Is everything? v1.3

I've decided that I'm going to reduce the scope of my claims. For now.

At this point I'm willing to assert that:

Everything has both existence and significance. When people confuse one for the other, or only see one of the two aspects of an entity, thinking becomes unclear.

In this schema, the 'existence' is what you might call the absolute aspect, while the significance is the relative aspect. As such, I'm trying to assert that both Arthur and Nathan are correct, and both incorrect. I think.

Less ambitious, and yet, perhaps still controversial?

I think I'm...

slowly becoming an adult, like Mark Driscoll is.

It's scary, though not in a "I'm being forced to read a Joyce Meyer book" kind of way.

Is everything? v1.2

Ok, so let's move away from ethics, which is not really the arena in which I want to develop this thought, but rather in the arena of ontology.

So, we have a vase. It is sitting on a table. Its existence and location is absolute. Yet, its significance is relative. Is it a Ming dynasty vase, or a cheap copy? The difference between the physical virtues of the two is negligible, but the significance is not.

Is the table able to take its weight? The significance of the objective existence of the book is entirely relative.

Or, perhaps, you could take words. A word on a page is a bunch of particles that absorb more light than the more reflective particles against which it is set. It's just ink blobs on a page. The significance of that word is, however, entirely contingent on whether there is a person standing and looking at it, whether they can speak the language and whether or not they know that the word is Bruce Winter's photocopy code.

On a note I think Arthur will like, I think that this type of thinking affirms the inherent, absolute value of things while acknowledging that all things occur within the context of a relational context created by God. I'm not sure that Platonism does justice to this, while Joyce Meyer gets closer to the Mark.

A little too much, perhaps?

I was at college today, when I overheard a discussion regarding an unnamed theological college student (not at QTC) who had what he thought to be a more culturally relevant translation of Genesis 2:23.

It involved an elegantly subtle translation of "zoth hapa'am" (loosely transliterated) which he rendered "Phwoooaar!!!".

This piece of brilliance was followed by a masterful work of literary art, using wordplay drawn from current Western parlance, substituting the word 'boner' for 'bone'. Sadly, I wasn't able to hear the rest of this 'translation' and so am unable to reproduce it accurately here.

Despite the obvious maturity of this scholarship one could, perhaps, accuse the student in question of having an over-realised sexchatology. I keenly await the publication of this forthcoming translation.

It's very difficult to comprehend

I find researching assignments can be really hard. One reason is that when I'm reading a book, instead of really thinking through the author's point of view, I'm spending about 30% brain power on working out whether or not this particular book is worth reading for the assignment or is a waste of time. Especially for Joyce Meyer books. This means that my actual comprehension of the book is lowered significantly, and thus my speed in finishing the chapter. Ala Mark Driscoll when he hits a hobby horse in his sermons.

Any tips on this sort of thing? Or should my research gathering techniques just be better?

Tumbleweed...

Far out. What a boring place to be. Even I get here and think how boring it is that nothing's changed since I was last here.

Rest assured, normal service will resume soon.

A tale of two Heads of the Church

From the 2nd Vatican Council. (summarised, with comment)

Sin must be expiated.

This must be done on this earth by sorrows, pains, works, prayers, etc.

Otherwise, many years of painful 'cleansing' in purgatory is necessary.

The concept of indulgences, which reduces time in purgatory, has come down by divine revelation. (This means secret apostolic traditions known only to the papacy. They just didn't tell anyone else for a thousand or more years.)

Even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment or consequence for it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. (And so Jesus didn't do enough by dying, we still have to pay.)

Whereas Jesus:

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

...and his disciples said:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Oh the sweetness of Scripture.