, and found myself relying on stress-reduction measures other than praying. How does this relate to a Christian blog, other than the God resolution? Well God has been pressing it on me that I can not do anything without him. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," Philippians 4:13 shows this exact thing. I was astounded at how easy it was for Satan to permeate my life and break me down because I thought I could deal with it alone. Even now I am still fighting with the problem of following God with everything and trusting in him always.
This post is not for you to go "look at how many problems that chick has," but rather to show you what mistakes not to make, to show you that we are not perfect, and to teach you what can happen when you stray from God.
This post is not for you to go "look at how many problems that chick has," but rather to show you what mistakes not to make, to show you that we are not perfect, and to teach you what can happen when you stray from God.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Happy Pessimist
There arises a case in modern philosophy, where one observes a seemingly paradoxical phenomena, being the happy pessimist. This case is philosophically pessimistic, but externally happy- even optimistic. In some cases, he may attribute his optimism to his pessimism. The pessimistic side of him is either Nihilistic or Christian, at least as it has been observed. The existentialist is too hopeful already to qualify. The Christian's optimism is unique to his one supposition, that is, that God lives. If he questions this supposition at all while exploring the ideas of nihilism, then he too will become a happy pessimist. The most obvious literary case of this may be Nietzsche's Zarathustra. But he is a humanist, and offers little theological value. The Christian's case is possibly seen in King Solomon, but that is best explored on one's own time.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
The New
As a new year begins, it feels fitting to spend a moment putting away all the shame and guilt and sin of the past year, and to strive to better ourselves in this new year. SOme practical exhortations are given by Paul in Eph. 4:17-24, and Col. 3:1-17. As you read these passages, spend some time thinking about how you too can put off the old self and put on the new, and how you will do this throughout the rest of 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)