The proper response to this is not to lapse into the rationalist whine about people being governed by their passions and keep hoping they'll be be "rational" like us (we're not). Rather, the point is to harness, direct, and channel the passions. Indeed, if you just paint the passions as "irrational," you've already lost.
Matthew Taylor: A kinda counter-proposal if you like or a different way of looking at this, which is that the one thing that has grown to fill the gap in newspapers left by the decline in investigative journalism has been opinion. There's been a massive growth in opinion: opinion in mainstream media, opinion on the internet of course, and so for me the worry about your proposal is that yes stuff will be commissioned, but it will be commissioned on the same basis it seems that most journalism works, perhaps the way journalism always works, which is I'll start from the story and the story has got to be one which polarizes the matter cause a non-polarizing story is not an interesting story. So journalism has an inherent polarizing quality to it because there is no real disagreement or the people or the supermarket or the government is generally trying to do the right thing is not a story. And so what you lead to is a slightly greater hubbub of people whose interests lies in polarizing disagreements. Now for me the problem is, in terms of public engagement, is less about a lack of information or even less about a diversity of information, it is the construct of most debates is of this form. It is of the form where I saw "I stand for fairness, and Dan stands for unfairness" to which Dan replies, "No, Matthew stands for unfairness; I stand for fairness". And I would say, this is not an exaggeration, 95% of disputation as presented as in the media and politics has that form. What that means is that if you're a member of the public and you're very busy, it's entirely opaque. So you therefore have to rely upon other ways of adjudicating, which maybe comes down to emotions. Who's face do we like most? Who's most like us? Whatever kinda emotional link we can make, and of course we have lots and lots of evidence that people make most of their personal judgments on the this kind of emotional basis. So for me the challenge is not this lack of information, lack of opinion, it is how can you try to structure debates in order that as it were the sides are encouraged to agree about what they disagree about. In order that the public can say "Well in this battle between Tesco and the local community", rather than listening to these attempts to disparage each other and claim some of the things for each other's case, actually both sides are gonna work together to say actually these are genuinely the things we disagree about and therefore the public is in the position to make an informed choice on the basis of a consensus about what it is that is actually at the heart of the matter. Now for me that would be potentially a much more liberating kind of experience than having Tescos are all evil, ministers are all evil, whatever. There's no shortage of that I don't think.Source.
Dan Hind: What you described is in a sense a rejection of pluralism. I mean you're saying that what we don't want is a situation people come as advocates for a position and use all means fair or foul.
Matthew Taylor: I think pluralism needed to be based upon probably a kind of shared set of values and upon a certain kind of paternalism which has disappeared in society.
Dan Hind: Well that's a maybe, and I think you're historically actually right. But the notion that outs a contending public debate where people come in a gladiatorial way with a point of view and seek, as I say, by any means to fool their opponent and then a public decides on the basis of which argument is still standing. Here it seems to me a perfectly adequate approach to matters of public concern where I think as you say the kind of paternalistic model of pluralism falls down is that it says, "You know what we're gonna have a very exciting debate, but we've chosen who the speakers are". So there's someone in the background usually a public servant of some description who's saying "Matthew represents a legitimate point of view and differs with Dan who represents a legitimate point of view" and somewhere in the wings there's a bunch of people saying, "Yea, but they're talking beside the point." Now I'm more in favor of plural debate, more in favor of a clash of competing ideas, and more in favor as it were where the journalists, the researchers are gonna be interested. They're gonna have a dog in the fight. They're wanna get their next commission, they're gonna wanna build their career. But it gives us an opportunity I think to have a pluralist debate which isn't in any way rigged before hand. You remove as it were the impresario who puts on the show. And that's where I think I differ from kinda traditional pluralism. Because at the moment I think our notions of balance are to some extent managed, and I think our notions of what constitutes legitimate debate are subject to prior restraint if you like, and I think that's a major problem. Very quickly to go about your point the proliferation of opinion. Opinion proliferates I think cause it's cheap. We can go home after a long day and we can do an opinion piece on our blog or we can forward something on our twitter feed. It's quick to do. But finding stuff out is more expensive, and again I have faith that people if they have the power to do it will pay people to find stuff out. So we won't pay for opinion so much, but we'll pay for fact.
[R]eligion is the contradiction of revelation, the concentrated expression of human unbelief, i.e. an attitude and activity which is directly opposed to faith....BTW - iustificatio impii means justification of the ungodly. This is going to be disappointing to some, as it essentially means that Bonhoeffer is a hyper-Protestant (i.e. sole fide fanatic) and secularist. For the record, Barth counter-balances these insights. The point of bringing them up and not contextualizing them is that with Bonhoeffer you can't. Hence why in the letter he states that Barth started off good, but arrives at a religious restoration.
Religion is never true in itself and as such. The revelation of God denies that any religion is true, i.e. that it is in truth the knowledge and worship of God and the reconciliation of man with God. For as the self-offering and self-manifestation of God, as the work of peace which God himself has concluded between himself and man, revelation is the truth beside which there is no other truth, over against which there is only lying and wrong. If by the concept of a ‘true religion’ we mean truth which belongs to religion in itself and as such, it is just as unattainable as a ‘good man’, if by goodness we mean something which man can achieve on his own initiative. No religion is true....
This judgement means that all this Christianity of ours, and all the details of it, are not as such what they ought to be and pretend to be, a work of faith, and therefore of obedience to the divine revelation. What we have here is in its own way – a different way from that of other religions, but no less seriously – unbelief, i.e. opposition to the divine revelation, and therefore active idolatry and self-righteousness....
It is therefore a fact that we can speak of the truth of the Christian religion only within the doctrine of the iustificatio impii. The statement that even Christianity is unbelief gives rise to a whole mass of naïve and rationalizing contradictions. Church history itself is a history of this contradiction. But it is this very fact which best shows us how true and right the statement is (source; embolding mine).
“Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.... A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, “We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger.” In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro (source).Gladwell goes on to point out:
[I]t is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.For Gladwell, activism that effectively challenges the status quo has both a heirarchical organizational structure and social relations formed with a strong bond between members. He believed that the civil rights movement was provided both by the black church, enabling it to become paradigmatic for societal transformation.
It is as shortsighted as it is condescending to explain the international rise in religious fundamentalism by suggesting that people want easy answers to the problems of a complex world. No doubt, sometimes, they do. But they just as surely want worldviews that express moral standpoints: that human dignity is a good which cannot be bartered, that some actions are so vile they cannot be redeemed. Clarity should never be confused with simplicity, moral clarity least of all. But a view that has no means to express legitimate needs for moral clarity will leave people to seek it elsewhere, and to settle for moral simplicity instead. Scruples about using moral language responsibly should lead us to use it responsibly, not to abandon it entirely - leaving moral ammunition in unscrupulous hands.
For a more technical discussion, there are two important distinctions in Bible translations: the texts which the translation uses and the translation philosophy they employ.
For the NT, there are three textual options: the Textus Receptus or Received Text, which is the collection of Greek New Testament manuscripts edited by Erasmus, the Majority Text and a Critical Text. Both MT and CT use textual criticism on all known manuscripts to determine which variant is correct, but whereas CT uses critical methodology (e.g. what's oldest, what's most likely to be original based on text critical criteria), the MT asks what variant has the most manuscript support. Since most NT manuscripts are medieval and thus similar to Erasmus' collection, the Majority Text is nearly identical to the Textus Receptus.
The KJV and NKJV are based on the TR; no translation I know of is based on the Majority, and all the rest are based on a Critical Text (usually Nestle-Aland's). All modern versions use the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament.
There are two major translation philosophies: literary/literal and dynamic equivalent. The distinction between the two is more complicated than "literal" and "non-literal." No translation is word-for-word; all must adapt Hebrew/Greek words and sentence structures to English words and sentence structures. Dynamic equivalence uses linguistic methodology of "deep structure" to replicate the parent language in the receptor language, and so is less concerned about replicating sentence structures and retaining idioms. This does not mean they translate "loosely" or "according to sense;" it's far more rigorous than that.
A translation like the ESV is concerned with allowing as much of the Bible's own idiom to transform English as possible. It still must wreak havoc in some ways, but it's far more willing to accept something awkward in English for the sake of the Hebrew trope. The ESV also accepts the heritage of the KJV in the English language, and seeks to keep as much of the rhythm and style of the KJV as possible - that's an explicit part of their translation philosophy. They're not only hoping to retain the Hebrew/Greek literary sense, but the KJV literary sense.
For a more rigorous literary/literal approach than any English translation of the entire Bible, check out Everett Fox's translation of the Pentateuch and Robert Alter's translation of the Pentateuch and the Psalter.
I should add a third: English register. In language, register is how formal the language is. One expects a different type of language in the State of the Union than in the latest episode of the Office. Translations explicitly choose different registers.
NIV uses a literary register, but is as clear as possible. It's the New York Times of Bible translations (not the New Yorker).
The Message uses a folksy, homey register with lots of down to earth idioms (or cliches). It's the Rush Limbaugh of Bible Translations.
The ESV uses modern English with a high register. This is part of their keeping the style of the KJV without the thees and thous, since the King James Bible helped create the high English register as we know it. It's the New Yorker, or John Updike, of Bible Translations.
The KJV of course is the definition of high register, but it is also archaic. No one speaks this way anymore, no matter how formal the occasion, unless they're quoting the King James. It thus lends a super-formal and traditionist atmosphere to the reading of Scripture. It's the Vulgate of English Bible translations.
My advice about this is that if after reading the KJV all your life you feel sort of sacrilegious reading a text with a lower register - don't! One of the main points of translating the Bible into English rather than keeping it in Latin was to rid it of its exclusivity. Some sections of the Bible are formal, literary Hebrew and Greek and some are not, so why should our translation keep this special, formal, high-register quality in the main? That in itself obscures parts of the Bible and is thus not "literal" at all, which is a main reason people claim to read the KJV. While I appreciate the literary value of the KJV, the ESV and other translations are also literary in quality without making the Bible overly formal and archaic in style.
I don't care if anyone reads the KJV, but don't feel guilty for not doing so. Stand in your Reformation heritage and pick up an NIV.
When you say, "What I hear from the question is, is it okay to not be inconvenienced with religious obligations?" I see where you're coming from and how that's a viable interpretation. But it wasn't the gut feeling I had. What I intuited as I prayerfully read and responded to this guy was legalism. That was affirmed when he wrote back with this: "Hi. I'm a Christian who tries hard to live for God the best I can. I like to know whether certain things are sins that are unclear so I'll grow more in the Lord. I know I'm far from perfect." And then he proceeded to ask more questions on a different topic wanting blanket yes or no answers to questions that are a matter of personal conviction. This guy is looking for rules to get him closer to Jesus.Basically I misread the context in Sartrean proportions.
Now, when you say, "What I hear from you is, I'm uncomfortable with saying no, but really it is about being getting the 'important' matters right," I'm really not sure where you read that in my response. Perhaps you misread the intentions in my commentary about our busyness; but I assure you, I was coming from the same place you are when you talk about our mirroring the culture instead of imaging God.
"Simply compare [William] James and Henry Adams, his contemporary. Adams embodied the American who despaired of his own country and was ruined by Europe. James was built up by Europe, and believed in America" (Rosenstock-Huessy).Wow. What a brilliant insight. Not into Adams or James, I have no clue about that, but into two enduring types that still embody those we know and love (hopefully) today.
Ultimately the Bible is not a book of rules. There most certainly are rules in the Bible, but their purpose is not to show us how good we are... because of course, none of us is good enough to be okay with God; only Jesus can fix our relationship with God. Rather, the instructions and commands and rules in the Bible, especially ones like this one in Hebrews, describe how life works best. For example...*Raises eyebrow*. I always thought there were rules in relationships. In fact, the only relationships where there are not are the relationships of imaginative projections of our fantasies. Alas, the Bible is a testament to humanity and Israel's unfaithfulness to the commands and callings of God with severe warnings to the Church. The rules serve many purposes, not least of which is to show us how to be faithful in our relationship. So while rules w/out relationship might get us nowhere, relationship w/out rules gets us a bag on the doorstep and a note saying "Have a good life".
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12.13 NASB).While he arguably did successful argue for interpreting this as a literal baptism into the body of Christ, what he unfortunately left open was the portion about the Spirit's agency. The reason was that wasn't the focus of the section in the chapter, like it is here. I don't know enough Greek though or theology to argue one way or the other. *shrug* I got the sense though that we both interpret the agency issue similarly despite how he left it ambiguous.
One exception is Ehud who notably has nothing miraculous surrounding his story. He just shows up on the scene, assassinates by shoving a sword through the gut of the defecating Moab king, and then leads a revolt. The only allusion to any sorta God-connection is in a personal message from God to Eglon, which is not confirmed as such by the narration. While pretty cool, admittedly it does not fit the pattern with what I'm suggesting. *shrug* I think that's in part due to the shortness of the account, but you can imply it by the feel of the text. Make of that what you will.
Incidentally, Barak came to her under some kinda tree not a street corner like in the beautiful painting to your right. Her character though is introduced with the identity of a prophetess. So she has pre-established recognition as from God.
Notably all prophets are established via signs, although I can't really think of any war prophet who doesn't. The ones that don't tend to author books or be attributed as author and offer poignant social critiques. Also while signs establish the authority of a prophet, they never do so absolutely. Prophets are still humans and still step outside of God's will. They represent God but never perfectly, so switching off one's thinking cap in blind obedience is never commendable. If anything unthinking obedience is ascribed to listening to false prophets who tell the people what they wish to hear. Unthinking obedience connotes self-deception by God's people.
Phil Vischer: Now Aunt Ruth, the Aunt Ruth slide. *they talk over each other* You got something to say about that?
Mike Nawrocki: Around that time I actually remembered there was a website devoted to the existence or non-existence of Aunt Ruth, because we had mentioned her a few times, and we had never shown her. So in that slide, if you'll stop on that frame, you'll notice there's a sequence of numbers running up the side and if you translate it in the a=1, b=2, c=3...
Phil: It says something.
Mike: It says something.
Phil: But we won't say what.
Mike: Oh, okay you have to figure it out.
Phil: Yea, It says something about Aunt Ruth. And there's a very long story I could tell you about Aunt Ruth, but I don't think we'll tell it.
just started watching black's booksThen you might like this:
Charles Darwin said that the survival or extinction of an organism is determined by its ability to adapt to its environment. I think faith operates the same way. Changes in the environment--be they cultural or experiential—test the resilience of our faith and challenge us to rethink our most fundamental beliefs and values.
That’s what this blog is about. It's about how faith survives by continually changing. Its purpose is to reassess the fundamental elements of Christianity in the context of a postmodern environment…my insights coming from a small town famous for its fundamentalism, yours coming from wherever you may be.
I believe that knowing the answers isn't as important as asking the questions, and that following Jesus Christ is a lot less about being right and a lot more about, well, surviving. So even if that's all you're doing right now, feel free to join the conversation.
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY: The "OT" bit references historical, literary, cultural issues (the particulars), the "theology" bit references the Big Picture (and why it matters). These two poles are expressed in the title. This blog concerns everything in between.
Since its inception in the fall of 2007, The Immanent Frame has played host to a variety of discussions, from critical exchanges on Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im’s Islam and the Secular State to extensive discussions of the complex role of religion in the public sphere, U.S. politics, cognitive science, higher education, international affairs and global politics, debates about sexuality and marriage, and political and intellectual criticism.Anyways, even if you don't like it, Matt might.
Most recently, The Immanent Frame has hosted discussion series on religious freedom and U.S. foreign policy, critiques and revisions of the concept of civil religion and its role in contemporary public life, and the emergence of a “strong program” in the sociology of religion, as well as interviews and critical colloquies on important recent texts, including Webb Keane’s Christian Moderns: Freedom and Fetish in the Mission Encounter, Stefanos Geroulanos’s An Atheism that Is Not Humanist Emerges in French Thought, and Courtney Bender’s The New Metaphysicals: Spirituality and the American Religious Imagination.
The lesson of the ongoing financial crisis is for me exactly the opposite one. Most of the gigantic sums of bailout money is going not to this passive minority but precisely to this Ayn Randian deregulated titans who failed in creative schemes and thereby brought about the meltdown. It is not the great creative geniuses who are now helping lazy ordinary people; it is the ordinary taxpayers who are helping the failed creative geniuses.
Cut up the potatoes while scrambling the eggs.
While you're in the middle of that, slice some cheeses and toss them on a tortilla. I used an x-large tortilla to accentuate my manly manliness, 'cause real men eat big things. (And cause they were the only thing in the fridge.).
Be sure that the cheese covers a good portion, there's nothing worse than a not cheesy enough burrito.
As you can see, I didn't cut the slices small enough, so that some of the cheese is scorched while other parts are not fully melted. Oh well. Now toss some of the junk from the pan onto the burrito. You want to stuff as much as you can fold. Too much junk above your ability and it just ends up on your plate and then you gotta use your fingers and get stains on your pants. Too little and it reinforces your own folding inadequacies. Next grab the BBQ sauce.
I like the above cause it reminds me of whiskey. The actual sauce doesn't matter as long as it's not sweet but tangy and spicy. You might of been tempted to throw in some bacon or sausage, but the sauce renders the flavor aspect unnecessary while the potatoes fill in for the texture-type feel of the burrito in your mouth.
Then throw on some left-over Taco Bell spice packets, preferably Fire sauce.
You want a lot of sauce on it, as this is your main source of flavor.
Then using your preferred wrapping technique, ta-da! Finally stuff your face.
