gdp's Comments

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : The Supremes rule on "bad words" on TV

Fri, 1 May 2009 15:50:04 +0000

And even in my own post I see that I have spelled out "damn" but not "the f-word." Similar to the "G-d" construction.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : The Supremes rule on "bad words" on TV

Fri, 1 May 2009 15:41:41 +0000

It is telling that the court is aiming at obscenity and vulgarity but not profanity. I have far more tolerance for vulgarity (references to bodily functions, etc.) than profanity (vain naming, invocations of divine wrath). As the word vulgar implies, objections to vulgarity were once driven by class-based aversions to the low, filthy lives of the common people. There are questions of taste and stewardship of language of course, and so vulgarity should probably be avoided for the most part. But profanity is utterly indefensible from a Christian perspective. The Christian perspective is in a real cultural minority. In olden days, the days of yore, that is, the profane words were the real taboo. In fact they were outlawed for some time, and you can look in the OED and find a whole array of substitute swear words that arose in the seventeenth century, such as "zounds" and "zooks" (referring to Christ's wounds and "hooks" or wounded hands). Today the obscene is a much stronger taboo. Particularly sexual obscenity. Especially the f-word. If you get really angry and you want to shock or verbally maim someone you don't damn them, you f-word them. Sex today is not just any noun but the name of a god. And that god, as the f-word suggests, is violent in will, dominating, and power-hungry, and the people who exhale f-words so frequently pay fitting homage to that god with remarkable religiosity.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Air Force One's joyride

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:03:50 +0000

I am unpersuaded, Peter. As a student of the great Augustan satirists I know a true descendant of personae like Isaac Bickerstaff and the Modest Proposer when I see one. And even though a Google search reveals over 25,000 hits for the indeed astonishingly brilliant "obozo," I am prepared to believe that all of those hits are merely other iterations and emanations of the singular satirical genius behind "Carl."

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Air Force One's joyride

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:30:23 +0000

It took me some time before I realized that Carl is not the embittered calumniator he appears to be, but is actually performing a brilliant satire against such persons. I have trouble believing that a real person would go so far out of his way to coin new insults, and to always manage to get in his calumnies in the first comment. How foolish I was in that other thread to try and appeal to the Christian charity of a clearly satirical character.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "Vocation" vs. "Career"

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:10:09 +0000

Thoroughgoing masculinity: think LeBron James plus Martin Luther plus Bono plus Robert E. Lee plus Groucho Marx plus Johnny Cash plus William Wilberforce plus the Marlboro Man plus Samuel Johnson plus Ned Flanders plus Richard Petty minus Richard Dawkins...

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "Vocation" vs. "Career"

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:26:20 +0000

In order to gently correct Dr. Veith's notion that I am a "she," I have updated my username so as to more accurately reflect my thoroughgoing masculinity. My new name has the added benefit of having more pop culture relevance than my Henry Fielding allusion alone. Thanks to Dr. Veith for his continuing faithfulness in teaching about the rich doctrine of vocation.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Other doctrines of vocation

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:41:56 +0000

One reason I find the distinction between vocation and career useful is that the former category has a teleological orientation which is lacking in the latter. By which I mean: the career culture has no sound way of differentiating legitimate careers from illegitimate careers. It doesn't really matter WHAT career you choose--the choice is the only important thing. Who are we to judge the choices of others, anyway? There is a built-in aversion to truth in the career mentality. And thus it leaves the neighborhood in the cold and fragmented. But vocation acknowledges the flourishing--the shalom--of the neighbor as a legitimate check to the authority of choice. Vocations that prove deleterious to the health and well being of the neighbor are no vocations at all. But the same cannot be said of the career mindset, which is inherently choice-oriented. Vocation doesn't deny the role of choice, it just humbles it, redirects it.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Other doctrines of vocation

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:11:17 +0000

I would posit back to you that both views are ok. God uses our desires and our being " true to ourselves" (which is ultimately what sanctification is and why non-christians suffer for not being christian). The distinction I would make, FW, is that if it is possible for Christians to speak of "being true to one's self," then it would have be in the sense of "being true to the self God calls us to be." But that is not the usual language of modernity, of course. Your view seems to be that without a conscious or implicit motive to serve one´s neighbor, that one´s vocation is not truly vocation No, I would say that sometimes there may be motives, sometimes not. I wouldn't know how to draw a clear line in that respect, and even if I could I don't think I'd want to. The calling is the important thing.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Other doctrines of vocation

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:01:30 +0000

It's instructive to contrast the metaphorical underpinnings of "vocation" and "career." The central metaphor of vocation is, of course, a calling--latin vocare. The person who is called is the receptor of that gift, the respondent to that calling, which originates not in oneself but in the Person who calls. But the word "career" is etymologically associated with roads, courses, chariot-paths, etc. Poets used to speak of the "career" of the sun in its course across the sky. This is how modernity generally conceives of work, as a choice of course, not a calling and a gift. The person who faces a career choice faces a crossroads of choices. A person usually discovers one's vocations as they naturally unfold through the talents that arise in relation to the people to whom one is called. But the criteria for making the right career choice and taking the right career path are self-originating, they are discovered by being true to oneself and one's desires (to speak the Hollywood argot). Because that is extremely vague, and because one's desires are in constant flux and contradiction, there has arisen a whole industry of incantatory-astrological magicians and paperback mountebanks who hawk the right "formula" or series of steps, which, if purchased and followed, will bring happiness and success in one's career choice. Universities today are extremely career-oriented, of course. Like all the secular schools the Christian university I attended had a Career Center but no Vocation Center, nor was vocation taught in any substantive way. The phrase "revolutionize" is a cliche, but a strong and full articulation of vocation properly understood would truly transform the way we approach education. In the humanities, for instance, an understanding of art, literature, and criticism as vocational means of serving the neighbor would provide a compelling alternative to the dehumanizing, obscurantist tendencies of modern English departments.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:38:13 +0000

I don't know what you mean by that but I can only conclude you are not interested in persuasion of any sort. I have tried my best to be charitable. If you wish to prove me wrong and try to persuade me, you could explain on what basis a person has the freedom as a Christian--not the right as a citizen, the freedom as a Christian--to verbally deride the President as a "bozo" and "0bama"?

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:07:23 +0000

It's a terrible idea, and I think fw knows that. As the Puritan John Milton understood, state coercion in matters of religious conscience does not foster true Christianity but rather hypocrisy and sham piety, not to mention an undercurrent of brooding resentment and hostility.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:28:55 +0000

And before you reiterate that you are sorry that I dislike the way in which you criticize, let me say that I dislike it because I think it is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and I cherish the gospel, and cherish YOU, Carl, and therefore "let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another."

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:21:28 +0000

If I have wounded you, I apologize. But I explicitly asked you, in the spirit of charity, to correct me if I have misread you. Unless you took that as sarcasm (which it wasn't), wouldn't that suggest that I have no motivation to willfully distort your meaning? Yet you call my statement a lie, thereby implying such a motivation on my part. I ask you to reconsider your reckless and rather wounding use of that word. If my statement was inaccurate I assure you it was only unintentionally so. Earlier you stated: "I have criticized 0bama for his vacuous public statements and his contemptible public actions as I have the right and authority as part of the government to do." Of course. But do you have the freedom as a Christian to call him a bozo and "0bama"? As the NBA tv commentator would say, "C'mon Carl! You're better than that!"

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:28:09 +0000

Carl, you began this thread by claiming that the founding American documents are "based on Christian principles." But now you wring the narrowest possible meaning out of the text in order to suggest that scripture has no bearing on democratic institutions, at least insofar as the exhortation to respect the civil authorities is concerned. Are not these two perspectives at odds? If those parts of scripture dealing with proper citizenry have no application beyond the Roman empire, then where are the applicable sections from which the Founders drew, and what is the interpretive rubric for distinguishing the applicable from the inapplicable? Please correct me if I have misread you.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:39:20 +0000

"I have linked my specific synonyms for 0bama to his public statements or actions. I will continue to do so." But where in scripture is there any basis for this ethic of playground retribution?

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:36:23 +0000

So because scripture does not make itself absurd by saying, "honor your democratically-elected leader, o citizens of the future," ergo you are exempt from the numerous scriptural injunctions to 1. honor those who are in authority and 2. comport oneself and one's tongue in utmost love?

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:22:08 +0000

It is also ineffective, even counterproductive stuff. Anyone who might be persuaded against the President's positions would be turned off by such rhetoric, same as the "Bush-Hitler" trash.

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : "We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation"

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:19:47 +0000

Namecalling, spelling Obama with a zero ("0bama")--this is petty, frivolous, spiteful, cheap, repellent stuff. Coming from Christians, whose law is love, it is shameful. "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17)

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : And now, polygamy

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:00:35 +0000

As fw says, we ALREADY sanction serial polygamy in the form of divorce. Polygamy is not so much the logical end of a slippery slope via homosex marriage--if anything it was closer to the other way around. In allowing divorce, the Mosaic Law also implicitly permitted polygyny. Jesus's proscription of divorce in Mark 10/Matthew 19/Luke 16 implicitly proscribed polygamy of any sort, since that is what divorce-and-remarriage is in the eyes of God. We ALREADY deign to separate what God has put together, because of the hardness of our hearts. Is it surprising, then, that in the hardness of our hearts we would cobble together what God has separated?

Cranach: The Blog of Veith : Collapse of rural culture

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:28:05 +0000

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."--Jeremiah 29:4-7 "And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city?" --Jonah 4:11 I used to dismiss cities as ugly and spiritually barren. But I have come to see that the cities are full of beauty, God loves the cities, full of beautiful broken humanity. The city repels people because its wounds are open and its sicknesses are exposed, it holds up a mirror to our exile and reminds us of our captivity, it reveals human nature in all its amazing heights and terrible depths. But God calls the city in a special way, he loves the city and so should Christians.