09 January 2009
22 October 2008
01 April 2008
I've broken continuity. Returning from Boston (sweet merciful crap, I love that place), I had a internet free Spring Break, and returning to school, I had a spare time free week of work. Now, I return, with a list of books that should be purchased and immediately sent to me, as well as a link to a short article about one of my very favorite books of all time: Erasmus' The Praise of Folly, and a link to an article about John Steinbeck that hurt my feelings (but don't worry because I have two).
Books I want to read:
Nothing to be Frightened Of
Ruminations on death
Strange dystopian literature
This Secret Garden: Oxford Revisited
Pure intellectual nostalgia
Three Studies for a Crucifixion
Don't know what its about, but what a wonderful title.
Drinking for England
Famous British drunks
Poems based on the 14th century Travels of Sir John Mandeville
05 March 2008
Now take David Kuo, former White house lackey, former committed fundamentalist Christian who has been transformed to a deeper, more profound, more moderate Christian thinker and writer.
The convergence of those transformations is that David Kuo has written an excellent review of Anne Rice's new book, the second in her Christ the Lord series, and I think you should read it (them).
04 March 2008
Here's a short article about people stealing books from independent bookstores in Seattle. Included is what the author calls the New York Times bestsellers list of stolen books—the books most commonly stolen and resold to other used bookstores—really gave me some ideas, but, (un)fortunately, my ethical and moral shock collar has reined me in.
Also, my place of employment is offering me a chance to participate in Focus on the Family's Truth Project, and I'm wondering whether I should or not. I am deeply suspicious of Focus on the Family, but it does seem very interesting. It's a 12 week course hoping to give you a Christian worldview. Of course, cynics might at this point begin to pander the word "brainwash," but, we all know J. Dobson would never do anything like that. I think I am going to do it, but I have a feeling that at least on some points my Christian worldview is different from others. Dobson, Dr. Del Tackitt, Ravi Zacharias, and others would probably conclude (something about some ridiculous non-contradiction "law") that it is an impossibility to have two different Christian worldviews. I imagine (notice my intentionally non-committal language here) that their argument, whether they would admit or not, could be expressed like this:
1. I am a Christian.
2. I have a worldview.
3. My worldview lines up with the Bible.
4. If something lines up with the Bible it is Christian.
5. Therefore, my worldview is the Christian worldview.
6. If others have a worldview fundamentally different than mine, it is not the Christian worldview (A does not equal B, and so forth).
Foolproof logic, no doubt, but that doesn't make all the premises true, and in this case I think its premises #3 ff. that I have a problem with. I would restate the argument thusly:
3. My worldview lines up with my interpretation of the Bible (or is it that my Bible interpretation lines up with my worldview: a real chicken before the egg conundrum that may lie at the heart of the Christian cultural war)
4. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways to interpret the Bible, mine being one of them (superior to some, inferior to many)
5. If something lines up with one of an unknown number of possible Christian interpretations of the Bible then it is Christian (the question on which this point in contigent is what constitutes a possible Christian interpretation? Is it that you vote anti-abortion and anti-gay, and read that in to every scripture?)
6. Therefore, my worldview, along with an unknown number of others, is a Christian worldview contingent upon it lining up with one of those possible Christian interpretations of the Bible.
Now, logicians, how would I express that mathematically?
01 March 2008
28 February 2008
Also, here's a link to an interview with Richard Land, one the big head honcho guys at the Southern Baptist Convention telling us that its not that he's against taking care of the poor necessarily, its just that hating gay people is clearly more important (whoops, sorry, that's not what he said...just what he meant). He did say that he doesn't believe that young evangelical voters will vote for a president that isn't pro-life. On that one thing, Mr. Land and I agree. What we don't agree on is the definition of pro-life. By what he writes and speaks about, Mr. Land does not seem like he is pro-life; he is definitely anti-abortion, but if he were pro-life wouldn't he care more about the poor, about AIDs, and about torture, and not just about gay marriage and abortion? Nah, pro-life doesn't mean that you're actually for all life does it? Maybe we should change the title to pro-politically-expedient-non-gay-non-poor-non-Muslim-life. But, what the hell, at least he's not preaching against dancing and playing cards.
27 February 2008
Here is an article about him on open source theology.
Here is an article about him from the Canadian Press.
Here is his official website, chronicling his last words.
26 February 2008
Here it is: Beowulf and Godsylla
Of course, Eduard Sievers would be turning in his grave, because as fine as this little poem is, it does not follow the dictates of Germanic Alliterative Verse! Travesty!
Also, here is a very interesting article about J.S. Bach, if you're interested.
At land, at sea, at home, abroad; I smoke my pipe, and worship God. -J.S. Bach