Mock anchorman Steven Colbert made his mark on history by fecisciously inventing a word during his inaugural broadcast of the Colbert Report. This word has been added into Webster's Dictionary and was awarded the Word of the Year Award in 2005 by the American Dialect Society. Behold.
Scientists claim to have observed a particle moving faster than the speed of light. This would, of course, have great repurcussions upon the way in which we understand the universe, evidencing a hole in the special theory of relativity. I don't really understand it so much, but here is the basic claim.
I recently came upon a 3-minute comedy news show, which is updated every weekday. The host is Steve Tatham, a writer for Disney Studios with a fair amount of wit. Enjoy The Ointment.
P.s. Do not apply to sensitive areas.
The Director of the GOA warns us of fatal flaws in US society and claims that she is bound to fall just as the great Roman Empire once did. Is he right in his predictions?
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry mid-term.
The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, now why we have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will never leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not typically belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa, (Cheerleader Captain and Class Valedictorian) during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night and again this morning, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven, and thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why Teresa kept
shouting "Oh my God!"
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"
In honor of the first day of August and my glass of wine, I felt it appropriate to share with you my ever so profound observations of the cultural differences between Germany and the US. Ouila.
5. Discipline. There's no one who does straight down the line like the Germans. Americans, on the other hand, tend to stick to the more important aspects of life...like Paris Hilton.
4. Car maintanence. So many spotless, minimal exhaust VW's and Beemers you'll get dizzy trying to count them all as they pass by.
3. Bikes. In larger German cities, nearly everyone owns a bike. It doesn't matter if it's a fem-bike either, men can ride it. Take my bike for example, it's pink and black, and that takes nothing at all away from my masculinity... Hey, shut up!!! I found it in the basement ok. It was free man...it was free.
2. Fashion. Deutschland is the only place that I know of where it's still cool or at least acceptable to wear spandex running shorts, fanny packs, roller blade to work, and sport a bright yellow mohock in a high school classroom. That's what we call true freedom my friends. Who could ask for anything more?
1. Alcoholism. Your average bar fly in the States is like Oma's slow Tuesday evening in Deutschland.
"Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations." -George W. Bush, Nov. 2003.
Freedom. What a meaningful word! It opens up a wealth of significance for so many in the span of just two syllables. Free-dom. No word is used more often, I imagine, in the US political realm, and yet does our President know what he says when he makes such comments? Do we understand what he wants to tell us? Are we on the same page? It's not clear to me that we are. Does freedom lead us to allow for anything? Should we encourage human expression in any capacity? Let's say we take Bush out of the picture and explore the notion of creative freedom.
I've mentioned before my stance on human sensibilities. Everyone has a sore spot or two, just as everyone has prejudices which are liable to offend. This is a reality that we all must confess to be true at the risk of missing the boat to social progress. Where does that leave us with creative freedom? It is much easier for us to advocate freedom when it is we who do the offending than if the tables were to turn. Nevertheless, we cannot pick and choose when it comes to this basic freedom. As it turns out, one man's trash is another man's treasure. We should not, however, stoop to censorship if a man's treasure is trashed. Censorship does not achieve anything beyond the cultivation of fear and alienation. It is riddled with a lack of trust in society. If what Bush said on that fateful day has any weight, we ought to celebrate the human spirit. If you agree, are you prepared to face the results? One such consequence appears as follows: My Sweet Lord.
Ought the only governance of human expression be self-governance? Freedom. What a meaningful word indeed.
As most of you know I'm in Munich, Germany for the summer. I'd like to able to explain to you perfectly the wonders that I've been through in my time here so far. Begrudgingly, I admit the limitations at hand. My stay is only three weeks old, and already I've learned and experience so much. It has been the best of times. It has been the worst of times, but for the most part it's been fantastic. I fulfilled a dream of mine just the other day. My flat mate invited me out with some of her friends. I didn't think much of it at first. This wasn't out of the ordinary. She had invited me to hang with various friends before. So, I got dressed and shortly thereafter we were out the door. I didn't realize it until I had trudged through the lines at the beer garden nearby what was actually taking place. Surrounded completely by Germans, I was drinking, chatting, and singing away in a Baverian beer garden. With my massive Steinkrug mug (out of which you drink by placing your hand through the handle and sort of forklifting it up towards your mouth) in hand and a bratwurst on my plate, I soon found myself in a Baverian wonderland. If you've never had this experience, I recommend it highly. The lovely atmosphere was enough to take away from the frustrations of not speaking fluent German. In case you havn't studied the language, here are some words by Mark Twain that will tune you in a bit to the world of grrrr that is German. In short, come one come all to Germany, the land of thinkers and poets (oh ya, and beer).
I want so badly to like Neo-Marxists. I do. They just won't let me. Take Jürgen Habermas for a brief word: hier to the Frankfurt school, world-renound voice on politics and international relations, likely the most significant living philosopher. His accomplishments both in the academic world and with successful globalization efforts are remarkable. There seems no reason that I should have a problem with him. Yet last year he published a little piece called Religion in the Public Sphere, which ruffled quite a many feather. For the most part, however, it was received well in academia, well enough to earn him the Holberg International Memorial Prize, whose first winner was Julia Kristeva.
As a blanket statement, the fundamental notion of Habermas is appealing. In watered-down terms, Habermas' idea is that in order to come upon the truth of anything, we have to talk about it. We are not, however, meant to simply talk arbitrarily, but rather to strive to fight fair when we discuss such matters. He thus puts an ethical intonation on public discourse. The point which is emphasised here is that truth does not merely concern truth, but also the relationships between those who are striving for it. Many can agree: the paradigm is practical and engaging. His interests and the problems to which he seeks solutions are also quite similar to mine.
His most unquieting claim, in any case, is that religion has no place in such discourse. The idea at work here is that though people may have religious motivations for making their decisions or for voting in a certain way, these faith-based reasons are incoherent in the public sphere and obscure what should be clearly expressable in other terms. This is secularization at its best. It seems a bit unfair, though, to assume that religious people and their ideas are meaningless in the political realm, or in any forum, and beyond that, that they should not be heard by the public ear. Perhaps faith should not be the driving force behind politics, but this does not and must not necessitate the exclusion of religion. That position would hold what it calls communicative reason on a pedistal. It seems contradictory to say that this paradigm (exhaulted ever so religiously I might add) denies a usefull role to religion.
All cultures in all eras have had religion. The attempt to go beyond himself is a fundamental part of man. If this were not so, then politics would not even exist naturally. It would have to be forced upon us. Man has a spiritual nature, so why can we not discuss, for example, a person's dignity in light of different religious traditions? Reason is not the only facet of human life that produces meaning. I would then ask you Mr. Habermas, what reason do you have for completely eradicating religion from your ideal discourse? It doesn't seem justified even by your own ideals. And let's face it, though vehemently against religion on paper, Karl Marx was himself a great prophet, and his vision for the future was highly in tune with the Hebrew understanding of justice following the Babylonian Exile. What gives?
While it may not be apparent, I do make a conscious effort to be sensative to international news and various political issues which effect both the US and the world at large. I do try. Now, will the BBC or CNN be calling me up as a news analyst any time soon? Not likely. Just the other day, in an attempt to check up on the global buzz, I picked up the latest copy of The Economist, a moderately priced, world-savey news source out of London. There, on the cover, appeared a red-white-blue print semi-automatic handgun. The headline above read "America's Tragedy." Gripping, eh? Nough' said. I had to get it. So, I flipped immediately to the cover story and read. The writer's comments were, to my surprise, more discriptive than evaluative. He was quite fair to the public struggle between basic freedoms and gun control in American politics (as well as that at the cloak-and-daggar level). The opening page was, of course, a retelling of the brutal murders at Virginia Polytechnical Institute. With this, he then raised some important questions in a segue to the facts on civilian murders with fire-arms in the last 30 years, etc. At the end of the article, he nudged readers to re-evaluate their view of both sides of the aisle on the issue: Democrats and their short-lived vendetta against guns and hyper-sensative NRA members who react as if they were being completely disarmed each time someone even mentions the word gun. He then went on to make a not so subtle mockery of the Democrat's more recent exaltation of pro-gun candidates. Hardly atypical of a European writer.
What struck me most, though, was the persuasive force of the article without making an extreme, self-aggrandizing claim about gun control. I must say. Using the events in Blacksburg, VA as a springboard into his article was a rather engaging move. The oldest trick in the book: emotive appeal to raise crucial questions. In this case, however, he did not over-state what took place, nor did he have to. All he had to do was describe. Good. I hope we need no convincing. We must re-think gun politics. Documentaries such as 'Bowling for Columbine' and the like have previously created waves of activism, but politics based upon sensation tend to foster polarization rather than dialogue and tend also not to stick. The line between hyper-activism and fanaticism is blurry. I mean, who doesn't have a friend that was once a walking Michael Moore transcript? Mr. Moore and I agree that it's great to see people passionate about issues that effect both the greater populus and the margianalized. I just hope that the sensible doesn't get drowned in the sensational.
"Welcome, to the desert of the real," says Morpheus to newly-awoken friend Thomas Anderson in the film The Matrix. Anderson's skin is a blinding white hue, and all across his spine, head, and chest nodes arise out of his body, naked and exposed, to the surface. The nodes lead into his cranal cavity and central nervous system; they are signs of a world that once existed for Anderson, they are the result of a complex system of wiring and mechanical configuration which guided, perhaps even controlled, his brain waves and bodily functions since the moment of his birth. He has been used his entire life. The only value that Anderson took was proportionate to what he was able to produce for an energy-based, machine-lead infrastructure. "Why do my eyes hurt?" Anderson says as he attempts to focus his vision, distorted and blurred from decades of stasis. "Because you have never used them," is Morpheus' reply. "Because you have never used them."
You see, Mr. Anderson never before thought to question his life as a computer-hacking, 30 year-old teenager. Prior to this day, he was a testament to mediocre subsistance, and that presented no problems to the exent of his concern. Unknown to him, there was a rich stratum of meaning awaiting his moment of first wonder, a wealth pulsing with life that pre-dates his incarnation and will outlive him, although he will pass by it and be edept to enter into it. Anderson's story will be incorperated with that of this other world. His inclusion depends solely upon energy garnered from his own will's desire. The proper place for such a will can only be his soul, and that desire's bemouned destination, the other world. His new-found heart's desire leads him across the threshold of the now, into a reflective 'other' state, and back into the now with incredible perspective and insight. Mr. Anderson's mind is no longer under the guise of a mechanical, cyber-intelligence. He has discovered, by a friendly helping-hand, his own thoughts and autonomy. He is now able to take up his responsability as human person, Anderson embodies his own limited, interior state. He realizes that he is not, as the cyber-intelligence thinks befitting, a being for the proliferation of resources, but a being in and of himself. Freed from someone else's sick remedy for individual development, he can now live. "Welcome to the real world."
Not to scare you away. Those who have made it this far are brave. Stay with me here. I have been reflecting quite a bit the last couple of weeks, and much like Thomas Anderson, the position of man in this world, even in philosophical discourse intrigues me. Shall we share in a few thoughts? Good. Let's start with the simple notion that man is valuable. No one could refute this and be called a sane person. Everyone is here in agreement, all philosophies, all cultures, all religions. From Nietzsche to Ghandi, and back again. We all have an accord on this point. But, I ask, from where does this value come and in what does it consist? Because, this is the curcial point on which the axis of our contemporary world rotates. Is it, as so many people are like to say, an intrinsic value? That is, does man's worth exhibit itself in the sole fact that he is human person? That he loves, thinks, breathes, watches the sunset and sits in awe of it's beauty. Or, is it on the other hand, an inherent worth that comes about because of man's role in a greater scheme? I've been delving into philosophy for the last 5 years or so, and I've come to a place in my reflection, albeit perhaps humble and/or shallow, that many of the greater philosophies at work on planet earth today and in the past century threaten this notion of the intrinsic value of man:
Hegel's phenomenology of spirit envisions philosophy as a dialectical history that is, through different expressions of the human spirit, in a constant state of arriving at an answer. Man is thus an agent for bringing about the truth. Marx proposes that man takes on a dulled, deadened state when he is drawn by the necessity to survive. Work and fabrication are underlined in this philsophy. That is, man is judged by his part in the production of a worker's paradise, not in the mere fact that he is human. The various philosophies too in the background of modern science, e.g. logical positivism, image the value of man in some way as a result of his role as the discoverer of miniscule and unapparent realities, as the witness to a mathematically ordered world that shows no interest or meaning vis-á-vis person-based ethics. These philosophies are ultimately driven to master nature in an attempt to overcome it and reach toward perfection. But again, man is not worthy becuase he simply is. He is valuable in the event that he acts as aid in a cause. He has value according to what he does, what he produces, (inherent) not according to what he is (intrinsic). In Kant, too, the only intrinsic good is a good will willing. And, even though Kant is the last to speak of manipulation of person's towards an ideal end, humanity is again an agent of ethics, not a necessarily good being.
Case in point: The notion of inherent human value is widespread and commonplace today. This is a grave danger. Not only on a personal level with reguard to individual thought, etc. But, on a more ample scale. History shows that people easily become disposable and defaced if they are a cog in the wheel of a machine. It is worth it. The sacrifice is sufficient means to the ideal end. Am I saying that ideals are bad? Well, let's take into account that as Francis Schaeffer says "Ideas have legs" and to accompany his thought, ideals are a greater extent or degree of ideas, which can manipulate and gather people behind its lead. So, 'Ideals have bodyguards' should do. In addition, much of post-enlightenment culture today is urged by the notion that man is not enough as he is. He thus involves himself in the creation of a paridise. Nice things, surrounded by abundant beauty. A big house, gorgeous wife, luxury. What does one to to acquire this life? He must work and work and when he's finished work some more, providing that he hasn't old money. Man is much more than we make him out to be. We have become so wrapped-up in our own ends, that we never stop to find ourself on a passage through this life. We do not appreciate man for who he is, and thus we do not value him as person because we do not know man. Just take note of day-to-day life in modern, technological socities. We drive our cars constantly, we sit in front of computer screens, televisions, we sit on airplanes, we play video games, watch films, and heat our tv dinners up in the microwaves so we can keep going and don't waste time at the dinner table. All of this we take on at the expense of a glance in the eyes of the other. In this process, we have lost our sight and are at times unable to even see ourselves in the mirror. Coincidence? I think not.
Here we have it. Rejoice! Be glad! Today we celebrate the 50th post on this blog. What an appropriate find too. Here's a video fer ye.
We hear all about violent protests, hatred, attacks on other peoples, predjudice, suicide bombings, and xenophobia from pop media. There is no end to the amount of coverage that divisive people and events attract on a global scale. How often, however, do we even think to glance at the positive that may be taking place in our back yard, and even less seldom I imagine, how often to we think to support such occurances? I mean, who knew that interfaith meetings like this one between Muslims and Christians took place on easter?
Have I mentioned before that wikipedia.com is quite possibly the best thing ever? If not, then let it be known. I mean really. A great wealth of information is available today. The site isn't long-winded either. Most entries are managable and able to be read in a few minutes time. It makes me want to cry when I think that a wonderful resource like wikipedia is just sitting there, and not many use it. Where else can you read of Pope Benedict's statements about excessive work on a German TV station in August 2006, and then read Persian poetry all in the same fragment of an hour?
An Italian man claims that he was fed lies as a child. His Priest, says the man, brainwashed him with a fable, and he expects justice to be served.
"Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations." -George W. Bush, Nov. 2003.
Freedom. What a meaningful word! It opens up a wealth of significance for so many in the span of just two syllables. Free-dom. No word is used more often, I imagine, in the US political realm, and yet does our President know what he says when he makes such comments? Do we understand what he wants to tell us? Are we on the same page? It's not clear to me that we are. Does freedom lead us to allow for anything? Should we encourage human expression in any capacity? Let's say we take Bush out of the picture and explore the notion of creative freedom.
I've mentioned before my stance on human sensibilities. Everyone has a sore spot or two, just as everyone has prejudices which are liable to offend. This is a reality that we all must confess to be true at the risk of missing the boat to social progress. Where does that leave us with creative freedom? It is much easier for us to advocate freedom when it is we who do the offending than if the tables were to turn. Nevertheless, we cannot pick and choose when it comes to this basic freedom. As it turns out, one man's trash is another man's treasure. We should not, however, stoop to censorship if a man's treasure is trashed. Censorship does not achieve anything beyond the cultivation of fear and alienation. It is riddled with a lack of trust in society. If what Bush said on that fateful day has any weight, we ought to celebrate the human spirit. If you agree, are you prepared to face the results? One such consequence appears as follows: My Sweet Lord.
Ought the only governance of human expression be self-governance? Freedom. What a meaningful word indeed.
Not sure if anyone cares, but there has been a dispute over the Pope's newest encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, the sacrament of love, and its translations into the vernacular. Reginald Foster, the Pope's latinist, has told us that he is upset by the negligence of the English rendition of the text. He believes it to be a sign that not only is latin not being taught or understood properly within the church but of the way that the Vatican is run. "We would have been kicked out of the seminary for making such mistakes," he said, "and now they are being made all the way up in the highest ranks in official documents. Its nothing but carelessness."
The controversy is over the English rendering of the Latin "aequum est," as in, 'it is good/right/fitting/just/proper.' This phrase appears about in the statement "aequum est ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina," which is meant to be expressed in English 'it is fitting to say the liturgy in Latin at such events.' Instead, the English edition reads "such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin." The translation is not only mislead, it is incorrect.
For those interested in langauges, here are some other renderings:
The French reads: "il est bon que ces célébrations soient en langue latine."
The Italian translation says: "è bene che tali celebrazioni siano in lingua latina."
The German translation proposes: "Es ist gut, wenn außer den Lesungen, der Predigt und den Fürbitten der Gläubigen die Feier in lateinischer Sprache gehalten wird."
Anyhow, just a thought.
The St. Sicilia church choir planned a trip to Rome with the Papal audience. Fischer Johann, a second tenor, comes to the hairdresser.
"Can we keep it a bit shorter today than usual?"
"Ok, why though?"
"I am traveling in the coming week to Rome."
"What do you have ahead of you then in your time with the Italians?"
"Details said, our choir has an audience with the Pope."
"Come on, listen to me about this Vatican business. The Pope, the Vatican, Italy and nearly all involved, everything nowadays is going to..."
Three weeks pass, and Fischer Johann appears again at his hairdresser.
"Well, were you in the Vatican?"
"Well clearly."
"Did you see the Pope also?"
"Ya, that's why we went there."
"Well...and? Do tell. He, for instance, what did he say to you personally?"
"He said this much for sure. As I knelt before him, he placed his hand on my head and said: My son,... oh God, who does your hair?!"
Thanks: http://w.grocceni.com/pfarrer.html
0
comments
Labels:
Eggs Benedict
"NYC Valentine's Day Condom Distribution Draws Bishops' Ire
(RNS) New York City Catholic leaders are criticizing the city health department's Valentine's Day distribution of condoms, saying it degrades society."
Can someone tell me what this is supposed to mean? I, for one, don't get it. I don't understand the mainstream Catholic contraception-logic. Perhaps I'm due for an enlightenment of sorts. Don't get me wrong, that's not to say that I advocate abortion rites. We'll just say that. Instead, let's talk intercourse-related, preventative contraception for a moment. What, if anything, is degrading about the use of condoms for safe-sex purposes? Shall we examine the situation? When people's lives are being torn apart by HIV, other costly STD's, and pre-mature motherhood, one might think that we would make an effort to prevent tragedies such as this, you know, to treat human needs. With that said, there should be nothing degrading about passing out condoms and encouraging their use, and no one ought to feel shame.
Don't tell me that abstinance is the answer either. That's an even more short-sighted, moronic idea. Telling a young person to avoid exploring their sexuality is sort of like telling a fire not to burn. Sex is the most human thing in the world, and to expect human beings to stop (on Valentine's Day of all days) is not only highly mislead but a waste of time, energy, and breath. The guilt-ridden population of Catholic youth hangs in an awkward tension, i.e. the pro-abstinence stance coupled with the anti-contraception stance. I've heard the story plenty of times. People sleep with one another, as lovers are like to do, and one, the other, or both end up rejecting the application of even a single condom. The dilemma is an insoluable one, which has met the ruin of many young girl's (guys too, mostly girls though) lives.
The idea, too, of supporting contraception as a lesser evil is also mislead. The line of reasoning that says abstinance is the highest road, but we'll decide, since it is very difficult to achieve and in order that we might prevent the most damage, to settle on a condom campaign. The issue is not a calculation or a half-assed rationale of settling.
Some would object, then, saying that all forms of contraception which are not based around the woman's cycle are 'artificial,' so the use of such methods is unethical. While that sort of reasoning seems at first air-tight, we preform many other procedures in the medical world on a daily basis which are 'artificial,' e.g. surgery (tell me that slicing a person open is natural in the slightest) or medication, and do not even bat an eye. Thus, to claim that artificial is equivalent to unethical is just false.
I mean, let's get down to business here. Let's talk real issues. Most of Catholic sexual ethics is stuck in the 13th Century with Thomas Aquinas. It wouldn't take a Saint to tell you that things have changed in the past few centuries. For instance, we know now that masturbation is not murder, we know now that a woman's cycle does not imply that they are evil and have mysterious powers which we must control. We need new answers to this and many other problems. The answers we're getting are filled with nothing but the same old jargon, hidden behind different masks. I'm not sure what it might be worth, but my advice to Pastors, scholars, theologians, etc. who espouse this type of mentality. Step for a moment out of your library and into the world. See how effective you are at preaching according to Aquinas' understanding of sexuality and then observe human life, see the world with new eyes.
For those not convinced about the unintelligability of Aquinas on this issue, find out for yourself. Here's a prime example. This is an excerpt from a book that one of my Professors at the Gregorian wrote using Thomastic language and reasoning. Go ahead, see how much sense this makes to a person of the 21st century, to contemporary society, to a teenager. It's non-sensical dribble.
"The use of contraceptive methods is illicit because in voluntarily disjointing the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, it contradicts the intrinsic nature of human sexuality. Therefore every action which, either before or after the conjugal act, or in the development of its natural concequences, proposes itself as an aim or as a means, to impede precreation is illicit. The conjugal union has two dimensions unitive and procreative. To separate these two dimensions would mean to prejudge the intimate truth of sexuality. Responsible procreation consists precisely in assuming sexuality in all of its truth. It is in such a way that, before choosing whether to have or to overtake or to avoid conception, the couple will be able to decide whether to preform the conjugal act in the moments in which it is possible, or else a conception, without which this alters the objective truth of the act. Under this acception, it is not on the other hand responible to manipulate the conjugal act in a way that expresses the one psychologico-affective dimension and not the procreative dimension because the person is a unity, a totality."
-Ramon Lucas Lucas, Bioetica per tutti
Please, any thoughts are welcomed.
For those of you with theological/philosophical interests, here is a link which contains two lectures by the great Jürgen Moltmann. An old friend showed me the link yesterday (thanks Jack). His topic of interest is hope, judgement, and common spirits of our time with regard to both. Tim LaHaye he is not, but I think you might take pleasure in this old, crutchety German and his subtle manner of speaking. Enjoy.
I heard an awakening label applied to the people of my age-group just the other day. "We are," said this thoughtful person, "generation BOB." I wondered to myself for a nanosec and said, "What? Are there too many Roberts nick-named Bob?" She soon filled me in that our generation is being ever so affectionately called B.O.B., Battery Operated Buddy. My skin began to crawl. It sounds like the title of a B-movie, some sort of hack-and-slash thriller where the unsuspecting big-breasted bimbo gets it from her brother's newly unwrapped Christmas present. You can imagine the whole story. Truth, however, is sometimes stranger than fiction. A real-life version of Chucky this is not, but think, if only for a moment, the number of small devices that we own (cell phones, i-pods, day planners, etc.) the frequency at which we make use of them on a day-to-day, nay moment-to-moment basis. We check our phone for SMS and missed calls every ten minutes, or when we feel awkward in a social setting. Don't lie. You do it too. Its like our own little window into the safety of the beyond. Just take that in for a brief second, your skin will crawl at how fixed and even dependant we have become on our hand-helds. I would hasten to ask it, but do we not seek even comfort in these items as well? Do we desire their company as opposed to the world around us? and if so, where does that leave us? Because if I know more about a piece of machinery that fits into the palm of my hand than I do about the person next-door, then my friend was right about her BOB thesis, and human is no longer human, but machine.
Here's more on technological addiction.
I recently saw this article on the washington post site. Thought it was interesting. The premis is: No one goes to confession anymore, why? What, if anything, is acting in its place?
Sex is the most natural thing in the world. Are you shocked? Appalled? Really, it should come as no surprise. Man is driven by desire, he is an intentional, relational creature who is drawn to beauty, expression, and freedom. I don't care if you're an atheist or Mormon, if you believe in God or not. The human person is composed of a universal nature and a make-up which includes a pervasive sexual impulse. To boot, these urges are no self-creation, in the voluntary sense. Humans come into this world sexual beings and will one day leave this world as such. It was not until our recent prudish, Puritan-minded times that we actually have begun to supress these desires and even to be ashamed of them. Thanks to Freud, we now know that avoiding, ignoring, or even belittling our own sexuality can prove distructive to our well-being...And they say that 'sexual' people are the warped ones.
But how did we come to this? Why do we need a shrink to tell us it's ok to share our 'inmost' thoughts and feelings? We live in a time when people who are open about their sexuality are often shunned, especially by religious folks. There were vast periods in human history (even still today) when everyone slept in the same room, and parents did not think once of hiding their most intimate moments from their children. We grew up cognizant of sexual drives and activity.
You will look to no end in the greater animal kingdom and see that the rest of creation is 'doing it' as well. And the things is, the sex you'll find there is not necessarily just for procreation either. Dogs rape, dolphins rape, camels masterbate, some species of ape in Japan partake in regular homogenital activity. In fact, humans have no period of estrus, so we have sexual desires of one kind or another all year long. We are actually the king of the jungle when it comes to sexual capacities. So if you were to, in search of a scapegoat for the denegration of morals, point at another human being who is honest about their sexuality, just make sure to first take a peak underneath your own panties. You want to take a stand against sexuality? Be my guest. But as for me, I'm on nature's side.
Pope Benedict XVI, or as the Vatican Latanists call him Grandpa Joe, has had what we could safely call a timultuous rapport with the question of traditional and diverse expressions of religion (even within his own). Serving for many years as the 'Perfect' for the Council of the Doctrine of the Faith, he had the unfortunate but perhaps necessary task of keeping major theologians and Catholic idealogues on the train tracks of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Some claim that he has, as a result, silenced quite powerful voices, which could be those of prophets. All prophets were disputed by religious leaders in the Scriptures. What is to say that we could not still today be drowning folks with holy water? Others are of the position that his was an obligatory job, the point of which was to maintain unity in a wide-spread, global church. In any event, his time as cardinal was certainly a topic of contraversy and passion.
That was the former Cardinal Ratzinger. But now as Pope Benedict XVI, the man has tip-toed around, with his subtle theological finesse. His addresses, for the most part, are filled with poetic nuance and grace. For months, he flew below nearly everyone's radar. The media, buzz in Rome and around the Vatican, no one quite knew what to make of the man. Perhaps much of this dynamic was due to the massive shadow cast by his predecessor, John Paul II. And JPII he is not. While everyone seemed perplexed by Benedict, nearly all could agree on one thing: he is a darling man. Not many expected him to make great leaps in the world of interfaith dialogue, be it within Christian circles or interreligious dialogue, based on his past. He then surprised everyone with his encyclical 'Deus caritas est,' God is love. Nearly all were taken aback and shocked by the man's sincerity. Here we have a top-notch German theologian, who after a lifetime of reflection could say with all his heart that God is love. Prostestants and Catholics, clerity and lay folk alike were able to unite behind his message. It served as a virtual nexus of dialogue, providing a rich space in which many could share in their passion.
But this was not to be the only surprise that Benedict would reveal to us. His now famous address at The University of Regensberg in Germany took the church and the world by storm. It, unlike his encyclical, was a catalyst for polemic. The 'scope' of the address was to discuss, within an accademic setting, the history of relations betwee faith and reason. The only problem is that he wandered a bit from that scope in discussing another traditions 'mistaken view.' Not wishing to discuss Islam explicitly, he used a 14th century dialogue between a Muslim cleric and Greek Christian as a point of departure. Though the reference was specific to a time and place in the distant past, that is a diplomatic 'no, no' when it comes to religious leadership in today's world. Everyone has sensibilities, even those who do not take religion seriously, just as everyone has prejudices, even pussy-footing advocates of political correctness. We cannot pretend that this is untrue, because if anything that is the greatest enabler of social demons: pretending that social demons do not exist. The best way, and I could be wrong here, to go about dialogue that is open to other religious traditions is to first and formost take our own skeletons out of the closet. How about the Vatican cover-up in Poland reaching all the way up into church hierarchy as high as the Papal seat? How about the crusades? Not only those against others, but also those against our own people. We could mention the various cover-up scandals reguarding child-molestation or whatever problem that you wish.
Needless to say, many were enraged over the comments, harkening back to the contraversy about the cartoons in Holland this time last year. Those who work towards healthy interreligious relationships were overcome with a sense that there was no hope for our rapport with the Muslim world. There was a great stain left in people's minds, some thought it an indellible one. The Pope did, however, take a recent trip to Turkey. The stakes were high, as many feared for the worst: an assasination attempt. His advisors and Catholics around the world would rather that he had not gone. But the man would hear no such thing. He continued and spent some time traveling across Turkey, visiting with the masses and with religious leaders, even spending time in prayer at a mosque. A fragile, vulnerable old man at the age of 79 went fearlessly into the terrain of a people whom he had greatly offended. Though he released apologies, one right after the other, his trip in person to a predominantly Muslim country was a gesture that dwarfed any other he could muster.
Recently, February 1st, the Pope released a document to those involved in interreligious and multicultural work. Filled with hope and a clear, heart-felt vision for the importance of dialogue, the document shows that Benedict seems to have gone through a conversion of sorts. It calls for 'trust' and 'mutual respect' especially among the world's three major monotheistic religions. He calls for all Christian, the world over, to honor each other in brotherhood. Here is the letter if you are interested. What a challenge to us all.
Franz Kafka was an austrian writer who lived at the turn of the 20th century. Many of his stories touch on various existential themes ranging from religion and the nature of suffering to human freedom and psychology. He's a kind of Austrian Dovstoyevsky. I recently came upon the following short story and thought I might share with those interested.
A Fratricide
THE EVIDENCE shows that this is how the murder was committed:
Schmar, the murderer, took up his post about nine o'clock one night in clear moonlight by the corner where Wese, his victim, had to turn from the street where his office was into the street he lived in.
The night air was shivering cold. Yet Schmar was wearing only a thin blue suit; the jacket was unbuttoned, too. He felt no cold; besides, he was moving about all the time. His weapon, half a bayonet and half a kitchen knife, he kept firmly in his grasp, quite naked. He looked at the knife against the light of the moon; the blade glittered; not enough for Schmar; he struck it against the bricks of the pavement till the sparks flew; regretted that, perhaps; and to repair the damage drew it like a violin bow across his boot sole while he bent forward, standing on one leg, and listened both to the whetting of the knife on his boot and for any sound out of the fateful side street.
Why did Pallas, the private citizen who was watching it all from his window near by in the second story, permit it to happen? Unriddle the mysteries of human nature! With his collar turned up, his dressing gown girt round his portly body, he stood looking down, shaking his head.
And five houses farther along, on the opposite side of the street, Mrs. Wese, with a fox-fur coat over her nightgown, peered out to look for her husband who was lingering unusually late tonight.
At last there rang out the sound of the doorbell before Wese's office, too loud for a doorbell, right over the town and up to heaven, and Wese, the industrious nightworker, issued from the building, still invisible in that street, only heralded by the sound of the bell; at once the pavement registered his quiet footsteps.
Pallas bent far forward; he dared not miss anything. Mrs. Wese, reassured by the bell, shut her window with a clatter. But Schmar knelt down; since he had no other parts of his body bare, he pressed only his face and his hands against the pavement; where everything else was freezing, Schmar was glowing hot.
At the very corner dividing the two streets Wese paused; only his walking stick came round into the other street to support him. A sudden whim. The night sky invited him, with its dark blue and its gold. Unknowing, he gazed up at it, unknowing he lifted his hat and stroked his hair; nothing up there drew together in a pattern to interpret the immediate future for him; everything stayed in its senseless, inscrutable place. In itself it was a highly reasonable action that Wese should walk on, but he walked on to Schmar's knife.
"2!" shrieked Schmar, standing on tiptoe, his arm outstretched, the knife sharply lowered, "Wese!
You will never see Julia again!" And right into the throat and left into the throat and a third time deep into the belly stabbed Schmar's knife. Water rats, slit open, give out such a sound as came from Wese.
"Done," said Schmar, and pitched the knife, now superfluous blood-stained ballast, against the nearest house front. "The bliss of murder! The relief, the soaring ecstasy from the shedding of another's blood! Wese, old nightbird, friend, alehouse crony, you are oozing away into the dark earth below the street. Why aren't you simply a bladder of blood so that I could stamp on you and make you vanish into nothingness? Not all we want comes true, not all the dreams that blossomed have borne fruit; your solid remains lie here, already indifferent to every kick. What's the good of the dumb question you are asking?"
Pallas, choking on the poison in his body, stood at the double-leafed door of his house as it flew open. "Schmay! Schmar! I saw it all, I missed nothing." Pallas and Schmar scrutinized each other. The result of the scrutiny satisfied Pallas; Schmar came to no conclusion.
Mrs. Wese, with a crowd of people on either side, came rushing up, her face grown quite old with the shock. Her fur coat swung open, she collapsed on top of Wese; the nightgowned body belonged to Wese, the fur coat spreading over the couple like the smooth turf of a grave belonged to the crowd.
Schmar, fighting down with difficulty the last of his nausea, pressed his mouth against the shoulder of the policeman who, stepping lightly, led him away.
In the beginning there was paperwork. Sarah Melody Church, a recent applicant at the coorprate offices in heaven, is new in town. She has just died of lukemia, and is a little shy as she joins the team at God, Inc. Nevermind though, because Sparky soon gives her an encouraging tour.
God, Inc. is a short, dry humoured episodic series teeming with surprises, which is set in the offices of God him(or her)self. God, Inc. - Episode One
The Pope dies and comes to the gates of heaven. Peter greets him and asks his name. "I'm the Pope" - "Pope ... eh... Pope" murmurs Peter. "I'm sorry, I have no one by this name in my book." - "But ... I'm God's representative on earth." - "God has a representative on earth?" says Peter befuddled. "Well, he told me nothing of it ..." The Pope began to get a bit crabby. "I'm the head of the Catholic Church!" - "Catholic Church ... never heard of it," Peter says. "But wait a sec, I'll ask the boss." So Peter goes upstairs to the main floor of heaven and into God's quarters. "Hey there's someone here who says he's your representative on earth. His name is Pope. What should I say to him?" - "Nope," says God, "I don't know him, don't know anything of it. But wait a sec, I'll ask Jesus. Jeeeesus!" Jesus comes running. "Yes Father, what is it?" God and Peter explain to him the situation. "Wait a tick," says Jesus "I'll go have a look. Be back in two shakes." Ten minutes later he comes back, laughing himself to tears. "I don't get it," God says.
"Do you remember that small fishing club I founded about 2000 years ago? Well, it's still going on."
Thanks: http://www.oleoleole.de/blogg/?p=909
2
comments
Labels:
Eggs Benedict
You should all drop what you are doing and look into the life and music of Mozart. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born January 25th 1756 in Austria, was an extraordinary, young musician and composer by the age that the rest of us were starting our abc's. I'm not sure if you've tried composing symphonies, but you can rest assured: it's not as easy as one-two-three. My passion for the music of Mozart has grown from owning a single cassette-tape for the basic purpose of a little study ambience to a collection of sonatas, symphonies, Christmas instrumental pieces, operatic works, inter altros. I recently attended a concert at the Konzerthaus in Berlin, Germany. That night, the 12 or so piece orchestra astounded us with their own beautiful renditions of Christmas music from the time of Mozart. Last year, a friend of me and I were fortunate enough to view a showing of Don Giovanni, Mozart's opera of dastardly womanizing, unabashed unfaithfulness, love and self-discovery. I recommend all of Mozart to every curious soul and vagabond music-lover.