Sunday, August 5, 2007
Crisis in Christian Schools?
Descartes once said "in order to be a true seeker of truth, one must, as far as it is possible, question everything." I am becoming more and more convinced of this as I have seen Christians seemingly well grounded in their faith go through Christian schools and come out the other side questioning their Christianity. There is something wrong here. I know of several cases where this has happened. The first case I know of was at a Christian high school. Someone I know became so completely dissulussioned with Christianity after seeing the amount of hypocrisy at his school that this person isn't sure they want to be Christian. Part of the purpose of sending someone to a Christian school is an effort to keep this person from losing their faith. The fact that the opposite effect is happening is disturbing. So what's causeing this? Is there actually a crisis in our Christian Schools? I would say quite simply yes, there is a crisis in Christian schools. The problem, put simply, is the Christian sub culture. This is the idea that if one puts a group of Christians together who are like minded they will never question anything and in so doing will save their faith. THIS IS WRONG! Scripture commands that we be in the world but not of the world. NO WHERE in scripture does it command that we not even in be in the world and that we completely separate ourselves from the world. Christ in fact reprimands this kind of behavior in Revelation chapter two when he condemns the church who has lost it's first love. Here is a church who has done all the right things, and yet they have lost sight of the goal. I would put forth that this what happens when Christians insist upon living in a sub-culture kind of society. We end up raising children who are given the tools combat in the real world but never given the opportunity to use these tools. I would ask then, what was the point of giving the tools in the first place? If we insist upon sheltering our children to the point that they have no idea what is in the world they will no know how to deal with the things that are in the world. What will follow is a child who views the world as something that is perhaps not all bad and thus begins the slippery slope of a child who, when confronted, does not know how to deal with the confrontation and begins to agree with the ideas set before him. I ask you, would it not be better to instead begin confrontation in a controlled kind of manner that these children will know how to use the tools they have been given? It makes no sense to give the child the tools to use without actually giving them instruction manual to booklet. We must not assume that our children will simply figure it out on their own, some will, but some will come out the other side disillusioned. Again I ask, would it not be better to give them both the tools and the instruction manual to use these tools to combat the world? I would put this to parents, you know what is the world. Educate your child in both the ways of the world and the ways of Christianity and then ask them, which is better?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Upon meeting two women
Recently I encountered two women I found to be of interesting note. Of the two women, one was quite obviously an outspoken feminist. She talked as though she would be quite happy to completely eradicate any mention of man, men or anything that would even remotely hint at patriarchal values. I found this to be of interesting note because quite honestly, I was bothered by the whole encounter. The idea of completely eradicating men quite honestly bothered me. I'm reminded of a song I heard once as a child, "Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking. What a grand world this would be, if the men were all transported far beyond the northern sea." Reuben's reply is: "Oh my goodness gracious Rachel, what a strange world this would be, if the men were all transported far beyond the northern sea." On this issue I have to agree with Reuben. Indeed it would be a strange world to live if in fact men were completely eradicated. Granted I have had my moments when I've wanted to see the eradication of men, I think most women would be foolish if they think they haven't; however I think if women thought it through for two seconds they would infact realize the folly. As much as women may try to resist men are infact needed to stabilize women. I shudder to think about what the world would be like if ran by women, though that day may soon be approaching if Hillary Clinton gets her way. Women are emotional creatures and in fact need men to reason with them. If God had wanted the world to be ruled by women he would not have created man. By the same logic if God had wanted woman to be man he would have simply created man and let it be at that. The fact of the matter is, God in his ultimate wisdom created both man and woman for a purpose. God said "it is not good for man to be alone." The same could be said of woman.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Book Review: Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
This is I think one of the most important books of the twentieth century. Bradbury does an excellent job of depicting what happens to a society when knowledge is suppressed, books censored, and libraries no longer exist.
Quick review of the plot:
The book is set at some point in the future. Guy Montag is a fireman who burns books and begins to wonder what is in the books he is burning. Thus begins his downfall. The story unfolds with Mr. Montag's meeting with Clarrisse who begins to open a world for Mr. Montag he never knew possible.
Analysis:
At the end of the book Bradbury quite elequently gives a dialogue on the main points in his work and why he wrote the book in the manner that he wrote it. Let's talk literary theories for just a moment. Bradbury most definately comes from a New Criticism perspective, the idea that it is what is in the text that counts. He states, at the end of the book, a number of things he would have changed had he allowed himself to re-write the book. However, he also says that in re-writing the book it would be a totally new book, and would have to be titled differently. Bradbury takes to task various different minorities for their criticism of his books in that he is too far in one direction or the other. In essence he states in his appendices that he is an author who wrote about something he cared about and if those minority groups want their points of view represented, then perhaps they should write their own book. This book is a fairly quick read, but extremely important. It's hard to believe it has come so far from it's meager beginnings as dime novel.
Quick review of the plot:
The book is set at some point in the future. Guy Montag is a fireman who burns books and begins to wonder what is in the books he is burning. Thus begins his downfall. The story unfolds with Mr. Montag's meeting with Clarrisse who begins to open a world for Mr. Montag he never knew possible.
Analysis:
At the end of the book Bradbury quite elequently gives a dialogue on the main points in his work and why he wrote the book in the manner that he wrote it. Let's talk literary theories for just a moment. Bradbury most definately comes from a New Criticism perspective, the idea that it is what is in the text that counts. He states, at the end of the book, a number of things he would have changed had he allowed himself to re-write the book. However, he also says that in re-writing the book it would be a totally new book, and would have to be titled differently. Bradbury takes to task various different minorities for their criticism of his books in that he is too far in one direction or the other. In essence he states in his appendices that he is an author who wrote about something he cared about and if those minority groups want their points of view represented, then perhaps they should write their own book. This book is a fairly quick read, but extremely important. It's hard to believe it has come so far from it's meager beginnings as dime novel.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Can Islam and Christianity coexist in a pluralistic society? (An analysis of a recent Socratic Club forum)
As stated in the title the topic of tonight's socratic club forum was "Can Islam and Christianity Coexist in a pluralistic society?" Speakers this evening were Dr. Martin Alphonse arguing for Christianity and Dr. Shariar Ahmed arguing for Islam. First will be a brief summary of Dr. Alphonse's opening statements followed by a brief summary of Dr. Ahmed's opening statements. The final part of this analysis will be a summary of my own personal thoughts on each speaker.
Summer of Dr. Alphonse
In Dr. Alphonse's opening statements he gives several reasons for the coexistence of Christianity and Islam. Dr. Alphonse states Christians and Muslims are, in a sense, blood brothers and sisters as they are both descendent from Abraham. He also makes the statement that non-Arab muslims and Christians are descendent from the same theology they merely arrive at different conclusions. Christians and Muslims can coexist because they believe the same books to be revealed by the same God and they believe in the same prophets (i. e. Moses, David etc.). Dr. Alphonse argues a textual commonality between Jews, Christians and Muslims but says that Christians and Jews have deviated from that thus limiting the textual commonality. The issue of love is yet another area Muslims and Christians have in common as both are permitted to lvoe our neighbors as ourselves. Dr. Alphonse says also that Muslims and Christians all have a coomon goal and that with both religions there is a definite beginning and a definite end to the world. The issue of peace is another area Dr. Alphonse uses as his argument for the coexistence of Islam and Christianity.
Dr. Alphonse does state there is much still separating Islam and Christianity even given these similarities. He then goes into a brief explanation of just a few of these barriers. He says the main barrier between Islam and Christianity is the idea the trinity. Muslims see the trinity as being three separate gods rather than one God as the Christians do. Dr. Alphonse argues different names of God would have to refer to different gods. He also argues another barrier between Islam and Christianity is the the claim of a unique revelation. He also accuses Christinaity of major antisemitism against Arabs.
Review of Dr. Ahmed's opening arguments.
Dr. Ahmed begins by breaking the number one rule in public speaking, never apologize for your mistakes. Thus within the first 30 seconds of his presentation he makes it blatantly clear to his audience that he is not prepared to give his presentation and in his own terms "wings it." The only relevant comment Dr. Ahmed makes about Islam and Christianity is his statement that the practices are different. The rest of his presentation he spent establishing commonality with Judaism which was not the question; however, it is to his credit that this part of his presentation was informative albeit not on topic. Dr. Ahmed begins by discussing the origin of the word Islam saying it came from the Arabic word for submission. He also points out that in the Muslim religion to talk about the divine birth is sacrilege. As he walked through the audience he went on to discuss what it would look like to never forget God. After this discussion Dr. Ahmed deals with the issue of Abraham stating that Abraham did not have a wife and a concubine rather that he had two wives. He also makes a bold statement by saying that Hagar, not Sarah, was the ideal wife.
My own personal analyisis and comments:
I haver little in Dr. Alphonse's presentation to criticize his manner was courteous, brief and to the poitn. He dealt with the issue head on and gave a most informative presentation. I completely agree with his statement at the end of his opnening presentation "there is much still separating Christianity from Islam;" however, the point I think he is trying to make is, would it not be better to focus on that which bridges the gap between us rather than focusing on that which widens the gap?
My attack then would lie solely with Dr. Ahmed. First and foremost Dr. Ahmed never actually answered the question of the evening. In fact, he never answered any question. He took 5-10 minutes attempting to answer the question and by the time he was finished the audience completely forgot the question. His speaking manner was extremely accusatory and in fact ridculing to both the Socratic Club and the audience. At one point he made a statement about the list of things expected of him as a speaker saying "I was given a list of dos and donts and decided to just wing it." Saying such he as much as admitted he found the guidlins given him by the Socratic Club to be pointless. Many times in his presentation Dr. Ahmed made statements attesting to the fact that he was unprepared. Therefore, he could not even give the Socratic Club and the audience of the forum the respect of coming with a knowledge of the subject. Given all this it would by my critique that Dr. Ahmed was extremely unprepared, unprofessional, and disrespectful both for the Socratic Club and for the audience of the forum. Any man who hogs the microphone and stiffles any other discussion except that which he leads can be deamed such.
Q&A Session critique's
Many excellent questions were asked and indeed many more could have been asked had Dr. Ahmed simply answered the question in a timely manner and indeed answered the question in the first place. The most interesting of these questions was the question about dhimitudee. It is interesting to not that Dr. Ahmed at first refused to answer except that he then proceeded to spend the next five minutes establishing how Christianity is tolerated by Muslims in this country and in fact all over the world. At one point he gave the example of a Christian, muslim born, well respected woman. What he failed to point however is that this particular woman cannot go back to her home land because she will be killed. He also failed to mention the thousands of Christians that have died by the hand of Islam in Sudan. Does dhimitudee exist? Indeed it doues Dr. Ahmed. In fact I would say to Dr. Ahmed the prime reason Christian is tolerated by Muslims in this country is because we have religious freedom and any attack made on any one person solely on the basis of their religion is deemed a hate crime. It is in fact, a crime.
I next come to the issue of Dr. Ahmed's discussion of the origin of the word Islam. It may very well have come from the Arabic word for submission; however, what Dr. Ahmed neglects to inform his audience is that the muslim idea of submission is not submission at all it is in fact slavery. Muslims live in constant fear of not following the ways of Allah and thus it is no longer submission, but it is in fact slavery.
Dr. Ahmed also makes the bold claim the Muslim religion is not a proselytizing religion. This is absolute nonsense. The only way Dr. Ahmed can make such a claim is if he completely ignores the thousands of years Muslims have threatened to cut off the heads of those who will not convert. How is this not a proselytizing religion?
In closing then I would ask Dr. Ahmed that the next time he gives one of these presentations to be a bit more prepared and do his homework.
Summer of Dr. Alphonse
In Dr. Alphonse's opening statements he gives several reasons for the coexistence of Christianity and Islam. Dr. Alphonse states Christians and Muslims are, in a sense, blood brothers and sisters as they are both descendent from Abraham. He also makes the statement that non-Arab muslims and Christians are descendent from the same theology they merely arrive at different conclusions. Christians and Muslims can coexist because they believe the same books to be revealed by the same God and they believe in the same prophets (i. e. Moses, David etc.). Dr. Alphonse argues a textual commonality between Jews, Christians and Muslims but says that Christians and Jews have deviated from that thus limiting the textual commonality. The issue of love is yet another area Muslims and Christians have in common as both are permitted to lvoe our neighbors as ourselves. Dr. Alphonse says also that Muslims and Christians all have a coomon goal and that with both religions there is a definite beginning and a definite end to the world. The issue of peace is another area Dr. Alphonse uses as his argument for the coexistence of Islam and Christianity.
Dr. Alphonse does state there is much still separating Islam and Christianity even given these similarities. He then goes into a brief explanation of just a few of these barriers. He says the main barrier between Islam and Christianity is the idea the trinity. Muslims see the trinity as being three separate gods rather than one God as the Christians do. Dr. Alphonse argues different names of God would have to refer to different gods. He also argues another barrier between Islam and Christianity is the the claim of a unique revelation. He also accuses Christinaity of major antisemitism against Arabs.
Review of Dr. Ahmed's opening arguments.
Dr. Ahmed begins by breaking the number one rule in public speaking, never apologize for your mistakes. Thus within the first 30 seconds of his presentation he makes it blatantly clear to his audience that he is not prepared to give his presentation and in his own terms "wings it." The only relevant comment Dr. Ahmed makes about Islam and Christianity is his statement that the practices are different. The rest of his presentation he spent establishing commonality with Judaism which was not the question; however, it is to his credit that this part of his presentation was informative albeit not on topic. Dr. Ahmed begins by discussing the origin of the word Islam saying it came from the Arabic word for submission. He also points out that in the Muslim religion to talk about the divine birth is sacrilege. As he walked through the audience he went on to discuss what it would look like to never forget God. After this discussion Dr. Ahmed deals with the issue of Abraham stating that Abraham did not have a wife and a concubine rather that he had two wives. He also makes a bold statement by saying that Hagar, not Sarah, was the ideal wife.
My own personal analyisis and comments:
I haver little in Dr. Alphonse's presentation to criticize his manner was courteous, brief and to the poitn. He dealt with the issue head on and gave a most informative presentation. I completely agree with his statement at the end of his opnening presentation "there is much still separating Christianity from Islam;" however, the point I think he is trying to make is, would it not be better to focus on that which bridges the gap between us rather than focusing on that which widens the gap?
My attack then would lie solely with Dr. Ahmed. First and foremost Dr. Ahmed never actually answered the question of the evening. In fact, he never answered any question. He took 5-10 minutes attempting to answer the question and by the time he was finished the audience completely forgot the question. His speaking manner was extremely accusatory and in fact ridculing to both the Socratic Club and the audience. At one point he made a statement about the list of things expected of him as a speaker saying "I was given a list of dos and donts and decided to just wing it." Saying such he as much as admitted he found the guidlins given him by the Socratic Club to be pointless. Many times in his presentation Dr. Ahmed made statements attesting to the fact that he was unprepared. Therefore, he could not even give the Socratic Club and the audience of the forum the respect of coming with a knowledge of the subject. Given all this it would by my critique that Dr. Ahmed was extremely unprepared, unprofessional, and disrespectful both for the Socratic Club and for the audience of the forum. Any man who hogs the microphone and stiffles any other discussion except that which he leads can be deamed such.
Q&A Session critique's
Many excellent questions were asked and indeed many more could have been asked had Dr. Ahmed simply answered the question in a timely manner and indeed answered the question in the first place. The most interesting of these questions was the question about dhimitudee. It is interesting to not that Dr. Ahmed at first refused to answer except that he then proceeded to spend the next five minutes establishing how Christianity is tolerated by Muslims in this country and in fact all over the world. At one point he gave the example of a Christian, muslim born, well respected woman. What he failed to point however is that this particular woman cannot go back to her home land because she will be killed. He also failed to mention the thousands of Christians that have died by the hand of Islam in Sudan. Does dhimitudee exist? Indeed it doues Dr. Ahmed. In fact I would say to Dr. Ahmed the prime reason Christian is tolerated by Muslims in this country is because we have religious freedom and any attack made on any one person solely on the basis of their religion is deemed a hate crime. It is in fact, a crime.
I next come to the issue of Dr. Ahmed's discussion of the origin of the word Islam. It may very well have come from the Arabic word for submission; however, what Dr. Ahmed neglects to inform his audience is that the muslim idea of submission is not submission at all it is in fact slavery. Muslims live in constant fear of not following the ways of Allah and thus it is no longer submission, but it is in fact slavery.
Dr. Ahmed also makes the bold claim the Muslim religion is not a proselytizing religion. This is absolute nonsense. The only way Dr. Ahmed can make such a claim is if he completely ignores the thousands of years Muslims have threatened to cut off the heads of those who will not convert. How is this not a proselytizing religion?
In closing then I would ask Dr. Ahmed that the next time he gives one of these presentations to be a bit more prepared and do his homework.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
How should one read the Bible today?
How we read the Bible today is a controversial issue even within Christianity. This is exactly the topic debated at a recent Oregon State University Socratic Club meeting. Speakers, Dr. Martin Emrich, pastor Westminster Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Susan Shaw, Director of women's studies at Oregon State University, represented two very different opinions on the issue.
Review of Dr. Emrich's opening remarks:
Dr. Emrich opened his presentation with this statement "How we read the Bible depends upon what we think about the Bible." In other words, how we read the Bible depends largely upon our presuppositions. Dr. Emrich went on to explain the key to reading the Bible is allowing the Bible to change said presuppositions. He also pointed out the idea "if the Bible is God’s word, and therefore ultimate truth than we cannot use criteria to determine it’s truthfulness that are outside of the Bible itself because there are no criteria higher or more ultimate than the speech of God." This being the case it is essential for the confessing Christian to submit themselves to life long process of allowing our presuppositions to be changed and thus gain a greater understanding of scripture.
The issue of truth found in scripture became a huge part of the debate. Dr. Emrich stated clearly that truth could be found and truth was indeed found in Scripture. "If truth really is from God then we can’t know it because knowledge is limited to this world, scientific investigation." Regarding the issue of relativity Dr. Emrich said, "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." A fact the audience discovered latter in the debate.
Dr. Emrich furthurs his argument in how scripture is to be read by saying "We read the Bible presupposing that God speaks in it. God determines what the book is to mean." However, given the sin nature of mankind it is easy to see how this could be harmed, or distorted. In his closing arugment regarding the issue of the depravity of makind distorting our interpretation of scripture, Dr. Emrich says, "it is through the Holy Spirit we submit our presuppositions."
Review of Dr. Susan Shaw's opening remarks:
Dr. Susan Shaw, director of women's studies at Oregon State made the argument that scripture is simply to be read as any great piece of literature ought to be read. Thus it is no more inspired than say Charlotte Bronte is inspired. She claimed that in reading the Bible one ought not look at the message in each verse but rather the "overaching message, that of God’s love." Thus, it is only the overarching message that is relevant to our time, not the text itself.
Dr. Shaw also deals with the issue of truth in saying "no one man can have the whole truth." In her own interpretation of the Bible she combines three different literary theories, reader-response, deconstruction, and feminism. With the reader-response theory Dr. Shaw claims that it is not the text itself that has meaning, but rather the reader engaging in the act of the reading bringing all of his experiences to the table of interpretation that gives scripture meaning. In a deconstruction/feminist theory of interpretation, Dr. Shaw refuses to take scripture at face value and reads scripture through the eyes of those she feels are "marginalized." Thus, she retells scripture in an effort to meet societal needs. "I work on the text, and the text works on me."
My own analysis of the debate:
Personally I have very little to criticze in Dr. Emrich's presentation. His logic is sound, and so his conclusions. Which brings me to Dr. Shaw's most humorous presentation. Dr. Shaw made several points of a humorous nature throughout her presentation and at one point directly contradicted herself. As Dr. Emrich said early on his presentation "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." The evidence of this statement is shown within Dr. Shaw's own statements particularly the statement "no one man can have the whole of truth." Following Dr. Shaw's logic, eventually this statement leads to one of two possible conclusions; either there is some sort of secret knowledge in which man kind can only have part of truth and never actually knows if in fact he has truth. The other possibility is that truth simply does not exist. Where this would fall apart lies in the fact that if in fact truth simply does not exist, then is that statement true? When the question was put to Dr. Shaw she skirted around the issue saying "I don't like to live in such absolutes . . . living in a world of uncertainties is a very comfortable place to be." The problem with Dr. Shaw's perspective is that it complete ignores mankinds need for certainty. Study after study have shown that people, particularly children need routine. This implies that people need certainty. Thus a life of uncertainty is in fact a very uncomfortable place for mankind to be and infact Dr. Shaw directly contradicts herself at the end of her presentation by saying "I like to live in a world of uncertainties, it is a very difficult place to be." Thus, Dr. Emrich's statement that relativity eventually falls apart is proven in Dr. Shaw's statements because eventually a relativist will end up contradicting oneself.
So we see that in a relatvist mindset truth simply does not exist though personally will never admit to that. Thus living in a world of uncertainty is in fact not only uncomfortable it is improbable as well as impractical. Mankind's need for certainty as well as man's understanding of reality keeps relativity thus.
Review of Dr. Emrich's opening remarks:
Dr. Emrich opened his presentation with this statement "How we read the Bible depends upon what we think about the Bible." In other words, how we read the Bible depends largely upon our presuppositions. Dr. Emrich went on to explain the key to reading the Bible is allowing the Bible to change said presuppositions. He also pointed out the idea "if the Bible is God’s word, and therefore ultimate truth than we cannot use criteria to determine it’s truthfulness that are outside of the Bible itself because there are no criteria higher or more ultimate than the speech of God." This being the case it is essential for the confessing Christian to submit themselves to life long process of allowing our presuppositions to be changed and thus gain a greater understanding of scripture.
The issue of truth found in scripture became a huge part of the debate. Dr. Emrich stated clearly that truth could be found and truth was indeed found in Scripture. "If truth really is from God then we can’t know it because knowledge is limited to this world, scientific investigation." Regarding the issue of relativity Dr. Emrich said, "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." A fact the audience discovered latter in the debate.
Dr. Emrich furthurs his argument in how scripture is to be read by saying "We read the Bible presupposing that God speaks in it. God determines what the book is to mean." However, given the sin nature of mankind it is easy to see how this could be harmed, or distorted. In his closing arugment regarding the issue of the depravity of makind distorting our interpretation of scripture, Dr. Emrich says, "it is through the Holy Spirit we submit our presuppositions."
Review of Dr. Susan Shaw's opening remarks:
Dr. Susan Shaw, director of women's studies at Oregon State made the argument that scripture is simply to be read as any great piece of literature ought to be read. Thus it is no more inspired than say Charlotte Bronte is inspired. She claimed that in reading the Bible one ought not look at the message in each verse but rather the "overaching message, that of God’s love." Thus, it is only the overarching message that is relevant to our time, not the text itself.
Dr. Shaw also deals with the issue of truth in saying "no one man can have the whole truth." In her own interpretation of the Bible she combines three different literary theories, reader-response, deconstruction, and feminism. With the reader-response theory Dr. Shaw claims that it is not the text itself that has meaning, but rather the reader engaging in the act of the reading bringing all of his experiences to the table of interpretation that gives scripture meaning. In a deconstruction/feminist theory of interpretation, Dr. Shaw refuses to take scripture at face value and reads scripture through the eyes of those she feels are "marginalized." Thus, she retells scripture in an effort to meet societal needs. "I work on the text, and the text works on me."
My own analysis of the debate:
Personally I have very little to criticze in Dr. Emrich's presentation. His logic is sound, and so his conclusions. Which brings me to Dr. Shaw's most humorous presentation. Dr. Shaw made several points of a humorous nature throughout her presentation and at one point directly contradicted herself. As Dr. Emrich said early on his presentation "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." The evidence of this statement is shown within Dr. Shaw's own statements particularly the statement "no one man can have the whole of truth." Following Dr. Shaw's logic, eventually this statement leads to one of two possible conclusions; either there is some sort of secret knowledge in which man kind can only have part of truth and never actually knows if in fact he has truth. The other possibility is that truth simply does not exist. Where this would fall apart lies in the fact that if in fact truth simply does not exist, then is that statement true? When the question was put to Dr. Shaw she skirted around the issue saying "I don't like to live in such absolutes . . . living in a world of uncertainties is a very comfortable place to be." The problem with Dr. Shaw's perspective is that it complete ignores mankinds need for certainty. Study after study have shown that people, particularly children need routine. This implies that people need certainty. Thus a life of uncertainty is in fact a very uncomfortable place for mankind to be and infact Dr. Shaw directly contradicts herself at the end of her presentation by saying "I like to live in a world of uncertainties, it is a very difficult place to be." Thus, Dr. Emrich's statement that relativity eventually falls apart is proven in Dr. Shaw's statements because eventually a relativist will end up contradicting oneself.
So we see that in a relatvist mindset truth simply does not exist though personally will never admit to that. Thus living in a world of uncertainty is in fact not only uncomfortable it is improbable as well as impractical. Mankind's need for certainty as well as man's understanding of reality keeps relativity thus.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Upon reading Atlas Shrugged
I've been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand lately and went to poetry club today thinking about Dagney Taggert, one of the main characters in the book. I greatly admire Dagney Taggert and while I don't agree with everything she stands for, I hope one day to at least resemble something of her character. So in Stinky Bagels today I wrote a tribute to Dagney Taggert.
Dagney Taggert
She looks out
with the eyes
of her mind.
She is repulsed
mooching,
mooching,
all are
mooching,
competition,
capitalism,
communism,
will not
one man
take
ownership
for the sake
of ownership?
She cries
with the
the eyes
of her mind.
Capital gain,
for the sole purpose
of gain.
For the sake
of what
is mine.
What is so wrong
with that?
She cries
with the eyes
of her mind.
She looks
with the
eyes of
her mind.
She is
repulsed.
Mooching,
Mooching,
All are
mooching.
She shouts
to a world
of moochers
with the
eyes of
her mind,
I AM NOT ONE OF YOU!
Dagney Taggert
She looks out
with the eyes
of her mind.
She is repulsed
mooching,
mooching,
all are
mooching,
competition,
capitalism,
communism,
will not
one man
take
ownership
for the sake
of ownership?
She cries
with the
the eyes
of her mind.
Capital gain,
for the sole purpose
of gain.
For the sake
of what
is mine.
What is so wrong
with that?
She cries
with the eyes
of her mind.
She looks
with the
eyes of
her mind.
She is
repulsed.
Mooching,
Mooching,
All are
mooching.
She shouts
to a world
of moochers
with the
eyes of
her mind,
I AM NOT ONE OF YOU!
Tragedy Twice (Article written for Corban College about Virginia Tech)
32 dead, the deadliest school shooting in American history. Even more deadly than Columbine. My heart is grieved. This is a tragedy, a huge, devestating tragedy.
I was on Facebook shortly after I heard of the incident and came by a group with the intention of offering thoughts and prayers to the folks of Virginia Tech. Yet once again my heart was grieved because no sooner was the group formed than someone began criticizing someone else over a religious disagreement. Here yet once again is a tragedy. Usually religious disputes come about because someone is feeling attacked. Think about this, the folks at Virginia Tech were attacked, physically attacked in a such a horrific manner that we cannot even imagine. Set aside yourself for just one moment and think about the needs of the people at Virginia Tech. These people are hurting, the need to know they are supported. Squabbling over religion is not helping anyone. These people ought to be ministered too, not criticized.
We have all felt the impact of this merciless killing. Imagine for just one minute what it would have been like if this had happened on our small campus of Corban College. It would be devastating, the security felt on this campus absolutely shattered. Now multiply those imaginings ten fold, this is only a sample of what the folks at Virginia Tech must be feeling. Would it not be better to forget about the fact that you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic or Protestant, and do everything in our power to help these people?
I was on Facebook shortly after I heard of the incident and came by a group with the intention of offering thoughts and prayers to the folks of Virginia Tech. Yet once again my heart was grieved because no sooner was the group formed than someone began criticizing someone else over a religious disagreement. Here yet once again is a tragedy. Usually religious disputes come about because someone is feeling attacked. Think about this, the folks at Virginia Tech were attacked, physically attacked in a such a horrific manner that we cannot even imagine. Set aside yourself for just one moment and think about the needs of the people at Virginia Tech. These people are hurting, the need to know they are supported. Squabbling over religion is not helping anyone. These people ought to be ministered too, not criticized.
We have all felt the impact of this merciless killing. Imagine for just one minute what it would have been like if this had happened on our small campus of Corban College. It would be devastating, the security felt on this campus absolutely shattered. Now multiply those imaginings ten fold, this is only a sample of what the folks at Virginia Tech must be feeling. Would it not be better to forget about the fact that you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic or Protestant, and do everything in our power to help these people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
