Now Deb has been a lloyal Llama reader for a very long time, and although we disagree about some things, she is no troll. Nonetheless, I feel that at least some of her response is, in fact, a straw-man argument that mischaracterizes my belief. For example, just because I think that "Influence X" has a corrosive and even evil influence on people who are swayed by it, that does not mean that I think such people themselves are "evil". And it certainly doesn't mean that I think they should be strung up from trees or nailed to fence-posts or, to use Deb's own Osama analogy, blown up with bombs.
More importantly, however, in damning what she sees as a dichotomy between reason and belief in the West, Deb slips the Creationist brickbat into the debate:
The big issue is, of course, evolution. It contradicts the fundamental idea of Genesis, so it must be wrong. In Genesis, Man's creation is strictly separate from the creation of the rest of the world. No evidence will ever prove evolution right,* no one will ever move the creationists one inch from their current understanding. And when you try to discuss it with them, they usually resort to the "No true Scotsman" version of ad homenem attacks. "No good person" or "No true Christian" holds with evolution.
So in the end, [Augustine] is just another bat to hit people over the head with. [Augustine's] position is that if you agree with him, and live your life according to the precepts he follows, you will be happy and society will be the just society. That is exactly the same position as Bin Laden, except that Bin Laden backs up his opinions with explosives and death for anyone who dares disagree. Now granted, that is a big difference, perhaps even a qualitative difference between the two positions, but the positions are akin. (Like it or not, both men are arguing from dogma.)
Now [Augustine] probably got a lot right - most "serious thinkers" do, even if they also get a lot wrong. (See Aristotle.) But his view of the workings of the universe isn't the only one out there.
With all due respect, this is applesauce, but in Deb's defense, it's applesauce that comes from the superficial and inaccurate popular conceptions of Catholicism prevalent in much of the culchah these days.
I won't get into the assumptions about Millenialism here except to say that Augustine was certainly not one of those We-Need-To-Bring-About-The-Kingdom-of-Heaven-On-Earth-By-Next-Tuesday-And-God-Help-Anybody-Who-Gets-In-Our-Way types. Nor, properly understood, does HMC suggest anything of the sort. But that's a post for another day.
As far as evolution and dogma go, curiously enough the passage I quoted from Augustine (who Deb labels as Aquinas) was aimed at the Manicheans, whom Augustine came to loathe specifically because the dogma about Good and Evil in the world that they preached as the Truth (and which seems to bear some relationship to the concept of Yin and Yang) could not be supported by empirical observation and common sense. Augustine thought them a pack of frauds and charlatans for failing to deal with this and said so.
And indeed, despite bad patches in its history (which, I understand, have generally been distorted in the popular imagination into comic book form, although I don't know enough to comment), the Church herself recognizes that Faith and Reason are not enemies, but are to work with each other. Here is what the Catechism has to say about Creation:
282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose phy
DIVINE VENGENCE? UPDATE: I have no idea what happened to the rest of this post, which seems to have stolen quietly away into the night. Sorry 'bout that, y'all. The short version of the rest of it was that I'm not a Creationist and that I don't believe there is a split between Truth as revealed by, well, Revelation and Fact as revealed by reason and inquiry, but that the two in fact work hand in hand with each other.
Oh, and in case you're wondering about the quote in the title, it's what Mal said when he faced off against Patience on Whitefall.
WHOOPSIE YIPS from Steve-O: It might have been me, as I made a St. Clippy "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with Gates, and the WORD was Gates" joke that seems to have disapeared as well. I looked for the Airplane! clip of the guy accidentally unplugging the landing lights, but found this instead:
1
True enough on evolution; Catholics especially (among Christians) tend to be receptive to arguments that allow for a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and the allowance of evolution to explain man's physical evolution. While one can hold that the world truly was created in 6 actual days (and the fossil history that suggests otherwise is either a work of the Devil or God's sense of whimsy) and be a Catholic (I don't know of anything in the catechism to prohibit such a view), it is certainly not a common view among Catholics. We hold that scriptural has several layers to it: historical truth, pedagogical truth, and so forth. The best explanation I've seen on how Catholics view/ought to view Scripture can be found in Leo XIII's encyclical Proventissimus Deus, which is on the Vatican's site.
As for "Jesus saves", everytime I see it I'm reminded of the Dungeons and Dragons convention where they were selling bumper stickers that read "Jesus Saves -- takes half damage", which still gives me a chuckle.
Just because an expression is Christian does not mean it has to be simpleminded; I read Aquinas and am struck by two things -- his largeness fo spirit and his ability to make subtle disntinctions among all the Aristotelian/Platonic concepts (forms, essences, accidents, etc.). He's a fine thinker, well educated and large minded. That being said, he certainly holds certain things to be true and certain things to be false.
We live in an age where, in Benedict XVI's phrase, there is a tyranny of relativism. To proclaim something as "truth" is seen as either bad form, or intellectually inadmissible. Yet we live in a world that certainly doesn't behave as if there is no truth -- jump off a high building, and truth is, you'll get killed. For some reason, we accept "truth" in the physical world but reject it out of hand in the intellectual world. Why is that? Perhaps it is a kind of humility that we think our own powers of reason so faulty that we cannot assert any truth with confidence, but I certainly wouldn't want to live my life asserting there is no truth, because then I am incapable of walking any kind of path. We assert physical truth, and are agnostic about metaphysical truth? That's an empty world, to be sure.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 27, 2008 12:32 PM (FxbQI)
2
Several things; first, let me say how enlightening I have found Robert's posts about his conversion. Early on, I posted a rather ugly comment about my association (by family) with the Catholic church. As the months have gone on, I have been tremendously happy to read the "upside" of Catholicism, as it is my heritage.
Jumping off a tall building you will be killed. Yes, some things are just true and some not. Our current state of western discussion troubles me greatly as we seem to be forced into saying that maybe you might not be killed so, go ahead if it suits you. In fact, anyone that tells you otherwise is some kind of (insert slur here.)
I have been accused many, many times of viewing things in a "black or white" context. In our own personal relationships, I could not abide stauatory rape... I took a rather bold stance which caused no end of "problem" for those that thought me rather shallow minded. After all, I needed to take the "circumstances" and the "devotion" into account. Phooey, said I; right is right and wrong is wrong and I fought my corner like a blessed pit bull...
I also think the short discussion about evolution has probably been the most illuminating I have ever read. Yes, there was a big bang but, God directed it. I'm willing to buy into that or at least consider it. More on evolution from a Catholic viewpoint would be greatly appreciated.
I know that when people are at funerals of their loved ones they can make all kinds of things out of the event. I will say however, that when my father's ashes were poured into the Penobscott Bay and I watched a million tiny sparkles rising, I knew he was headed to a reuniting with the universe. I guess that's as close as I can get right now to a belief in God.
Posted by: Babs at February 27, 2008 01:01 PM (iZZlp)
My understanding of science -- which is admittedly limited -- is that it is tending toward Monogenism at least with regard to an Eve; that all human life originated from one human mother, but I haven't read much on evolution in the last 10 years or so. My understanding, too, is that evolutionary theory is now generally in agreement that human life as we know it originated in one p1ace (Africa) and then spread throughout the world (i.e., man did not spring up in several locations at the same time), but I don't claim to be current.
Polygenism seems to me is a harder theological case to reconcile with Genesis.
I myself don't see any contradiction between Genesis and evolution if we assume a primordial human couple suddenly made self-aware by a benevolent God, and that the gifts of understanding and awareness he bestowed upon them to be largely spiritual in nature (Adam is generally not held to be a brute, but to be created with a much greater understanding than we have, who have subsequently had our minds darkened by sin).
That being said, I do not discount the possibility that indeed, it was all created in 6 days, because certainly I attribute to God the power to do so if he chose, and do not claim to understand his motivations beyond asserting that he loves us. It could all be a fabulous jest that we do not understand, but is merely meant to keep us all occupied. I don't reject that possibility, as utterly unlikely as it seems.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 27, 2008 02:47 PM (FxbQI)
4
"What if the label said "Jesus saves." Would you view that as "pop spirituality" or something else?"
"Something else".
It may indeed be trite and gimmicky, but it has a foundation in meaning that the mushy phrase "Recognize that you are the truth" does not. "Recognize that you are the truth" is "pop spirituality" in the same way we speak of "pop psychology"; a slick little motto that sounds profound but is shallow, pulled out of a sketchy acquaintance with the principles of the philosophy in question, watered down through countless reiterations in self-help books, banal and fuzzy and mindlessly 'affirming'.
It comes out of and is attached to no recognisable tradition; it can be spouted off equally by an air-headed vaguely-Christian, a Western-type Buddhist, an agnostic, a 'I'm spiritual but not religious' type or even an atheist. It can be defined however you want to define it; it can mean whatever you want it to mean. It involves no affirmation of doctrine or dogma, it doesn't require you to choose one option and reject others.
"Jesus Saves" is trite, but it has meaning. If you say this, you are committing yourself to a definite meaning, and all the corollaries that follow on from it: that we need saving, that there is a saviour, that there are not other saviours, that this saviour is Jesus, and so forth.
There are consequences to this that are not there for "Recognize that you are the truth".
Posted by: Fuinseoig at February 27, 2008 05:42 PM (28rNl)
5
Heh... "Jesus Saves" was a neon sign that was a landmark during my childhood. A church along route 110 in Melville, NY had the "Jesus Saves" neon sign. We used to use it as a landmark like "about 1 mile past Jesus Saves."
Anyone that thinks that putting a neon sign out for religion will increase their viability in an intellectual sense is a moron. Never the less, I hope their sign is still there.
Posted by: Babs at February 28, 2008 12:55 AM (iZZlp)
6
My point about the teabag and had it said, "Jesus Saves" is that you may have dismissed it pop spirituality, but I doubt it would have set you off enough to write a post on the "corrosive effects on the soul" such things have.
The comment above proves my point. "Jesus Saves" is Christian hence True, and therefore not "pop spirituality." "You are Truth" is not Christian, hence not true, and therefore AT BEST "pop spirituality."
"It comes out of and is attached to no recognisable (sic) tradition." Funny, I recognized it right away. Given that it was on a bag of green tea helped, but it is clearly Eastern, probably Taoist as a direct translation, though perhaps not from the I-Ching itself, and certainly in line with Zen. So if you don't recognize it, it comes from no recognizable tradition. I guess that is literally true in this case. But does that mean that all other religions (or traditions) should stop printing their slogans on their teabags while Christians go about printing theirs?
'I fail to see any conflict between the questions of "how did it work" and "why did it happen".'
There isn't - or there shouldn't be - unless of course you are one of the millions of people in the world (10s of millions?) who hold the literal truth of every word in the Bible. In fact you can make a decent creation story about the lead up to the big bang. But calling into question the literal interpretation of Genesis is a problem for a lot of Christians. Hence the mess we've been in ever since the Scopes trial. (Look up the problems the intersexed have in this country… intersex births are almost always treated with surgery in the US to "assign" a gender either male of female. The rest of the world doesn't do that. Comes back to the same thing – only 2 sexes were created in Genesis, anything else must be stamped out.)
I think I know you well enough through your writing Robert to know you aren't one of those literal interpreters. You think more about your faith than any ten people I know (combined). If I gave the impression that I thought you were closed minded about things, I apologize. But even Martin Luther had his writing twisted by those who came after him.
The Vatican Observatory is an interesting organization. It was started around the same time as Galileo was doing his work, - actually before he published any of his writings and maybe a lot sooner, and his findings were confirmed by that body before his trial. In trying to find the date of the founding I did run across an interesting fact that Galileo cited Augustine's writing in his defense. (But to no avail).
And yes, I did read Aquinas where you wrote Augustine. I spent more time than I care to remember struggling with Aquinas at one point in my life. I obviously haven't recovered yet.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 28, 2008 09:17 AM (+gqOq)
7
OK, another long post - another mu.nu error message... I give up.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 28, 2008 09:19 AM (+gqOq)
I won't overstate the case, but within Catholic tradition, one usually ends up as an admirer of Augustine (and hence Plato), or of Aquinas (and hence Aristotle). If you struggle with Aquinas, it may be that you are, at heart, an Augustinian, and vice versa.
There is (unfortunately) no Hogwarts style sorting hat to determine what parts of Catholic tradition work for a certain person; I used to not care for Augustine so much when I was young but am drawn to him more as I get older.
Protestant, especially Lutheran, tradition, tends toward the Augustinian rather than the Scholastic tradition of Aquinas. If you like Luther's writing, you'd probably like Augustine.
Although of the two, Aquinas is the sunnier one, who ascribes more power to human reason's ability to perceive God than Augustine does. Aquinas is therefore more a friend of science.
But like I said, there is no sorting hat. Certain writers appeal to one for their style as much as their substance. Aquinas is a hard read to the modern eye because he assumes one is intimately familiar with Greek philosophy, expecially Aristotle; the Summa is really a work for professional philosophers; I don't claim to be able to assess it on its merits. He certainly seems bold in his assertions of what can be known of God through reason. I admite him more for his prayers and hymns; they are truly beautiful.
Augustine is much more approachable, and I would even say psychological, in his writing, particularly the Confessions; though I always find his writing to be a bit brooding.
Augustine is Beethoven to Aquinas's Bach, if you will.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 28, 2008 12:07 PM (aDq9f)
9
"You are Truth" is not Christian, hence not true
More like, "You are Truth" is not true, hence not Christian.
That is to say, Christians, whether we be RC, another liturgical tradition, Evangelical, whatever, hold as part of our faith that there is such a thing as absolute truth, that God is the author of all truth and is, in fact, by His very nature truth itself, and that all truth is revealed to us by God (whether revealed generally through nature or specifically through scripture). We also therefore believe that anything that contradicts the truth that God has revealed to us is necessarily UNtrue.
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at February 29, 2008 01:53 PM (IjiHk)
10
Thank you, all of you, very much for your comments.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at March 01, 2008 04:56 PM (QvCTU)
I dunno how they got hold of my college yearbook picture, but I certainly hope them kids is a'gonna pay me some royalties for it! Young whippersnappers!
More politically incorrect advertising from yesteryear over at Nasty, Brutish & Short.
[I]f Bach is The Father [of Western Music], why hasn’t he fired the popular imagination? We have soppy movies about Mozart and Beethoven as well as proliferating biographies for the intelligent general reader, but nothing really comparable for Bach. If we sample the outpouring since the year 2000, the 250th anniversary of Bach’s death, the “life and works” biographies are nothing if not weighty and serious, but these essentially scholarly volumes by Martin Geck, Christoph Wolff, and Peter Williams,[1] despite their generalist pretensions, are hardly readable by nonspecialists. We have fairly localizable “feelings” about Mozart because the personal letters producing those feelings are voluminous. We learn about Wolfgang as a circus freak driven by father Leopold, about the Mozart family’s obsession with “shit,” about Wolfgang’s castigation of Constanze for exposing her ankles, not to mention purported mysteries surrounding the uncompleted Requiem, perfect grist for the mills of pop culture. For Beethoven, again, many autograph materials providing insights into his “spiritual development” (to use the subtitle of an early biography) and his medical problems, his patrons, his financial independence, his nephew, his deafness, his “immortal beloved.” But what is the feel we get from Bach? In fact, who is this seemingly generic father and why has he failed to solidify as part of our cultural ethos? When we hear “Mozart” or “Beethoven,” we think of a person behind the music. When we hear “Bach,” we think of music only.
Fromm goes on to answer the question by noting that there simply is very little source material about Bach aside from various official and business documents he wrote. That's fair enough. But as I've said before, I also think there is a deeper point about the relationship between art and artist. Bach belongs to the pre-Romantic world, in which the art came first and the artisan, if you will, was simply seen both by himself and those around him as the producer or conduit of that art. (Aside from composers, try thinking of any poet, painter, playwrite or other pre-19th Century artist who, as Fromm puts it, "fires the popular imagination." Can't do it, can you? People try with Shakespeare from time to time, but it doesn't really stick.)
The Romantics changed that notion. After about 1800, the art gradually began to be seen as a function of the artist, who was no longer just an artisan, but an artiste. (Of course, this all had to do with societal changes as a whole and wasn't specifically an artistic development.) Beethoven was fully aware of this movement and quite caught up in it. Mozart, I think, was not, but was instead one of the last of the truly 18th Century artists. He has been Romanticized because his brief and (in our eyes) tragic life appeals to the Romantic sensibility. Compare this with, for example, the biography of Mozart's friend and contemporary, the great Franz Joseph "Papa" Haydn, to which hardly anybody pays any attention these days because not only was Haydn firmly an artisan of the old school, he also enjoyed a solid, prosperous, happy and extremely anti-Romantic life.
Aaaaaanyway, after conceding that when one speaks of Bach, one must speak of his musick, Fromm proceeds to do so. One passage near and dear to my heart:
Bach’s posthumous estate lists several harpsichords of various types but no other keyboard instrument. For Bach, it was then and remains now (except for the organ) the keyboard instrument of choice. Nor could it be considered a precursor of the piano or rendered obsolete by it. To begin with, the harpsichord is a stringed not a percussion instrument like the piano, plucked, not hammered, producing a distinctive, tightly focused, and slightly acerbic all-or-nothing sound. To change the quality or timbre one can pull out stops to move a set of jacks into position under another set of strings or use the second keyboard (if there is one) and its own sets of strings. The changes in timbre that result from this maneuver are sudden, not gradual, since it is not possible to alter individual notes by means of touch. The later practice of introducing “expression” into Bach’s keyboard music can only be described as a bad joke that reduces power to preciosity. And of course the chief culprit in this anachronistic practice is the piano.
Hear, hear. I laughed when I read this because my poor, old, beat-up, shot-string, 40-year-old Kawai upright has gotten so tinny in tone that it's beginning to sound like a harpsichord. The tone certainly helps me try to conform to the best Bach practices, but playing the other day I realized that, yes, I am finally going to have to go out and buy a new piano.
As for Fromm's article, go read the rest. Also, I have most of the books of Christoph Wolff he mentions, and I would heartily recommend any of them if you're at all interested in the subject.
Yips! to Arts & Letters Daily.
Posted by: Birdzilla at February 27, 2008 11:05 AM (nzpL/)
2
Hey, tell your buddy Robbo that WFB, Jr. graduated from this very prep school where I sit to write this note. I met him briefly last summer. He grunted at me as I held a door open for him.
Best grunt I ever had.
Bschnoor
Posted by: Barry Schnoor at February 27, 2008 07:12 PM (v869R)
After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.
Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.
By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain.
And who wrote this? Bill Kristol? the G-Man? Michael Barone? Peggy? No, it's Maureen Dowd fer chrissakes.
Rats and sinking ships.....Rats and sinking ships.........Ommmmmm.........
Hollywood spent all year pumping out dark, ugly, poorly-crafted films that insulted America, Americans, and much of what we hold dear, namely our servicemen and women. They’ve spent years insulting us on-screen, in interviews, and yes, during the Oscar telecast. So, what did they expect last night? You hate us, Hollywood. So, while you had your self-absorbed little party we went on with our lives. We may just be a bunch of dumb hicks, but wasting four-hours on pins and needles waiting for the cheap shot — well, if you’ll pardon the quaint expression, a hog has more sense.
[Disclaimer: This is not necessarily a Catholic post, but, I think, an Orthodox Christian one. Stand down, everybody.]
The other day, one of the members of my RCIA class dialed into our Yahoo webgroup thingy with an observation about the Stations of the Cross. At the end of her post, she added:
PS. Random thought for the day, from the ancient wisdom conveyed by this tag on my little green tea teabag: "Recognize that you are the truth." WHAT for goodness sake does that MEAN? Ah, pop spirituality...
Our group leader, a bright spark if ever there was one, had this to say in reply:
See the stations as your way in to the sufferings of Christ. That you might rise with him! And see you tea bag as what it is - in opposition to Christ. I am not the truth for I did not create the world. Christ is the truth - we must look to him as the measure of our existence.
And by a delightful coincidence, I came across the following passage in my current readings just after I'd seen this exchange:
There are many abroad who talk of their own fantasies and lead men's minds astray. They assert that because they have observed that there are two wills at odds with each other when we try to reach a decision, we must therefore have two minds of different natures, one good, the other evil. Let
them vanish at God's presence as the smoke vanishes. As long as they hold these evil beliefs they are evil themselves, but even they will be good if they
see the truth and accept it, so that your apostle may say to them Once you were darkness; now, in the Lord you are all daylight. These people want to be
light, not in the Lord, but in themselves, because they think that the nature of the soul is the same as God. In this way their darkness becomes denser
still, because in their abominable arrogance they have separated themselves still further from you, who are the true Light which enlightens every soul
born into the world. I say to them, 'Take care what you say, and blush for
shame. Enter God's presence, and find there enlightenment; here is no room for downcast looks.
-St. Augustine, Confessions, Book VIII, Chpt. 10.
Now as it happens, Augustine was beating up on the Manicheans in that passage, but as I pointed out to the group (with whom I shared the passage), I think it is equally applicable to modern tea-bag pop psychology (and its many Humanistic cousins). I used to dismiss this sort of thing as just empty twaddle. Now, as I start swimming in far deeper waters than I have before, I begin to see much more clearly its genuinely corrosive effect on the spirit. (And I shudder to think how many people out there might read the same or similar stuff and think "Oh, wow, that's so true!")
As a famous local Evangelical-type likes to say in his radio ads, "not a sermon, just a thought".
BURN ME AT THE STAKE AND CALL ME "SUZY" YIPS from Steve-O: What gets my hackles though is the little paperclip animated-dude on Microsoft Word, and how he pops up and says things like "I am the way to understand WORD." I'll have to check my old copy of the Examens, but I have a gut feeling animated paper clip dude is the embodiment of the enemy, trying to lead us astray in our knowledge of the true path of the Word.
The voice of Satan? You be the judge....
1
The problem with Aquinas is the problem with most "like thinkers" is that he is right (or so he assumes) and everyone else is wrong. He knows he is right because he believes, so anyone who disagrees with him is necessarily evil. (You have to get to Descartes before you have anyone trying to work form first principles not based on Genesis, and Descartes failed miserably. See Solipsism in the dictionary.... though you can make the case this was a driving idea behind The Matrix.)
The current incarnation of this argument - or one of them anyway - centers around whether or not sexual orientation is a choice (when did you DECIDE to be hetero, and were you influenced by friends or coaches in school?) or is it genetic or teratogenic? The religious have their answer based on Genesis. So any evidence to the contrary is dismissed. (The sexually dimorphic nucleus is unknown, as only one example among many.)
The big issue is evolution. It contradicts the basis of Genesis, so it must be wrong. No evidence will ever prove it right, no one will ever move the creationists one inch from their current understanding. And when you try to discuss it with them, they resort to the "No true Scotsman" version of ad homenem attacks. "No good person" or "No true Christian" holds with evolution.
So in the end, Aquinas is just another bat to hit people over the head with. Aquinas' position is that if you agree with him, and live your life according to the precepts he follows, you will be happy and society will be the just society. That is exactly the same position of Bin Laden, except that Bin Laden backs up his opinions with explosives and death for anyone who dares disagree. Now granted, that is a big difference, perhaps even a qualitative between the two positions, but the positions are akin.
Now Aquinas probably got a lot right - most "serious thinkers" do, even if they also get a lot wrong.
So for example - your little green teabag - is a bit a Eastern religion. In the East - India, China, and a few others, man is not separate from God, but a part of God. (That is a simplification, because to explain the difference between what the Levant sees as "God" and what the East sees and the union of the Uncreated/Uncreating principle and the Uncreated/Creating principle would take all day.) That and the fact that the West has lost all understanding of the true nature of polytheisms, and what is supposed to underlie them. (You don't have to believe in the Roman gods in order to study and understand Roman mythology.)
In the East, God didn't create the world "out there" or somewhere else, but the universe is a part of God. The universe is part Vishnu in India, for example. In those traditions you don't try to "have a relationship with God" as the Christians do, you try to understand your unity with the creator. To realize "You are Truth" is just a bit of Zen. (But of course Vishnu himself is only a metaphorical stand-in for things it is hard to describe. And of course there are 3 things in the Hindu creation story that all reference the same thing... the Uncreated/Uncreating principle of existence.)
So your "evil" little teabag, is just a bit of religion from different tradition. I think will find Zen - in all its wonderful forms - is a bit beyond "pop psychology." Though Pop Psychology no doubt draws on Zen ideas, it probably also draws on Western ideas as well.
If it doesn't fit in your world view (on in Aquinas' world view) it is evil, by definition.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 26, 2008 04:01 PM (+gqOq)
I subscribe to evolution, as far as it goes. I just don't think it explains everything, as I do not think it can account for the soul, or for the Fall, both of which I believe are very real, based on my experience. I've yet to meet the person who has not suffered from sin, and I've never met a person who did not deserve to be accorded better regard than merely an animal.
The reason I subscribe to Christianity is that at heart it understands that not all is ducky with the world, or with us.
Genesis is a myth, to be certain. But I do not hold "myth" and "falsehood" to be anything like synonymous terms.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 26, 2008 04:36 PM (FxbQI)
3
As for Mr. Paperclip, I banish him as my first act after installation, and set cherubim with flaming swords to bar his return.
I tolerate none of his guff.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 26, 2008 04:39 PM (FxbQI)
Actually I didn't think that post took - I got the usual mu.nu error message, so there is a longer version over at TFS Magnum.
One of the things I added was a bit on science. Science does not deal in absolute truth. All of science - even the bit we use in technology - is a collection of theories postulated to explain the experimental or observational data. When a better theory comes along, it will be adopted.
Religion is not science, creationism is not scientific for any number of reasons, but there is no way an observation will ever move a creationist away from his dogma - and it is dogma not theory.
Anyway, go read the even longer version over at my site, but I will leave you with this.
If the tag on the teabag had said, "Jesus Saves" would you have dismissed it as "pop spirituality?"
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 27, 2008 09:38 AM (+gqOq)
Spring has come to the verdant Blue Ridge of Virginia: I passed the first county jail work crew out picking up dead skunks off the side of the road today, with the big old sheriff dude with a shotgun the size of a Revolutionary War musket.
This being the new Virginia, though, the sheriff dude with the sunglasses and a gun was a very large and short and scary looking African American woman, and the prisoners mostly scrawny white guys who looked like a motley collection of meth tweakers and check kiters. Think blingless K-Fed, with a mullet.
Swing low, sweet chariot.
I thought that certain "photography" professors from certain "small, single-sex liberal arts colleges" scooped them up, put them on a scanner, and passed off the resultant images as "art."
My mistake.
;-)
Posted by: Pep at February 26, 2008 12:07 PM (uYu9L)
2
Steve-O, we're all still waiting for you to come out with that book of poetry. Don't let us down, man.
Posted by: tdp at February 26, 2008 02:20 PM (7CsBg)
3
There were a whole bunch of robins in the park on Saturday. Today, we've got 8" of heavy, wet snow.
Posted by: rbj at February 26, 2008 03:27 PM (Xiu4n)
4
So much depends upon,
A KFed wannabe,
In a bright orange jumpsuit,
With no mullet or bling bling.
Posted by: The Abbot at February 26, 2008 06:50 PM (QBuXz)
5
Heard a meadowlark last wek and saw some bees and there are come crocues blooming and the greens wioll squeal about this global warming poppycock bull kaka
Posted by: Birdzilla at February 27, 2008 11:10 AM (nzpL/)
I mentioned last week that the Missus came home from visiting her parents with a nasty case of strep. Well, now all three of the Llama-ettes have it. And I'm not so sure I don't also.
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at February 26, 2008 01:31 AM (jiBuF)
2
I had seen the two videos before, but they're somewhat different back to back. And yeah, I thought they both were funny.
Obviously, a difference between the two is one's M-F, one's M-M. Also, the second is bigger, more eXtreme: several shirtless men, including the host; instead of just the head of the guy from E TV they've got a host of celebs [who probably could be gotten to do the video after the success of the first]. Ben's never shirtless, but he's wearing rather stereotypically "gay" shirts, and getting red polish on his toenails.
Are there other differences? And who the heck are all those people, anyway?
Posted by: owlish at February 26, 2008 06:31 PM (dk0SG)
3
I have to admit, the "we are the world" treatment got me past the creepiness. Funny stuff!
Posted by: Gary at February 26, 2008 08:38 PM (cRgWk)
Doing a looooooong pdf document review off a cd-rom. As I flip through the pages, the D-drive in my computer keeps revving up and then cutting off. The sound reminds me of that of an airliner when the pilots start fiddling with the throttle, something I particularly dislike when flying. My palms are beginning to sweat at the mere association of the two sounds.
Thank you verrah much.
(***Mad as in "mad as a coot", not as in "I'm mad too, Eddie!")
I'm not at all sure whether we're going to be able to salvage the eldest llama-ette's corn samples. Fortunately, both the squash and the beans have shot right up, so hopefully they are mouse-proof. As for the tomato? Well, one sample is up and running, but I'm not sure the others are going to make it.
We have the project set up in a corner of my basement workshop. The gel asked me why we don't just move the tray upstairs somewhere. Want to know? Because I am morally certain that if we do, then the cats will start fooling around with it.
You can't win. You really can't.
MORE OPTOMISTIC UPDATE: Yes, the corn samples are shot, but that seems all that the furry little bastards were interested in getting. Beans and squash are doing fine and a new tomato came up today. I think we'll be able to salvage enough samples to generate some useful data. Meanwhile, I've moved the whole shooting match upstairs to the little dressing area off our bedroom (it has a couple skylights) to keep it out of harm's way.
