Movin' on Up

It has come to my attention that very few, if any, people still seriously maintain blogs on Xanga. The posts of substance beyond a quiz or a "my day sucked" entries become fewer and farther between. With the exception of a few people--you know who you are--I don't find myself reading blogs and responding to them. I realize that alot of this is due to the nature of Xanga--it was envisioned as a social networking site via the medium of blogging. It was meant to be MySpace before MySpace, except better, because it encouraged people to think and then write about it. But ultimately, MySpace has won out and everybody who has a Xanga (or had a Xanga) now has a MySpace as their social networking medium.

To that end, I will no longer be updating the blog here at Xanga. I know, it's sad, because I'm an incredible writer and thinker and my posts are so enjoyable </sarcasm>. However, I originally opened the Xanga as a way to spew some less-than-deep teenage stuff (and every once in a while I still use it for that). Now, though, the vast majority of my blogs are meant to be thoughtful, thought-provoking or at the very least more serious than my complaints about high school life. Even the way I explore the Internet and the information I purposefully consume has changed, as can be evidenced by my last post and the contents of "currently reading" footnotes.

Most people who blog seriously, even with the flash of sarcasm that is common from me, use blogging engines like Blogger, TypePad, WordPress or Powerblogs. A large part of this is elitism (after all, Xanga isn't a credible blogging sphere, right?) and a smaller part is that they blog for the sake of blogging, not for the sake of maintaining a social networking page. For social networking, I have MySpace...the only function Xanga serves is as a blog, and, frankly, being on Xanga only garners exposure from relative few plus my subscribers. With that in mind, I am moving my blog to Blogger and it will be available here.

To those who enjoy a subscription to this Xanga: I'm sorry that you will no longer be able to read my thoughts on demand. I just seek to quite literally broaden my horizons by contributing regularly to what amounts to a socially credible blog, as I already comment regularly on several others and hope that people might do the same for me. After all, steel sharpens steel. If you have a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 7, Firefox, Opera) or a plug-in that supports Atom or RSS feeds for Internet Explorer 6 and earlier, you can subscribe to the new blog as well.

Despite discontinuing my blogging activity, I will still be active in keeping up on your blog posts and even, from time to time, commenting on them with my Xanga account. So I'm not disappearing from the Xanga scene completely.

Cheap Shots #1

The Shorter Ramblings

I have decided to start keeping a semi-regular series on the things that I'd love to blog about but either don't have the time for or feel that another blogs treatment will do it better justice anyway. The issues in these "cheap shots" (cheaper because they're shorter, and because I'll do my best to entertain you by injecting my sarcasm into it) are linked to in the form I first encountered them--whether in a blog or an actual news article or (in some cases) because everyone knows about them.

• Stand to Reason's got a post on Ob/Gyn's in the UK arguing for infanticide. Literally. The short of it: if it ain't speakin', stop freakin'. We'll handle the messy work.
• Some ID advocates over at Intelligent Design the Future have once again shot some holes in evolutionary theory and defended the philosophy of science behind ID. All the ID-ists need now: less talking, more science.
• Logos wants you to learn Ugaritic. No, seriously. The good, the bad, the ugly: put some cultural context to better understand the Word of God, put some more cash into a coporation's pockets, give some more ammo to cultural evolutionists.
• It's a bit late, but I do have some Halloween spirit: Johnny-Dee finds a guy who claims vampires don't exist. The short version: all of us who believed in vamps yesterday are totally convinced otherwise after this mind-boggling mathematical formula.
• Crux Project reports on some tragic irony in the U.K. Apparently, it's all good when you kill an unborn child, but then you gots to give them a proper funeral. All you need to know: fetus coffin-hucksters will soon be opening up next to your local Planned Parenthood office.
• Democrats take Congress. The proof is in the pudding: having no coherent worldview or plan is more desirable than having a failed plan with an arrogant worldview.
• Some (God)Men in Texas seem to think being a Christian male involves tacky concert lighting and much ensuing comedy. Conclusion: Oh, how we miss The Daily Show's "GodStuff".
• Newsweek is at it again, pigeonholing Chrisitanity and Christ into political viewpoints. What to expect: Jesus for President in '08; Republicans tremble in fear, and Democrats insist He doesn't exist.
• Five billion people are suffering from mass delusion. Richard Dawkins says so. Too bad he can't defend it. The moral of the story: God may or may not exist, but when arguing about it, stick to your specialties.
  
  Shortly after this cheap shot was aired, a bolt of lightning flashed outside. The second moral of the story: correction--God really does exist.
• Jon Stewart calls evangelicals  "gay-hating" because they're opposed to same-sex marriage.
  
  Segue into me ranting for a second: I love The Daily Show, from back when Craig Kilborn was hosting it up through the present. But for the last year or so, Stewart has become so overtly political that it really rubs me the wrong way every once in a while. Like this episode clip I linked to. A note to everyone out there: TJB, RT, CH--these are the initials of three people. Guess what. They are gay. (I chose just these three because, whereas I know other LGBTQ people, I consider these three friends.)  They're an awesome three people with dynamic personalities and great senses of humor. But does that mean I approve of they're active choice to be actively gay? No, of course not. And these three know this. To Jon Stewart--fantastic comedian and ("fake") reporter that you are, I highly recommend that you stop throwing around rhetoric labels. If you're gonna bash Republicans for labeling all Dems "Cut-and-Runners" (and by all means, bash them hardily for it), then swallow the same pill and recognize that you can't label people opposed to a certain political issue as oppressive/hate-mongers/insert-negative-aphorism-here simply because they disagree with your (arrogant) view.
  
  Ahem, the punchline: The Colbert Report now tops The Daily Show in ratings. Watch another recitation of the Nicene Creed.
• Google buys YouTube, Becomes God. (I originally picked this up in ye ol' Door, but putting you straight to the site seemed better.) The divine simplicity: yeah, it's run by an atheist.

Cheap Shots will be an ongoing series. I still owe you a defense of the original Star Wars trilogy from last time.

Currently Reading The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy By Colleen Carroll see related

Defending the Galaxy Far, Far Away... part 1

I was making the rounds on the philosophy/religion blog circuit last night and came across several interesting posts. For some reason, looking to comment on IrContent by Doug Beaumont, I could not log in to Blogger (with my Google account), so I sought out other means of contacting him through his webpage, which ended up bringing me to some movie reviews he had written.

Admittedly, his movie reviews are not comprehensive evaluations of the quality of the film-making, the acting, the script, et cetera, but rather a rating system based on the message the film conveys via its in-story worldview and how well such "preaching" is executed. Its score, therefore, is based mostly upon how much the movie is in agreement with Christianity and/or solid, rational philosophy. But all the same, I had to jump in protest when he maligned the greatest series of movies ever made. Yeah, that's right, Star Wars. Not counting Episode I. He can bash that crappy piece of cinema all he wants.

While Beaumont is content to slam moviegoers and our current culture with not being able to spot the obvious logical fallacy in statements like "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" (in the words of Beaumont: "Really? Is that absolutely true?"), he doesn't seem to swallow the same pill and look a bit deeper or look at what Bible scholars would call "parallel texts," instances of the same event or expressed ideology in other parts of the Canon. In the Star Wars universe, such exposition is deep and woven throughout the story. Like the Bible, you can quote millions of different instances as "proof texts" while missing the big picture, leading to horrendous theology.

While I submit to the general view that both the original and prequel trilogies (or, as Star Wars geeks call 'em, the OT and NT--old trilogy and new trilogy, which is a parallel to Old and New Testament) are Western archetype stories with an Eastern worldview, this doesn't necessarily lead to such terrible things that Beaumont sees as he reads between the lines. For example, putting the above-mentioned quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi regarding absolutes into context, during the ensuing lightsaber battle with his former apprentice Anakin Skywalker-turned-Darth Vader, he states "The Sith are evil, Anakin. Can't you see that?" As Anakin responds that he views the Jedi as evil, Obi-Wan quips in a defeated, angry voice "Then you are lost!" Such a statement indicates that evil and good aren't nearly so relativistic as Beaumont seems to think Star Wars suggests, but more accurately that Obi-Wan's statement regarding absolutes was in response to Anakin saying "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." This is clearly not true. A disagreement regarding how the Galaxy ought to be run does not insinuate sides of moral realities, but political ideologies, which can be overcome for the betterment of such a Galaxy.

On top of this, Beaumont criticizes the Jedi for such sage wisdom as "fear of loss is the same as greed." This is most certainly true. While it is not a bad thing to have, it is unhealthy to fear lack. Fear leads to building up security, and the primary way to do this is, especially in a material realm such as our own, to have more of whatever it is you are afraid of losing. As you gain more, you start to have what's called a "hoard" and seeking out only your security leads to trampling over others. This is what we call greed. It is not at all beneficial. I think Beaumont equates a desire to maintain stability with a fear of losing such stability, which is categorically false; I do not want to lose my Star Wars movies, but I will live just fine without them, and I do not particularly fear losing them nor my extensive collection.

And it keeps getting worse! Somehow the reviewer thinks Anakin's only two options for worldviews in the Star Wars universe were either "stop caring about Padme and let her die" or "use the Sith ways to attempt to save her." Come now; how many times does Padme suggest asking Obi-Wan and the Jedi for help? Three times in Episode III. Or how about looking at the fact that Anakin seeking to save his wife is what ultimately leads to her death? Or the notion that, perhaps, if he had simply renounced ties to the Jedi and the Force, he could go off and live a normal life? Anakin had a myriad of choices, just as we do. The only problem is that he doesn't see them. It is perfectly practical for a Jedi to love. Indeed, in Episode II, Anakin says, "...compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life. So you might say we are encouraged to love." The thing Beaumont doesn't see is the problem with attachment. When you are attached to something, rather than accepting that some things may occur, it leads to fear, which leads to anger, which leads to hate, which leads to suffering. It is perfectly plausible to deeply love someone without being attached to them. You can desire them, but as soon as you start needing them, it's called a problem. As Christians, we are told to marry "for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Reading the grammatical construction here, we can see that this "burn[ing] with passion" is equivalent to desiring the other person. However, we are also told that all we need and ought to focus on is Christ and Him crucified for our salvation. It is good for a man not to marry, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for a man to marry: just don't marry out of need, because it's unhealthy.

Stay tuned for a defense of the original trilogy next time...

Anarchism!? Anarchism!? Well, okay, yeah. Sure. Believe it or not, anarchism is not the complete absence of authority. It's the absence of a centralized state. The premise of political anarchists is that individuals clump with likeminded people to form communes wherein the rules of the society are agreed upon and thus it is set. Meanwhile, 5 miles up the road is a separate commune, with separate rules, and between these two communes is a "live and let live" agreement.

I don't think anarchism is a realistically viable political option, but I do believe that people have the free will to submit to a moral code, even if it's the wrong one, and that we ought not to legislate morality. I guess that makes me an anarchist. Of course, there's multiple catches in this, such as: if not legislate morality, what do we say to the man who takes supreme pleasure in murder? Certainly if he arises from a commune where he knows the rules, he comprehends that murder is against the rules, but does he realize it is morally reprehensible? That morality is something beyond a simple human construct?

Ultimately, I think politics cannot help but be tied to morality, and frankly, I'm a Platonist. The few, the wise, the judicious ought to rule: Philosopher-Kings, baby.

That is all.

Currently Reading On Free Choice of the Will By Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine, Thomas Williams, Augustine see related

Ah, but which one? Sense and Sensibility (doubtful), Great Expectations (plausible), 1984 (could be), Brave New World (certainly my favorite, but no dice), Heart of Darkness (great imagery!), some Shakespeare play (which isn't really a novel), an Ayn Rand book (forswear it, sense!), Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (egotistical, am I?), Catch-22 (overrated), Slaughterhouse-Five (trippy), Lolita (too young), Catcher in the Rye (flippin' sweet, but I'm not crazy yet), A Farewell to Arms (meaningless), The Call of the Wild (reminds me of a Buffy episode...), Frankenstein (Golem?), Dracula (the original pulp Vampire mythos)...which one? There are many more, of course...

Then again, it tied with college textbook. What subject do I teach?

Currently Reading The Everlasting Man By G. K. Chesterton see related