Thursday, October 30, 2014
Quotable
For my friend Kevin Tones:
"...the astute observer might note that King David never actually went through a heavy metal phase, though some of his lyrics could have easily found a home in Dio-era Sabbath."- Mark Russell
The Right Title For The Bible
I am VERY interested in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414679894&sr=8-1&keywords=God+disappointed
I will be reading and reviewing it piece by piece over the next few weeks, letting my readers know how accurate it is. The idea of getting to the core of each Biblical book intrigues me. I doubt it can be done perfectly, as many books have multiple authors with competing visions. The Biblical conversations are not just between the various books, but within the books themselves. I suspect this tome will get a lot right and a lot wrong, and leave a lot out. There is no substitute with direct and personal encounter with the text itself. Such an encounter must include actual study, and especially of the original languages because without this, much that is of value is left out. Particularly lost in translation is the humor, and my hope is that this book WILL get to the heart of some of the more humorous moments. If it gets the theology wrong but the humor right, it will be worth the buy as most Bible studies get very little of the humor right. But I'll let you know how each Book of the Bible is dealt with, and how accurately.
One thing I do like is the title. It is almost a perfect title for the Bible. The Bible should probably be CALLED "God is very disappointed in you...but still loves."
http://www.amazon.com/God-Disappointed-You-Mark-Russell/dp/1603090983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414679894&sr=8-1&keywords=God+disappointed
I will be reading and reviewing it piece by piece over the next few weeks, letting my readers know how accurate it is. The idea of getting to the core of each Biblical book intrigues me. I doubt it can be done perfectly, as many books have multiple authors with competing visions. The Biblical conversations are not just between the various books, but within the books themselves. I suspect this tome will get a lot right and a lot wrong, and leave a lot out. There is no substitute with direct and personal encounter with the text itself. Such an encounter must include actual study, and especially of the original languages because without this, much that is of value is left out. Particularly lost in translation is the humor, and my hope is that this book WILL get to the heart of some of the more humorous moments. If it gets the theology wrong but the humor right, it will be worth the buy as most Bible studies get very little of the humor right. But I'll let you know how each Book of the Bible is dealt with, and how accurately.
One thing I do like is the title. It is almost a perfect title for the Bible. The Bible should probably be CALLED "God is very disappointed in you...but still loves."
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Battlestar Galactica Bible Study Week 3
Season 1 Episode:
“Kobol’s Last Gleaming Part 2”
Exodus 13:20-22
After leaving Sukkoth they camped at Etham
on the edge of the desert. 21 By
day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way
and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel
by day or night. 22 Neither the pillar
of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the
people.
Reflect on the Bible
passage in light of the episode.
What is it like when
Gaius sees Cylon “Six” on the burning ship?
What has she
provided him with here?
Where have Gaius’
visions ultimately taken him?
Why do you think
Jews looked back to the time of being led by the smoke and the fire as the
ultimate height of their relationship with God? What would this represent to
them and also to us?
2 Samuel 15:1-12
In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a
chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. 2 He
would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate.
Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a
decision, Absalom would call out to him, “What town are you from?” He would
answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.” 3 Then Absalom would say to him, “Look, your claims
are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.”
4 And Absalom would add, “If only I were
appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could
come to me and I would see that they receive justice.”
5 Also,
whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out
his hand, take hold of him and kiss him. 6 Absalom
behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for
justice, and so he stole the hearts of the people of Israel.7 At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king, “Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the Lord. 8 While your servant was living at Geshur in Aram, I made this vow: ‘If the Lord takes me back to Jerusalem, I will worship the Lord in Hebron.’”
9 The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he went to Hebron.
10 Then Absalom sent secret messengers throughout the tribes of Israel to say, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpets, then say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron.’” 11 Two hundred men from Jerusalem had accompanied Absalom. They had been invited as guests and went quite innocently, knowing nothing about the matter. 12 While Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown. And so the conspiracy gained strength, and Absalom’s following kept on increasing.
Reflect on the Bible
passage in light of the episode.
Do you know the
reasons for Absalom’s choice to stage a coup? If so, explain what you think of
those reason?
Reflect on this
quote: “you and I talked about this, and we decided that it was a military
decision.”
What do you think of
Adama’s decision to undertake a military coup?
What is the danger
in a coup?
Why are they
necessary sometimes?
Reflect on the
approaches to taking power we see in Adama, Laura, and Absalom.
How do both Adama
and Laura see each other’s behavior?
What is the danger
in this?
What do you think of
Adama sending Sharon on a mission like this after her suicide attempt?
2 Corinthians 11:1-2
I hope you will put up with me in a little
foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I
am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to
Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
Reflect on the Bible passage in
light of the episode.
Reflect on this
quote: “what we had together brings us closer to God.”
What is the
significance of Paul equating the husband/wife relationship with the
Christ/Church relationship?
Where do we find
similar beliefs in scripture?
What do you think of
androids having religious beliefs?
Why does this bother
Helo?
Isaiah Chapter 6
Reflect on the Bible passage in
light of the episode.
How have Gaius’
visions of “Six” changed on Kobol?
How do you think the
vision Isaiah saw in the Temple changed him?
What do you think of
God choosing a man like Gaius to serve Him?
Why doesn’t Isaiah
think he is worthy of when he sees God?
Why do the writers
have us switch back and forth between Cara’s discovery of the arrow, Gaius
journey into the ruins,
and Sharon’s journey onto the Base Ship?
Reflect upon
Sharon’s discovery in the Base Ship.
How is Isaiah’s vision
a ‘discovery’?
What do you think of
Lee’s choice to join the President?
Reflect on this
quote: “You’re confused, and scared. But it’s okay…You can’t fight destiny. It
catches up with you, no matter what you do…We love you, Sharon, and we always will.”
What is Isaiah’s
destiny?
What does Gaius find
at the ruins?
Compare his vision
to Isaiah’s.
Reflect on this
quote: “Life has a melody, Gaius. A rhythm of notes that becomes your existence
once played in harmony with God’s plan.”
What ‘melody’ does Isaiah,
and other books of the Bible, say surrounds God? What do you think of this
melody?
What is Gaius’
destiny? What do you think of this?
What does Gaius keep
saying as they approach the center of the auditorium on Kobol? Reflect on this.
Reflect on this
quote: “Come and see the face of the shape of things to come.”
Given what we’ve
already learned about Isaiah’s messages in earlier weeks, how was his message
tied up to a ‘child’?
Reflect on the
ending of the episode.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Life Versus, Not Alongside, Death
I saw this picture on a friend's Facebook page recently:
It would be hard to disagree more with something. I do not think death and life are some beautiful harmony. Death may be normal, but it is not normative. The surest sign that death and life do not live in love is simply the fact that life is instantiated in living THINGS, and living things naturally try to avoid death. Evolution takes place as life battles against death, non-being, and nothingness.
I agree with Peter Berger that death as we experience it now is an offense to the mind and the soul. Almost all of the mundane religious experience I have spoken of before include in their phenomenology a resistance to death. Humor and joy (play), are, as Nietzsche said, a willing of 'eternity, deep, deep eternity'. Death comes to us as an assaulting force against which we must struggle. Now, there may be a way Death could be ARRANGED such that it does not so offend our hearts and minds. If we all died after fulfilling all our life projects, and only in old age, perhaps Death would not come to us as such a rabid beast. But Death DOES NOT exist that way for us. It's randomness, and especially the death of children, is what may really offend.
I argued that in my book CONVERSATIONAL THEOLOGY, but I'm no longer sure even that is right. In each moment I experience beauty, or good, or love, I experience a call, a message that this moment lasts forever. It's APPARENT passing into nothingness is something I feel we naturally say 'no' to. We experience life in love, and beauty and virtue, and so life itself must be associated with a willing to eternity, to eternal life. To choose faith is to choose to trust the experience of these moments as they come to us, over against the apparent, sensory experience of a passing to nothingness.
For all the variety in scripture, for all the ways the various writers 'converse' over important issues, one single thread remains consistent. There may be only one message or idea that truly holds throughout scripture, and that is death is bad, and life is good. Moreover, scripture universally associates God with life itself. God IS Life. The Bible presents an ongoing struggle between life and death, between being and non-being, or more accurately between form and formlessness. God, who is eternal, is identified with life and being over against death and non-being.
I therefore, at the core of my being, reject the friendly message of this particular meme.
More On "Problems"
Victor Frankl writes extensively on the difference between psychological and existential problems. He recounts a story of a man who comes into his office who has seen a number of psychotherapists. He originally went into psychotherapy because he was feeling unfulfilled at work. The psychotherapists had convinced the man that he was actually dealing with father issues he'd never acknowledged before. He came to Frankl saying that his life was now miserable, and everywhere he looked he was seeing his fathers and fretting over some unresolved issues there. After one hour of talking with the man Frankl simply told him, 'I think you hate your job. Quit it and find a new one.' The man did this and found a job he liked better. He was happy and no longer needed therapy.
Frankl was big on working with people who had existential rather than psychological problems, as the man did in his story. An existential problem is, broadly speaking, a problem stemming from a frustrated sense of meaning. A person with an existential problem is not at the mercy of that problem. A frustrated sense of meaning has a solution, of some kind, most of the time, and it is a solution you can actualize. But an existential problem is not to be treated as a moral problem. It is not simply a matter of correcting some moral outlook, or encouraging a person to do the right thing. Existential problems are not EASILY solved, most of the time. They take work and struggle and will. Yet existential problems are under the person's control to some degree. The point being that you can hold people responsible for their existential problems. They are under that person's control. But they are not under the same kind of control moral problems are. Simply telling the person to correct course is not enough.
What is ultimately required to help a person in an existential crisis is WISDOM and INSPIRATION. This is what Frankl did in the case mentioned above: he shared wisdom and inspired his would-be patient. Frankl was a very wise man. This is much harder help to give, and not something all of us have the ability to give, than say help on a moral issue. The primary thing must do to help someone with a moral problem is to encourage them to do what they already know is right, and to reiterate what is expected of them. Holding them responsible is one's first responsibility. Not so with existential problems, which require some deeper and richer, than many of us have to give. But sometimes this isn't enough, if the existential crisis accompanies a psychological or spiritual problem. Alcoholism is a moral, existential, and psychological problem, and so requires engagement on a number of levels. Nor is it fair to simply hold the alcoholic responsible for BEING an alcoholic, though one can hold the alcoholic responsible for not seeking help.
So, its tricky. You have to know first and foremost what kind of problem you are dealing with. And that goes back to my last post. Which was about discernment.
Frankl was big on working with people who had existential rather than psychological problems, as the man did in his story. An existential problem is, broadly speaking, a problem stemming from a frustrated sense of meaning. A person with an existential problem is not at the mercy of that problem. A frustrated sense of meaning has a solution, of some kind, most of the time, and it is a solution you can actualize. But an existential problem is not to be treated as a moral problem. It is not simply a matter of correcting some moral outlook, or encouraging a person to do the right thing. Existential problems are not EASILY solved, most of the time. They take work and struggle and will. Yet existential problems are under the person's control to some degree. The point being that you can hold people responsible for their existential problems. They are under that person's control. But they are not under the same kind of control moral problems are. Simply telling the person to correct course is not enough.
What is ultimately required to help a person in an existential crisis is WISDOM and INSPIRATION. This is what Frankl did in the case mentioned above: he shared wisdom and inspired his would-be patient. Frankl was a very wise man. This is much harder help to give, and not something all of us have the ability to give, than say help on a moral issue. The primary thing must do to help someone with a moral problem is to encourage them to do what they already know is right, and to reiterate what is expected of them. Holding them responsible is one's first responsibility. Not so with existential problems, which require some deeper and richer, than many of us have to give. But sometimes this isn't enough, if the existential crisis accompanies a psychological or spiritual problem. Alcoholism is a moral, existential, and psychological problem, and so requires engagement on a number of levels. Nor is it fair to simply hold the alcoholic responsible for BEING an alcoholic, though one can hold the alcoholic responsible for not seeking help.
So, its tricky. You have to know first and foremost what kind of problem you are dealing with. And that goes back to my last post. Which was about discernment.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Problem Identification
One of the most important skills to learn is the ability to distinguish between a moral problem, a psychological problem and an existential problem. It seems to me one of society's biggest problem is confusing these...this passing thought will be blogged on in more detail later.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews For 10-22-2014 Part 2
DC's BATMAN BEYOND UNIVERSE #15
Terry Mcginnis' girlfriend gets re-acquainted with the Royal Flush Gang while other villains are gathering all around Batman Beyond. Terry and Bruce are seriously at odds over Terry's continued travel to the Justice Lords Universe to train the alternative Batman Beyond and to get closer to the alternate universe version of his father. Meanwhile, Terry learns about the difficulties of trusting others when one is Batman, a lesson he's constantly have to learn and re-learn. The thing I like about this comic is character development. I don't feel we get enough of that in other superhero comics these days, especially when it comes to DC. I enjoyed this book, as I usually do, though I wasn't drawn into the action all that much, as I have been in past issues.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #35
What was that thing I just said about character development at DC? Well it looks like we have exception number two here. Zatanna has a surprise encounter with her father as she discovers a world steeped in the most powerful kind of magic. This allows for some serious exploration of who this character is and why she does what she does. The art with the dinodragons was excellent, and I enjoyed the book, though Zatanna is not one of my favorite characters.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Marvel's NEW WARRIORS #11
The Eternals join in with the High Evolutionary and help to roundly defeat the Warriors and reignite the plan to wipe mutants and altered humans from the face of the Earth. But we get a sense that there may be some misdirection and foul play afoot, moving the story along even in a book dominated by fight scenes. The fight scenes are not all that riveting, to be honest, and there's nothing here I haven't seen a thousand times. Still, I liked the internal monologue of Speedball quite a bit, and he is one of my favorite characters.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Terry Mcginnis' girlfriend gets re-acquainted with the Royal Flush Gang while other villains are gathering all around Batman Beyond. Terry and Bruce are seriously at odds over Terry's continued travel to the Justice Lords Universe to train the alternative Batman Beyond and to get closer to the alternate universe version of his father. Meanwhile, Terry learns about the difficulties of trusting others when one is Batman, a lesson he's constantly have to learn and re-learn. The thing I like about this comic is character development. I don't feel we get enough of that in other superhero comics these days, especially when it comes to DC. I enjoyed this book, as I usually do, though I wasn't drawn into the action all that much, as I have been in past issues.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #35
What was that thing I just said about character development at DC? Well it looks like we have exception number two here. Zatanna has a surprise encounter with her father as she discovers a world steeped in the most powerful kind of magic. This allows for some serious exploration of who this character is and why she does what she does. The art with the dinodragons was excellent, and I enjoyed the book, though Zatanna is not one of my favorite characters.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Marvel's NEW WARRIORS #11
The Eternals join in with the High Evolutionary and help to roundly defeat the Warriors and reignite the plan to wipe mutants and altered humans from the face of the Earth. But we get a sense that there may be some misdirection and foul play afoot, moving the story along even in a book dominated by fight scenes. The fight scenes are not all that riveting, to be honest, and there's nothing here I haven't seen a thousand times. Still, I liked the internal monologue of Speedball quite a bit, and he is one of my favorite characters.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews For 10-22-2014 Part 1
I have a big comic book list this week so I'm splitting my reviews up.
DC's BATMAN '66 #16
This was one of my favorite issues. Not only was it funny and absurdist, but it actually had a thematic point that made you think. We continue to see the old stories expanded in new ways, with Egghead getting a fantastic upgrade, including massive super powers. Along the way, he learns that knowledge does not necessarily bring peace nor happiness, nor does knowledge in and of itself lend itself to being a complete person. Really, that is the issue explored. I almost did an extended review of it, but it is too tongue-in-cheek to really warrant that kind of reflection.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's MULTIVERSITY: THE JUST One-Shot (Part 3 of The MULTIVERSITY Series)
I've absolutely LOVED Multiversity so far, but this book was not as good as the first two. In this world, superheroes are all self-absorbed fame hounds, in the same vein as Lindsey Lohan or Justin Bieber. The heroes reflect a rather flat world, and that is done very well. But the story telling here gets a little too 'creative' in that it plays with pacing and the experimentation doesn't work. It makes for a story that is too disjointed. There are some great scenes in this book, no doubt, including the 'party of the century' and some interesting interactions between Batman and his girlfriend Alexis Luthor. The individual scenes saved the comic, but the pacing here just detracted more than it should have from the rest of the book. The art is great though.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 2 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's RED LANTERN #35
I never collect RED LANTERN but this is a part of the war with the NEW GODS and I had to get it. In this issue Guy Gardner seems to have a death wish and that plays out well within the context of the New Gods' attacks upon lanterns. I would like some more character development of the New Gods, they are just coming off very thin here. I did like to see Gardner in action, and I'm enjoying the crossover overall.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's BATMAN '66 #16
This was one of my favorite issues. Not only was it funny and absurdist, but it actually had a thematic point that made you think. We continue to see the old stories expanded in new ways, with Egghead getting a fantastic upgrade, including massive super powers. Along the way, he learns that knowledge does not necessarily bring peace nor happiness, nor does knowledge in and of itself lend itself to being a complete person. Really, that is the issue explored. I almost did an extended review of it, but it is too tongue-in-cheek to really warrant that kind of reflection.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's MULTIVERSITY: THE JUST One-Shot (Part 3 of The MULTIVERSITY Series)
I've absolutely LOVED Multiversity so far, but this book was not as good as the first two. In this world, superheroes are all self-absorbed fame hounds, in the same vein as Lindsey Lohan or Justin Bieber. The heroes reflect a rather flat world, and that is done very well. But the story telling here gets a little too 'creative' in that it plays with pacing and the experimentation doesn't work. It makes for a story that is too disjointed. There are some great scenes in this book, no doubt, including the 'party of the century' and some interesting interactions between Batman and his girlfriend Alexis Luthor. The individual scenes saved the comic, but the pacing here just detracted more than it should have from the rest of the book. The art is great though.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 2 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's RED LANTERN #35
I never collect RED LANTERN but this is a part of the war with the NEW GODS and I had to get it. In this issue Guy Gardner seems to have a death wish and that plays out well within the context of the New Gods' attacks upon lanterns. I would like some more character development of the New Gods, they are just coming off very thin here. I did like to see Gardner in action, and I'm enjoying the crossover overall.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Youth Ministry...
Is not a prelude to 'real ministry'
It is not a lesser or less important type of ministry
It is not an easier type of ministry, quite the contrary
It is not all fun and games
Youth ministry is ministry. A youth minister is not a lesser type of minister, nor is he or she some kind of proto-minister. A youth minister is a minister.
It is not a lesser or less important type of ministry
It is not an easier type of ministry, quite the contrary
It is not all fun and games
Youth ministry is ministry. A youth minister is not a lesser type of minister, nor is he or she some kind of proto-minister. A youth minister is a minister.
Why Does Philosophy Matter?
Why do we care about logic, reason, consistency, the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle? Why do we take time to distinguish between truth and knowledge and belief, between certainty and knowledge and fallible versus infallible knowledge claims? Why do we spend any time making these distinctions clear? I mean the whole thing can be rather boring can't it? So what is the point of all this?
A long time ago, a philosopher friend of mine exposed me to an interview with Michel Foucault that included what I thought was the best summation of the value of the philosophy. The subject of the conversation was the difference between philosophy and polemics, but contained within that was a pristine, perfect summation of why logic and related fields matter so much here is that segment:
I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It's true that I don't like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism" I shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I don't belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.
In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game — a game that is at once pleasant and difficult — in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.
"The rights given by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue"...the abandonment of logic, the running away from philosophy altogether, is in the final analysis a retreat from the ability to truly talk to anyone else in any meaningful way. If words' meaning are in a constant state of flux, and if nothing anyone says is not bound by some logical rules, you are playing a game without any rules at all, which is in the final analysis no game at all. Logic is, for me, a moral endeavor, a way to take responsibility for what one says and believes. Without it, without the genuine search for truth, we are robbed even of the right to believe anything at all, for we cannot finally say that is TRUE that we believe what we say we believe, without having some ground for truth and knowledge and most important consistency
It has to be true that something either is or isn't true. It has to be true that I believe what I say I believe. Philosophy, and especially logic, gives us a field upon which minds can actually meet. Ideas can only be exchanged in that place, without it, we are bound forever to only reinforcing our own ideas, and are unable to ever really change or improve, either ourselves or others.
Foucault goes on to sum up the problems with polemics, which in the end he says are just ways of insulating one's own idols of the mind:
The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied....
Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects. Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation of their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one's killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn't even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debate in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were these merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all — they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.
A long time ago, a philosopher friend of mine exposed me to an interview with Michel Foucault that included what I thought was the best summation of the value of the philosophy. The subject of the conversation was the difference between philosophy and polemics, but contained within that was a pristine, perfect summation of why logic and related fields matter so much here is that segment:
I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It's true that I don't like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism" I shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I don't belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.
In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game — a game that is at once pleasant and difficult — in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.
"The rights given by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue"...the abandonment of logic, the running away from philosophy altogether, is in the final analysis a retreat from the ability to truly talk to anyone else in any meaningful way. If words' meaning are in a constant state of flux, and if nothing anyone says is not bound by some logical rules, you are playing a game without any rules at all, which is in the final analysis no game at all. Logic is, for me, a moral endeavor, a way to take responsibility for what one says and believes. Without it, without the genuine search for truth, we are robbed even of the right to believe anything at all, for we cannot finally say that is TRUE that we believe what we say we believe, without having some ground for truth and knowledge and most important consistency
It has to be true that something either is or isn't true. It has to be true that I believe what I say I believe. Philosophy, and especially logic, gives us a field upon which minds can actually meet. Ideas can only be exchanged in that place, without it, we are bound forever to only reinforcing our own ideas, and are unable to ever really change or improve, either ourselves or others.
Foucault goes on to sum up the problems with polemics, which in the end he says are just ways of insulating one's own idols of the mind:
The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied....
Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects. Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation of their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one's killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn't even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debate in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were these merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all — they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Battlestar Galactica Bible Study Week 2: "Kobol's Last Gleaming Part 1"
Season 1, Episode:
“Kobol’s Last Gleaming Part 1”
Song of Songs 3:1-5
All night long on my bed
I looked for the one my heart loves;
I looked for him but did not find him.
2 I will get up now and go about the city,
through its streets and squares;
I will search for the one my heart loves.
So I looked for him but did not find him.
3 The watchmen found me
as they made their rounds in the city.
“Have you seen the one my heart loves?”
4 Scarcely had I passed them
when I found the one my heart loves.
I held him and would not let him go
till I had brought him to my mother’s house,
to the room of the one who conceived me.
5 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires.
I looked for the one my heart loves;
I looked for him but did not find him.
2 I will get up now and go about the city,
through its streets and squares;
I will search for the one my heart loves.
So I looked for him but did not find him.
3 The watchmen found me
as they made their rounds in the city.
“Have you seen the one my heart loves?”
4 Scarcely had I passed them
when I found the one my heart loves.
I held him and would not let him go
till I had brought him to my mother’s house,
to the room of the one who conceived me.
5 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires.
Reflect on the Bible
passage in light of the episode.
What do all the
opening scenes have in common?
What do you think of
the way Cara deals with her pain?
What choice do both
Sharon (Boomer) and Helo face?
What do you think it
would be like to be Sharon (Boomer), knowing you are the enemy?
What do you think of
Captain Adama’s advice to his son to ‘lose control’?
How has the ‘wife’
in Song of Songs been arrested by passion?
What is her
response?
What is the danger
in this kind of passion and where do we see that danger in the film?
Whose response to
lost love do you find most constructive, in the episode?
Genesis 29:31-30:1
When
the Lord saw
that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained
childless.
32 Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a
son. She named him Reuben, for she said, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”33 She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Because the Lord heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too.” So she named him Simeon.
34 Again she conceived, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Now at last my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” So he was named Levi.
35 She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” So she named him Judah. Then she stopped having children.
30 When Rachel saw that she
was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she
said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!”
Reflect on the Bible
passages in light of the episode.
Reflect on this
quote: “You made a true believer out of me. I know you are the one to bring us
to our salvation.’
What do you think of
President Laura taking cammala for religious visions?
Why did Cara’s
behavior in bed hurt Gaius so badly?
Do you think Gaius
loves Cara? Why or why not?
Reflect on this
quote: “I’m tired of being push and prodded around.”
What do you think of
the way Gaius turns on Cylon “Six”?
Why is “Six” so hurt
by Gaius’ actions?
Why, then does she
help him, do you think?
What do you think of
God’s reasons, in the context of scripture, for favoring Leah over Rachel?
How does this affect
the family dynamic?
What do you think of
Jacob’s response to all this?
How might Rachel’s
situation parallel that of “Six” in the episode?
What do you think of
God ‘prodding’ someone like this?
Jeremiah 2:1-4,
35b-37
The word of the Lord came to
me: 2 “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:
“This is what the Lord says:
“‘I
remember the devotion of your youth,
how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the wilderness,
through a land not sown.
3 Israel was holy to the Lord,
the firstfruits of his harvest;
all who devoured her were held guilty,
and disaster overtook them,’”
declares the Lord.
how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the wilderness,
through a land not sown.
3 Israel was holy to the Lord,
the firstfruits of his harvest;
all who devoured her were held guilty,
and disaster overtook them,’”
declares the Lord.
But I will pass judgment on you
because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’
36 Why do you go about so much,
changing your ways?
You will be disappointed by Egypt
as you were by Assyria.
37 You will also leave that place
with your hands on your head,
for the Lord has rejected those you trust;
you will not be helped by them.
because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’
36 Why do you go about so much,
changing your ways?
You will be disappointed by Egypt
as you were by Assyria.
37 You will also leave that place
with your hands on your head,
for the Lord has rejected those you trust;
you will not be helped by them.
Reflect on the Bible passages in
light of the episode.
What do you think of
Lee’s response to Cara’s indiscretion with Gaius?
Does the physical
altercation bother you? Why or why not?
What is the
significance of the planet the humans have found?
What ‘vision’ did
the president have concerning the planet?
What various Bible
stories do we see paralleled in this episode?
How does the
“exodus” from Kobol differ from the Biblical “exodus”?
What Biblical event
does it more parallel?
How does God
describe His relationship with Israel before the Exile?
What is it that
causes the Exile?
Reflect on this
quote: “It’s all real…the scriptures, the myths, the prophecies…they’re all
real.”
What do you think it
would’ve been like for those who heard or read Jeremiah’s warnings about the
coming exile be like after the exile actually happened?
What does Sharon
“Boomer” say about her predicament to Gaius?
What does “Six” say
about it?
What do you think of
Gaius’ advice to Boomer?
Reflect on this
quote: “What I say is meaningless…listen to your heart, and what you know to be
the right decision.”
Ecclesiastes 1:3-11
What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.
Isaiah 11:1-9
A
shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
He
will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;
4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
or decide by what he hears with his ears;
4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
6 The wolf will live with
the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
Reflect on the Bible
passages in light of the episode?
What reason does
Sharon give to the Chief for her suicide attempt?
What do we learn
about Laura and Captain Adama when they have the discussion about Kobol and the
arrow?
What kind of
conversations do the people start to have over all of this?
What do you think of
the President’s choice to follow the visions of herself and the various people
and Cylons they have been encountering?
Do you agree with
her decision to go to Cara with her plan and the truth about Adama?
What is the
cosmological picture that the President says underlies the humans’ polytheistic
religion?
What do you think of
this?
Why do you think
Ecclesiastes puts forth the same picture?
How does this
picture contrast with the rest of scripture?
How does Isaiah 11
put forth this contrasting picture?
Why did Cara make
the decisions she did?
Why does Laura
believe in the scriptures now, and why does she think she is the one to lead
the people to Earth?
What aspects of
scripture do you think led Jesus to believe He was the Messiah?
What role do
Messianic prophecies play in your own Christian life?
Do you think they
are important? Do they matter? Why or why not?
How does the very
existence or concept of Messiah problematize the belief in a cyclical nature of
the universe?
Given this, how do
we fit Ecclesiastes in the larger context of a progressive movement of history,
which predominates in scripture especially for Christians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)