The church makes up the body and bride of Christ. If one part of the body does something good, the whole body rejoices. If one part of the body sins, the whole body grieves and must bear the responsibility– even the cutting off, if necessary. You can’t cut off a hand you think you never had.
The better an organization/community/form of government/religion is, the more responsibility it bears for its members, the more connected it is. So the Roman Catholic church is at its best when the bishops are denying communion to unrepentant members, and at its worst when nuns are escorts for abortion clinics without being disciplined.
The Protestant part of Christianity starts on the wrong foot by denying responsibility for the rest of the church– somebody asks about the Crusades– “Oh, that was just the Catholics.” (It wasn’t… but that’s a common response). Or the pathetic state of tithing. “It’s not us, it’s those Methodists.” Or what have you.
Atheists, are, of course, the worst. Jumping straight to Godwin’s Law, you can’t compare them to Hitler (or Stalin, etc), because they aren’t affiliated with him. They aren’t affiliated with anyone. Each atheist is essentially an island of his own responsibility.
Christianity is bearing others’ burdens.
“[S]wearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury, for they say that he who cannot be believed without God is already condemned.” Josephus, Jewish War 2.134 [of the Essenes] (trans. William Whiston)
“But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.” (Matthew 5:34-35, KJV)
These sentiments are nearly identical. We might hypothesize a few historical explanations.
1. Coincidence: they each acquired the sentiment from different sources, or came up with it themselves.
2. Jesus and the Essenes both acquired the sentiment from a third source
3. Jesus acquired the sentiment from the Essenes
4. The Essenes acquired the sentiment from Jesus
(I also note that the early Christians lived communally, and spread throughout many towns, much as the Essenes had. Again, the basic possibilities above apply, except that the Essenes are chronologically prohibited from having acquired communal living from the Christians.)
What do you think?
Ella Hansen offers a poet and dancer’s perspective.
Further up and further in! —C. S. Lewis.
Though for a time matter enthralls the soul,
The soul itself is such a thing apart
That, when the body breaks, it remains whole;
That life thrives ages past the beating heart.
For this, it goes unflinching through all pain,
Unmindful of its flesh, except as clay
To mould around what hindrances remain
Unyielding; the rest silent melt away.
For this, it fuses passion and the mind
To lose itself in rhythm, to be led
Forever inward, glancing not behind,
Slipped out of time, to stretch upward, ahead.
For this, when all its mortal strength is gone,
For this, in spite of this, the dance goes on.
John R. Ahern writes in response to Nick Embrey’s latest,
There’s a basic assumption that many make with regard to God, spirituality, and the universe. Aristotle and the ancients believed that the heavens, the spheres of the planets and the stars, were spiritual, as opposed to material. Why do we assume they were not correct?
In other words, if you like St. Thomas’ distinctions, there are two kinds of “substances”—spiritual and material. We assume that modern science, in its discovery of the nature of waves and photons and black holes, has proven that indeed the “heavenlies”, previously imagined to be spiritual, are really just as material as the earth is. Why do we assume this? Why do we assume that angels (if we believe them), being spiritual, are “made of” something completely transcendent and totally separate from the universe? Why is the spiritual necessarily something different and outside of what modern science calls the “material” universe? How do we know Aristotle wasn’t correct?
What was it about the back of God’s head (Exodus 33:12-23)? Is God’s spiritual body bright? Or do we just, like G. I. Williamson, attribute all that to poetic metaphors and say Moses didn’t see the back of God’s literal head, because obviously God doesn’t have a head?
(As always, I should add the disclaimer that I don’t necessarily agree with what I’m saying here. I’m just asking questions. But assuming fundamental things about the universe for unexamined reasons is a dangerous thing.)
Every year, thousands of college-bound students embark on a rigorous test schedule in order to satisfy admission requirements. Each year, these students wreck their health, waste thousands of hours, and suffer severe psychological trauma as a result of these requirements. Because of these deleterious harms, we stand resolved that the United States college system should significantly reform its admissions process. View Full Post
Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge theoretical physicist, renowned for his popular image as neuromuscular-dytrophic genius, has for years suffered from a decline in popularity amongst fellow physicists. His continued work in black hole and multiverse theory is seen as irrelevant by some of the academic community, and he has produced little significant original research since 1994.
But an upcoming presentation in London might change that. Hawking will propose a potentially groundbreaking new theory, which asserts the existence of a dimension called the Grand Ontological Dimension. He has suggested that his theory might elucidate questions about the nature and existence of Dark Energy, as well as the physical events leading up to the Big Bang, two of the most significant problems facing theoretical physics and cosmology today.
Taking questions about his upcoming presentation last week in a conference in Holland, Stephen Hawking (in his signature robotic Texan accent) said about his proposed dimension, “It’s not really what you’d call a dimension, strictly speaking. We named it analogically, because we live and move in it, as in the familiar dimensions. But it is really the structure in which we actually have our being.”
When asked about the theory’s relevance to specific problems of cosmology, such as Dark Energy, he declined to comment, but said that he anticipated that his presentation in London would be “very exciting” and would help unify some of the major concepts of modern physics.
What does it mean to say that God is outside of nature?
Several years ago, I sat in the living room watching a movie. The movie finished and I switched to PBS just to see what kind of kid’s show was on. What I found was unspeakable.
Here’s a small excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-nif4rXGs
I wasn’t able to bring myself to watch the whole thing. Now, I’m just wondering what sort of insidious social programming this is? Is there some sort of subliminal message hidden in all of that? Is it a code?
If not, what DOES it mean?
This thing is scary enough to frighten me out of my wits. Even though it apparently doesn’t scare kids, one must wonder what sort of scarring it produces in a child. Apparently, it is bad for kids to watch shows with clever dialogue, a humorous plot, quick pacing, and superb characterization, with a bit of cartoony violence mixed in (i.e. Rocky and Bullwinkle). Too scary. Too little unbridled, abstract, escapism.
What kids need is reassurance of the order of the world. They need a supportive, friendly environment that encourages them to learn, explore, grow! They need an ADHD/motion-sickness inducing casserole of motion, light, sound, and fury.
The Child Psychology experts have spoken, and they have given us “Boobah”, the embodiment of all of the above.
If something Rocky and Bullwinkle is in danger of causing unbalanced and violent children, then Boobah is likely, as we speak, producing an entire generation of delusional psychopaths, unable to see past a twisted frenzy of flashing colors, ready to do anything to make the colors stop, ready to crack at any moment.
So, what is it? Harmless or unspeakably twisted?
I say it’s evil; that makes the show a whole lot easier to stomach.
Ella Hansen writes: Guided by the helpful comments on the last instalment, I’ve revised the first half of the chapter; a portion of it has been moved to the next chapter. / Prologue / Chapter I / Chapter II / Chapter IIIA / Chapter IIIB
~ * ~
Who’s there?
Nay, answer me; stand, and unfold yourself.
A term that’s thrown around liberally in debates about education is ‘brainwashing’.
“Home-schoolers aren’t educating their children, they’re just brainwashing them.”
“Public schools are brainwashing children into liberalism.”
“Christians should stop brainwashing children and let them choose for themselves.”
Brainwashing is clearly a bad thing, and no one wants to be accused of it. We are teaching and educating, not brainwashing.
Right?
But the question is not whether we are educating or brainwashing; but how we are brainwashing.
All education is brainwashing. It’s how humans learn: We don’t present various forms of language to infants and determine which one they want to learn– we immerse them in one (usually) and expect them to pick it up. We don’t make sure they get to see different styles of ambulation so they can choose one for themselves– we make sure they learn how to walk.
The same holds for basic education– reading, math, etc. We don’t ask; we expect every child to learn them
Most people realize this to a certain extent. And you could point out that philosophy and religion (subjects in which choices are expected by today’s standards) are distinctly different from speech, reading, writing, etc., and I’ll grant this (at least partly).
But a person cannot receive an education devoid of philosophical or religious thought; they can’t choose for themselves where they get their morals. Everyone has had their philosophy communicated to them through what their teachers chose to teach and not to teach, and how they were taught.
Humans aren’t original. We don’t come up with these things on our own; everything is either from the Father of truth, or the father of lies.
John Ahern writes,
Leaves, roly polies
curl up when dead. Is God an
anthropomorphist?
