« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 24, 2006
nobody expects the cyber inquisition, part II
After an awkward pause, Uncle Jim, one of my regular readers and steadiest commenters spoke up and said:
i think what you're seeing in the lack of comments here is what i'm experiencing. i've read through this several time and don't know where i land on some of them - so i think is a good thought provoking post, just not an easy one to respond to.
Thanks for responding anyway, Uncle Jim. Sorry to have caused an awkward silence; the main target of the original Cyber Inquisition post is the questionaire itself, because many of the questions were difficult to understand from the limited context provided. For example (all answers are on a scale of 1-5, from Agree to Disagree):
Salvation will ultimately involve an escape from physical reality. I wasn't sure how to read this one. It seems to presume that physical reality was something which ought to be escaped, and therefore bad. There is certainly much that is evil in our present physical experience. But the New Testament also talks about a new heaven and a new earth, describes the new Jerusalem in very vivid, non-abstract terms, and speaks of a new body at the resurrection of all the saints. So there is much of what we now experience that we will escape, but I can't get an escape from mere physical reality out of the Bible.
Jesus' humanity was absorbed to produce one new divine nature. The notion of separating body, mind, spirit, soul is a very Greek, dissectionist idea. It certainly wasn't the Jewish mode of thought. I lean toward the Jewish view because there are so many things in nature which, while they may have distinct parts, are parts of a single whole with somewhat fuzzy boundaries between the two. Jesus said, "I am the vine and you are the branches." Can you take me to a vinyard and show me where the vine ends and the branches begin? And yet it's clear that when we refer to Jesus we are talking about a person distinct from ourselves, and vice versa. The use of the word "absorbed" is what confuses me on this question. I honestly can't remember how I answered this one, and I'm still not sure how to answer it now. Everything about Jesus was divine. And he was distinctly human.
Jesus did not have two natures (human and divine) he had one new composite nature. See my response to the previous question. Perhaps I could agree to this notion based on the "Jewishness" of my views, but only with the caveat that this assertion could be used to support neither the notion that Jesus was not human, nor that he was not divine. He was both.
Only Jesus' human nature died on on the cross. Man is comprised of a physical body and an eternal soul. When I die, it is the physical body that dies. If I go to hell, then my soul endures another death. For the record, I believe that Christ did endure hell; it was part and parcel of his atonement for the sin of all of us. This hell began for Him even before he breathed his last, for he cried out, "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?" There is no better description of hell. I also believe that this very fact shattered the gates of hell as he rescued all those whose place in hell was reserved, past, present and future. There is a part of Handel's Messiah in which the spirits of those who sought to slay him exulted in their mockery: "He trusted in God; let Him deliver him, if He delight in him." We know that God did not deliver Christ from death on the cross, so this deliverance must refer to the other death.
PS. I don't know whether my use of the term "Inquisition" is offensive to any of my readers, whether they count themselves spiritual offspring of those who inquired or of those who answered with loss, agony or their lives. I certainly do not intend any offense to anyone in this regard. The Grand Inquisition happened a long time ago, and I don't know anyone alive who suffered under it, nor do I know anybody who longs to bring it back.
Posted by joel at 01:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 20, 2006
"a" is for al jazeera
From ABCnews.go.com's story on Bin Laden's latest single, in which he offered the US a truce:
But there was nothing weak about what he had to say.
Later in the same article:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it was a sign of weakness."We do not negotiate with terrorists," McClellan said. "We put them out of business."
I gotta go with Scott on this one. We just wacked 3 or 4 of their top guys in Pakistan. Now all the sudden it's truce time. Sounds kinda weak to me.
Frankly, for strength of rhetoric, Bin Laden is being eclipsed by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the last few weeks he's denied the holocaust, proposed Israel move to Europe, asserted his right to nukes and kicked out CNN for saying so. There's nothing truce about that.
Posted by joel at 11:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
nobody expects the cyber inquisition
Thanks be to Aldahlia who showed me the way to this quiz. I've been checked out by the Grand Inquisitor and I'm not a heretic after all.
You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com |
But before I exult in the image of God in me, it's worth noting that I may be in danger of straying. I should be watched, and perhaps need more instruction. Here's the waffle in my wafer:
- According to the Inquisitor, I could go either way on Pelagianism, which denies original sin and affirms the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will. Some of those questions are trick questions, I tell you. So it wasn't my fault. There was nothing I could do about it.
- The dictionary says of Monophysitism: "An adherent of the doctrine that in the person of Jesus there was but a single, divine nature. Coptic and Syrian Christians profess this doctrine." I'm not Coptic and I'm not Syrian, so I should be alright.
- Ironically, when it comes to matters on the Trinity, I'm off by exactly 33%. Does this seem suspicious to you? From CARM.org: "Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity..." So I'm like, "yeah, it is," then I'm all, "maybe it's not," but then I'm like, "no, yeah, it is."
- Another third of my darkened understanding lingers over Monarchianism. Again from the dictionary: Any of several Christian heresies of the second and third centuries A.D. that attempted to maintain monotheism and the unity of the Godhead but thereby denied the independent hypostasis of God the Son. I'm not sure, but does hypostasis mean breathing into a brown paper bag until you settle down?
- I have also not entirely escaped the taint of Apollanarianism. I'm a little unclear as to what this means. I did find this on Apollonius.net: [Apollinaris the younger] maintained that the Divine Word (the Logos) supplied the place of a rational soul in the person of Christ...his doctrine was condemned by a synod at Rome, about 375 A.D. Yeah, ok, you got me. I think. Or not. Could you repeat the question?
Posted by joel at 03:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 08, 2006
motivational posters
 |
K-sra has a carnival of motivational posters going on on her blog. She doesn't usually blog on the weekends, so I've posted mine here, as well as emailing it to her for inclusion on her site.
Hey! This means I've still got one more beer left! Moohaha.
Posted by joel at 02:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 04, 2006
the role i was born to play
Some people's great ideas come to them in the shower. Not for me. When I'm in the shower I'm usually thinking that I'm late, and don't have time to fiddle with the tempermental temperature of the water, so lukewarm trending to cold will have to do.
No, great insight doesn't hit me until I'm in the car. I had a good one today. But I can't tell these great ideas to anyone; I'd be like the only bloke smoking pot in the non-smoking section of a Denny's restaurant. When I tell other people my good ideas, they don't comprehend, and they seem a little nervous. But the worst part is that when I try to explain my fabulous insight to others, the greatness of the idea evaporates. It's like a beautiful dream; suddenly I don't get it anymore.
Today's great Vehicular Hindsight was about the concept of story. I thought to myself I wonder if the characters in novels or movies ever feel like they're part of a story? In the past I've always assumed that no, the great heroes don't feel like they're in a story. It's just life for them, and usually it's the rough life. Things are generally longshot to impossible odds for the protagonist when I wonder about these things.
But today I thought differently. Today I thought no, you know what? I bet they do feel like they're in a story. I believe this because it is part of human nature to see ourselves in the arc of a story. We all do this. When we say that So-and-so is a drama queen, we mean that she tends to get wrapped up in the wrong story. She doesn't see the bigger picture, and thus doesn't chill out like the rest of us. Of course some stories have very sad endings, while others end in simplistic triumph. But it's in our nature to look for patterns in the stars, and then to see ourselves among them.
C.S. Lewis said of the theory of evolution--in particular the notion of sentient man alone in a Godless universe--was his favorite myth. When I read that I wasn't sure if he was being wickedly funny or startlingly sincere. But I've read enough of his writings to reach the conclusion that the latter is true. For as stories go, that one's a doozy. It's like a Shakespearean tragedy.
There is something about tragic stories that fortifies the heart, particularly if you've had any of life's trouble. We fit ourselves into the arcs of stories we've heard. And at the worst of times, it is a comfort to think what an interesting tale this will make! My blokes will hardly believe it all as we crowd around our usual table at Denny's, smoke hazing the space between our sad and tired faces, while we, wrapped shoulder to shoulder in our coats and tucked into our pie and waffles, onion rings and coffee, embellish a bit and wish the check would never come.
Posted by joel at 12:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack