random · musings

Is anyone aware of sources which explicitly treat ancient interpretations of myths, beyond Euhemerus?

Your Result

You are Statler or Waldorf.
You have a high opinion of yourself, as do others. But only because you are in the balcony seats.
ALSO KNOWN AS:
Those two old guys in the box.
SPECIAL TALENTS:
Heckling, complaining, being cantankerous
QUOTE:
"Get off the stage, you bum!"
LAST BOOKS READ:
"The Art of Insult" and "How To Insult Art"
NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT:
Their pacemakers.

Yay! I love Statler and Waldorf.  Almost as cool as Sam the Eagle.

The following are quite thought provoking:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/index.html

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

http://www.yourmorals.org/

While there is much which requires thought, there are a few groundpoints which I find objectionable in all three links: 1) the assumption of evolutionary explanations; 2) the assumption that conservatism is inherently based on fear-mongering.  This is not the place to discuss the first, but the second can easily be dealt with.  Yes, far right becomes totalitarianism, and often feeds its aims through fear-mongering.  Does this mean anyone with conservative views is afraid?  Only if the far-left's tendency to totalitarianism means that all liberals are elitist.

I'm still working through the moral testing website, which has some interesting things requiring further thought; a first reaction, however, is that the 5-loci view of morality is slightly skewed.  Most of the question I was asked left me asking "In what context?"  What about issues of love and moderation?

I've been contemplating various schemes for raising cash, but everything is either daft, inane, or glorified fantasy.  I've even toyed with the idea of putting a donation button on my film company website!  (But that, of course, would require the ability to edit said website...)

Oh, to belong to the leisured aristocracy of old...

 I am no ecclesiologist, but the recent Lambeth Conference has spurred some thoughts on that matter, at least in the context of the Anglican Communion.  I have only briefly perused some of the Lambeth materials, but a few points stuck me as important.  They may not be new nor ground-breaking, but I think are different from the way I have tended to view the issues.

The focus of all Christian unity is, ultimate, Christ.  It is not strictly speaking creed or postulates, but the common relationship with Christ.  This means that, for all the importance of theological discussion and understanding, it is a potentially misleading ground for unity. 

For a commitment to truth to be genuine, it must be a commitment to the continual seeking of truth.  This is not to mean a post-modern denial of truth or possibility of truth, but rather a humble acknowledgement of one's own limited understanding.  It is a willingness to both offer and receive insights.  Humility seems to be the key to avoid truth-commitments becoming blinders and untruth as well as the key to avoiding absolute relativism in that pursuit.

A Bishop is a pastor: the bishop's role is primarily an ecclesiastical and pastoral job, not one of theology per se.  Perhaps this is obvious, but the concept only dawmed on me when reading the ABC's reflections on the differences between writing as a theologian and writing as the Archbishop.  A theologian's job is to explore, and invite others to explore, the truth of the bible and how it applies to us.  A bishop's job is to help point all Christians to Christ and help them to grow.  Certainly the two jobs are closely related, but while a theologian has the job, the privilege, or the duty to challenge the traditions from within, the bishop's task is help his flock to grow.  How then should the two relate?

It will be interesting to see how the Anglican Communion evolves over the next few years, to see what ecclesiastical methods and organizations are created to foster unity and structure: how the needs of both unity and diversity are balanced, and how underlying issues of principles are addressed. In the meantime, though, I appreciate the reminder that mutual commitment to Christ ought to produce a humility and mutual love that is stronger than doctrinal documents, that is self-critical.  Perhaps it is a reminder that the ecumenical project begins not only 'at home' in each denomination, but even 'closer to home' within myself.

It is good to see the church in a lively debate about hermeneutics.  Considering the implicit importance it has on all aspects of Christianity, it should hold a very central place in our theological consciousness.  Below is a link to a Hermeneutics quiz.  While some of the questions' phrasing is a bit difficult or dissatisfying, it seems to cover a nice, broad range of issues if nothing else.  

http://buildingchurchleaders.com/quiz/?id=TCTOC

I came out at a "68", which is just barely on the scale they call "Progressive". (versus Moderate and Conservative).

I found this result somewhat surprising: (results from quiz at http://www.okcupid.com/politics)

Your true political self:

You are a Social Liberal (65% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (36% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (56, -50) modscore: (22, 39) raw: (2636)

I'd consider myself more libertarian, but they stuck me in their graph as a (fairly solidly) democrat.  hmmm. I wonder if it was my support of funding for the arts which pushed me farther left in their view?  I suppose I even admit myself that libertarianism is more of an ideal than a practical approach, but I've fairly rarely voted for Democrats... I suppose I shouldn't read too much into an online poll (who decided these things anyway?) but it seems sort of shocking I'd be lumped with Hillary Clinton over Thomas Jefferson.

But, while i'm proscratinating with reliable quizzes, the following, at least, was gratifying (and the name, anyway, relevant!): (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926)

The Expatriate Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 36% antitolerant, and 33% blindly patriotic

Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you had been German in the 30s, you would've left the country. One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time -- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil shit was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is very possible you could have been one of them. Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would not have been a Nazi.

What Kind of Coffee Are You?