iwoulddrown's Xanga

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:27:37 GMT

I think this is why the attitude behind much of Modern Art (and a good portion of the art itself) is terrible:

Imagination is a thing of clear images, and the more a thing becomes vague the less imaginative it is. Similarly, the more a thing becomes wild and lawless the less imaginative it is. To cook a cutlet in a really new way would be an act of imagination. But there is nothing imaginative about eating a cutlet at the end of a string, or eating it at the top of a tree, or catching it in one’s mouth, or consuming it while standing on one leg. Nonsense of this sort is not imaginative for the simple reason that it is infinite.
-- G. K. Chesterton

Even if you don't like the Patriots ...

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:39:35 GMT

you have to admit that this article from The Onion is hilarious.

My Celebrity Look-alikes

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:38:53 GMT


	My cool celebrity look-alike collage from MyHeritage.com. Get one for yourself.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:37:16 GMT

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:20:49 GMT

"What can people mean when they say that science has disturbed their view of sin? What sort of view of sin can they have had before science disturbed it? Did they think that it was something to eat? When people say that science has disturbed their faith in immortality, what do they mean? Did they think that immortality was a gas? ... The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything. But why our human lot is made any more hopeless because we know the names of all the worms who eat him, or the names of all the parts of him that they eat, is to a thoughtful mind somewhat difficult to discover."

- G. K. Chesterton

fierce varieties of men

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:44:45 GMT

"The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us. Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is a narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment, like that which exists in hell."

- G. K. Chesterton, 'Heretics'

One of the greatest dangers in Christianity today is pragmatism

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:16:26 GMT

Whenever I read something by Jim Wallis I can't help but feel that much of what he does is simply a matter of capitalizing on people's frustrations with certain branches of fundamentalist Christianity (what Wallis very broadly and imprecisely calls the "religious right") rather than attempting to truly pierce through misconceptions about politics and Christianity.

Indeed, it is one of the easiest things in the world to criticize this ill-defined group of people. I could do it blithering drunk or in my sleep. I've met countless believers in the past who, I am ashamed to say, I mocked easily and arrogantly in some manner because they were against rock music, sex, J. K. Rowling, or ale. It's all very easy, in large part because the surrounding culture does the same thing.

What is much more difficult however is arguing against abortion and homosexuality in light of a surrounding culture that generally frowns on anyone opposing these things. Christians, unfortunately, are beginning to leave the ranks of these causes in droves, and we have Wallis, at least in part, to thank for this.

After pointing out that Christianity is about much more than simply opposing abortion and homosexuality, Wallis-types state that being pro-life means caring "that global warming and quality daycare and an increased minimum wage are pro-life issues too" (see Russell D. Moore's article in Touchstone). On the political front this takes the form of the vague assertion that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat." But we should be very wary when we hear someone say this, for they are making some grand assumptions.

When someone supports a Republican candidate, at what point are they doing it because they think God is a Republican? Some individuals may lean in that direction in light of their loyalty to a certain party, but given a brief moments reflection they'll claim nothing of the sort. Of course God isn't married to a political party. Of course the Bible is much more than what any one individual makes of it.

Such statements are boorish catchphrases; intellectual drivel; mere straw men. The reason I happen to support a specific Republican candidate instead of a Democrat is because it just so happens that the Republican isn't a Godless prat who sees the redemption of mankind in a progressively more bloated and impersonal federal government. For someone to feel the need to remind you that God doesn't adhere to a political party is an intellectual punch in the gut. They are insulting you.

Ironically, Wallis' approach to politics, while feigning a superseding of political barriers, actually bows to them. He attempts to address abortion issues by, as Moore points out, advising "pro-abortion politicians how to "neutralize" the life issue among religious voters" which has the effect of endorsing the sin through silence. Perhaps Wallis simply feels that if we take an absolute stand on abortion we will be unable to do much else in the political world since fewer and fewer people care about such a divisive issue. This is most certainly not true, but even if it were then shame on liberals for attempting to force such a split, shame on Wallis for being unwilling to make liberals face it head on, and shame on us for not pointing this all out for what it is.

Whether they are aware of it or not, the philosophy driving Wallisite thought is pragmatism. Take for example the writings of one, the Reverend Donna Schaper, as referenced in Moore's article. She willingly admits that she aborted her baby last year, not because she thinks it is morally ok (she admits it's a form of murder), but because it was best for her family. She had the gall to liken it to a soldier fighting in a war: "they choose violence because, while they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives." Schaper’s conspicuous failure to distinguish between cruel dictators and helpless unborn children is appalling. Her concern with peace and justice has nothing to do with morality, but with practicality, and it stinks.

Conservative Christians are not narrowly focused on only a couple social issues. Quite the contrary, they believe first of all that any attempt at social justice must be founded in a Biblical morality, not a subjective practical ethic. And furthermore that social issues that can be handled on the local level should be handled on the local level. To do otherwise is impersonal, inhuman, and irresponsible. But the morality of the best liberals and Wallisites is simply another form of the tired philosophy of Pragmatism, a philosophical theory that has one of the worst track records of all. Wallis and his ilk would do well to ponder that.

Toward a Free and Virtuous Society

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:19:51 GMT

Part of the reason why I'm attending the Acton conference in August:

"... Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

"By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care."

- On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum (Centesimus annus) - Pope John Paul II

-----------

My fiance is amazing by the way. I've somehow snagged the best.
Philippians 4

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:42:40 GMT

A man has control over many things in his life; he has control over enough things to be the hero of a novel. But if he had control over everything, there would be so much hero that there would be no novel. And the reason why the lives of the rich are at bottom so tame and uneventful is simply that they can choose the events. They are dull because they are omnipotent. They fail to feel adventures because they can make the adventures. The thing which keeps life romantic and full of fiery possibilities is the existence of these great plain limitations which force all of us to meet the things we do not like or do not expect. It is vain for the supercilious moderns to talk of being in uncongenial surroundings. To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance… They think that if a man makes a gesture it would be a startling and romantic matter that the sun should fall from the sky. But the startling and romantic thing about the sun is that it does not fall from the sky. They are seeking under every shape and form a world where there are no limitations --- that is, a world where there are no outlines; that is, a world where there are no shapes. There is nothing baser than that infinity. They say they wish to be as strong as the universe, but they really wish the whole universe as weak as themselves.

- G. K. Chesterton (Heretics, 1905)

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Thu, 10 May 2007 16:09:18 GMT

Sooo ... for those of you who don't know, I'm now engaged!

After a lot of begging and pleading and hoping she finally said "well, alright." No no, she was crazy excited (as am I). We'll have a wedding site for all y'all to go to soon, with regular updates and free iPods (not applicable to helio-centric believers).

Seriously though, April is the most wonderful girl I've ever met and I can't even begin to say how excited I am. I really don't deserve her, but she loves me anyway. We're looking at a late December wedding. For a picture of the ring check out my fiancee's xanga.

Cheers!