« Heller | Main | VitameataSurgeamin!, Part I »

June 26, 2008

Comments

People who confuse their own ideas about what God wants with His will either suffer from presumption or pride, which leads them to overvalue their own take on things as compared to God's, or lack faith in God as an independent being, which leads them not to bother with the difference between His will and theirs.

Both are aspects of pride (which was Satan's sin, by the bye, if the apocryphia are believed).

Go scope out PCC's Wikipedia page and look at their demerit system. It's shocking. Accumulate enough demerits and you can be assigned a 'shadow' who lives on your dorm floor. You have to follow this shadow everywhere, including to their classes and you have to move in with them. Is it any wonder that we get warrantless wiretapping out of these nuts?

Nice article! I find it interesting that Pensacola is not accredited at all by any educational body, and in fact has never even sought such accreditation. It is interesting that you could get into a prestigious law school like Notre Dame, religious education aside, from a completely unaccredited undergrad education.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I prefer making crotch babies.

And here I thought A Handmaid's Tale was science-fiction.

I keep getting slammed with eye-paternity suits.

King James Only is actually a particularly retrograde variant of the fundamentalist movement. Basically, they object to the fact that the New International Version (the generally preferred evangelical translation) and other recent Bible translations are based on a different text from the KJV (the textus receptus). While the reason for this is that the textus receptus is later, and more corrupt, than more recently discovered texts, the King James Only people insist that the newer version is, in fact, the work of the devil to mislead the faithful.

I think they also object to other textus receptus based translations, but I'm not sure why. As I understand it, even most Evangelicals think the King James Only people are nuts.

People who confuse their own ideas about what God wants with His will either suffer from presumption or pride, which leads them to overvalue their own take on things as compared to God's, or lack faith in God as an independent being, which leads them not to bother with the difference between His will and theirs.

the keyword is 'difference.' if I understand these worshipers--and arguably all peoples of books--they believe that if they live a righteous life, one according to the word, there will be no difference between their actions and the will of God.

redwood: that might be some consolation if it were possible to know that one was living a righteous life. Regrettably, the Bible is pretty clear that there are all sorts of people who cry "Lord, Lord", to whom Christ will say: I never knew ye.

It is very hard for me to see how someone could tell students that they might die if they leave your college, since God would have no more use for them, without making some such mistake.

Well to be fair they will die...eventually.

Though I suppose the timing is pretty important ;-)

But on what possible grounds could anyone think that the King James Bible is (a) divinely inspired, or (b) the only divinely inspired English translation?

These are the same persons who think Americans are God's chosen people because he wrote the bible in English (your little gaffe about a "translation" - Ha!).

Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as "optical intercourse" — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as "making eye babies." While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept."

Are contacts and glasses banned as a form of contraception?

Actually, now that I think about it, only sunglasses would be banned.

"if I understand these worshipers--and arguably all peoples of books--they believe that if they live a righteous life, one according to the word, there will be no difference between their actions and the will of God."

I'm not sure how many people are that extreme. A key point, at least in Christian theology, is that we aren't capable of living perfectly according to the Word. Humans are inherently fallible. The best we can do is to try to live up to the Word, but our sinful nature means that we'll never be perfectly successful. That makes it presumptuous to believe that one's own actions are simply carrying out God's will.

There's an added level of presumption simply in believing that you know exactly what the rules are. The Bible itself is confusing and, in places, apparently inconsistent. Understanding the rules means unraveling those inconsistencies, and that means adding our own fallible understanding on top of God's Word. Humility requires us to admit that we may fail because of our lack of understanding as well as our sinfulness.

(And, of course, that ignores the serious problem of the actual words we're supposed to be following. There are whole other layers of problems finding an authoritative text and translating it.)

Would tears be the same as KY?

Prediction: This, and the peculiarities of other such Christian colleges, will be ignored away by The Usual Suspects, or defended on the basis of wanting to lead a godly life, etc., etc.; but that if you can vector this into the news somehow and change every instance of "Christian" to "Islamic," those same people will go absolutely insane that such an institution exists in our country.

Actually, now that I think about it, only sunglasses would be banned.

but only if they're opaque. otherwise, there's a non-zero chance the man's eyeatozoa can pass through to the woman's eygina, thus impregnating her eyuterus.

Would tears be the same as KY?

I don't think so, as they blur the vision and interfere with the process of making eye-babies, although maybe ineffectively. Probably more akin to the rhythm method.

Lasik = penile enhancement?

This is the most mockable thing since the "I am aware of all internet traditions" dork.

Alex,
you can make it to the http://mcmorris.house.gov/about.shtml>US House of Representatives.
And yes, my district has voted her there 3 times.

And, of course, that ignores the serious problem of the actual words we're supposed to be following. There are whole other layers of problems finding an authoritative text and translating it.

It's handy, then, to have clergy who can actually read the language of the original text, and contextualize the (necessarily) inaccurate translation. Those people who insist on looking to a particular English translation of the Bible are taking evasive action from any deeper understanding. King James, in particular, is in such a dated version of English that it nearly needs a translation, itself.

The rest of you: stop that; you'll go blind.

Actually, now that I think about it, only sunglasses would be banned.

Ray-Banned, to be precise.

The rest of you: stop that; you'll go blind.

I believe that's called an optectomy.

STOP RUBBING YOUR EYES!

"you might die" is an impious basis on which to recommend a religious practice in most religions. Morally, because we should seek to serve G-d out of love of G-d and/or the Good, not because we hope for material gain or fear earthly punishment. Practically, because it is easily observed (even if you look only at members of your own sex) that the good are NOT invariably rewarded and the bad are NOT invariably punished in this life, so teaching this as a basis for piety will lead to disenchantment, hypocrisy, and/or a habit of willful blindness. The concept is especially disparate from everything I thought I knew about Christianity, a religion founded upon the veneration of a martyr, and aimed entirely at the hereafter. It is probably more consonant with Christianity to promise a speedy death (followed by a Heavenly reward) if you DO follow Jesus than if you fail. See Rapture, The.

But, hey, what do I know, I'm an Israelite.

" "Poverty & Race Research Council actively works to extend racial discrimination through increased affirmative action and, while there, [the candidate] helped draft document arguing that federal law requires recipients of federal funding to seek actively to discriminate in favor of minorities (racial, language, and health) rather than merely to treat all applicants equally."

(I take this to be code for: the candidate noticed that federal law sometimes requires affirmative action.)"

I'm not clear how this actually follows: You ARE aware, aren't you, that the original meaning of "affirmative action" was outreach in recruiting without racial discrimination? It's perfectly possible to have affirmative action without racial discrimination, though affirmative action today is mostly racially discriminatory.

Brett is aware of all affirmative action traditions.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>Affirmative action timeline

"March 6, 1961

Executive Order 10925 makes the first reference to "affirmative action"

President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias."

Wasn't until 1969 and Nixon that "affirmative action" came to mean racial discrimination, rather than efforts to avoid it.

Wasn't until 1969 and Nixon that "affirmative action" came to mean racial discrimination, rather than efforts to avoid it.

Brett, does the phrase 'Southern Strategy' ring a bell?

How is it the graduates of unaccredited PCC can apply and be accepted to Notre Dame Law School and graduate school at the University of Washington? I thought accreditation was supposed to count for something.

This is well off topic, so I apologize in advanced, but this is being lost in the shuffle of today's Supreme Court gun ruling.

"WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the "millionaire's amendment," a campaign finance law intended to level the field for House candidates facing wealthy opponents who spend lots of their own money.

The law says that when candidates spend more than $350,000 from their own pockets, opponents may qualify to accept larger individual contributions than normally allowed and can receive unlimited coordinated party expenditures.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling that reflects skepticism of campaign finance overhauls, said the law violates the First Amendment.

"We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that because the law "does not impose any burden whatsoever on the self-funding candidate's freedom to speak, it does not violate the First Amendment." Stevens highlighted the law's goal of fighting the perception that "congressional seats are for sale to the highest bidder."

It seems to me that this will have serious implications on campaign finance reform.

More on topic, Federal Contracts for Paper Shredding Service (FY 2000-2008):

2000 $452,807
2001 $456,235
2002 $752,799
2003 $1,018,191
2004 $2,329,466
2005 $2,980,375
2006 $3,068,877
2007 $3,463,610
2008 2Q $1,148,718

Phil: Prediction: This, and the peculiarities of other such Christian colleges, will be ignored away by The Usual Suspects, or defended on the basis of wanting to lead a godly life, etc., etc.; but that if you can vector this into the news somehow and change every instance of "Christian" to "Islamic," those same people will go absolutely insane that such an institution exists in our country. This seems to me right on.

I don't think that someone who can succeed in the Pensacola environment is likely to have either the factual knowledge or, more importantly, the empathy to understand how the rest of the nation lives. I certainly wouldn't give such a person any authority over hiring or firing without a solid personal history demonstrating the ability to integrate priorities outside their own subculture's concerns. My concern would be that we'd get...just these kinds of results, instead.

"It's handy, then, to have clergy who can actually read the language of the original text, and contextualize the (necessarily) inaccurate translation."

That still leaves the question of which text to use. There are numerous different Biblical texts that don't always agree with each other. That includes both major and minor disagreements. Picking an authoritative text means taking sides in those arguments as surely as choosing a translation does.

Just out of curiosity, do any of these King James Only people have knowledge of King James I's bisexual tendencies? Not that it's really relevant to anything, but it seems like the sort of thing that might upset those sorts of people.

A monk met the handmaids of God upon a certain road

It's true, the desert fathers did their best to avoid the temptations of the flesh.

The first place I read a story like this was in "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones". I think similar stories show up in the literature of most any religion that contains a monastic tradition.

Likewise with God: the more important you think it is to do God's will, the more reason you have to care about the difference between what you think is God's will and what He actually wills.

Many headaches have been acquired trying to sort this stuff out.

I like Micah: what does the lord require of you but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with him?

All of the above aside:

People who confuse their own ideas about what God wants with His will either suffer from presumption or pride

Agreed.

Bush, or whoever, has spent the last several years populating the DOJ with fanatics, folks who would be unthinkingly loyal, both out of ideological bias, and due to the fact that they could never dream of holding the positions they hold on the merits.

We will spend a generation de-corrupting the legal institutions of this nation. We will not be entirely successful.

Thanks -

hilzoy:

redwood: that might be some consolation if it were possible to know that one was living a righteous life. Regrettably, the Bible is pretty clear that there are all sorts of people who cry "Lord, Lord", to whom Christ will say: I never knew ye.

that doesn't get you off the hook: unless you're an atheist, you know the sound of the truth.

and even an atheist must concede that while one may not be able to prove truth's actual existence, one cannot disprove its potential existence.

so everyone has to answer for themselves how do I live what I know to be the truth?

I'm not sure what the facts are with this school, i.e. whether they've broken a law, but I'm not interested writing laws that tell my fellow citizens that they cannot teach people how to live according to the word of their lords.

basically, it's none of my business.


redwood: I have no interest in writing laws about them either. I just wanted to say: I don't think what they're doing makes sense in Christian terms.

and even an atheist must concede that while one may not be able to prove truth's actual existence, one cannot disprove its potential existence.

This is true. But one cannot disprove the "potential existence" of Santa Claus, either. So what's your point?

-- TP

something about Paul and a thorn.

but be fair, has no one ever looked at you in a manner that made you think you had the action?

This is true. But one cannot disprove the "potential existence" of Santa Claus, either. So what's your point?

your 'this,' witty one, excluded the first part: knowing the sound of the truth.

my point is that when I hear a sound that rings true, be faithful to it.

Redwood, the Apostle Paul said otherwise: He praised those who tested everything they heard, to see whether it held up or not. He seems to have some real concern about uncritical enthusiasm. (One of his better qualities, IMHO.)

oh come on, he had a life long battle with The Thorn, his sexual impulse. But he wouldn't give in to it. To the extent his life serves as an example, he teaches us to live with--indeed resist--the nagging impulses.

The only regulation I'd like to see would force PCC and similar institutions to disclose in all their promotional material that they are not, in fact, an accredited institution and that credits and degrees earned their will not be accepted by most other colleges and universities.

From reading the article, it seems like PCC goes to great lengths to disguise the fact that they have no accreditation and don't explain what that means to their prospective students. That sounds like fraud to me.

The idea behind "King James Only" is that the holy spirit guided the committee's hands in the choice of texts and the actual translation thus making the translation more true than any of the texts the translation is based on. Any deviation of KJ from any source text is therefore not an error but a divine correction of the corrupted older text.
---
Btw, I feel a deja vu here. Did we discuss this very topic already in the past or did I encounter it on another forum?

That still leaves the question of which text to use. There are numerous different Biblical texts that don't always agree with each other. That includes both major and minor disagreements. Picking an authoritative text means taking sides in those arguments as surely as choosing a translation does.

True, but it does tend to at least attempt to understand what was actually written, as opposed with larding all kinds of forced credibility on the English translation of one's choice. I hadn't meant to imply that handiness solves all problems.

has no one ever looked at you in a manner that made you think you had the action?

Does anyone know what this means?

Thanks -

The idea behind "King James Only" is that the holy spirit guided the committee's hands in the choice of texts

like a Ouija board ?

russell: Does anyone know what this means?


there you go again, Mr Cynic, affecting a false humility implying that if one cannot demostrate meaning, truth, or God, repeatedly in an inorganic context, there is no meaning, truth, or God.

well there is potential meaning and, for Christians, like the ones who hear the truth in the story of Santa Clause, that's enough to affect the way they live their lives.

For example, if upon hearing the truth in the story of Santa Clause, a Christian might forever listen for the spirit of giving.

I say fine, and, notwithstanding chuchundra's fine criticism, stop picking on them.

there you go again, Mr Cynic, affecting a false humility implying that if one cannot demostrate meaning, truth, or God, repeatedly in an inorganic context, there is no meaning, truth, or God.

????????????

No, redwood, there wasn't that much in my comment. I just couldn't parse your sentence into a plain meaning. Still can't.

Personally, I'm not picking on the PCC folks. I've known lots and lots of folks like them over the years. I've *been* like them at different points in my life.

Many if not most folks like those at PCC are fine, they just believe and practice things that make them seem odd to lots of other folks.

Same with the Amish, same with the Hasidim, same with Hare Krishna folks. There are lots of religious communities that separate themselves from the rest of the world through unusual beliefs and practices.

I don't have a problem with them. Were they and I to meet, they'd probably have a problem with me, but I wouldn't have a problem with them. I don't care what they believe, or how they practice their belief. Everybody has their own hash to settle, they are welcome to whatever makes sense to them.

I *do* have a problem with the DOJ hiring people who are either unqualified for their jobs, or who demonstrate an uncritical loyalty to the President and his policies, or both. It undermines and corrupts the function of the DOJ.

It just so happens that one easy way to find people like that is to recruit from the ranks of fundamentalist Christians. That doesn't speak well for the fundamentalist community, but that's not my problem.

Thanks -

like a Ouija board?

Essentially yes. Or the original "ghost writing".
But theologians have tried for ages what spiritual messages are hidden in e.g. Paul's greetings or him asking for sending his forgotten cloak after him. Since the text is verbally inspired there must be something important or our Lord would not have bothered with putting something like that in.

"that doesn't get you off the hook: unless you're an atheist, you know the sound of the truth."

What does this mean?

"my point is that when I hear a sound that rings true, be faithful to it."

And this? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

My best guess is that you are referring to some sort of metaphor from a source or tradition I'm unfamiliar with: is that correct, and if so, can you explain where whatever it is you are referring to comes from, and what it is you are referring to, please?

Russell:

has no one ever looked at you in a manner that made you think you had the action?

Does anyone know what this means?

Thanks -

Oh, good, it's not just me. My first thought was that it was some sort of slang I was unfamiliar with, and then that it was just... going over my head.

there you go again, Mr Cynic, affecting a false humility implying that if one cannot demostrate meaning, truth, or God, repeatedly in an inorganic context, there is no meaning, truth, or God.

well there is potential meaning and, for Christians, like the ones who hear the truth in the story of Santa Clause, that's enough to affect the way they live their lives.

? The first paragraph seems sort of sincere, although what it's supposed to mean, I'm rather vague. But the second paragraph makes me think it's a joke going over my head, and that there ain't no sanity clause.

"For example, if upon hearing the truth in the story of Santa Clause, a Christian might forever listen for the spirit of giving."

What does that mean?

Would it help if I explain that I'm not a Christian, and amn't particularly expert in Christianity (do I take it that you are a Christian?; has all this been references to some Christian text, or history, or literature, or somesuch? If so, could you explain a bit to those of us who aren't Christians, perhaps? Because I have to say that I'm finding whatever it is you're trying to say to be quite incomprehensible so far, which is perhaps due to my lack of education in your religion.)

"I say fine, and, notwithstanding chuchundra's fine criticism, stop picking on them."

Who should stop picking on who? Where? Cite?

Er, you were making a joke with "Santa Clause," right? Or is that just a repeated spelling error for "Santa Claus"? If so, what "story" are you referring to, and what's the truth in it?

Eh, if this is explication of religion, I should just back away, with apologies for asking, probably.

Or come back with explanations of Herbangelism, Ghu, Foo-Foo, and Roscoe, perhaps.

has no one ever looked at you in a manner that made you think you had the action?

Actually, someone *did* look at me in a manner that made me think I had the action. It happened just yesterday, in the produce section at the grocery store.

I must admit it caught my attention for a moment, but then I came to my senses and remembered that I'm a happily married man.

And, as it turns out, the look was actually intended for the display of fresh mangoes that were stacked up just behind me.

My mistake.

Thanks -

If a girl at Pensacola gazes too long at a photograph, scanned image, drawing, sketch, or rotogravure of her beloved's face, is that likely to produce artificial eyesemination?

"has no one ever looked at you in a manner that made you think you had the action?"

Sadly, no, not that I'm aware of.

Then again, I usually don't cotton on to such things until well after I've unintentionally given the brush-off to a woman who was coming on to me.

Clueless? Yes, that's me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad