Switching Gears, and Miracles

 

For the last several months I have been studying The Bible. I have been following a Yale online course (sounds fancy, but it is a free open thing anyone can take) and reading the Jewish Study Bible. The course is for the Old Testament (does that designation piss off Jewish people? “Ah, that’s the old book, we got the new one!”) assigns the Jewish Study Bible and is geared mainly that way, namely it is a study of the Judaic religion. That needs specification because while Judaism and Christianity share a book in common they can’t interpret all of it the same. One such instance would be the Christian notion (notion? statement belief) that the arrival of Christ was foretold in the Old Testament. You will get no such thing in a class focused on the Judaic interpretation.

I had planned on doing both takes. Namely I was going to do the Old Testament as a study of the Judaic religion, and the New Testament as a study of the Christian religion. Then I ran across the book seen above and bought it. I had planned to anyway, but I hadn’t seen one on the shelf and was going to wait until I had finished the OT.

But I may just change my plans entirely. The Catholic Study Bible simply kicks the Jewish Study Bible in the butt. The reading guide is over 500 pages long, plus they have opening essays at the beginning of each book, and running commentary for each verse. It has a glossary (yes, that is a help!), a lectionary (not much use to me, but it is still interesting), a detailed index to the reading guide, a concordance, 20 pages of maps with a thorough index. Not only does the reading guide go over each book of the Bible, it also has many essays on a number of relevant topics. Plus each book of the Bible is broken down into numbered tables and organized by varying criteria. Especially good is the use of numbered lists for the important events and themes of each book. That is how I think, so it is a great help.

I am thoroughly impressed by this work. So I think I may switch over to this book as my main one. It will be interesting to cross reference particular points and how they are handled in the two.

Another point is the Catholic Bible has 7 more books than either

Time and Beyond TIme Concluded

Forgetting the last paragraph that was cut off by my dog’s Linda Blair impersonation I continue. The point, in my usually long-drawn out manner, is that I don’t see how someone could turn away from such a question or problem once it has been brought up. Let’s say I had a vision tomorrow and came to believe. I would have to answer every single possible question that would ever come up. That is, any reasonable question as it can be stated that the ability to put a question mark at the end of a sentence does not render it a valid question.

I remember when I was rereading a section of Leonard Peikoff’s OPAR (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand) on the axiom of Existence. I had read the thing many a times as I had studied the book quite thoroughly before. It struck me suddenly that he states that the axiom of Existence does not state or affirm the existence of a physical world. And this is surely true since the axiom is supposed to be the simplest of truths that is as evident to the blinking eyes of a baby as it is to an aging philosopher. The concept of a physical world, in Objectivism, is a later, scientific identification.

It was 20 years before it dawned on me that Objectivism provided no base for atheism. It tries, and quite well. But here is the argument. Starting with an Existence of which is merely is-ness we then have consciousness. Later is developed the principle that existence precedes consciousness, that existence has primacy over consciousness. But this Existence is an existence that may or may not be ultimately physical, i.e., an existence that depends on outside sources for its confirmation as physical. You can’t smuggle it back in for metaphysical axioms. How can we uniformly confirm the primacy of existence, the is-ness, over consciousness when the is-ness makes no affirmation of itself except its is-ness? Yes, we can see that biological organisms require a is-ness of which to be conscious.

But you can’t simply strike out the existence of God on the basis of what is philosophically true for man and the sentient beasts.

You have is-ness, then the things that perceive is-ness, the is-ness comes first (speaking of only man now) and man must conform his mind to is-ness. He later uses, as Rand did, this basic set-up to deny God. It is used to refute materialism and God at the same time.

The problem is God doesn’t enter into the equation at all. He hasn’t been disproved by this, he hasn’t been brought up. When we say that existence has primacy over consciousness we are talking about man’s consciousness (and by implication the lower animals as well). But it is a big difference between the Creator and the created which a man would be a species of.

You can’t simply say A is A and think that answers the concept of God. Of course A is A, that has nothing to do with whether God is God and whether such a being can make something act differently. I have seen that very argument come to an impasse I don’t know how many times.

God gets out of Objectivist metaphysics unscathed. It merely assumes that any consciousness would be just like ours including God who is sui generis. I am not willing to go into the whole song and dance of how He fared in its epistemology.

The thing I wonder is how anyone does not go through with all of that. I can actually understand how one would not go through that with a philosophy of self-interest. If you can find a philosophy that tells you you should pursue your own self interest, I would find it only human nature if the next sound was the person’s door flying open, “woo-hoo!” But Christianity (any of the three big ones really) does not give you that. It asks for a lot. It promises a lot. But that is beyond the grave.

Now I did not do that with Objectivism. One, I love philosophy, and I find a philosophy of self-interest to be a potentially dangerous notion for obvious reasons. You could make monsters very easily if one were not extremely careful. So I read it all and thought quite heavily on it all. How would one come across Christianity and not want to make sure every t was crossed and every i dotted?

Over the last year I have found all the cases against God to be absolutely easy to overcome: any cosmological theory, evolution, axioms. It is almost like the arguments for God, when you look at them they turn out to fall apart quite readily. I mean the formal arguments for God like Anselm’s and such.

The arguments seem really good within their own schema.

Time and Beyond Time

 

I was just rereading a section of Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I have to reread that book as I slammed it down during lulls at Norwescon. In the preface for the chapter, Time and Beyond Time, Lewis states that it, TIme, is not a fundamental subject to Christianity and is not in the Bible and that a Christian can get along perfectly well without ever thinking about it. I’ll explain the problem of time in a moment, but first I have an observation.

How could anyone get on without having an issue like that settled in their mind?

Now the problem I’ll state pretty much as Lewis did. How is it possible that God can hear, say, 10 million prayers simultaneously? How does he know the souls of billions of people, their actions, what they did today, yesterday, and what they are to do tomorrow (we will leave the problem of free will and God knowing the future alone – there is a name for this dilemma, but I can’t recall it right now, I think it is predestination) while managing the affairs of the universe (perhaps even millions of other worlds which, possibly, would have rational creatures such as us) hearing our prayers and pleas and praise, thoughts, intentions, etc, etc.

Using our ordinary concept of time, or our experience of time, it seems incredible, and many a Christian seems to feel fine with, “God is mighty” or “God can do anything” and leave it at that.

Now, I am not here to bash on Lewis’ argument or anything of the sort. In fact Lewis’ argument is perfect if it is true, meaning if there be a God then Lewis’ answer is pretty much on the mark. I think Augustine had the same concept of time, but its been over twenty years since I have read it.  The problem I have is being happy with such answers as I quoted in the paragraph above.

I realize some people are not interested in such philosophic questions, and the answer probably lies there. And I can see how someone raised in the faith their whole life and being comfortable in their belief may legitimately find such an investigation to be a waste of their time. Let’s face it, if everyone spent their time on such questions we would have all starved eons ago. After all many people, alright all, I think, have lived in existence, reality, since they were born, and they are free to accept the existence of the rock before them for granted and get on with their day.

But if I project my need to believe in God, and what that would require, I also have to project the envy I would feel at the unphilosophical. If one wants to question philosophically the concept of time itself, I have no problem with the other guy leaving the room to go enjoy a couple of beers. He is unanswerably correct that whatever the answer may be, no one can dispute that the hours are limited and he has a choice to do something else with it whether or not the others conclude that time is relative, conditional, the measurement of motion, a subjective effect of our Kantian Categories, or the subjective effect of our brains, or whatever.

Now God may be obvious to the cradle to grave person. But God is not a concept like time, His existence is not obvious like the rock, or the clock, or even our experience of time (which, in the final analysis is the measurement, in some form, of motion relative to two or more entities). Not obvious to the adult

Damn, my dog just barfed, I’ll be back later….

Already Saved

Apparently there is no need to write to Locus as I asked below. Locus has the rights and is releasing its first of 8 volumes of Lafferty’s short fiction later this year. And plans are in the works for reprinting all of his longer fiction. Yay!

A Favor to Ask: Please Help Resurrect One of My Authors!

 

If you have not read R.A. Lafferty (and I confess I have not read enough) you are missing out on a singular voice. He has been out of print for years although, thankfully, the internet has kept him from death. That means through internet commerce, namely Amazon, you can still track down a fair number of his works – for a price.

But not nearly enough of them.

In 2011 his literary estate was up for sale and I had the idea of sending an e-mail to the contact information from the original sale notice. I didn’t think it would be fruitful, but you never know. Surprisingly I got an answer back in less than 24 hours.

The gentleman was not only gracious enough to answer my inquiry but also to provide me with the buyer and their contact information.

The rights were sold to Locus Science Fiction Foundation (Locus as in, yes, Locus Magazine). I had gone on a hunch that Neil Gaiman himself had acquired the rights since I knew that he had communicated with Mr. Lafferty for some years when he, Mr. Gaiman, was an adolescent and a big fan, as he still is. It turns out my hunch was not completely off the mark as Mr. Gaiman sits on the board for Locus.

What I ask of you, if you would be so kind, is to contact the email I will leave at the end. Tell them you are a fan and wish to see his works available. Lie about it if you haven’t read him. I can assure you, you will be doing a service to the memory, and tragedy, of a very great writer. I say tragedy because Mr. Lafferty is not an easy read, he is a challenging read. His structures are his own, plot can take a back seat to other demands. Most people give up reading him on their first try. I cannot say I blame them entirely, it seems an affront to pay someone for something and they continue to make demands on you. A Lafferty work demands of you. He wrote no Sword of Shannara. Although if he had it would have been a monolith of the fantastic, and even the bizarre, and an odyssey to be dissected for years to come.

The result of this was while he had, and has, a very strong cult following, his success was short-lived as the majority of readers went to easier pastures, and he sunk into obscurity. I have no hope of him posthumously regaining his rightful spot as we have sunk to the point of a quasi-functional illiteracy. I just want his corpus to be available for me to buy and share.

Here is the email address below. Again, thank you if you could spare a moment.

locus@locusmag.com

The Everlasting Man, Into Darkness, And Future Reading Plate

THE EVERLASTING MAN

I finished G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man tonight. It is a book, of a sorts, of Christian apologetics. It is hard to sum up – so I am going to take the intellectually lazy way out and give a summary that I clipped from its Amazon page that is wholly accurate. Funny how the word “Amazon” almost never refers to the geographical Amazon anymore…

Here is the book that converted C. S. Lewis from atheism to Christianity. This history of mankind, Christ, and Christianity is to some extent a conscious rebuttal of H. G. Wells’ Outline of History, which embraced both the evolutionary origins of humanity and the mortal humanity of Jesus. Whereas Orthodoxy detailed Chesterton’s own spiritual journey, this book illustrates the spiritual journey of humanity, or at least of Western civilization. A book for both mind and spirit.

I can first say that it did not convert me, and that I’ll return to in a moment.

I believe I did read Wells’ Outline of History at one time (or Roberts’ – can’t recall). A large part of Chesterton’s criticism I certainly agree with. At least I recall doing so. The book was so wide in scope I would have to go back and reread the argument to state it hear. In a sort of nutshell of the argument is that evolution cannot tell us anything about the creature that made the drawings in the cave (the famous French cave drawings if I recall). That measuring the bones of man’s supposed predecessors tells us nothing about man. I have made similar arguments here many a time.

The point is that man is explained by man, not by non-man. Art cannot be understood at all by studying other creatures who have art not at all. Although, as a sort of revenge for *someone’s* comment last time, you could say any number of animal species, or all of them, create art according to “someone” else’s definition of art. Heh, heh, heh. BWAHAHAHA!!!

That the primitive tool use by some primates

Arrested Development Season 4!!!

 

 

Oh man, this better not suck! If you have Netflix streaming (and why would you not?) Arrested Development Season 4 hits this Sunday the 26th with all 15 episodes available at once. 

Arrested Development is another one of those FOX network tragedies like Firefly that was not handled by the network well. And, like Firefly, came to have a large cult following after its cancellation. Because both shows are damned good. 

Name another sitcom to be resurrected 6 years after its demise. 

Although it is wrong to call Arrested Development a sitcom. That term misleads one to think it is a show in the same category with Friends or Laverne and Shirley. There was no laugh track. It was a half hour of lunacy narrated by Ron Howard. It was truly one of a kind that has had a lot of imitators since (none worth a damn). 

I often site this show as an example for a particular point necessary for comedy – or – at least what I consider good comedy. That is the need for the straight man. Unlike what passes for “sitcoms” nowadays (and we are only talking of the last several years) you cannot have a sitcom that is full of nothing but neurotics and full of nothing but selfish jerks, not for its full potential. Some people find such a set-up workable and enjoyable. And there may be enjoyment to be had if the writing is good. But it is as crippled as a one-legged platoon. 

But the straight man is the man on the outside, we see the folly through his eyes. Arrested Development did this better than any show I know. Whatever neurosis, selfishness, rudeness, vice the others are indulged in we see the humor in it through the straight character. And the straight character has to have something that ties him to these misfits.

Needless to say there are many variations possible for this. You could have shifting straight characters (btw, straight does not mean sexually here) that shift depending on the issue or problem of the week. 

Have to go now, But if you ever want to see a show that follows this paradigm perfectly, and expertly, and insanely, there was hardly one better than Arrested Development.

Here’s to hoping the new season is great!

The Pentateuch and a Tidbit on Atheists (or a lot of them)

I would finish… is largely a bore. Genesis is a good read minus some repetition. The world is created, that’s pretty great. Man sins, bad. Then we get to Exodus and it starts out with the story of Moses and the Jews slavery in Egypt, the conflict with Pharaoh, then the exodus. And then… ugh. I got to the post exodus part back in February, I’ve just slugged my way through to the beginning of Deuteronomy (now how did I spell that right the first time?) and it looks to be another book of the same thing.

 

And it’s a long one.

And what is it with the unleavened bread? God hates yeast! A scholar I am not.

 

The other week as a respite I started on Matthew – and finished it in an hour. What a difference. I also read one of Paul’s letters – again really fast reading. Although I have to add it was just that, fast reading, I retained almost nothing and probably understood very little.

Since I have been involved in “Bible study” I have noticed many a thing I would not have noticed before.

I was on a wine tour a couple of weeks ago in the Yakima area. At one of the wineries they had a guy playing guitar and singing folkish type songs. In one of the songs the first line had the name Jesus in it. Overheard as part of a conversation I was not a part of was the following comment:

Yeah, I tuned out when I heard him say Jesus.

Are you kidding me? Shall we count the songs that have Jesus in them? Let’s discount all the great songs of Christianity (and I am not talking of the contemporary crap, but the “classics”)

There’s that 60′s or 70′s song “Jesus is alright with me something something something” There is that 90′s song by the Toadies. I’m sure Elvis has a couple. There are several more hit songs from the 90′s that had his name in it.

And if you are at my home during the holidays you will hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or you will go home. I listened to it when I was a stonewalling atheist, and I listen to it now.

No doubt this same person would turn up no nose if the singer was singing the praises of Che Guevera, or had said Buddha and not Jesus. But no Jesus and no God.

What I have noticed is a common element running through the common atheist. And rare is the atheist that does not fall into this category. This, the common atheist, is homogenous in their views and lifestyle. Rare, at least in modern times, is the philosophical atheist.

Damn! Family waking up already. Pulling the plug on another unfinished post.

I Need Fiction!!!

I am on a non-fiction reading spree. I am reading various essays by C.S. Lewis. One I read yesterday, “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’” was very good. It was about the exception modern people make to their mores regarding sex. It was one of those reads where you are already explicitly where the author is at, but the satisfaction comes from another’s articulation of the case.

I am also reading G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. It is a very hard read – at least for me. One problem is I am not as widely read as he, particularly of myth. Second is I basically have an 8th grade education with the exception of whatever I have taught myself. And third, his arguments are long and involving structured paragraphs that can space pages. I think I have let my mind become soft the last several years. I find Lewis a lot more accessible.

I am still slogging through the Old Testament with the corresponding Yale course. I am averaging a lecture every couple of weeks, or one a month. Some of this is the fault of the

I Finally Saw IT, and Two Other Movies

Pulp Fiction is a movie that has been recommended to me more times than I can count. Usually when I mention I have seen one of his movies someone says I haven’t seen the right one and I have to check out X. Pulp Fiction is usually the one that is referred to. Although this time it has been said by several people that the one I really should see is Reservoir Dogs. 

The argument has been made to me many a time that what one has to keep in mind when watching him is his directorial skill and storytelling. I would remind one that there are plenty of accomplished musicians in death metal bands as well – doesn’t make their stuff listenable. 

I am sure Orson Wells could have done a POV of himself taking a shit and made it, technically, cinematically sublime. It would still be a man taking a shit. 

This is the problem with Tarantino. Let’s take the cast of Pulp Fiction. We have two small time, drug addicted hit men, a crime boss and the crime boss’ drugged out wife, a heroin dealer and his scuzzy girlfriends, two