I write this in response to the most recent post that was submitted by my brother on his site concerning luck. I do not offer my opinions in order to give offense, but I have definite thoughts on the matter, and I thought this would be a good forum for them.....plus he's a big boy, and I think he can handle a little back and forth.
I have a simple question to pose to the advocates of luck/fortune/fate..etc: "What is the difference between the world being controlled by chance and the world being controlled by god? Immediately upon reading Jim's most recent comments it occured to me that the popular belief in luck springs from an attempt to deny a creator and controller of the universe and the happenings therein, but after further thought I cannot even say that. No, it seems, rather, that luck is just a renaming of God, but tell me, isn't a rose still a rose by any other name (cheap Shakespearean rip-off, I know)? Allow me to expound.
When I say that luck is governing my life, rather than denying the presence of an all-controlling being, though that may be my intention, I am instead giving ultimate control to what can be titled chance. If I believe that there are coincidences that I can choose to see or not see, even these then must have some rhyme or reason. Chance gives them their reason and is therefore transformed into a god-like figure.
The oft' heard objection, I can hear it now, says, "I don't believe that there is a God", but one cannot then believe in chance. It falls under the same category, in my opinion, as those who say that they do not believe in absolute truths. They will pound their fists and proclaim that they absolutely hold that there can be no absolutes, never realizing that they are making an absolute statement. I realize this is an over-used cliche, but the point is clearly made. I can't claim there to be no governing authority over the planet (Go) and turn-around and claim there is (chance). Logically this does not add up.
I am not one to pummel people about the head with the idea that their conception of God must be identical to mine. I recognize that Plato recognized a Demiurge, Aristotle had a First Cause, and there is a plethora in-between theirs and mine, but if one is intellectual honest one must give due credit to a God, whatever he/it is called. To not do so amounts to something akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand.
So stand up proudly, you followers of Chance; look around and see the view from your perch. Notice your neighbors: Christians, Muslims, Jews...etc: are you that far off from the rest of us? Certainly I am not suggesting all religions take different paths to the same end, but I am suggesting that religion (though I'm sure there must be exceptions) begins from the basis of a God-head. Call it what you will, but one cannot hide from reason.
I invite your thoughts and opinions.
Much needed disclaimer: it occurs to me at this moment that this strayed a bit from Jim's post, so let me reaffirm that I mean no offense. I saw a soap-box and took the opportunity to grandstand upon it. His post was just the seed that was planted in me, and it has grown into this monster.
I have a simple question to pose to the advocates of luck/fortune/fate..etc: "What is the difference between the world being controlled by chance and the world being controlled by god? Immediately upon reading Jim's most recent comments it occured to me that the popular belief in luck springs from an attempt to deny a creator and controller of the universe and the happenings therein, but after further thought I cannot even say that. No, it seems, rather, that luck is just a renaming of God, but tell me, isn't a rose still a rose by any other name (cheap Shakespearean rip-off, I know)? Allow me to expound.
When I say that luck is governing my life, rather than denying the presence of an all-controlling being, though that may be my intention, I am instead giving ultimate control to what can be titled chance. If I believe that there are coincidences that I can choose to see or not see, even these then must have some rhyme or reason. Chance gives them their reason and is therefore transformed into a god-like figure.
The oft' heard objection, I can hear it now, says, "I don't believe that there is a God", but one cannot then believe in chance. It falls under the same category, in my opinion, as those who say that they do not believe in absolute truths. They will pound their fists and proclaim that they absolutely hold that there can be no absolutes, never realizing that they are making an absolute statement. I realize this is an over-used cliche, but the point is clearly made. I can't claim there to be no governing authority over the planet (Go) and turn-around and claim there is (chance). Logically this does not add up.
I am not one to pummel people about the head with the idea that their conception of God must be identical to mine. I recognize that Plato recognized a Demiurge, Aristotle had a First Cause, and there is a plethora in-between theirs and mine, but if one is intellectual honest one must give due credit to a God, whatever he/it is called. To not do so amounts to something akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand.
So stand up proudly, you followers of Chance; look around and see the view from your perch. Notice your neighbors: Christians, Muslims, Jews...etc: are you that far off from the rest of us? Certainly I am not suggesting all religions take different paths to the same end, but I am suggesting that religion (though I'm sure there must be exceptions) begins from the basis of a God-head. Call it what you will, but one cannot hide from reason.
I invite your thoughts and opinions.
Much needed disclaimer: it occurs to me at this moment that this strayed a bit from Jim's post, so let me reaffirm that I mean no offense. I saw a soap-box and took the opportunity to grandstand upon it. His post was just the seed that was planted in me, and it has grown into this monster.
Perhaps the best thing that I have done as a graduate student so far is to participate in the Russian novel class. It far exceeds my greatest expectations before the semester began. The depth of writers such as Dostoevsky and the masterful insights given my Dr. Louise Cowan each week make this a truly wonderful experience. (side-note: if anyone would like to come sit in on a lecture with me, they are on Thursday nights at 7:00. You can read the selection the week before or just come and experience Dr. Cowan's infectuous-love for literature) I will share some of my specific ideas in the coming days, but I wanted to share a picture with those of you who look at this.
In The Idiot, Dostoevsky makes central a painting by Holbein that depicts Christ in the tomb. It becomes a prominent figure in shaking the faith of several characters, due to the fact that Jesus is shown to be utterly human. I have been hearing about it for several weeks now, and I finally searched for it online today. It is truly a haunting piece of art.
In The Idiot, Dostoevsky makes central a painting by Holbein that depicts Christ in the tomb. It becomes a prominent figure in shaking the faith of several characters, due to the fact that Jesus is shown to be utterly human. I have been hearing about it for several weeks now, and I finally searched for it online today. It is truly a haunting piece of art.
I admit it, I am lazy. I am acquainted both intimately and casually with some of the most rabid, studious film-lovers in DFW, but I rarely venture away from my books and Mav's basketball far enough to enjoy good film with them. I should be more immersed, but I'm not. I am, without a doubt, the worse for it.
This being said, I was invited out late last night after class to enjoy the newest Woody Allen film entitled "Match Point". I won't bore you with the synopsis, you can read IMDB on your own time, but I will say that I was thoroughly impressed. I realize that it had an A-list celebrity in it, and it is a far cry from a low-budget art-film, but it was nontheless artistic and beautiful. I would have thought so on my own, but I felt even more justified when my film-buff of a friend agreed.
In a time when there is hardly anything worth seeing in the theatres, there is a beacon in the night. Here's your assignment: Go to Grapevine Mills Mall at 10:30 on a weeknight (there is no one else in the theatre at that time) and enjoy the heighths of film-making. I'd be shocked if you leave disappointed.
At Casa de Stone we are starting a book group with a few friends. It's not a major commitment; we will only meet once a month, and there is plenty of room for those who might be interested. Each group member will take turns picking a book (any book of any type) and the entire group will pick up a copy and read it. Monthly we will get together and discuss that book and start a new one. If you have never been in a book group it is really fun...especially if you only have to find time to get together once a month. Come one, come all.
The first book: The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
I have mentioned my Milton class before, where I'm caught somewhere between fond affection and absolute hatred, but last night's class really beat me down. Some nights I walk out of those classes feeling somewhat educated, as if I might even belong at that university, but other night's, and last night was a prime example, I sit for 3 hourse of lecture feeling like this guy (above). At those times it occurs to me that no matter how hard I work I will always be behind some, if not most of these other students. They have read more in their previous degrees than I can possibly catch up with, and there are so many new things to read that I can't stop for 4 years to catch up or I will be even further behind. Thus the eternal race continues. The moral of the story: Momma's, don't let your babies grow up to be students at a small Baptist university....they won't read enough good books. It's disheartening to say the least, and so today I proclaim my hatred for all things Miltonian, and I refuse to engage in any reading or studying of his poetry in protest against him....at least until tomorrow when I have to get ready for next class....after all, one can only take one's principles so far, right?
You might be asking yourself, "Why does Tim Duncan look so mad?", or, "Why does Tony Parker look so frightened?" Both good questions, but the answer is simple.They just realized that the Mavericks have taken sole possession of first place, both in the Southwest Division and the Western Conference. Uh, oh!
GO MAVS!!!
Das Bier und Die Studenten
2 Comments Published by Michael on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 8:21 AM.
I had my German tutoring this morning...thus the title just seemed to flow. Aside from the showing off of my remedial language skills, there is a point to the title (Beer and Students). I daily learn lessons about myself from my 6th grade class, and as hard as I try to explain it to them they just don't understand clearly. I will give it a shot here, though.
First, the story. It is Valentine's Day today, and my kids came into my classroom beside themselves with excitement, anticipating giving and receiving various gifts and tokens of affection. I must confess that I have an aversion to V-Day, and more or less feel it is a non-holiday and should be treated as such. I decided not to be a complete kill-joy, though, and told them they could have some time to partake in the Valentine's-goodness, but with one stipulation. There are certain homework and various school-related duties that must be performed each morning, and I told them that they must make these a priority. At best, half of them did as they were told, and the majority did a partial job, which I might could have lived with, but there is always one. The one this morning, Z, chose to do what she wanted and nothing else. She refused to acknowledge both her assignment and my repeated warnings to obey. Thus she earned the class the wrathful hand of Coach Stone (yes, as gay as it sounds, that is how I am referred to around here). I swiftly struck Valentine's day dead with a crushing blow, and ensured its eternal burial by threatening a citation to anyone caught with V-Day paraphenalia in my classroom today. Her actions, along with those of others, caused pain and death (a bit exagerrated, but follow me).
Is this not the quintessential picture of all of us? Those of us who have come to know Christ have been freed from the law of sin and death, and with this comes freedom. We are free indeed, free to live and honor God with all things, such as art, community, academics...etc. The list is utterly endless, but our abuse of these is the cause of our destruction. We are given a proverbial inch, but we demand a mile. After all, we are entitled to it, right? Our lack of understanding concerning moderation and the discipline to act upon our understanding have robbed us of the beauties of freedom and in effect made us slaves to sin once again.
I use the example of beer for two reason: firstly, it is quite tasty, but more importantly it has been used in my life as a tool for the deeper understanding of my liberty. I grew up in a 'good-Southern-Baptist-family', and the drinking of beer was an act of rebellion on my part in high school, because it was shown to me to be a sinful act of Godless people. How could a Christian, a real Christian, drink alcohol? It has only been in these last few years that my eyes have been opened to the freedom of a believer to responsibly enjoy beer. I have been involved in Bible studies over a beer, worshipped and prayed with a beer in my hand, and, yes, even met a beer-brewing church elder. I have toasted a Guiness with a noted Theologian and devout believer, who comes from a long line beer makers of the same name, and I have even had a drink with a Cistercian monk. In short, I have found beer drinking to have heightened my understanding of God, and have come to know Him more intimately as a result.
I recognize this morning, though, that this same enjoyable experience might be so easily abused and become something entirely different. Were I to give in to the sinful desire to over-indulge in beer, I could become mastered by it, and the result would be destruction. Just as my students abused their freedom and earned punishment, so too might I earn a measure of punishment and pain if I chose to take my freedoms too far.
I am quickly becoming a Podcast junky, and as I mentioned in my last post, Derek Webb's really stuck out to me the other day. Seldom do any really hit me like this, so I thought I would drop the link here for anyone who might be interested: Webb Podcast
All great societies and movements are characterized by the art that they leave behind. I recently listened to a podcast in which Derek Webb, a singer-songwriter, was interviewed, and was taken aback by his challenge to Christian artists to create thoughtful and purposeful art to capture the moment that we are living in. (Side note: for those of you who have not gotten on the Webb bandwagon, I am more and more impressed with him both musically and otherwise each time I am exposed to him. Check him out: http://www.derekwebb.com)
In recent years I have backed away from the artistic side of myself in pursuit of knowledge, because I felt a great disconnect between the mind and art. I could no longer with a clear conscience sing and write the same songs that I had for so long, because, in my opinion, they reaked of shallowness and emotionalism at the expense of truth and intelligence. Popular art, of which I was engrossed, was becoming a disgrace in my eyes, and I could hardly stomach much more.
In studies of aesthetics, going all the way back to ancient Greece, there is a common thread: truth and beauty. Truth apart from beauty is boring, but beauty absent of truth is mindless and not art. How do we recover truth and beauty in Christian art? I admit that I do not know how to do both effectively. I read men like John Milton, I listen to music like Webb's, and I see that such a combination is possible, but it seems neither popular nor simple.
St. Augustine used a bit of liberty when interpreting passages in Exodus that deal with the Israelites coming out of Egyptian slavery. God had them plunder the gold and wealth of the Egyptians before they left, and it was these things that they used in their honoring of God. He makes the point that it is our Christian duty to claim back from the world what is rightfully ours in Christ. Art, politics, education...etc; these are all to be used for God's glory, and it is our duty to take them back as our possessions.
Sounds good in theory, but it's the actualizing it that is tough.
