en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/682939 Comments by Ezra http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/review-of-the-flaming-lips-embryonic/#IDComment43487076 For the purposes of comparison, could you give me an example of a song that fits each of the following scenarios: 1) sounds like someone poured regular Coke on the microphone 2) sounds like someone poured Pepsi on the microphone 3) sounds like someone poured un-set jello on the microphone I'd like some touchstones for understanding this rather specific metaphor. Please and thank-you. Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:13:46 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/review-of-the-flaming-lips-embryonic/#IDComment43487076 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/loquacious-lemmings/#IDComment43466785 Is it too much to ask that we have our cake and eat it too? Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:18:05 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/loquacious-lemmings/#IDComment43466785 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/loquacious-lemmings/#IDComment43282498 Oh, so Concrete Academic is going after television now?! Nonsense! Too bad we're not better at pushing the buttons that deliver a good dose of vitamin vitriol to the comments section. All the better to go about slipping something in there to get the masses thinking. Although, if we were that good at it, maybe we could be charged with dealing in mass production for comments. It's interesting in a world that loves to feign a stance of knowing cynicism in the face of the Borats and Eminems of our media, that there are still mundane ways to rile people up, and there are outlets that make their money doing just that. But seriously, furniture though? Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:41:58 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/loquacious-lemmings/#IDComment43282498 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553742 I don't see it as a coverall for judgement, just a coverall for me making a call on how I think God will judge someone. I believe judgement of an individual is between God and the individual. The focus of qualifying the text above appears to have centered around following the wrong religion, and implies that this somehow excludes people from mercy. And yet, I wonder if anyone here would choose crucifying Christ over following the wrong religion, if the attempt to be closer to God was genuine. Why would Christ forgive the crucifixtion and not the wrong religion? Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:37:14 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553742 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553339 I'm glad then, that the text above doesn't deny that punishment exists, only that there can be a tendency for some people to distort its emphasis and marginalise love in the process. Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:31:47 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553339 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553188 It might be ignorance, but is all ignorance unworthy of mercy? If I'm living in a Pashtun village, or some other isolated area where all I've ever heard is Muslim or some other doctrine, am I excluded from mercy even though I've never heard a word of Christianity in my entire life? If the whole world that I know around me teaches me one thing, even though the truth is another, am I judged unworthy of mercy, even if I know not what I do? Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:29:52 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/remembering-gods-mercy/#IDComment41553188 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/a-response-to-invocation-provocation/#IDComment41045272 As I struggle with my stance on the fence, I have to say this is probably as close as I come to leaning on a side. I love sports, played Rugby for a long time, but I never felt that God needed to be involved in that endeavour. I did pray before games, mostly just that I be kept mindful to put in my best effort for the team while being careful to watch that my efforts didn't effect the health of opposition players. Indeed, if Matthew 6 had been written in modern times, perhaps we would have been exhorted to take no thought to who wins the big game, along with worring about food, drink, and clothing. It's hard though, when I think about how worship in church has changed over time, especially in terms of worship expressed through song, there is much people could make about how some music is more respectful than others. There are heavy metal Christian bands, are they less respectful than one of those old school choirs? In the end I think what is in a person's spirit is important. Only Dr. Frederick D. Haynes can answer between himself and God truthfully to that in my opinion. If only because I know that if I throw too much of the "O heavenly father..." honorifics into my prayer the rhetoric gets in the way of how I express myself, it's no longer me. There's a balance between the two. The standards of respectful address differ between people for various reasons, and imposing ones standards on the other can lead to a restriction of expression IMO. It's a fine balance though, because I know the content of Michael's third paragraph in his critique makes me feel uncomfortable as an initial reaction. Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:48 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/a-response-to-invocation-provocation/#IDComment41045272 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/keeping-the-lamps-trim/#IDComment39621012 Don't get me started on paying for the front row. Down here some churches will go so far as to call those people kings and queens. What do you think churches should do to meet today's challenges though? How do you stay current with technology and being accessible without driving up the need for tithes? I have my own perspective, but I'd like to hear yours. With such a focus on churches and the idea that a large church shows a strong spiritual following, how do you maintain that without bringing a truckload of money into the equation? Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:01:49 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/keeping-the-lamps-trim/#IDComment39621012 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/keeping-the-lamps-trim/#IDComment39588001 I'm glad you brought up monasticism. I think if I'd been better built for monasticism, or at least that sort of lifestyle, then full-time ministry might've been an option for me. I think it would send a great message to be able to full-time minister and live on the bare minimum, and being able to say the joy of the ministry fulfills in a way that using tithes for personally enjoyed chattels never could. Plus being open about church finances, particularly disclosing what is spent on your living costs, would take away from some of the critiques often levelled by people on the outside looking in. I saw a news item on the general coordinating the military effort in Afghanistan, and he had a small, spartan room. "What else do you need? He said." Sent a message about a man dedicated to his mission. Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:59:52 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/keeping-the-lamps-trim/#IDComment39588001 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/numerical-veracity/#IDComment39356347 Anyone remember how hard it once was to show a link between smoking and lung and throat cancer? In fact, one of the few things I took away from my statistics paper at university was how hard it was to show a definite link between the two because of all the other factors that could mitigate the results. Yet these days in the media it's so easy to link one issue to the other. My favourite is violence in video games and/or TV. People with an agenda like to claim that depicted violence makes kids more violent, never mind that it might just be that the kids were already violent due to other factors and surprise, surprise, are more inclined to partake in violent media in the first place. I pick that one because cartoon violence has been around for many years, many of them without incident, but parents being absent in providing context to that violence has grown. It's unfortunate that many news items are too short to really go into the details of these studys. They just tell you the implications, while sidelining the caveats. Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:55:32 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/numerical-veracity/#IDComment39356347 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/concrete-question-what-do-you-think-of-obamas-nobel-prize/#IDComment38992122 lol. Obama is a politician. I'm jaded enough about him just off of that principle. But he has spent some political capital on risky foreign policy overtures, particularly towards Muslim interests, where he didn't have to. I'm prepared to offer a measure of praise towards that. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:02:41 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/concrete-question-what-do-you-think-of-obamas-nobel-prize/#IDComment38992122 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/concrete-question-what-do-you-think-of-obamas-nobel-prize/#IDComment38973165 I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's well deserved. Looking back on some previous winners like Al Gore, Kim Dae Jung, and the middle east prize of 1994, I don't feel like the peace prize is really supposed to be representative of any real achievement. I mean, I suppose you could make a case for climate change, although it's hardly like Al Gore and the agency could be empirically connected to the growth in awareness and action on climate change. But the other two awards I mentioned both saw their efforts, if you could really say they achieved anything, rolled back to the old status quo. So I don't feel like Obama's award is exactly inconsistent with previous award criteria. If so then the award lost it's real meaning a long time ago. If Yasser Arafat is worthy then I don't see what basis excludes Obama and not him. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:53:15 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/concrete-question-what-do-you-think-of-obamas-nobel-prize/#IDComment38973165 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38894512 Apparently a good portion of them responded by saying his mental capacity has diminished and that other people do his writing for him now. Conspiracy theories. How ironic. Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:43:20 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38894512 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38868436 Which again is interesting. Because religion isn't going away any time soon. But you'd think that the most rational response to superstition is education, yet it's the missionaries who are going out there to build schools, among other projects. If it was me on the other side I'd be looking to how we could mobilise our best, brightest, and most loaded to start putting schools in places where others are trying to put Bibles or Qur'ans. Helping the poorer masses out there get an education and make themselves upwardly mobile would be, to me, the best antidote for any fear of the foothold that religion has in the world. Although China is an interesting counterpoint, where I feel like nationalism is slowly becoming its own sort of religion, and can be well maintained even as the populace receives education. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:47:57 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38868436 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38867862 I really like the second to last paragraph. What is faith if it is never tested? Faith is easy to maintain if we place ourselves in a bubble where everything is designed to support our viewpoint. How tempting it can be to do just that when many churches offer opportunities for participation at the church every day/night of the week. For me, I find the search into all things can temper the less well considered aspects of my spiritual walk while also reinforcing those things that I hold fast to because they are shown to be true no matter how I test them. Like you say, refusing to step outside the bubble can lead to almost a fear of what consequences there are for a person's faith should they listen to a different opinion. A strong faith doesn't fear that anything can tear its foundations down. A humble faith delights in the opportunity to discover how it can be refined beyond the imperfection of its own human perception. IMO. Some atheists puzzle me. I get a lecture on the irrationality of religion then find I'm being lumped in as a potential David Koresh along with anyone else who once tried to firebomb an abortion clinic. Besides such generalisations being far from academic or rational in themselves, I wonder what the endgame is for atheists trying to push all the moderates and extremists together into a group. We could construct a dialogue on the parts of public policy and ethics where we agree, and also uniting to proclaim extreme tenets of any philosophy as minorities on the margins rather than representatives of the whole. But they would rather create an environment of antagonism. Although this behaviour isn't limited to the atheist community, see behaviour across religious lines as well. I really wish that those of us towards the moderate middles could learn to meet there more often to at least work towards goals that we share. I've been disappointed in the past by atheists who share some of my desires for a more equal distribution of social wealth, but are so suspicious of me because of my religion that they won't open up to dialog lest I slip some evangelist material in. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:41:25 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/more-atheist-bashing/#IDComment38867862 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38748907 I think there's a natural instinct to speak on the actions of others that comes from a place of love. We speak from a place of what has worked for us because we want to share the joy that we get from walking our path. At the same time, I guess it follows from the idea of a personal faith that any affront (whether intentional or not) is taken personally. I have to constant bear this in mind, especially when I disagree with someone over interpretation of scripture. Sometimes you have to let a conversation go and marinate on it until you've both had time to understand each other. At least that's how it works for me. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:05:21 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38748907 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/tupac-amaru-shakur-and-my-ambivalence/#IDComment38736539 Tupac was smart to keep his lyrics honest. Dichotomy in a public figure is compelling because it relates directly to the conflict within ourselves between our noble and base natures. It reasonates further if they are honest enough to acknowledge as much in their art. There's a part of me that says he could have glorified all the worse parts of his nature and never qualified them, and could eschewed the values he did promote in his music. While some have done more with less still many have done less with more. I suppose the discussion around here, and in general regarding Tupac is fitting. The conflicting nature of our own opinions reflects the life he lived. It's as honest a tribute as any. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:39:58 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/tupac-amaru-shakur-and-my-ambivalence/#IDComment38736539 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38731863 Caveat Qui Credit Let the believer beware. Let me disclaim a few things: This is but one imperfect man’s view on a perfect God. As such my view is imperfect. I don’t see God as God is. Trying to get a better view is what this piece and my life’s journey is about. I am not a messenger dispensing the undistilled will or word of God. I merely offer a view based on my own experience, fellowship, prayer, and thought. If I get out of my own way long enough to let how God has touched my life touch others, then that glory goes to God. The rest is my imperfection; a product of sin I will carry with me until I die, that is luckily forgiven. This piece, like the disclaimer, more than a finger pointing at anyone else, are a reminder back to me of the virtues I need to work on or the weaknesses I need to work beyond. My placing it here to read is to hopefully encourage fellowship, whether there is accord or disagreement. I believe the outcomes of both scenarios to be potentially beneficial. Thank you. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:04:25 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38731863 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38730733 You're right. I think most of what I focus on when I talk about faith is empathy. Especially faith put into practice. I'm always looking back to Matthew22:36-40. To me that's the filter through which I look at 'works' to see whether they are effective. In the example above, both parties in principle are causing the same offense to the other. If they were to stop and think about their actions they'd see that they don't like this sort of 'love' when it comes back to them, so maybe they should think twice before loving others in this way. It's something I've had to learn to be careful about myself. I enjoy religious debate but have to be careful about being seen to challenge anothers faith. While I reserve the right to disagree with how another person practices their faith (in terms of whether I should follow their example) I also have to concede I am as imperfect as they are and should frame my disagreement in a way that casts aspersions on their spiritual standing with God. That's partially what I get from Romans 14 when pushed through the filter of Matthew 22:36-40. It can be a hard line to walk in the heat of the moment, because like you say, there can be a visceral reaction before an intellectual one. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:01:18 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/honouring-our-mothers-and-fathers/#IDComment38730733 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/the-new-mysticism/#IDComment38397815 I wonder, hasn't all of Christianity to one degree or another embraced the idea of keeping the nice parts, while dropping the less easily defensible? Very few if any of us practice Christianity the way we did when the words were new, or even when the Bible as a collection of books was new. Is this change in practice robbing religion of its content, or just acknowledging that each stage of religious growth has its own context? I like to feel that there's plenty to talk about in that conversation, because religion surely can't stay static when its central figure is infinite. Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:40:51 +0000 http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/the-new-mysticism/#IDComment38397815