Prophecy!
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:6-7).”
Fulfillment!
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (Matthew 1:18-25).”
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Luke 2:14).”
Merry Christmas from the Militant Pacifist!
23 December 2005
22 December 2005
The Religion of the State
Wow! Can he really say that? To read an agnostic's analysis of how recent attempts to discredit "intelligent design" reveal the government's claim to "godhood," - click on the link in the posting title above.
13 December 2005
Death Penalty – For, or Against?
As far back as the Militant Pacifist can remember, he has supported the “death penalty.” As he considers his thought, the Militant Pacifist has (in his "memorable memory") always supposed that the “death penalty” was the appropriate penalty in cases where what was taken could not be “restituted” (e.g., murder and rape). The recent high-profile execution of Crips founder Stanley “Tookie” Williams demands that the Militant Pacifist reconsider his position.
Previously, as he has pondered the death penalty, the Militant Pacifist has always approached the matter in a philosophically idealistic manner (i.e., he has assumed a righteous state mandating punitive action against an evil law-breaker).
But the Militant Pacifist exists “existentially” in the “real world!”
What if reality is not “philosophically idealistic” at all? What if the state under consideration is a kind of modern “Sodom?” What if the state under consideration has sanctioned (and continues to sanction) the killing of millions of innocents? What if the state under consideration has sent its citizens on foreign military adventures in which thousands (perhaps millions) of human lives have been squandered under such pretexts such as “saving the world from communism,” or “defending our freedom” or “fighting a war on drugs,” or “fighting a war against terrorism?” What if the state under consideration has stolen (at gun-point) the hard-earned money of its citizens to do immoral, unwise, and wicked things? What if, rather than a “philosophically idealistic” state, the state that is to administer the “death penalty” is the wretched, sodom-like state described in the sentences above? What if the state under consideration is wicked, wicked, wicked.
Should the Militant Pacifist existentially “support” the death penalty when it is to be administered by such an immoral entity?
The Militant Pacifist confesses to a philosophical quandary – but he is leaning towards “carte-blanche” opposition to the death penalty in the United States of America (i.e., 21st century Sodom) - though he may maintain a theoretical (logical) support for the notion (the Militant Pacifist acknowledges that the "argument" above is not a logical but an emotional argument).
If you have wisdom to share with the Militant Pacifist – please comment!
Previously, as he has pondered the death penalty, the Militant Pacifist has always approached the matter in a philosophically idealistic manner (i.e., he has assumed a righteous state mandating punitive action against an evil law-breaker).
But the Militant Pacifist exists “existentially” in the “real world!”
What if reality is not “philosophically idealistic” at all? What if the state under consideration is a kind of modern “Sodom?” What if the state under consideration has sanctioned (and continues to sanction) the killing of millions of innocents? What if the state under consideration has sent its citizens on foreign military adventures in which thousands (perhaps millions) of human lives have been squandered under such pretexts such as “saving the world from communism,” or “defending our freedom” or “fighting a war on drugs,” or “fighting a war against terrorism?” What if the state under consideration has stolen (at gun-point) the hard-earned money of its citizens to do immoral, unwise, and wicked things? What if, rather than a “philosophically idealistic” state, the state that is to administer the “death penalty” is the wretched, sodom-like state described in the sentences above? What if the state under consideration is wicked, wicked, wicked.
Should the Militant Pacifist existentially “support” the death penalty when it is to be administered by such an immoral entity?
The Militant Pacifist confesses to a philosophical quandary – but he is leaning towards “carte-blanche” opposition to the death penalty in the United States of America (i.e., 21st century Sodom) - though he may maintain a theoretical (logical) support for the notion (the Militant Pacifist acknowledges that the "argument" above is not a logical but an emotional argument).
If you have wisdom to share with the Militant Pacifist – please comment!
08 December 2005
On the Virtues of a Sharpened Axe
The Militant Pacifist stayed home today. The icy roads in the DFW metroplex resulted in a 2.5 hour commute home yesterday evening (past many ditched SUVs), so wisdom prevailed and the Militant Pacifist "worked from home."
In the afternoon, the Militant Pacifist retreived his axe "blondie," for a little personal interaction (its been sooo long baby). What a joy! How did I ever let this slide? There's definitely something other-wordly about a sleek axe, a cranked amp, and blues licks!
Hey hey, my my - thank God for rock-n-roll. (Yea, that's my axe)!
Bad Influence
The Militant Pacifist needs to curb his enthusiasm for pointing out the obivious (i.e., the severe case of LIS* suffered by the current el presidente of the United States of America). The Militant Pacifist realized this recently when he came across the following essay - written by the Militant Pacifist's daughter to fulfill a requirement of her English Grammar class.
* LIS - Low IQ Syndrome
My family likes freedom but not George Bush. Mostly my daddy
doesn't like him. Daddy is happy that we are free to worship as we please
but Mr. Bush and him don't get along. He prays for Mr. Bush since the
bible says that we should pray for the people in power over us and for our
enemies. One reason that my daddy doesn't like George Bush is that he
started an unnecessary war. George Bush's men killed dozens of people and
thousands of military men were killed in the process. Here's my
conclusion, my daddy does not like George Bush!
* LIS - Low IQ Syndrome
07 December 2005
Christianity - Revealed Religion
The Militant Pacifist receives periodic criticism for linking to other articles / rants rather than writing his own (if you are one of those who have offered this criticism – thank you for visiting my blog!). In his defense, the Militant Pacifist must say that he has very limited “blogging” time, and he believes (in general) that others do a better job.
That said, here goes…
The epistemological quandary raised when one embraces a doctrine of total human fallen-ness (depravity) is monumental. The noetic effects of the fall are rarely discussed and clearly underappreciated by the mass of professing Christians (even by those who claim the moniker “reformed”).
Clearly, the laws of logic are unaffected by the fall. The laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle exist above and apart from humanity and reflect the very working of the mind of God.
Though logic is uncompromised, the ability of humanity to think (reason) properly has been thoroughly compromised by the fall.
The corruption of the fall has so damaged and defaced humanity that it is now considered “natural” that men die (after all, isn’t that the course of nature). This physical consequence of the fall (death) is amplified in the unseen dimension of human consciousness, perception and reason. These human faculties are now fundamentally unsound (partially dead) because of the taint of original sin.
Either Descartes did not understand this, or he did not believe it. Not understanding / believing it, he had confidence in the soundness of his own ability to properly reason. He never realized he was performing metaphysical surgery with tainted (fallen) instruments. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, cogito ergo sum is extremely suspect (as is the entirety of the Enlightenment project).
If your mind is corrupt (fallen) because of the fall – where are you left? Use your fallen mind and think! You are left in a state of extreme uncertainty. You are left wondering – what is real? Am I thinking rightly (even now)? If I can’t trust my own mind, what can I trust? Do those I respect and love really have a grasp of truth? What is truth anyway? Why is it that? I’ve only been here a few years – and I’m on my way out now – how can I figure this all out?
How depressing! How disconcerting! Is there any solution to all of this?
The Christian affirmation is that there is. There is a solution! The solution is found in the Christian doctrine of Divine Revelation. The Christian doctrine of Divine Revelation teaches that God Himself has revealed truth to men in the very person of His Son. Via the incarnation God Himself has entered the human sphere - a sphere filled with fallen creatures – and because He is the maker of humans He has communicated propositions understandable (even in their fallen-ness) to them.
His word (λογος) to men, is His son - Jesus Christ – and everyone that God reveals Him to can understand this Word.
Bow before him!
That said, here goes…
The epistemological quandary raised when one embraces a doctrine of total human fallen-ness (depravity) is monumental. The noetic effects of the fall are rarely discussed and clearly underappreciated by the mass of professing Christians (even by those who claim the moniker “reformed”).
Clearly, the laws of logic are unaffected by the fall. The laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle exist above and apart from humanity and reflect the very working of the mind of God.
Though logic is uncompromised, the ability of humanity to think (reason) properly has been thoroughly compromised by the fall.
The corruption of the fall has so damaged and defaced humanity that it is now considered “natural” that men die (after all, isn’t that the course of nature). This physical consequence of the fall (death) is amplified in the unseen dimension of human consciousness, perception and reason. These human faculties are now fundamentally unsound (partially dead) because of the taint of original sin.
Either Descartes did not understand this, or he did not believe it. Not understanding / believing it, he had confidence in the soundness of his own ability to properly reason. He never realized he was performing metaphysical surgery with tainted (fallen) instruments. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, cogito ergo sum is extremely suspect (as is the entirety of the Enlightenment project).
If your mind is corrupt (fallen) because of the fall – where are you left? Use your fallen mind and think! You are left in a state of extreme uncertainty. You are left wondering – what is real? Am I thinking rightly (even now)? If I can’t trust my own mind, what can I trust? Do those I respect and love really have a grasp of truth? What is truth anyway? Why is it that? I’ve only been here a few years – and I’m on my way out now – how can I figure this all out?
How depressing! How disconcerting! Is there any solution to all of this?
The Christian affirmation is that there is. There is a solution! The solution is found in the Christian doctrine of Divine Revelation. The Christian doctrine of Divine Revelation teaches that God Himself has revealed truth to men in the very person of His Son. Via the incarnation God Himself has entered the human sphere - a sphere filled with fallen creatures – and because He is the maker of humans He has communicated propositions understandable (even in their fallen-ness) to them.
His word (λογος) to men, is His son - Jesus Christ – and everyone that God reveals Him to can understand this Word.
Bow before him!
06 December 2005
Second Thoughts and Moral Culpability
All wise men (except the God-man) were once not (wise). It is a great mercy of Almighty God that He enables proud men to change their minds - but consequences always follow. To read an interesting analysis of the pro-war ship jumping that has escalated recently, click on the link in the posting title above.
02 December 2005
Signs of Empire
The truth is not what you want it to be. What you want does not affect the truth. Truth is truth, whether you like it or not. The experiment is winding down. The experiment is almost over. Click on the posting title above.
01 December 2005
Dostoevsky Didn't Say It
The best novel that The Militant Pacifist has ever read (bar none) is the existential masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikhail Dostoevsky. If you've never read this book, The Militant Pacifist recommends that you get it and move it to the top of your stack!
The Militant Pacifist is such a fan of the work that as a part of his graduate studies he read The Grand Inquisitor (a novella/poem within The Brothers Karamazov) through the philosophical lenses of various philosopher's and rhetoricians (e.g., Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Paul DeMann) and wrote analytical essays on the various readings.
The Militant Pacifist is well aware of the quotation frequently attributed to Doestoevsky's novel - "If there is no God, all is permitted."
Having read the novel deeply, the Militant Pacifist was motivated to locate such a lively quotation - but alas - even with hours and hours of pouring over the text in search of the quotation, The Militant Pacifist was never able to locate it in Constance Garnett's English text (and unfortunately, The Militant Pacifist cannot read Russian).
Certainly, the idea contained in the quotation is found in the novel - but the precise source of the quotation remains elusive. How interesting then (to The Militant Pacifist) to find that someone else on the planet has experienced this difficulty.
You can read a deeper analysis of this (scholarly) problem by clicking on the posting title above.
The Militant Pacifist is such a fan of the work that as a part of his graduate studies he read The Grand Inquisitor (a novella/poem within The Brothers Karamazov) through the philosophical lenses of various philosopher's and rhetoricians (e.g., Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Paul DeMann) and wrote analytical essays on the various readings.
The Militant Pacifist is well aware of the quotation frequently attributed to Doestoevsky's novel - "If there is no God, all is permitted."
Having read the novel deeply, the Militant Pacifist was motivated to locate such a lively quotation - but alas - even with hours and hours of pouring over the text in search of the quotation, The Militant Pacifist was never able to locate it in Constance Garnett's English text (and unfortunately, The Militant Pacifist cannot read Russian).
Certainly, the idea contained in the quotation is found in the novel - but the precise source of the quotation remains elusive. How interesting then (to The Militant Pacifist) to find that someone else on the planet has experienced this difficulty.
You can read a deeper analysis of this (scholarly) problem by clicking on the posting title above.
30 November 2005
Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
The Militant Pacifist enjoyed this quote:
"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
Read the article by clicking the posting title above.
"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
Read the article by clicking the posting title above.
29 November 2005
The Argument From Morality
You can read it by clicking on the posting title above. The Militant Pacifist's warning to you - don't read this if you can't think!
The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage
An address by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered to the Men of Boyce College on March 13, 2004. To read the address, click on the link in the posting title above.
You MUST decide!!!
You MUST decide!!!
23 November 2005
Warmongering Is the Health of Statism
I couldn't have said it this well!!! The Militant Pacifist recommends that you see the essay (speech) linked in the posting title above.
22 November 2005
Is Bush’s War on Terrorism in Iraq a War Crime?
If you claim to be a Christian, the Militant Pacifist believes you should support morality and righteousness (often this will not be expedient). See the article linked in the posting title above.
18 November 2005
The Right to Ignore the State
No comment needed! You can review this essay by clicking on the posting title above.
17 November 2005
Under the Mercy
One of the Militant Pacifist’s friends always concludes his e-mails with the phrase “under the mercy.” As the Militant Pacifist contemplated this recently, he was reminded of how wonderful the mercy of God is - and how blessed is the person who can in truth write "under the mercy."
If it were not for the mercy of the LORD, where would you be? Thank God for His mercy. Thank Him for the 70 x 7. Thank the LORD – for His mercy endureth forever!
“It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him. The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD (Lamentations 3:22-26).”
If it were not for the mercy of the LORD, where would you be? Thank God for His mercy. Thank Him for the 70 x 7. Thank the LORD – for His mercy endureth forever!
“It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him. The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD (Lamentations 3:22-26).”
11 November 2005
Disproving the State: Four Arguments Against Government
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you check out the essay linked in the title of this posting.
Since the Militant Pacifist believes in the Christian doctrine of human fallen-ness, he cannot imagine a logically sound argument in support of humanly instituted government. Why (in the light of logic) should one depraved man submit or yield to another? The Militant Pacifist cannot determine any reason why, except that one of the depraved men has a sword in his hand! And that is not a good "reason." That is simply survival.
But then, the Militant Pacifist's thought has been swayed. He resides within a divine monarchy (a holy nation), a kingdom definitely not "of this world."
Since the Militant Pacifist believes in the Christian doctrine of human fallen-ness, he cannot imagine a logically sound argument in support of humanly instituted government. Why (in the light of logic) should one depraved man submit or yield to another? The Militant Pacifist cannot determine any reason why, except that one of the depraved men has a sword in his hand! And that is not a good "reason." That is simply survival.
But then, the Militant Pacifist's thought has been swayed. He resides within a divine monarchy (a holy nation), a kingdom definitely not "of this world."
10 November 2005
War Pigs
"I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." Psalm 120:7
As the Militant Pacifist contemplated (during a recent daily commute) the massive destruction and bloodshed of the imperialist wars launched by United States government in the 20th and 21st centuries, the strains of an old rock-n-roll song entered his ears. The lyrics to Black Sabbath's War Pigs are reproduced below.
Generals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
As the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
Poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh Lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgment day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
Ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of Judgment, God is calling,
On their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh Lord, yeah!
As the Militant Pacifist contemplated (during a recent daily commute) the massive destruction and bloodshed of the imperialist wars launched by United States government in the 20th and 21st centuries, the strains of an old rock-n-roll song entered his ears. The lyrics to Black Sabbath's War Pigs are reproduced below.
Generals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
As the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
Poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh Lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away,
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
Making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
Wait till their judgment day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
Ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of Judgment, God is calling,
On their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh Lord, yeah!
31 October 2005
The Porn Culture Takes Over
One of the biggest problems facing Christian families today (the Militant Pacifist believes) is discussed in the BLOG posting linked in the title above.
Father in heaven, please grant us more grace!
Father in heaven, please grant us more grace!
28 October 2005
A Quote from the Mighty Calvin
John Calvin, the great Christian reformer and theologian, lifted up humility as the cardinal Christian virtue.
A saying of Chrysostom’s has always pleased me very much, that the foundation of our philosophy is humility. But that of Augustine pleases me even more: “When a certain rhetorician was asked what was the chief rule in eloquence, he replied, ‘Delivery’; what was the second rule, ‘Delivery’; what was the third rule, ‘Delivery’; so if you ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, first, second, third, and always I would answer, ‘Humility.’”
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.11, 268-69.
25 October 2005
Thinking About Harriet Miers
The Militant Pacifist is aware that most folks do not like to think. To really think requires effort. It requires self-criticism. It requires one to admit that his or her opinion may be very, very wrong. To really think, one must acknowledge presuppositions and become epistemologically self-conscious. It is at this point that one often sees that the emperor has no clothes. This can quickly become a personally unpleasant state of affairs.
Much better not to think. Take it easy. Stay with the status quo. Believe the lies. Just drink the Kool-Aid.
But, if you would like to think - then think about the looming disaster that is the Harriet Miers Supreme Court judicial nomination (click on the posting title above to the linked article).
But then, The Militant Pacifist should remind the readers (are there any?) that it is vain to hope in human judges.
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes (Psalm 118:8-9). (See my 14 September 2005 post).
Put no confidence in princes, nor for help on man depend - he shall die, to dust returning, and his purposes shall end.
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God (Psalm 43:5).
Much better not to think. Take it easy. Stay with the status quo. Believe the lies. Just drink the Kool-Aid.
But, if you would like to think - then think about the looming disaster that is the Harriet Miers Supreme Court judicial nomination (click on the posting title above to the linked article).
But then, The Militant Pacifist should remind the readers (are there any?) that it is vain to hope in human judges.
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes (Psalm 118:8-9). (See my 14 September 2005 post).
Put no confidence in princes, nor for help on man depend - he shall die, to dust returning, and his purposes shall end.
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God (Psalm 43:5).
24 October 2005
Our Inscrutable Iraq Policy: Why We Did It, What To Do Now, and What Happens Next
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you read the article linked in the posting title above.
Nobody ever eats crow willingly. They have to be "force-fed" it. Oh, for a real liberty-lover to vote for! Oh, for a politician that would leave me, my family and my money alone. Statism stinks!
Nobody ever eats crow willingly. They have to be "force-fed" it. Oh, for a real liberty-lover to vote for! Oh, for a politician that would leave me, my family and my money alone. Statism stinks!
23 October 2005
A Theistic Argument (against naturalism) from Evil
The Militant Pacifist sees “Naturalism” as the primary enemy of Christian thought in modernity (or post-modernity, wherever it is that we are).
The so called “Problem of Evil” is thought by many pagan philosophers and naturalistic thinkers to mitigate the existence of the Christian God. In his essay “A Christian Life Partly Lived” (from the essay collection Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers - see link in the posting title above), the renowned philosopher (and Christian) Alvin Plantinga argues for the reality of a powerful “Theistic Argument from Evil (pages 72-73).”
“ ...there is a theistic argument from evil, and it is at least as strong as the antitheistic argument from evil. (Here I can only sketch the argument and leave it at an intuitive level.) What is so deeply disturbing about horrifying kinds of evil? The most appalling kinds of evil involve human cruelty and wickedness: Stalin and Pol Pot, Hitler and his henchmen, and the thousands of small vignettes of evil that make up such a whole. What is genuinely abhorrent is the callousness and perversion and cruelty of the concentration camp guard taking pleasure in the sufferings of others; what is really odious is taking advantage of one’s position of trust (as a parent or counselor, perhaps) in order to betray and corrupt someone. What is genuinely appalling, in other words, is not really human suffering as such so much as human wickedness. This wickedness strikes us as deeply perverse, wholly wrong, warranting not just quarantine and the attempt to overcome it, but blame and punishment.
But could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if naturalism were true? I don’t see how. A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori, then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness. It is hard enough, from a naturalistic perspective, to see how it could be that we human beings can be so related to propositions (contents) that we believe them; and harder yet, as I said above, to explain how that content could enter into a causal explanation of someone’s actions. But these difficulties are nothing compared with seeing how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity – its strength, so to speak – is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a divine lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness. Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can’t accommodate appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil.”
The Militant Pacifist summarizes – naturalists who believe in the existence of evil are intellectually inconsistent, i.e., they are irrational idiots.
Your perception of evil is a powerful testimony to the existence of the God who made you!
If you believe in evil, but not in God, then you should look into this inconsistency immediately!!!
Idiot - A foolish or stupid person. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
The so called “Problem of Evil” is thought by many pagan philosophers and naturalistic thinkers to mitigate the existence of the Christian God. In his essay “A Christian Life Partly Lived” (from the essay collection Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers - see link in the posting title above), the renowned philosopher (and Christian) Alvin Plantinga argues for the reality of a powerful “Theistic Argument from Evil (pages 72-73).”
“ ...there is a theistic argument from evil, and it is at least as strong as the antitheistic argument from evil. (Here I can only sketch the argument and leave it at an intuitive level.) What is so deeply disturbing about horrifying kinds of evil? The most appalling kinds of evil involve human cruelty and wickedness: Stalin and Pol Pot, Hitler and his henchmen, and the thousands of small vignettes of evil that make up such a whole. What is genuinely abhorrent is the callousness and perversion and cruelty of the concentration camp guard taking pleasure in the sufferings of others; what is really odious is taking advantage of one’s position of trust (as a parent or counselor, perhaps) in order to betray and corrupt someone. What is genuinely appalling, in other words, is not really human suffering as such so much as human wickedness. This wickedness strikes us as deeply perverse, wholly wrong, warranting not just quarantine and the attempt to overcome it, but blame and punishment.
But could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if naturalism were true? I don’t see how. A naturalistic way of looking at the world, so it seems to me, has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort; a fortiori, then, it has no place for such a category as horrifying wickedness. It is hard enough, from a naturalistic perspective, to see how it could be that we human beings can be so related to propositions (contents) that we believe them; and harder yet, as I said above, to explain how that content could enter into a causal explanation of someone’s actions. But these difficulties are nothing compared with seeing how, in a naturalistic universe, there could be such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. There can be such a thing only if there is a way rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live; and the force of that normativity – its strength, so to speak – is such that the appalling and horrifying nature of genuine wickedness is its inverse. But naturalism cannot make room for that kind of normativity; that requires a divine lawgiver, one whose very nature it is to abhor wickedness. Naturalism can perhaps accommodate foolishness and irrationality, acting contrary to what are or what you take to be your own interests; it can’t accommodate appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (that our sense that there is, is not a mere illusion of some sort), and if you also think the main options are theism and naturalism, then you have a powerful theistic argument from evil.”
The Militant Pacifist summarizes – naturalists who believe in the existence of evil are intellectually inconsistent, i.e., they are irrational idiots.
Your perception of evil is a powerful testimony to the existence of the God who made you!
If you believe in evil, but not in God, then you should look into this inconsistency immediately!!!
Idiot - A foolish or stupid person. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
21 October 2005
So you think your mind is sound!
Mind - the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.).
Sound - free from defect, decay, or damage; in good condition (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
The Christian scriptures teach that God made man upright (the original “state of nature”), but that our proto-typical parents “fell” into sin which resulted in spiritual death passing upon all of their natural descendents (a most un-natural situation). Christianity teaches that the only remedy for this dire situation is a spiritual resurrection in which the spiritually-dead person is raised to new life by God in Jesus Christ.
Not only did this “fall” result in the condemnation of an entire race of created beings, it also damaged the creature’s bodies and even their immaterial minds. Following this fall, the creatures became subject to errors in reasoning, and they began to die physically as they received the “wages” (the payment) for their sins.
“For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).”
Christianity teaches that after this fall, the minds of the fallen creatures actually became hostile against the Creator.
“The carnal mind is enmity against God (Romans 8:7).”
Therefore what was originally natural (a love towards God) has now (in the fallen state) become un-natural. The scriptures teach that NOW, by nature, humans are enemies of God. Their minds are generally in a state of hostility against Him (God).
Post-fall human minds are “un-sound,” and therefore, they are prone to moral evil, and faulty reasoning.
The laws of thought (logic / λογος) were totally unaffected by the creaturely fall; however, the ability of an un-sound mind to reason according to divine laws has been massively compromised.
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you think. The Militant Pacifist recommends that you think deeply. But the Militant Pacifist warns you that when you have finished thinking – you should remember that your mind is not totally sound. Therefore, you must do the very best that you can to try and align your thoughts with the thoughts of God (a lot of these thoughts are recorded in the Holy Bible).
Only when your thoughts are aligned with the thoughts of God can you be confident that your thoughts are sound. All glory to the Λογος!
Sound - free from defect, decay, or damage; in good condition (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
The Christian scriptures teach that God made man upright (the original “state of nature”), but that our proto-typical parents “fell” into sin which resulted in spiritual death passing upon all of their natural descendents (a most un-natural situation). Christianity teaches that the only remedy for this dire situation is a spiritual resurrection in which the spiritually-dead person is raised to new life by God in Jesus Christ.
Not only did this “fall” result in the condemnation of an entire race of created beings, it also damaged the creature’s bodies and even their immaterial minds. Following this fall, the creatures became subject to errors in reasoning, and they began to die physically as they received the “wages” (the payment) for their sins.
“For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).”
Christianity teaches that after this fall, the minds of the fallen creatures actually became hostile against the Creator.
“The carnal mind is enmity against God (Romans 8:7).”
Therefore what was originally natural (a love towards God) has now (in the fallen state) become un-natural. The scriptures teach that NOW, by nature, humans are enemies of God. Their minds are generally in a state of hostility against Him (God).
Post-fall human minds are “un-sound,” and therefore, they are prone to moral evil, and faulty reasoning.
The laws of thought (logic / λογος) were totally unaffected by the creaturely fall; however, the ability of an un-sound mind to reason according to divine laws has been massively compromised.
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you think. The Militant Pacifist recommends that you think deeply. But the Militant Pacifist warns you that when you have finished thinking – you should remember that your mind is not totally sound. Therefore, you must do the very best that you can to try and align your thoughts with the thoughts of God (a lot of these thoughts are recorded in the Holy Bible).
Only when your thoughts are aligned with the thoughts of God can you be confident that your thoughts are sound. All glory to the Λογος!
19 October 2005
I Believe in Order to Know
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you check out this excellent entry on John H. Armstrong's BLOG (linked in the title of this posting above).
If you find this interesting, then you should read Lesslie Newbigin's book, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship, which covers this material in more depth.
It is an excellent little book, and you can order it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802808565/qid=1129749614/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-5890949-4977546?v=glance&s=books.
If you find this interesting, then you should read Lesslie Newbigin's book, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship, which covers this material in more depth.
It is an excellent little book, and you can order it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802808565/qid=1129749614/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-5890949-4977546?v=glance&s=books.
18 October 2005
Iraq and the Neo-Domino Theory
Prime Militant Pacifist rhetoric! Click on the title of this posting for a link to a very interesting article.
17 October 2005
Pay it Anyway!!!
If there is anything that gripes the Militant Pacifist more than statist aggression, it is state-mandated slavery; however, the Militant Pacifist pays income taxes. The excellent article linked in the title of this posting is a fair summary of the Militant Pacifist's position on the horrific position in which most of us find ourselves today.
14 October 2005
A Nobel Laureate Speaks
Receiving the Nobel prize for literature doesn't make you a genius, but it's bound to get some of your quotes published. Harold Pinter, British playwright and poet, is the 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature. The following comment is from his House of Commons Speech given on Tuesday, January 21, 2003.
"One of the more nauseating images of the year 2002 is that of our Prime Minister kneeling in the church on Christmas Day praying for peace on earth and good will towards all men while simultaneously preparing to assist in the murder of thousands of totally innocent people in Iraq.
I've been taken to task recently by the American Ambassador to Britain for calling the US Administration a blood thirsty wild animal. All I can say is: take a look at Donald Rumsfeld's face and the case is made.
I believe that not only is this contemplated act criminal, malevolent and barbaric, it also contains within itself a palpable joy in destruction. Power, as has often been remarked, is the great aphrodisiac, and so, it would seem, is the death of others.
The Americans have the ostensible support of the "international community" through various sure-fire modes of intimidation; bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshit. The "international community" becomes a degraded entity bludgeoned into the service of a brutal military force out of control. The most despicable position is that of course of this country which pretends to stand shoulder to shoulder with its great ally while in fact being more of a whipped dog than anyone else. We are demeaned, undermined and dishonoured by our government's contemptible subservience to the United States.
The planned war can only bring about the collapse of what remains of the Iraqi infrastructure, widespread death, mutilation and disease, an estimated one million refugees and escalation of violence throughout the world, but it will still masquerade as a "moral crusade," a "just war," a war waged by "freedom loving democracies," to bring "democracy" to Iraq.
The stink of the hypocrisy is suffocating.
This is in reality a simple tale of invasion of sovereign territory, military occupation and control of oil.
We have a clear obligation, which is to resist."
"One of the more nauseating images of the year 2002 is that of our Prime Minister kneeling in the church on Christmas Day praying for peace on earth and good will towards all men while simultaneously preparing to assist in the murder of thousands of totally innocent people in Iraq.
I've been taken to task recently by the American Ambassador to Britain for calling the US Administration a blood thirsty wild animal. All I can say is: take a look at Donald Rumsfeld's face and the case is made.
I believe that not only is this contemplated act criminal, malevolent and barbaric, it also contains within itself a palpable joy in destruction. Power, as has often been remarked, is the great aphrodisiac, and so, it would seem, is the death of others.
The Americans have the ostensible support of the "international community" through various sure-fire modes of intimidation; bullying, bribery, blackmail and bullshit. The "international community" becomes a degraded entity bludgeoned into the service of a brutal military force out of control. The most despicable position is that of course of this country which pretends to stand shoulder to shoulder with its great ally while in fact being more of a whipped dog than anyone else. We are demeaned, undermined and dishonoured by our government's contemptible subservience to the United States.
The planned war can only bring about the collapse of what remains of the Iraqi infrastructure, widespread death, mutilation and disease, an estimated one million refugees and escalation of violence throughout the world, but it will still masquerade as a "moral crusade," a "just war," a war waged by "freedom loving democracies," to bring "democracy" to Iraq.
The stink of the hypocrisy is suffocating.
This is in reality a simple tale of invasion of sovereign territory, military occupation and control of oil.
We have a clear obligation, which is to resist."
13 October 2005
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Okay, so it's not that sophisticated. So what? Take the quiz! Click the link above.
The Labyrinth of Iraq
It's never popular to tell the emperor that he has no clothes! Click on the link above.
08 October 2005
News from the Wild Wild East
One of The Militant Pacifist's friends (yes, The Militant Pacifist does have friends) is completing his university education in the heart of the former Soviet Union. For some very interesting commentary on modern Russia, see his BLOG (linked in the posting title above).
07 October 2005
The Political Problem of Islam
The Militant Pacifist recommends that you read the article linked above in the title of this posting. The link will lead you to a PDF file containing a very interesting commentary/summary of the mess we face in these opening days of the 21st Century.
Interests? Whose Interests?
Most people refuse to think deeply. Hence, they buy into the idea that they have “interests” which are not truly their interests at all.
Since the glory days of the Roman Empire (and before) nation-states have sent their sons to die on foreign shores because they had “interests” there. Supposedly, the United States has “interests” everywhere. Historically, honorable Americans were expected to be willing to fight and (if necessary) die for liberty. Today, they are expected to be willing to fight and die for “interests.”
Government officials speak of “national interests.” Some speak of “vital interests,” some of “strategic interests,” and some just mention “interests.” The United States Constitution nowhere speaks of interests, but history teaches us that the Roman Senate empowered the Emperor Vespasian with the “right...to do whatever he deems to serve the interests of the state.” But are the interests of the state your interests - especially if you are a Christian?
As published elsewhere in this BLOG, the Militant Pacifist is “anti-statist.” As a Christian, the Militant Pacifist feels only an exceedingly secondary allegiance to the worldly state into which he was "thrown" (in the Heideggerian sense). As a thinking person, the Militant Pacifist has conquered the bulk of his feelings of nationalism (a disgraceful emotion for professing Christians). As a (conditional) pacifist, the Militant Pacifist abhors the use of the statist sword to advance, protect, and enforce something as fickle and ill-defined as “interests.”
What a tragedy that in the 20th century the impious US government bathed its sword with the blood of its own sons to advance its “interests” (a grievous national sin which has accelerated in these opening days of the 21st century).
Though the Militant Pacifist believes the late American Republic to be the greatest experiment in modern governmental method, he sees it destined for continued horrific judgment because of a relativistic ethic which rationalizes the taking of human life under the guise of “interests.” Such a wicked, wicked concept cries out for Divine judgment.
Dear reader – do not be deceived! The Christian's great interest is in his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - and His kingdom. All of the kingdoms of this world will fall!
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17).”
Recommended Readings:
The Christian's Great Interest; by William Guthrie
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1878442600/104-6180310-9635116?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today; by Richard J. Maybury
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0942617568/104-6180310-9635116?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
Since the glory days of the Roman Empire (and before) nation-states have sent their sons to die on foreign shores because they had “interests” there. Supposedly, the United States has “interests” everywhere. Historically, honorable Americans were expected to be willing to fight and (if necessary) die for liberty. Today, they are expected to be willing to fight and die for “interests.”
Government officials speak of “national interests.” Some speak of “vital interests,” some of “strategic interests,” and some just mention “interests.” The United States Constitution nowhere speaks of interests, but history teaches us that the Roman Senate empowered the Emperor Vespasian with the “right...to do whatever he deems to serve the interests of the state.” But are the interests of the state your interests - especially if you are a Christian?
As published elsewhere in this BLOG, the Militant Pacifist is “anti-statist.” As a Christian, the Militant Pacifist feels only an exceedingly secondary allegiance to the worldly state into which he was "thrown" (in the Heideggerian sense). As a thinking person, the Militant Pacifist has conquered the bulk of his feelings of nationalism (a disgraceful emotion for professing Christians). As a (conditional) pacifist, the Militant Pacifist abhors the use of the statist sword to advance, protect, and enforce something as fickle and ill-defined as “interests.”
What a tragedy that in the 20th century the impious US government bathed its sword with the blood of its own sons to advance its “interests” (a grievous national sin which has accelerated in these opening days of the 21st century).
Though the Militant Pacifist believes the late American Republic to be the greatest experiment in modern governmental method, he sees it destined for continued horrific judgment because of a relativistic ethic which rationalizes the taking of human life under the guise of “interests.” Such a wicked, wicked concept cries out for Divine judgment.
Dear reader – do not be deceived! The Christian's great interest is in his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - and His kingdom. All of the kingdoms of this world will fall!
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17).”
Recommended Readings:
The Christian's Great Interest; by William Guthrie
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1878442600/104-6180310-9635116?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today; by Richard J. Maybury
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0942617568/104-6180310-9635116?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
06 October 2005
The Loss of Simple Bible Reading
The Militant Pacifist can do no better this day than to refer you to the link above. He recommends that you read the Bible today, tomorrow, and every day for as long as ye shall live.
28 September 2005
Zimmy's Wisdom
"I like America, just as everybody else does. I love America, I gotta say that. But America will be judged."- Bob Dylan
It's already happened Brother Bob...its already happened!
It's already happened Brother Bob...its already happened!
- The Militant Pacifist
20 September 2005
Anti-Statist Enlightenment
The Militant Pacifist is "anti-statist." To get your cerebral juices flowing, the Militant Pacifist recommends that you read the essay (linked in the title of this posting) on the folly of accepting the doctrine of "tacit consent" as the basis for the legitimate existence of the current iteration of US government statism.
19 September 2005
The Mystery of Christian “Pledgers”
Pledge - To make a solemn binding promise; swear. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
Swear - To promise or pledge with a solemn oath; vow: He swore his oath of allegiance to the queen. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
The Militant Pacifist does not pledge (or swear) allegiance to the flag.
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. (Matthew 5:33-35)”
“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. (James 5:12)”
Since the Militant Pacifist has no interest in pledges, he is mystified as to why Christians would be concerned about judicial interference with a “pledge” which they shouldn’t be saying anyway.
Christians should not be afraid of a wicked government, and certainly they should not swear their allegiance to it.
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)”
For the Christian, logos should rule pathos; errant feelings of earthly nationalism should be suppressed, and the only allegiance sworn should be to the true King - the King of Kings!
Swear - To promise or pledge with a solemn oath; vow: He swore his oath of allegiance to the queen. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
The Militant Pacifist does not pledge (or swear) allegiance to the flag.
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. (Matthew 5:33-35)”
“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. (James 5:12)”
Since the Militant Pacifist has no interest in pledges, he is mystified as to why Christians would be concerned about judicial interference with a “pledge” which they shouldn’t be saying anyway.
Christians should not be afraid of a wicked government, and certainly they should not swear their allegiance to it.
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)”
For the Christian, logos should rule pathos; errant feelings of earthly nationalism should be suppressed, and the only allegiance sworn should be to the true King - the King of Kings!
15 September 2005
On Turning 40
Wow! The Militant Pacifist has entered his 5th decade. Never thought I'd live this long - doesn't feel much different. A little less energy, a little less hair, my spinning back-kick isn't as sharp as it used to be, but I've still got passion.
I really need to figure out what I want to be when I grow up! Nah! I think I'll just keep eating the manna as it comes. I'll have to think about that. In the mean time - read this...
Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's. The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever. He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the LORD, O my soul.
I really need to figure out what I want to be when I grow up! Nah! I think I'll just keep eating the manna as it comes. I'll have to think about that. In the mean time - read this...
Psalm 103
Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's. The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever. He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the LORD, O my soul.
14 September 2005
Spurious Hope vs. Valid Hope
The competition for headline space is now between the US senate's hearings on the president's appointment of John Roberts as chief justice of the supreme court - and who's to blame for all the damage done by Hurricane Katrina.The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Psalm 9:17).
I can't help listening to the live radio coverage of the senate hearings during my drive time. Career politicians verbally dancing with this very skillful lawyer is quite an auditory spectacle. I hope the Roberts appointment gets confirmed - but he gives me no hope. He will probably be a better appointment than Ruth Bader Ginsberg was, but I doubt he will be as good an appointment as were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If you are a Christian, then to hope in John Roberts is an invalid hope. If you are a Christian, then you have a much greater ground for hope!
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes (Psalm 118:8-9).Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God (Psalm 43:5).
12 September 2005
The Militant Pacifist Greeks Out
Wow! I know how you feel Buckwheat! That's how the Militant Pacifist feels after his first class in ancient Greek tonight. The class is being taught by my friend "The Coding Humanist."
Otay, otay, I know what you're thinkin', but chill out! According to my dictionary a "Humantist" is "one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans; a classical scholar; a student of the liberal arts."
Seems that the Militant Pacifist is problably a humanist too. He's definitely against cats (and most dogs)! You can check out my Greeky friend's BLOG at http://thecodinghumanist.blogspot.com/.
09 September 2005
Katrina...Deconstruction...Job...Meaning?
Having studied (The Militant Pacifist is a wannabe intellectual who does not claim "scholarly" status - though he can and does read) Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Spivak, Barthes, Camus, Heidegger, Sartre, and other post-modern (or forerunners to post-modern thinking), I have been impressed with Spivak's idea that the success of deconstruction in the late 20th century is not the complete decentering of western philosophy but, rather, the “radical acceptance of vulnerability.” Friends - whether you realize it or not - we are vulnerable. We are very, very vulnerable.
To Jacques Derrida, the success of deconstruction must mean the death of dogmatism (unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truth). In his essay “Différance,” Derrida uses the one-word pun (the made up word “différance”) as an imaginative literary device (neither a word nor a concept) to demonstrate that when one accepts the play of language within a system of differences (structuralism), concrete meaning is deferred.
Visualizing the word différance invokes the verbs “differ” (not the same), and “defer” (to put off). This is precisely what Derrida intends as he playfully notes “in the delineation of différance everything is strategic and adventurous.” Though verbal meaning is constructed within a system of differences, ultimate (transcendent, absolute, final) meaning is deferred.
The desert oasis (mirage) which vanishes just as it appears within reach seems an appropriate metaphor. Derrida appreciates the history of Western philosophy as a quest for meaning – for ultimate meaning (for the transcendent signified). Like an evaporating oasis, just as one seems to grasp the transcendent signified, one realizes that the signified is also a sign – referring elsewhere – and deferring the sought “final” meaning. Chasing the sign to the next signified yields the same (only a “trace”) – until one becomes bored and suspects an infinite regression. With différance, Derrida shows that such is the nature of our language.
Différance at once reveals the tenuousness of the Saussurean dissociation of speech and language, and the traditional position of the archi-. The stakes are monumental metaphysical presuppositions – presuppositions of the subject’s centrality, presence and consciousness. As Derrida decenters the subject, the subject (archi-) scrabbles, grasps and claws to maintain a position of unassailability. But dogmatism is slain – the dragon of unassailability when struck by Derrida’s sword of différance has been fragmented into a million more dragons – each dead fragment asserting its own “true” dragon-hood.
Does Derrida slay the dragon of dogmatism merely to reign in its stead? Will this sword, différance, now be elevated? Absolutely not! “Différance is not…a present being, however excellent, unique, principal, or transcendent. It governs nothing, reigns over nothing, and nowhere exercises any authority. It is not announced by any capital letter. Not only is there no kingdom of différance, but différance instigates the subversion of every kingdom.” Like the proverbial tail-eating dragon - deconstruction seems to consume itself.
The deconstructive principal of différance has myriad effects and implications. In “White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy,” Derrida turns his de(con)structive attention to the metaphysical presuppositions of the text of Western philosophy.
Underneath, behind and interwoven throughout the text(s) of Western philosophy and their metanarratives, Derrida sees the metaphysics of presence – and not only presence generally – but a certain presence. He defines “metaphysics” as “the white mythology which reassembles and reflects the culture of the West: the white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own logos, that is, the mythos of his idiom, for the universal form of that he must still wish to call Reason.” This centered subject, the white man, has created an entire mythology (a history) in an attempt to forever cement his place within it. This masterpiece of mythology has been written in invisible ink. The palimpsest is of such quality that the reader is typically unaware of the ideological inscriptions contained within it.
The reader cannot see the inscriptions, only “that the hero of this scenario, of this narrative, has been in fact Western man.” (White man?) To object to the narrative is insanity – for it is to object to “Reason.” Derrida plays off of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymics, anthropomorphisms…”
To Derrida and deconstruction, the Western metanarratives must be seen as dogmatic political devices. If the metanarratives of Western philosophy are mere political devices, then how is one to decipher the philosophic text - or the "text of life" (e.g., Hurricane Katrina)?
In "White Mythology" Derrida notes that such a question has never been systematically answered and proposes that “…instead of venturing into the prologomena to some future metaphorics, let us rather attempt to recognize in principle the condition for the impossibility of such a project.” He then attempts a brief classification of philosophical metaphors for the purpose of revealing how unstable such a classification will be. The metaphors themselves must function within a system of differences and are dependent upon a centered subject (the philosopher) for their meanings and would necessarily “presuppose the solution of important problems, and primarily of problems which constitute the entirety of philosophy in its history.”
The resulting metaphors would be products of their system and products of philosophical presuppositions - potentially useful literary devices, but no more than a trace of that which they dogmatically propose to portray.
The post-Derridean reader’s (that's me) awareness of the slipperiness of language forever changes the comfort level with which s/he can approach a text (or an event - e.g., Hurricane Katrina). When the words (or events) in view are the important idioms of philosophical or political texts, such awareness is critical. Intellectual validity requires the softening of one’s own intransigence and awareness that dogmatic texts (and current events) must be approached with an appreciation of their acute vulnerability to deconstruction.
Job's (the biblical character) friends had it all figured out. They knew what a hypocrite they were dealing with. Obviously hidden sin was the cause of Job's calamity. But they had it almost all wrong. One thing they did understand was that God had sent the Sabeans, and the fire, and the Chaldeans, and the wind.
Can a Christian understand the meaning behind the events that God brings to pass? Maybe - sometimes!
Can a Christian benefit from an appreciation of Derrida's deconstructive apparatus? Yes! Yes! Double Yes! S/he must realize an utter dependence upon divine revelation as the basis of truth - and - the basis for textual interpretation (including life events as "texts").
Such an appreciation will humble the Christian (Christians are supposed to be humble) before a mighty God - and before His mighty Word.
So what is the meaning of Katrina? Dear reader, I hope that you will not speak too quickly!
To Jacques Derrida, the success of deconstruction must mean the death of dogmatism (unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truth). In his essay “Différance,” Derrida uses the one-word pun (the made up word “différance”) as an imaginative literary device (neither a word nor a concept) to demonstrate that when one accepts the play of language within a system of differences (structuralism), concrete meaning is deferred.
Visualizing the word différance invokes the verbs “differ” (not the same), and “defer” (to put off). This is precisely what Derrida intends as he playfully notes “in the delineation of différance everything is strategic and adventurous.” Though verbal meaning is constructed within a system of differences, ultimate (transcendent, absolute, final) meaning is deferred.
The desert oasis (mirage) which vanishes just as it appears within reach seems an appropriate metaphor. Derrida appreciates the history of Western philosophy as a quest for meaning – for ultimate meaning (for the transcendent signified). Like an evaporating oasis, just as one seems to grasp the transcendent signified, one realizes that the signified is also a sign – referring elsewhere – and deferring the sought “final” meaning. Chasing the sign to the next signified yields the same (only a “trace”) – until one becomes bored and suspects an infinite regression. With différance, Derrida shows that such is the nature of our language.
Différance at once reveals the tenuousness of the Saussurean dissociation of speech and language, and the traditional position of the archi-. The stakes are monumental metaphysical presuppositions – presuppositions of the subject’s centrality, presence and consciousness. As Derrida decenters the subject, the subject (archi-) scrabbles, grasps and claws to maintain a position of unassailability. But dogmatism is slain – the dragon of unassailability when struck by Derrida’s sword of différance has been fragmented into a million more dragons – each dead fragment asserting its own “true” dragon-hood.
Does Derrida slay the dragon of dogmatism merely to reign in its stead? Will this sword, différance, now be elevated? Absolutely not! “Différance is not…a present being, however excellent, unique, principal, or transcendent. It governs nothing, reigns over nothing, and nowhere exercises any authority. It is not announced by any capital letter. Not only is there no kingdom of différance, but différance instigates the subversion of every kingdom.” Like the proverbial tail-eating dragon - deconstruction seems to consume itself.
The deconstructive principal of différance has myriad effects and implications. In “White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy,” Derrida turns his de(con)structive attention to the metaphysical presuppositions of the text of Western philosophy.
Underneath, behind and interwoven throughout the text(s) of Western philosophy and their metanarratives, Derrida sees the metaphysics of presence – and not only presence generally – but a certain presence. He defines “metaphysics” as “the white mythology which reassembles and reflects the culture of the West: the white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own logos, that is, the mythos of his idiom, for the universal form of that he must still wish to call Reason.” This centered subject, the white man, has created an entire mythology (a history) in an attempt to forever cement his place within it. This masterpiece of mythology has been written in invisible ink. The palimpsest is of such quality that the reader is typically unaware of the ideological inscriptions contained within it.
The reader cannot see the inscriptions, only “that the hero of this scenario, of this narrative, has been in fact Western man.” (White man?) To object to the narrative is insanity – for it is to object to “Reason.” Derrida plays off of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous quote “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymics, anthropomorphisms…”
To Derrida and deconstruction, the Western metanarratives must be seen as dogmatic political devices. If the metanarratives of Western philosophy are mere political devices, then how is one to decipher the philosophic text - or the "text of life" (e.g., Hurricane Katrina)?
In "White Mythology" Derrida notes that such a question has never been systematically answered and proposes that “…instead of venturing into the prologomena to some future metaphorics, let us rather attempt to recognize in principle the condition for the impossibility of such a project.” He then attempts a brief classification of philosophical metaphors for the purpose of revealing how unstable such a classification will be. The metaphors themselves must function within a system of differences and are dependent upon a centered subject (the philosopher) for their meanings and would necessarily “presuppose the solution of important problems, and primarily of problems which constitute the entirety of philosophy in its history.”
The resulting metaphors would be products of their system and products of philosophical presuppositions - potentially useful literary devices, but no more than a trace of that which they dogmatically propose to portray.
The post-Derridean reader’s (that's me) awareness of the slipperiness of language forever changes the comfort level with which s/he can approach a text (or an event - e.g., Hurricane Katrina). When the words (or events) in view are the important idioms of philosophical or political texts, such awareness is critical. Intellectual validity requires the softening of one’s own intransigence and awareness that dogmatic texts (and current events) must be approached with an appreciation of their acute vulnerability to deconstruction.
Job's (the biblical character) friends had it all figured out. They knew what a hypocrite they were dealing with. Obviously hidden sin was the cause of Job's calamity. But they had it almost all wrong. One thing they did understand was that God had sent the Sabeans, and the fire, and the Chaldeans, and the wind.
Can a Christian understand the meaning behind the events that God brings to pass? Maybe - sometimes!
Can a Christian benefit from an appreciation of Derrida's deconstructive apparatus? Yes! Yes! Double Yes! S/he must realize an utter dependence upon divine revelation as the basis of truth - and - the basis for textual interpretation (including life events as "texts").
Such an appreciation will humble the Christian (Christians are supposed to be humble) before a mighty God - and before His mighty Word.
So what is the meaning of Katrina? Dear reader, I hope that you will not speak too quickly!
08 September 2005
Recommended Anti-Looting Device
The Militant Pacifist is against looting (whether governmental or "private"). In addition to the recent ravages of hurricane Katrina, many in New Orleans suffered from the agression of private looters. The Militant Pacifist recommends an anti-looting device (such as shown above) as a primary feature of any looting abatement program.
07 September 2005
1st Time
Wow........a web presence!
I'm still reeling from shock. Murder, mayhem, and rape in the streets of New Orleans. I sure hope that Paul Prudhomme is safe. Is this what motivated me to get a blog? Naw......I got it 'cause it was free! Free stuff! Free stuff!
Maybe someone will actually read this - so I'll try to appear dignified. I am in a state of mild distress as I note with alarm and point with dismay to the swirling toilet bowl that is American culture.
I'll probably have more to say about that later, but for now, peace!
And (I must say) the only way you can have this peace that I'm wishing you - is to know the Prince of Peace.
Veritatem Deus aperit!
I'm still reeling from shock. Murder, mayhem, and rape in the streets of New Orleans. I sure hope that Paul Prudhomme is safe. Is this what motivated me to get a blog? Naw......I got it 'cause it was free! Free stuff! Free stuff!
Maybe someone will actually read this - so I'll try to appear dignified. I am in a state of mild distress as I note with alarm and point with dismay to the swirling toilet bowl that is American culture.
I'll probably have more to say about that later, but for now, peace!
And (I must say) the only way you can have this peace that I'm wishing you - is to know the Prince of Peace.
Veritatem Deus aperit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+001.jpg)
