Good Burn Friday, Jun 19 2009

There is an obsession with the pseudo-intellectual atheists of American society that involves putting God in the dock for the terrible and tragic suffering that takes place in this world. They shake their fists at the God they do not believe in and make an existential protest for a new standard of right and wrong. They are right and God is wrong. The absolutes they disdain people speaking in all of the sudden become very handy in cursing God for cursing them. Their anger fuels a godless movement that grows stronger even within the church itself. From their words these people seem disgusted and fed up with the suffering of this world. But it is my sweeping declaration that the American society that atheists assume would join them in hating suffering cannot get enough of suffering.

Sometimes I think of the men who ran the concentration camps during the Holocaust or the Viet Kong that held American soldiers captive during Vietnam. I try to think of how the torturous activities took place and the actual pleasure that was gained out of it. I do not think there to have been wide eyes and wide smiles on the faces of the torturers. I believe they might have even grimmaced at what was going on…as it kept going on. I do not believe there to have always been evil laughs and pointing coming from all the men in the room as they increased the pain of their prisoner. Most of the time I think there was probably a stoic-faced embellishment for the torturers. Though it was sometimes shocking, there was a sort of calm and mild-mannered satisfaction during the whole ordeal. Cigarettes before and after, minor jokes and mild comments about what took place, and irrelevant side discussions. It is hard to describe what I imagine in my head those men were like, but I think the best representation would be the people at a movie theater. Specifically observe the viewing audience of a recent horror film. This multi-million dollar industry displays exactly how we Americans feel about suffering: It is our entertainment.

The melodramatic teenagers of this society seem to be quite taken with suffering. If their music is not already plagued with ideas of it then the training mechanism called reality tv is full of people their age that are stricken with angst but not any real angst. The youth of America have embraced pain and suffering in the same way hypochondriacs embrace their sickness. They have joined the skyrocketing trend of using prescription painkillers. They seem so desperate for pain that they imagine it for themselves. Then try to relieve a pain that is not really there.

The class of people that would seem to have the least amount of pain and suffering in life seem to actually have the most. The suicide rates for the upper-middle class far outweigh the rates for the lower classes who would have a much better case for justifying such an act. On the other end, the lower classes have resorted to reinventing the exact system that has placed them in a state of oppression. They are as capitalistic as anyone when it comes to their philosophy on street survival. The gang mentality that pervades through the ghettos of the nation is as poisonous as the mentalities of rich men they curse for being rich. It is as animalistic as any economic Darwinism. Whatever suffering the lower classes complain about they simply recreate and reinforce the same suffering in their own neighborhoods.

Pain and suffering is sought after throughout American culture. From doctors trying to convince patients of their health to America’s new obsession with investigating crime scenes via television. From the nasty and bloody problem of self-mutilation among young Americans to the neater and cleaner mutilation of piercings and ink-filled needles. We look as if we are on a quest for something that hurts. There is some type of pain that we seem desperate for. It is a sort of rendemptive pain we desire. It is like we are convinced that it will bring us back to reality or back to life. The problem is that all the suffering we as Americans are “experiencing” does not seem to be life-giving at all and is merely surreal rather than real. Our condemnation of God for the worlds suffering is not in sync with our desperation for our own suffering. Perhaps if we start considering what we are suffering for as the  issue rather than suffering itself as the issue. Perhaps our suffering is selfish rather than understanable and paradoxical selfless suffering. I heard a story once of a man that knew more than the world combined of such selfless suffering. But he died quite a long time ago. How convenient it would be if he were still alive…and that we might find him…and follow him into the suffering we so desire.

Comments Off

 

Bad Magicians Monday, May 11 2009

Evolution is quite a hot topic in the socio-political realm of America. The debate normally centers around what we as a nation are going to teach our children in public schools while we as a nation would do better to worry about what we are teaching them in private homes. Like any other bipartisan American debate, the debate must inevitably become political and along with modern politics must come science to verify anything. Therefore, the religious right has their panel of scientists and the liberal left theirs. But my problems with the arguments from proponents of evolution do not have much to do with science. I do not wish to join the ranks the “Intelligent Design” movement. Though I believe basically everything they believe and I am sure there is plenty of evidence suggesting a designer, I cannot bring myself to fight science with science. The problems with evolution are much less complex than comparing an Evolutionist’s intricate scientific notes with a Creationist’s.

The Scientism that engulfs this age is a wasteful and sometimes destructive idolatry. Men become depressed and seek the medicine men of this age and culture to cure themselves. Similar to any other primitave role of medicine men there is not much regard for the side effects of the cure and even less regard for evidence showing the cure to hardly even cure. I have noticed a recent commercial stating that 2 out of 3 people on depression medication still suffer the symptoms of depression. I would normally think it a skewed statistic that is an attack from people like myself  who dislike the entire profession of psychiatry. This commercial, though, was an advertisement for yet another depression medication. The biggest problem with modern science is that it offers more of what obviously is not working. For the massive amounts of time and money poured into fixing depression I only see the world getting more depressed. For the massive amounts of antibiotics that the diseases are beginning to grow immune to, I only see more diseases. I by no means wish to say that science is failing in all respects. It certainly succeeds in saving lives, but it fails when the world puts on its back the overwhelming load of saving humanity.

Science is now worshipped. If something is going to be fixed, we believe science will fix it. If something is going to be invented, we believe science will invent it. But most often science fixes what is not the real problem and invents something that is either useless or that can create as much evil as good. Science can invent all the green energy it wants but I am sure the green tycoons will be as greedy as the oil tycoons. Science can create the newest and most expensive technologies for luxuries that create even more vices. Science can figure out how to keep everyone alive while everyone goes on still  not knowing how to really live.

Humanity expects from science something it never should have been intended to deliver. Men seem to ignore the fact that science is a tool used by men. Or rather they forget that men who use tools are either evil or good. Men ignore the bad science. The accidental creations of new diseases or the evil science of dictators. Other than humanity remaining completely oblivious to science being vulnerable,  the most annoying part is the scientist (and I mean the devout evolutionist) having a massive hatred for religion by ignoring all the good that has come of it. They seem to always have problems with religion (specifically Christianity) and never take any time to notice the good of the Christian church in history. They constantly bring up the evil deeds done in the name of Christianity and recognize the good only as instinct. Aside from it being a very arbitrary dichotomy, the biggest problem I have with it is that such a mindset fails to recognize one of the most central points of Christianity which is that, just like its founder, the Christian faith made itself vulnerable to all the evils created by men. That just as Christ himself was tempted by sin, so the church itself is tempted by sin. I defend religion in general, but also realize that, like science, it is a tool used by men. Christianity has willingly thrown itself into the pile of tools that make up the world’s religions, but, unlike the other tools of the world, I have found Christianity to be the right tool for fixing humanity.

Among the evolutionists poor attempts to speak about religion there are constantly poor attempts at philosophical inquiry in general. Most of the scientists leading the charge with evolution have placed themselves in the difficult philosophical position of being strict materialists. Materialism has been criticized for being a stark and bleak ideology. I can only agree. In fact, I will make the sweeping statement that most of humanity agrees. That there is matter and only matter really is a “long corridor of darkness” as I once heard it described. It is such a dark corridor that even the scientists who believe in it cannot walk down it. When most scientific materialists are called out on this they resort to some form of the modern atheism known as existentialism. That we might make our own meaning. That we as humans can generate from our beings some type of purpose or hope to make ourselves greater. This ends up being the general belief of the materialists. The problem is they have to stop being materialists to do it. They have to suspend the dogmatic rules of scientific experimentation for a few moments because they realize they cannot experiment in ideologies and philosophies. They all of the sudden “believe” in generating meaning from our own beings without any of their precious peer reviews or evidence to uphold such a belief. But those same peer reviews and that same evidence is paramount when it comes to a discussion about the existence of God.

I am sure that they can explain to us how their scientific discoveries are of dire importance, but they have to momentarily stop being strict materialsts to do it. They must at some point do something other than find evidence. They at that point become philosophers. They leave the courtroom they spend so much time in claiming that science, under no exceptions, has the order. Then, unnoticed, they sneak into the courtroom where science has merely a vote.  

As a proponent of religion I extend scientists the courtesy of discussing science without holding ONLY bad science against them, but they do not extend the same courtesy to religion. Evolutionary scientists have gotten a huge vote in the realm of discussing philosophy even when they are not very good at it. Why modern scientists hold so much weight in the two realms of religion and philosophy perplexes me greatly. Their two cents has become four. Because they deal with matter their certainty and knowledge is more valued even when the discussion deals nothing with matter. It is my conclusion that modern science is like a bad magician. If everyone stops gawking at his supposed power and pays even child-like attention we all see that he is doing something other than magic right in front of us.

Comments Off

 

Fire and Pocketknives Thursday, Apr 30 2009

When I was young, a great deal of men and their sons on my father’s side of the family would take camping trips. These trips were some of the most enjoyable times for both of us. It is interesting though how camping is described as relaxing when it is actually men ridding themselves of all the conveniences of life and having to do more work to survive. Two tools that seem to be eternally necessary for such survival are a pocketknife and a fire. Blades, in some form or another, have existed for a very long time. Fire from what I understand has been manipulated by men since the dawn of civilization. This is for good reason. The practical uses and versatility of both are unmatched.

I have used a pocketknife for an array of activities. I have tried my hand at art or passing the time by widdling pieces of wood. The pocketknife can make open things that need to be open. I have sliced things open and pried things open with it. It can cut away excess and waste.  I have used it as a screwdriver to tighten what should be tighter. It can certainly be used as a weapon to defend oneself against enemies. When dressing game it makes it easier for men to get to the meat. It is concealable and not easily taken.

The fire is a comfort for the camp. It is like the mother of men in the camp be they soldiers, hunters, travelers, or simply campers. It is the last thing most of the men in a camp see before the dark night. Men gather around it for warmth. It can prepare the men food and make light in the darkness. It can destroy all that is unwanted or unnecessary. It can be a warning signal or even a weapon. It is not stationary. Wherever the fire is there also is the camp. It is the marker for where everyone will inevitably gather.

The versatility of these things is interesting. They are many different things because they are one simple thing. A pocketknife is not versatile like a Swiss army knife is versatile. It is not many different tools by posessing a conglomeration of many different tools in one contraption. It is simply a blade. For all that you can use it there is probably a tool out there made specifically for that use. The pocketknife is always a make-shift something or other. It is not versatile because it is many things but because it is one thing. The same is true for fire. It is so many things, paradoxically, because it is merely one thing. Its constant state of burning is the tool of tools. Its movement and action make it seem practically alive which is comfort itself when alone in the wilderness. It is always being one thing. And that one thing is needed in so many different ways.

The pocketknife is a sword. Its sheeth is inherent. As small a sword it may be it is quite effective for many differnt things. Fire is active and moving. Even if it dies it can certainly come back to life. Fire and pocketknives are useful and their usefulness exists because they are constantly only one thing. They have been useful for ages for all the same reasons and same needs humanity has had for ages. However useful all the modern tools may be they are usually only able to conveniently do one thing. Remote controls, microwaves, transmissions, lamps, massage chairs, flatscreen tvs, light switches, etc… Fire and pocketknives do and have always done the same things which seem to usually be the most needed things at the time of survival. Especially in this time of dwelling in the ruthless wilderness of secular humanity, I find it no coincidence that we as a Christian faith refer to our Scripture as a sword and the Holy Spirit as fire.

Comments Off

 

The Better Part of Valor Tuesday, Apr 14 2009

“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own.” – G.K. Chesterton

The Christian church has always been a proponent of humility because the humility of it’s founder is so extraordinary. I can never detest humility. It is a quality all men should strive for. It is a quality the church should strive for because pride can destroy any church so easily. However, I find the problems with the modern church are rooted not in being too proud, but in, if possible, being too humble.

The new objective of the modern church has transformed from getting it’s regular attendence to take something deep and sacred outside it’s walls. The objective now is to get it’s irregular attendence to see something shallow and trite inside it’s walls. This new objective is most easily attained by not offending any of the prospects it wishes to see sitting in the aisles. This avoidance of stepping on the toes of secularized humanity has created a Christian church lacking valor for the things it holds sacred. For the sake of not offending anyone, the modern Christian defends nothing. The modern Christian, if he knows anything of his own beliefs, is never very proud of his own beliefs. The false and circular virtue of open-mindedness is battered over the heads of “religious” folk by the ogre of secular humanity who now humbles the church more than anything else. The church has taken in secular humanity’s idea of humility and ignored the thing that humbled in the first place.

When it comes to cultures and other religions, men praise characteristics of closed-mindedness. When it comes to Christianity, men despise them. We love the Irish because of their reputation as arrogant and fighting folk. Native Americans are adored because of their festivals remembering their honored traditions. Society, especially modern American society, relishes when other religions or cultures embellish in their rituals and activities. Muslim and Hindu doctrine are defended more by people who are not Muslims or Hindus. The pinnacle for it all is the bringing together of all these ways of life and putting a new marketing tool called diversity on the event or establishment. Society feels it has achieved something by putting a group of completely different individuals together and basking in the fact that they are doing something together. Society no longer dwells on whether or not they are doing something worthwhile or progressive. Diversity is meaningless unless there is a unified goal amidst the differences. Otherwise it is simply a lot of people as close-minded as the Christians they hate for being close-minded running around ecstatic about the diversity of people getting nothing worthwhile accomplished…it’s America.

The biggest problem with this situation is the lack of valor on the part of the Christian church. It is possible to go into a modern Christian church and not learn anything having to do with Christ. The churches wish to resemble nothing like the beautiful and rich history of it’s past; so it does not resemble it at all. Churches are as recognizable as any office building is. The church has hidden the creeds, dogmas, and sacraments that were once sacred. It has offered secular society an invitation to a rock show and a motivational speaker. The church is not proud of how it arrived here so it humbles itself to any newcomer along with their arbitrary beliefs. This is only possible because if the church believes anything anymore it is so vague about believing it that any pagan could believe. New preacher after new preacher is “emerging” the church into the secular world so much so that one is getting closer to not being able to tell the difference. And with attendence being the new currency the mid-sized churches slowly but surely follow behind. With all the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings fighting the good fight against the staleness of the elders of the churches, there is a new trend away from anything that might actually pose a newcomer with a responsibility or decision. As long as they show up.

We the church have been too humble in our beliefs. We seem ashamed. Our beliefs that actually carry any sort of conviction are rotting away while we ignore them. We are convinced that if we make our beliefs vague enough we can save the world. But that is what the world believes and is doing constantly. The great monster of secular society has reared its ugly head angry with all it thinks it knows about our beliefs. We, the peasant called Christianity, have fearfully have bowed our head and opened the door to for anybody to believe anything as long as they walk through the door. In the case of modern Christianity and its precious “relevancy” to humanity, I think by observing closely we learn that a certain old saying changes as drastically as the church itself has. Discretion is not the better part of valor.

Comments Off

 

Judgement Wednesday, Apr 1 2009

The misunderstanding of a number of concepts is one of the biggest faults of the modern thinker. It is not because of their stupidity or ignorance that certain subjects go completely  misunderstood but mostly their blatant denial of common sense. One subject that is in massive need of rethinking is the subject of judgement. The common question of people backed into corners on their personal morality is “who are you to judge?” There is a misunderstanding of the concept of judgement that is thrown around like a weapon that destroys any debate worth having. The problem is that the weapon is very hollow.

Judgement inherently involves some type of consequence. If it does not involve me punishing somebody for their actions or beliefs then I cannot consider it judgement. The drunken young adults who throw around this defense draw such an idea from the Bible. It is probably the only time they enjoy mentioning the Bible, and it is normaly to defend actions that are blatantly spoken against in the Bible. They are right in saying that scripture does tell you not to judge on multiple occassions. They are wrong in thinking that a man telling them they are wrong is judgement.

The first and obvious problem with this mode of thought is the obvious begging of the question. To find men at fault for finding other men at fault creates a circular argument that constantly re-emerges in society today. Jones tells Smith he is wrong. Smith thinks that is judgement and thinks judgement is wrong. So Smith tells Jones he is wrong. In which case, Smith seems guilty of  judgement as well. This situation takes shape in many heated conversations involving religious and political issues. It repeatedly becomes repetitive.

Secondly, and with respects to the Godhead, there is a problem when it is assumed that scritpure defines judgement as simply telling the person they are wrong. The instance mentioned normally is the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned by the masses and Pharisees. Jesus was asked for His two cents. He said “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.” He spoke against the punishment, not for the crime. She was obviously sinning. The crowd knew that, and even the Christ Himself implicitly admitted such when He told the woman “go and sin no more.” The instances in scripture that speak against judgement speak against some type of consequence. Judgement day is mentioned in scripture as the day that God gives the world what they have coming to them. It is spoken of as a day that consequences will be handed out not as a day that God decides what is right and what is wrong. We should hope He already knows that.

Men used to suffer greatly for their beliefs. Some still do. But I find it difficult to think of this society as included in that group. I never hear of burnings at the stake, lynchings, feedings to lions, or cruel and unusual punishments. The Klan used to find itself effective by tarring and feathering  men. Now they are quite feeble with their protests. Entire nations in the past have been put into gas chambers and mutilated for their beliefs. Civilizations past have been wiped out before because of their beliefs. It is hard for me to find instances of true intolerance. It is when I read history books and comparably look around that I believe this American society to know nothing at all of suffering.

When people understand judgement as involving a consequence, then and only then can we have an actual conversation about morals, religion, and personal values. I judge a man when I hit him for his beliefs not when I debate him about them. Men used to debate all types of issues with such an understanding and there even used to be public debates where people would go to enjoy a good argument. Men used to debate with each other and it was seen as honest care for the other to not miss out on the truth. Now debate is commonly seen as a destructive activity with no good coming from it. The academic and political realms call it debate. The ancients called it the dialectic and thought of it as the only way to learn. We in common modern society hatefully call it intolerance. I will give no apologies when I say that modern society is wrong.

Comments Off

 

Too Big and Too Small Tuesday, Mar 17 2009

The men that re-affirm the Christian faith no longer exist in the world of Christian literature where men attain rich living from massive amounts of poor writing. The men that continually re-affirm my faith in Christ are actually the men who continually attempt to destroy my faith in Christ. It is not the miracles of modern day Christianity that my faith is motivated by but rather the madness of modern day Paganism. They are constantly destroying Christian ideas with weapons so large and effective they destroy the ideas of their colleagues as well. The re-affirming part is that Christian ideas, so much like their maker, have a habit of resurrecting.

            It is the common “intellectual” whom you may find in the corners of coffee shops. It is those opinionated people roaming about college campuses everywhere. It is the historic atheist. It is the agnostic who is the now bitter and once ill-educated Christian. It is the man with the fancy cigarette that speaks his philosophy on why he is against dogma, and he is surprisingly dogmatic about it. It is the skeptic who will proudly question everything except his reasons for doing so.  It is these men that concern themselves so much with seeking out the contradictions of Christians that they do not mind contradicting themselves.

            Throughout the history of this world there have been many things criticized about Christianity. To some, Christianity was too feeble and weak to fight back when it caused the Fall of Rome. To some of those same people it was too war-like when it was behind the violence of the Crusades. I have heard Christianity be criticized for being too divided with the denominations of the Church and from the same people I have heard it criticized for being too unified in its exclusivity of thought. In one conversation, Christians can be found at fault because the Bible is inaccurate and mistranslated right before the Christians are found at fault for not living up to the accuracy of the morals of the Bible. Christianity is not artistic enough and has been too influential in the history of art. Christianity is not credible in the history of science because too many Christians were in the ranks. Now Christianity is not credible in contemporary science because there are not enough Christians in the ranks. Christianity is too conservative and binding with its beliefs in old rotten dogmas, but too liberal and free with its beliefs in miracles and supernatural beings. Christianity is oppressive to women by not allowing what very few women desire like church leadership roles. It is oppressive still when it promotes what most all women do desire like motherhood or decency. It is the most genius of all evil conspiracies. It is the most blundering creation of unthinking simpletons. It is too old and stale. It is too new and trendy. It is too big and too small.

            My personal favorite is to hear people who disagree with Christianity passionately call Christians hypocrites. They claim that Christians they have known are failing at living up to the Christian standard. As true as this may be in any situation it makes no sense as a criticism from a pagan viewpoint. Those critics say that Christians wrongly go about living out the faith the critics think is wrong in the first place. For all the pagans know they may be doing something right in doing Christianity wrong. It is like Jones criticizing Smith for wanting to go to Smithville and then criticizing Smith even more for going the wrong way there. Christ passionately called the Pharisees hypocrites, but only because He believed what they believed. The same applies to us. If I disagree with a thief on what he does I am not too concerned with how bad he is at thievery. A more lively and purposeful discussion would be inquiring if it is right to be a thief.

            The purpose here is not to discuss the truth or falsity of any of these things, but to make known the fact that all these things are or have been criticisms of Christianity. All of these criticisms, and many more, go against either what the critic himself said or what the critics before have said. Whether or not these things were claimed by the same people is not even important. The fact is that men end up refuting each other, or worse yet themselves, when they try to refute Christianity.

            Reason seems to be too conservative a weapon for attacking Christianity. It is thrown to the wind for flagrant inconsistency. Men hate Christianity in one age then hate it in the next age for the opposite reason. Secular mankind has it out for Christianity, it just can not decide why. Men oppose murder because they enjoy being alive. They criticize theft because they enjoy possession of something. They hate losing a loved one because they love them. Men find the same reasons to oppose the most tragic or evil activities. Men agree on these reasons. They can mount a full frontal attack on most true evils. If all men are firing forward at it they have no risk of shooting each other even if they miss. Men only shoot each other when something is fired at from all sides.

 Since Christianity has been attacked from all directions, only one of two things can be concluded about it. One is that it is more terribly wrong than all the other disgusting inventions of the world. It is the monster of monsters. Even the unified army of Mankind will fight it in so much of a panic that they will fight irrationally. They will swing their chains around so hard at the head of Christianity that the chain will come back and hit their own head. It causes humanity to fight like an angry man who has lost his cool and forgets all learned skills of fighting. It is the final scene of the village versus the villain. The only other time such irrational fighting takes place is in the opposite case. That case could only be if we were a world full of villains attacking the village…with one saving hero left in it.

Comments Off

 

Too Close To Not Know Tuesday, Mar 17 2009

It is childish to ask unbearably broad questions. It is almost insulting to the knowledgable. Enlightened men deal with actually accessible definitions. Mere children ask overwhelming questions like “What is love?” ignorantly expecting a pinpoint answer.  The enlightened stick with what is known and can be pointed to with rock solid certainty. Enlightened men make dictionaries and deal in rational concepts. Enlightened men give the world hope and progress by being able to fully explain what things are. The purpose of the proceeding scribble, though, is not to encourage us to become enlightened men, but to encourage what a wise man said a long time ago: to become more like children.

 The wisdom of the modern world seeks to entrench itself in what can be explained. There is a definable answer to the concepts the field specialists deal with. My problems with this fact begin when the scope of what we are talking about is thought through.  They can say swiftly and with exactness what the corticobulbar tract is. There is a definition for such a thing. However, the definitions of concepts like love or death or mankind are not so quickly defined. Men might take all day to say what such things are and no matter their exactness they would be leaving something out. There is a startling fascination with such broad and deep concepts. They are the “not so definable” concepts that move men to define any concept at all.

It is intriguing to me when children quizzically ask about such concepts. The initial reaction of many men I would think might involve too many angles which to approach the idea. If a child were to ask, as previously mentioned, what love is I could not give the child so compact an answer as the child desires. It is not that I do not know what love is. For I do. It is not that love is conceptually a great number of things. For it is one thing. I could attempt a number of ways to answer the child’s question but in the back of my mind (and I’m sure in the child’s) would lie this smirk-inducing dissatisfaction that simply states “no…I don’t think that quite does it.”

I believe this to be so not because we have no idea what such broad things are but because we know exactly what they are. I certainly would have a hard time fully defining death but I definitely know exactly what it is. I avoid it so well. Faith is not so hard to understand. Simple children understand and have it with ease. I cannot deny that I know what love is whether I am good at it or not. These broad concepts are closer to us than we realize. The epistemology of the modern era has set false expectations on these concepts. They are not as valuable because they are too hard to know in the way we know things like mitochondria or neodymium. We know faith because we at some point have to have it. We know love because we have always known when we have it and when we have none at all. To know the terminology of the specialists requires a search for earthly wisdom in books and diagrams in many different places, but to know concepts like hope and life requires a search for godly wisdom in places of closer proximity to us than we are comfortable with.

The Greeks might have dealt with such broad concepts but mainly dealt in a very narrow way. They attempted to give end all be all definitions for such topics as time, virtue, etc… It is my belief that godly wisdom differs from earthly wisdom on this:

The diagram of life is life. That a man can never finish summing the definition of life until his life is lived out. That the definition of love or faith is not quite summed up until you inject the actual will of a person. That virtue is only understood in the realm of action rather than the realm of thought. This having been said, we can conclude that such broad concepts are much closer to our understanding than we realize because we are constantly living out life. Our will is always being injected into things. We are action neverending. We can choose to not look at the books and diagrams but we will unavoidingly be living, willing and acting. And such are the exact keys to understanding these broad concepts.

So when the skeptics take comfort in the Christian not even being able to define God (hardly even conceptually), I am never too distraught. When I constantly enjoy and use Augustine’s definition’s of good and evil I am never too satisfied with them. To understand fully the specific concepts as good and evil I know the search is not in universities, textbooks, or diagrams. The understanding lies in a search and examination of a labrynth I know all too well…myself.  And when this search for godly wisdom with good and evil is too shameful and intimidating I take comfort in something.  Something so terribly broad and magnificently sublime. Something eternally undefinable. Something closer and more present than I might ever know…or rather, someone.

Comments Off

 

Lovers And Fighters Saturday, Mar 14 2009

My wife loves puppies. I certainly hear about it everyday. I usually hear the narrower version of the fact that she wants one. If we were to have one…oh I’m sorry, I meant: when we get one, she will love it I am sure much more than puppies in general. In that respect she will be a lover of that puppy. She is a lover. But if the situation ever came up where some fool attempted to harm that puppy she would undoubtedly and wholeheartedly fight the fool. She is a fighter.

This modern era has become very efficient at severing things. The idea of being a lover and a fighter can be thrown in to the mix of what has been severed. People try to claim that they are one or the other but it is my conclusion that being one inherently involves being the other. A man who fights for his country inherently loves his country no matter how much fight is in him. A man who loves his wife will fight for his wife, no matter how much fight is in her. I am willing to submit that all fights usually involve the love of something. It might be the love of their own pride, their child, their right to be alive, or the shirt that the idiot spilt beer on. A man loves something if he is fighting. The question is not whether the world should be more of a lover or a fighter but when and how to love as well as when and how to fight. This not only applies to loving and fighting, but applies also to a great deal of characteristics that have been severed and thrown out this modern era.

The relationship of new and old has been severed. There is a new and thoughtless hatred for things being old. The absurdity lies in the general disdain for anything old. If it fits into the category it must now be thrown out. This is never a healthy or productive way to go about life. Men love children and flowers because they are new, but men love scotch and grandfathers because they are old. There are a great deal of things that are better because they are old. In the church this seems to be a massive dichotomy with ideas and rituals. The church is now constantly trying to make itself newer and younger as if it were a cardinal virtue. Congregations cannot get rid of the stale rituals or seperate the services fast enough. The old songs are dying a quick death. I am afraid soon enough even all the old people will be rid of for the horrific fact that they are old. All for the sake of something new the good old things in the church are dying. I am not suggesting that all old things are good and true but I am suggesting that most things good and true come from an old song, old ritual, or old soul no matter how many new people re-do it. It is the songs that get to me the most though. Even the pagans love and know our old music. It is that good. But there are large portions of Christians that do not even listen to our new music. It is that bad.

The same goes for many other characteristics like open-mindedness, that modern modern obsession. However it has become a virtue, and there is no possible way that being constantly open-minded is a good thing. There is a sane case for being honest in every situation or courageous in every situation, but there is no sane case of being open-minded in every situation. I will wholeheartedly be close-minded to you buying my wife or sacrifing my pets. The same should probably go for a bulk of church doctrine being betrayed in recent times. A great man once said that an open mind is like an open mouth. You want to close it on something solid and worthwhile. It is not that we be one or the other. It is that we place both in their proper place and time. Virtues are the only things we should strive to be all the time and vices we should fight against all the time.

Ecclesiastes rings true with this idea. There really is a season for everything. To over-emphasize the virtue of one characteristic is foolish and to rebel by doing the same with the opposite characteristic is just as foolish. Men will always love something at some point and those same men will always fight something at some point. This is true no matter how much of a pacifist they wish to be or no matter how much of a hot-head they are. We as humanity are already both. We cannot escape that. The true quest is not to decide between the two but to decide what is worth loving and what is worth fighting.

Comments Off