Main | December 2004 »

November 30, 2004

A hall with many doorways...

The second thought I marked in C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" was at the end of a discussion of a metaphor (which compared choosing a denomination to being in a hallway with many doors). Once again taking it out of context doesn't do it justice, but I believe it's most important points will still come through clear...

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Amen.

Posted by alan at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 29, 2004

What would C.S. Lewis say about same-sex marriage?

In no way to I want to imply that C.S. Lewis would support (or oppose) same-sex marriage, but I thought this quote from "Mere Christianity" was very interesting:

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the state with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Posted by alan at 12:00 PM | TrackBack

November 28, 2004

"It has every available quality except that of being useful."

Below is the first quote I marked in C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." It looses some because it's out of context -- part of a discussion of how C.S. Lewis uses the word "Christian." The bolding is mine, italics his...

Far deeper objections may be felt--and have been expressed--against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it.

He then explains by example, showing how the word "gentleman" entirely lost it's old meaning as people changed it from being "...something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property." He continues:

A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word.

I will admit I had no idea that the word "gentleman" had such a different previous meaning...

Posted by alan at 10:52 PM | TrackBack

Why radio?

After brunch, Mikey went back to working on a large Lego-type battleship -- and I joined him to act as back-up (as I continued reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"). I grabbed a portable he gave me for my last birthday, and we both listened to 60's and 70's music on 91.1...

That's when I became inspired to add a "Radio" category to my blog. I can't say a whole bunch of items will end up in this grouping...but radio has had such a great effect on my life I would be amiss if I didn't include it...

I won't say much more now to explain...but perhaps in the future I'll share just why I would weigh radio so highly to warrant its own category.

And I can say I really miss the man who is responsible for much of this...my dad (and former radio personality), Bob Fahrner...

Posted by alan at 2:43 PM | TrackBack

November 25, 2004

Happy Thanksgiving

I really should return to visiting family down stairs, but I did want to wish a heartfelt Happy Thanksgiving to anyone who reads my blog. I realize that you may disgree with much of what I post, but I think we can all agree that we are thankful to live in a society where it can be written.

With terrorism as it is, I will admit I feel less certain what tomorrow holds than I ever have, but I can honestly go with the corporate prayer said before each meal in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village":

"We are grateful for the time we have been given."

Thank you God, and God bless you, the reader...

Posted by alan at 11:18 AM | TrackBack

November 23, 2004

The Law of Nature

An interesting quote from C.S. Lewis at the end of the first chapter of "Mere Christianity":

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

That small quote doesn't do the whole chapter justice...

Posted by alan at 9:53 PM | TrackBack

November 22, 2004

Absolute Moral Standard

I saw this point of Alan's a while ago, and just haven't had a chance to respond to it until now.

...without God morals are relative, not absolute -- and how can absolute laws be based on a foundation of sand? Ultimately an atheist's source for absolute moral principles is himself/herself -- and I'd much rather trust God for those :-)

This is very strange reasoning. Ultimately EVERYONES source for absolute moral principles is himself/herself, it's simply a matter of who you feel like giving credit to.

The point begs the question - if God decided tomorrow, that Genocide was moral, would it be?

A Christian can answer this two ways.

1. No. Which would mean there is an absolute moral standard that even God seems to obey. An atheist isn't less subject to it than a Christian, and a Christian is more likely to get confused trying to interpret God's will than the absolute moral standard that God has based his rules on.

2. Yes. If God decided tomorrow that Genocide, rape, murder, anything, was moral and just, than it would be and I would do God's will.

Fortunately, Christians answer #1 far more often then they do #2.

Of course, it's doesn't seem to work on this forum to give a question with two possible answers. Yes and No. So, I'll offer a third answer.

3. God would never decide that rape was moral.

Which is a variation of answer #1, if you think about it.

At the end of the day, Christians are relying on themselves for the absolute moral standard the same as anyone else. They like to claim it's God's law, but they'll interpret God's law in accordance with the same absolute moral standard that can be found without God's involvement. So, what does God add?

Posted by tom at 9:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 21, 2004

Review: "The Chronicles of Riddick" (4.5 moose)

4.5 moose movieWe had queued "The Chronicles of Riddick" on Netflix, but when I heard that one of my daughters was going to rent it yesterday, I picked it up at Kmart.

The Chronicles of RiddickBoy I'm glad I did. No, "The Chronicles of Riddick" isn't a perfect movie -- but it is perfect at what it is supposed to be -- a non-stop action adventure flick. Vin Diesel plays the "I'd rather fight than talk" hero prefectly, the special effects pull you into the dark worlds of the story line, and the evil Necromonger kingdom perfectly walks the fine line of mythology and absurdity.

There aren't many movies where I've been watching them for two hours and I'm hoping it's not going to end any time soon...

As an amateur movie reviewer I really can't comment on the technical aspects of the film -- but if you like science fiction and action-adventure, then I think you'll agree that "The Chronicles of Riddick" deserves 4.5 moose out of 5.

(If you click on the image, you can purchase it at Amazon.com. I will not make any money from the purchase...I just am linking for convenience and because a nabbed the image from their site. Also, this review is for the director's cut widescreen version.)

Posted by alan at 5:31 PM | TrackBack

Review: "All Things New" by Steven Curits Chapman (3 Moose)

3 moose CDAs part of a World Vision promotion, I donated $20 and received Steven Curtis Chapman's "All Things New." He has been one of my favorite Christian artists, so I was going to buy the CD regardless -- paying a little extra made sense :-)

All Things NewI don't want to say I'm disappointed in the album, but I was hoping for something that had at least a couple of super-catchy tunes. I can't remember where I read the review, but it led me to believe that this CD would be Steven at his best -- but I'd argue it's him at his "normal."

Which, of coure, is really good. Unlike some of his other productions, however, I won't be choosing the same song(s) over-and-over to sing along with the chorus. Luckily CD tracks don't wear out, otherwise I would no longer be able to listent to "Bring it On" from "Declaration." :-)

Even when he seems to try to recreate the successes of past, it isn't quite there. For instance, "Big Story" off this CD is reminiscent of "The Great Adventure" (off the album of the same name). It's a good song, but not equal...

Don't get me wrong -- this work has some great tunes, but it's neither "Dive" or "Declaration" in my book. Two that especially deserve a listen are "Last Day On Earth" and "Angels Wish." The beginning of the latter especially pulled me in:

Was God smiling When He spoke the words
That made the world
And did He cry about the flood
What does God's voice sound like
When He sings, when He's angry
These are just a few things
That the angels have on me

What would we have seen on God's face when the last children drowned in the flood?

Yes, I imagine He did cry...

Please buy the album. It is worth the purchase price, and even if it wasn't I'd consider it a donation to keep a great artist's ministry going. I'm not sure how long it will be possible, but please also consider buying it via donating $20 to World Vision.

As one final note, if you are a fan of Steven's more thoughtful songs, then you might award this CD 4 moose. Based on my preferences, I give it 3 moose out of 5...

Posted by alan at 12:35 PM | TrackBack

November 15, 2004

Defending Ann?

I wanted to simply reply to Alan's comment about Ann Coulter, but I couldn't get my response in formatted text.
Alan says:

It is true that Ms. Coulter has a sharp tongue, and goes a bit further than I would with some of her comments, but she doesn't make up facts or distort the truth (that is, unlike the Michael Moore's of this world, she doesn't lie).

Ann Coulter doesn't lie?

Does Alan consider this 'not a lie'?

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant"

Even better, isn't this an exact tactic used by Michael Moore?

Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).
Source: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

I wonder, if Alan is truly prepared to stand by the comment that Ann Coulter doesn't 'distort the truth'.

Posted by tom at 11:11 PM | TrackBack

November 14, 2004

Ozzy & The Osmonds

Steps to the link at the bottom of this post:

Pepsi Twist Ozzy Superbowl Commercial

Posted by alan at 1:39 PM | TrackBack

November 13, 2004

Review: "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" by Ann Coulter (3.5 moose)

3.5 moose bookIt seems to me that whenever someone wants to do a "moral equivalency" to some whacked-lefty like Michael Moore, Ann Coulter is their proof that "both sides do it."

Well, I disagree. It is true that Ms. Coulter has a sharp tongue, and goes a bit further than I would with some of her comments, but she doesn't make up facts or distort the truth (that is, unlike the Michael Moore's of this world, she doesn't lie).

"How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" is almost entirely a collection of past columns she has written, including some that were rejected (it's a shame, however, it didn't include the one USA Today zapped during the Democratic National Convention, "Put the Speakers in a Cage"). Some chapter titles should give you an idea of what she covers:

And so on...

Okay, I'll admit it...her columns and books are a guilty pleasure -- but I also can't help but feel she is a wonderful person underneath that razor-sharp tongue -- and you can't impugn her logic.

Strangely enough, with the myriad great articles included in the book, the one that pops up first in my memory is about dating in Washington, D.C, "Capital Punishment." An excerpt:

But since all my stuff is in D.C., I do have to drop in occasionally. Consequently, I've become a minor authority on dating in Washington. Maybe not dating exactly but one crucial element of any date: "the Ask." Boys in Washington don't know how to ask for a date. What they do is try to trick you into asking them for a date. They say, "I know you're really busy, so call me when you'd like to go out to dinner" or "Call me when you're back in Washington" or, my favorite, "Are we ever going to get together?"

What are you supposed to say to completely insane things like that? I've never figured that out, which is whey these conversations tend to end in hostile silences. "Call me when you'd like to go out to dinner" isn't asking for a date; it's asking me to ask you for a date.

For my male readers in Washington, asking for a date entails these indispensable components: an express request for a female's company on a particular date for a specific activity. Oh yes, and the request has to be made to the female herself. Roughly once every two weeks, I get a female on my answering machine asking me if I'd like to go out with some dumbass male friend of hers who's too afraid to call me himself. (For those outside Washington, I'm not kidding.)

This isn't a screeching, hate-filled, anti-male screed. It is a schreeching, hate-filled anti-D.C. screed. There's no large sociological point about relationships between sexes here. It's Washington.

Now imagine that tact when you are discussing real hot-button political issues :-)

It's a very good book. I probably would have given it four moose except I'm not a big fan of "old" articles, and kind of felt like a bait-and-switch was done on me when I ordered it (I didn't realize it was a compendium of previous works). Neither is Ms. Coulter's fault, and I still recommend you buy the book, but my moose are mine to give or keep :-)

P.S. Although not as meaty as "How to Talk to a Liberal," I highly recommend her first book, "Treason." I'd definitely give that 4 moose, maybe 4.5 because she does such a great job disproving liberal mantras about the cold war...

Posted by alan at 11:07 PM | TrackBack

Review: "The Grudge" (3 moose)

3 moose movieI just got back from watching "The Grudge" with Sarah Michelle Gellar. It's the story of a house haunted by evil spirits that are driven by an anger-driven tragedy...and what happens to anyone who enters the abode...

Overall I'd say it was a well done horror picture, but I found two things lacking.

Stop here if you haven't seen it and plan on doing so...

Well, not that I'm really going to spoil it...

First of all, I don't go for movies where all the "good guys" die (or just one is left standing). That's strike one.

Second, the ending is really lame. I realize this was based on a Japanese movie, but I wonder if it was originally written by a French-influenced native of Japan :-)

(Some time I might tell you about a French movie my wife once watched about a guy and a truck of nitroglycerin. Wait, I'll do it now. Guy spends the whole movie precariously driving a shipment of nitroglycerin to its destination -- finally succeeding.

Then, he drives off a cliff.)

If it weren't for the lame ending, I'd probably give "The Grudge" 3.5 to 4 moose out of 5 -- but instead it gets only 3...

(You can catch a trailer and more at ifilm.com.)

Posted by alan at 9:43 PM | TrackBack

November 12, 2004

Christians are still worse than atheists...

Last night I called a hiatus on discussing politics on the Conversations About God E-mail Discussion Group I moderate. However, people couldn't stop -- and although I didn't let them through, I did respond to some. I don't include what I am replying too because I have not asked permission to do so...

Hi __________...

Sorry...since I zapped the discussion of politics I'm not going to let this through.

Having said that, Hitler's hate of the Jews was not religiously based (ditto with Nazi-ism). Regardless of whether Christians didn't properly speak up, it was an atheistic belief system that sent millions to gas chambers (even if it was a nationalistic atheism).

As for Stalin and Mao, I agree that any belief system could be called "a religion." However, clearly when people blame religion for the ills of the world, they aren't including communism or atheism. My note was in response to the false belief that religion is more responsible for cruelty than atheism. Pure power corrupts evenly across the political spectrum, but it's also true that it was Judea-Christian thought that has been responsible for the republics/democracies that have shown the most freedom (including freedom of religion) -- although I'll admit that the "experiment" is short-lived in historical terms.

It's especially interesting that the freedom to show such energetic rejection of religious thought that is sweeping many in western civilization was provided to them by people who they wouldn't allow govern if they were alive today...

Take care

Alan

P.S. Please don't get me wrong...I don't want to let religion off the hook. I just think that it is unfair to judge religion more harshly given the same

Hi __________...

Only because I can't see this not leading back into politics, I'm not letting it through...

But to answer your question.

Imagine you have a roommate who throws their clothes all over the place. You ask if there can be a rule that dirty clothes must go in the hamper and clean clothes in the closet and dresser.

Your roommate refuses. Are they not then "forcing" you to live in a mess?

When it comes to the "rights" that many are fighting for, it's the equivalent. If everyone can do whatever they want, I am forced to live in the results of their moral squalor.

I'm not asking for a Talibanic society. I'm asking for a give and take where society gets to decide what is appropriate and what is not. Those who scream loudest for freedom really are only asking for the freedom they want (and are glad to limit freedoms they don't agree with).

Take care

Alan

Hi __________...

I'm not letting this through because I called a hiatus on political discussions...but since it's directed at me, I won't ignore it :-)

[ snip of a quote from the writer's original post that I included in my response ]

I still disagree. Cruelties are from the evil heart of man -- religion, nationalism, etc. is just an excuse.

You might notice that I did limit myself most to Christianity in my response to you. Radical Islam may ultimately "take the cake" before the world ends...but I definitely don't believe that Christianity has equaled atheistic governments in brutality.

As for Hitler, please take a look at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett012102.shtml

One good quote from Hitler in it is, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." (1933)

Sure, Hitler may not have been an atheist. Regardless, the evil system he convinced his nation to embrace was. (And just because someone wraps himself in the flag of faith doesn't mean that they are a spiritual person -- people will say anything for power...)

Ultimately the point of my post was that it's unfair to judge religion more harshly than non-religion. As I said, we are evenly merciless...

Take care

Alan

Hopefully this weekend will be politics-free on the list. It takes too long for me to respond coherently -- and I'm sure some of you would disagree that I have been coherent in my responses :-)

Posted by alan at 5:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 11, 2004

Christians are more cruel than atheists...

A couple of notes I added to a mailing I moderate...

First, one related to a discussion of "moral authority," God, and atheists:

[ Alan's note: I wasn't saying that atheists don't have morals -- just that their "absolute moral authority" is themselves. (I would also suggest that many of them who have great problem with "forcing" them to obey my God's morals have no problem forcing me to obey their morals.) I just don't think they have the "higher ground" by not having religious beliefs infect their political views. Both opinions are equal, should be given even weight in a debate, and then the public should decide...

Also, I suspect you have fallen for a popular misconception. Atheistic governments have been responsible for far more deaths and crimes than Christianity has. Things like the Crusades and Inquisition don't even start to compare with what atheistic governments did last century alone -- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. -- all based on atheism, not religion (and Stalin and Mao each killed far more each than Hitler).

The difference is that "Christians" who have committed atrocities have ignored the teachings they claim to be following, whereas those who have tortured and murdered in the name of communism and other atheistic government systems have been true to their belief systems.

I'm not saying we are better than atheists -- we have all fallen short. It is not fair, however, to say that the greatest cruelty has been done in the name of religion -- at best you can only say "equal" cruelty has been done. Atheists are just as prone to be merciless. ]

A second one connected to a discussion as to whether moral or civil laws are legitimate:

[ Alan's note: Would you agree that a law is just that says that a public billboard cannot picture naked people having sex? Is that not a moral law?

I don't think anyone has a problem with civil or moral laws -- they just have problems with the laws they don't agree with.

Please don't get me wrong. I personally believe that, generally, the only laws that should be made are those that protect me from you (and visa versa). What you do to yourself, as a whole, should be up to you. That, of course, sounds simple on the surface but still requires judgment calls -- not everything that can hurt others is physical (e.g. the billboard I mention and the children who would see it)... ]

Posted by alan at 8:21 PM | TrackBack

Equality of thought...

I moderate a nightly theological e-mail discussion group, "Conversations About God". Thanks to the election, the last few mailings have included discussions of politics. Here's an "Alan's note" that I had below one of last night's posts:

[ Alan's note: I'll go one step further...if you cannot use religion in making laws, what is the atheistic way to establish absolute moral principles? What atheistic moral principle requires a 65MPH speed limit? What atheistic moral principle requires we pay for welfare? What atheistic moral principle rejects prostitution as a valid occupation?

I'm not saying that I can't give arguments why each of those are legitimate government concerns, but without God morals are relative, not absolute -- and how can absolute laws be based on a foundation of sand? Ultimately an atheist's source for absolute moral principles is himself/herself -- and I'd much rather trust God for those :-)

Ultimately I feel that a political opinion I have based on my religious beliefs is just as valid as one an atheist holds without any spiritual basis (and visa versa). However, I see just the opposite argued -- if I have even the smallest spiritual reasoning in the foundation of a view, that's somehow forcing my religion on someone else and thus is (absolutely) illegitimate.

In circumstances like that I believe the religion (and morals) of atheists are forced on me... ]

Posted by alan at 8:50 AM | TrackBack

November 10, 2004

When hell froze over...

Growing up in New Hampshire, it was pretty much a given that you were a Red Sox fan. Sure, there were a few deranged Yankee fans speckled throughout the countryside, but mostly they were just rural myths.

And, I am a Red Sox fan...

When they went into the playoffs, I didn't think they would win. When they were three games down to the Yankees, I was sure they wouldn't win. When they were ahead in game 7 of the ACLS and Pedro started pitching (immediately giving up a couple runs), I was afraid they wouldn't win.

When they started the World Series, I finally thought they could win. However, when they played less-then-stellarly the first couple games, my faith faltered a bit...but they came through. Other than the sleep they cost me during the period, I too celebrated the end of the curse.

However, soon after the win, John Kerry connected his campaign to the Red Sox, saying that he was told he could only be elected when the Red Sox won the World Series. My reaction was, "I'd rather wait another 86 years." (But of course, had the cosmic connection been true, it was too late -- the Red Sox were champions!)

So, wasn't I surprised to read in the print edition of The Weekly Standard that Kerry, prior to the World Series, said given the choice of the Red Sox winning or him being elected, he would take the latter. Far be it from me to disagree that a Presidential election is more important than baseball, but how could he show his face in Boston after that?!?!?! :-)

The article is also on-line: "Recline Yourself, Resign Yourself, You're Through"

Looking at that article again, I've got to give the quote:

We've been waiting since 1918 for the Boston Red Sox to win the World Series," Kerry acknowledged. But "if I had a choice between the White House and the World Series this year, I'm going to take the White House. How's that?"

Speaking of Red Sox related links, how about one of Matt Damon and Bronson Arroyo singing quite well in ifilm.com's "Alter Bridge (Feat. Boston Red Sox): Open Your Eyes (Live)"?

Posted by alan at 8:34 AM | TrackBack