First, I scored a 52 on the Libertarian Purity Test, barely cracking into the category described as "You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much." Yeah, pretty much.
Next, Andrew Sullivan can get fingernails on the chalkboard annoying, but I read his blog because he remains open-minded, and every once in a while a really cool post pops up, such as this one where a reader responds to the problem of evil:
The advantage of the Christian account, so far as I can tell, is that it actually calls evil what it is, and seeks to put it in a larger framework that redeems it. What is evil for the Darwinist? Simply an externality of the struggle of the fittest?
Please follow the link to read the whole post, it is worth it.
Third, on to where ethics and politics meet - what does it mean to be a person? If you live in America, that definition includes corporations, thanks to the perversion of the constitution. I have a couple of friends that can't understand my combination of pro-private sector views and anti-corporation views. A good answer, from a decidedly Catholic perspective (but which I share), is found in this post on catholicanarchy.org. I also recommend a full read, but here are a couple highlights:
In theological language, we might say that just as in Christian theology human persons are brought into being by a personal creator God in whose image we are made, within the consumer-capitalist society the objects/products that we treat as persons are brought into being by an entity that is also regarded, falsely, as personal.
We are known as a community for being outspoken and passionate when it comes to resisting sins against the dignity of the human person (regrettably, our attention to some human persons is not as strong as it is for others). “Re-personing” human beings who continue to be “de-personed” in this culture of violent death will always be a central vocation of Catholic Christians. A related but equally important task is that Catholics think, speak, and act out of our rich tradition of reflection on personhood by participating in efforts to “de-person” abstract entities that are clearly not persons. Such definitions are blasphemous distortions of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of the three-personed God.
Finally, Another seeming contradiction that some try to pinpoint me on is my semi-libertarian stance (see above) with my pro-tax position. No one explains how Republicans went off track with respect to fiscal conservatism better than Bruce Bartlett, as in this piece for Forbes, also worthy of a read:
At some point, taxes have to be back on the table as the price that must be paid for profligate spending. Only then will the American people realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too, as Republicans have preached for the last decade. Only when the American people go back to believing that spending must be paid for will they stop demanding something for nothing and put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity.
Alright, so these are some of the topics that have been marinating in the back of my mind lately. I hope to check in again soon.
16 comments:
Justus,
I followed the link about the Christian view of the sin and evil problem. Boy, they sure are militant against the biblical view of Creation!
Why so?
I can't answer directly for the writer, but will share how I interpreted the post, and that is to explain to non-believers the rich yet deeply Christian tradition that focuses primarily on the spiritual truth of the Creation/Eden passages of scripture, without necessarily reading those passages as a scientific or otherwise all-encompassing description.
I would add emphasis to the word neccessarily, as I personally don't like the certainty displayed by either the extreme fundamentalist or the extremely liberal theologian who would declare the Biblical creation story as scientific truth or pure myth, respectively. I hold both positions as dangerous as they pretend to know what can not be empirically proven, and can be a stumbling block to the faith.
We'll hopefully all know soon enough whether the world was created in seven 24-hour days, or if God used the language of DNA to breathe and grow life into his glorious creation of a longer period of time. Until that time comes, however, I am content to know and share him as Creator God, without trying to demystify the mystery of creation.
Uh oh, those sound like fighting words. I'm getting my popcorn.
I certainly did not intend them as fighting words, just personal opinion, but I do like popcorn.
I'm not sure I'd call this particular perspective on scripture militant. I certainly don't feel that my own perspective on scriptural interpretation is particularly militant just because I disagree with my brothers and sisters that adhere to a more literal interpretation of the scriptures.
And for the record, my score on the libertarian-o-meter was 25. What a surprise.*
* = When reading this sentance aloud, inject a heavy dose of sarcasm in your inflection.
Justus, this comment probably takes us further away from your original intention in the post, which in context, I think was addressing the problem of sin/evil from a Christian perspective which I thought was well stated.
I would agree that generally the extreme views on either side of an argument usually both miss the truth, but would not agree that a particular view is dangerous because it is a view that can't be empirically proven. In matters of faith that should not be a stumbling block. To address faith from a Biblical context Hebrews 11 “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. You are right that whatever position one takes on creation whether it is 7 literal days, Divinely inspired evolution, or evolution by random chance, all require faith. Empirically there is not complete evidence of any of the three, nor is empirical evidence required for any belief to be truth. Truth is truth regardless of the evidence of it or belief in it. Faith should be based on rightly understanding and applying the portions of truth revealed to us so that we can have a greater understanding of that truth. Certainly a pursuit of truth will involve empirical evidence, and should certainly not ignore it, but evidence is not the only qualification for truth. Truth doesn’t need or require proof. It exists regardless of our perception, belief, or understanding of it. Which I think speaks to and agrees with your last paragraph.
While I personally don’t like the type of certainty displayed by those extreme views that would degrade or attempt to embarrass others, I do believe that one must be certain of their belief, and that faith is a strong position of confidence in one’s belief. Opposing views should certainly make us examine our faith (isn’t that what we do so much of here), but wouldn’t characterize a strong stance as a stumbling block to the faith.
I may have tried to pack a few too many thoughts in a small response, so if I’m a little out of context here, or am missing your point, please correct me.
For the record, I also like popcorn.
And Rosen, you are not militant because of your views, it is your long hair and choice of music that makes you militant.
That, and your aversion to handbells.
T.J.,
Two points:
1 - Clarification - Person A is certain that creation is 7-day event, and Person B is certain that Biblical creation story is myth. The stumbling block to faith I refer to is Person C, who can't get past the possible "problems" with the creation story because of the irrational and conflicting "certainties" argued by persons A and/or B.
2 - You said "One must be certain of their beliefs." I have faith, and I have hope, but I can't deny that doubt, fear, and apathy tend to get a good hold of me at times. I agree that one must live "as if" they were certain, but that is the ideal, and in living day to day I have to believe that there is room for the doubting Thomas that is a little less than certain at times.
Dr. RosenRosen, don't be so hard on yourself, a score of 25 isn't too bad.*
*When reading this sentence aloud, add a heavy dose of sarcastic emphasis on the word "too"
1. I see where you are coming from, and agree that is a problem in some instances. I would say though that if person C is unsure of his position it would be wise to consult both A and B so he can evaluate the validity of both, as each would likely reveal strengths and weaknesses of their position. I think the problem would come in with the attitude in which A and B present their views.
2. I would not claim that fear, doubt, and apathy don’t get a good hold on me (not that you said I was). Far from it. There are always issues of faith and belief that we are less sure on than others, and that is why we seek the truth. There is always more to learn. I concur with your statements.
TJ, we hate you because of your freedom. And because of your hand bells.
Hand bells. Oh, Rosen, tell us more! T.J. freedom? He is wound up so....well never mind...we all want to be like T.J. Who am I kidding?
I have an aversion to hand bells (the first step is admitting you have a problem). It stems from being forced to play in the church handbell choir for years as an adolescent/youth - during those crucial years when it was not cool to play or be seen playing or otherwise associating with hand bell choirs. I never out grew my adolescent self-consciousness about the hand bell, and to this day I take issue with their tone, I take issue the little white gloves that the players wear. I take issue with the deer-in-the-headlights-look a player gets when he/she plays the B-natural bell in the middle of the F-major chord.
TJ knows this about me, and he brings this up only to needle me. And I recognize that he's just messing with me. But my aversion is so intense, so irrational, that it cannot be contained by my cooler self.
"handbell":Dr. RosenRosen:: "Wide Right":FSU fan.
Top 5 Comment ever, Dr. RR.
Well done.
Agreed. I must say...the little white gloves comment had me laughing out loud.
WHAT SAY THE GREAT HANDBELL PLAYER TJ?
Post a Comment