It's a common theme that history repeats itself. Common but mistaken, and Mark Twain accurately corrected it to say that "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
Less entertainly, and less accurately, Santayana said that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
(It's not worth quoting George Bernard Shaw, "If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience". Except to contrast his laboured effort with Chesterton's effortless paradoxes.)
Anyways, this post is to report a nice variation on the theme:
"Every time history repeats itself the price goes up" (per Anon).
Source:
Jewish World Review, August 31, 2011
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com/
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The Oslo murders
So what motivated Breivik?
When a friend told me about the Oslo murders, my reaction was to ask if Muslim terrorists were responsible.
On being told the perpetrator was a "fundamentalist Christian", I thought this didn't seem likely. While some Christians have attacked abortion workers, Christians have not gone in for indiscriminate massacres.
What's the basis for this report? It comes from the Norwegian police, who noted that the murderer, Anders Breivik, had described himself as a "fundamentalist Christian".
As this description fits liberal sentiments, it's been widely disseminated. But, unsurprisingly, the story is more complex.
First, while Breivik identified culturally with Europe's Christian past, particularly with the crusaders, there is no evidence that he had a deeper faith.
In particular, there's no mention of him having attended a church, whether regularly or not.
Also, Breivik was apparently a mason. This is not to propose deep conspiracies, but simply to indicate that there's room for characterizing him in other ways.
In sum, like many people on the fringes, he had a jumble of ideas. And they did not include the Gospel message of redemption.
So how should we react?
Let's pray for the victims, for the repose of their souls or for their recovery.
Let's also pray for familes and others traumatized by these events.
But let's also pray for Anders himself. May he move beyond the cultural trappings of western Christianity and find salvation in Christ.
Something else to bear in mind
I used to occasionally speculate on how bad things would need to become, in order to justify taking violent action.
I discontinued this in 1996, after watching the movie, The Rock.
In the film, a group captures a nuclear weapon, to force the US Government into recognizing their concerns. The Government calls their bluff, but some of the activists reject the group's leadership and try to launch the weapons. (Only to be foiled by an ageing Sean Connery ...)
It got me thinking. Suppose someone with more enthusiasm than judgement (and I knew people like that) told me that he had just assassinated an objectionable politician, media person, or bishop? Might I be partly responsible?
In short, academic discussions about civil disobedience can have consequences. May I suggest an appropriate circumspection on this point.
When a friend told me about the Oslo murders, my reaction was to ask if Muslim terrorists were responsible.
On being told the perpetrator was a "fundamentalist Christian", I thought this didn't seem likely. While some Christians have attacked abortion workers, Christians have not gone in for indiscriminate massacres.
What's the basis for this report? It comes from the Norwegian police, who noted that the murderer, Anders Breivik, had described himself as a "fundamentalist Christian".
As this description fits liberal sentiments, it's been widely disseminated. But, unsurprisingly, the story is more complex.
First, while Breivik identified culturally with Europe's Christian past, particularly with the crusaders, there is no evidence that he had a deeper faith.
In particular, there's no mention of him having attended a church, whether regularly or not.
Also, Breivik was apparently a mason. This is not to propose deep conspiracies, but simply to indicate that there's room for characterizing him in other ways.
In sum, like many people on the fringes, he had a jumble of ideas. And they did not include the Gospel message of redemption.
So how should we react?
Let's pray for the victims, for the repose of their souls or for their recovery.
Let's also pray for familes and others traumatized by these events.
But let's also pray for Anders himself. May he move beyond the cultural trappings of western Christianity and find salvation in Christ.
Something else to bear in mind
I used to occasionally speculate on how bad things would need to become, in order to justify taking violent action.
I discontinued this in 1996, after watching the movie, The Rock.
In the film, a group captures a nuclear weapon, to force the US Government into recognizing their concerns. The Government calls their bluff, but some of the activists reject the group's leadership and try to launch the weapons. (Only to be foiled by an ageing Sean Connery ...)
It got me thinking. Suppose someone with more enthusiasm than judgement (and I knew people like that) told me that he had just assassinated an objectionable politician, media person, or bishop? Might I be partly responsible?
In short, academic discussions about civil disobedience can have consequences. May I suggest an appropriate circumspection on this point.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Evaluating novel exegesis
Associating with fundamentalists, charismatics and traditionalists means that you encounter creative instances of scriptural exegesis (ie interpretations of what the Bible means).
My favourite is the Catholic charismatic who, refering to the creation of man on the sixth day, said this means that the Lord created all human souls in Paradise and that conception merely involves the incarnation of a pre-existing soul.
Though recognising his originality, I pointed out that Origen had also taught this back in the third century and that his theory had been condemned by the Church. But this cut no ice. My interlocuter merely said that we're bound by the clear teaching of Scripture ...
And the other day, a friend relayed an exciting exegesis that she had heard from a visiting preacher.
After thinking about it and other such novelties, I now offer Felix's first law of hermeneutics:
The plausibilty of a novel exegesis is inversely proportional to the excitement with which it is proposed.
My favourite is the Catholic charismatic who, refering to the creation of man on the sixth day, said this means that the Lord created all human souls in Paradise and that conception merely involves the incarnation of a pre-existing soul.
Though recognising his originality, I pointed out that Origen had also taught this back in the third century and that his theory had been condemned by the Church. But this cut no ice. My interlocuter merely said that we're bound by the clear teaching of Scripture ...
And the other day, a friend relayed an exciting exegesis that she had heard from a visiting preacher.
After thinking about it and other such novelties, I now offer Felix's first law of hermeneutics:
The plausibilty of a novel exegesis is inversely proportional to the excitement with which it is proposed.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Four Senses of Scripture
Aliens in This World (link below) has a discussion on a mediaeval rhyme about the four senses of Holy Scripture.
Here's the Latin:
Littera” gesta docet,
Quod credas “Allegoria”,
“Moralia” quod agas,
Quo tendas “Anagogia.”
And here's my suggested translation.
The Literal tells about the deed,
The Allegory about the creed.
The Moral tells you what to do,
And Anagogy what's in store for you.
Link: http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/
Here's the Latin:
Littera” gesta docet,
Quod credas “Allegoria”,
“Moralia” quod agas,
Quo tendas “Anagogia.”
And here's my suggested translation.
The Literal tells about the deed,
The Allegory about the creed.
The Moral tells you what to do,
And Anagogy what's in store for you.
Link: http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/
Friday, June 24, 2011
Birthday of St John the Baptist
The birthday of St John the Baptist is celebrated on 24 June. Looking at St John, we can see him as a man of contrasts.
His vocation
An angel appeared to St John’s father, Zachary, and told him that he would have a son, even though Zachary and his wife, Elizabeth, were advanced in age.
Zachary did not initially accept this and was given a sign, that he could not speak until the child had been born. In contrast, St John’s mission was to preach to crowds and tell the Jews that the Messiah would be coming shortly.
St Zachary was a priest under the Mosaic Law, and the angel appeared to him while he was offering a sacrifice in the Temple. This meant that, as his son, St John was also a priest under the Old Covenant.
However, he did not serve as a priest and his vocation was to herald the coming of the Messiah. As the forerunner of the Messiah, he was not a priest under the new dispensation.
His sanctification
Mary came to visit Elizabeth and assist her with her pregnancy. Bearing the Divine Word in her womb, Mary brought the Savior to the unborn child whom Elizabeth was carrying. At that moment, as the angel had said, the infant St John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born”.
Which is why St John is so different from other saints. The Church usually celebrates their heavenly birthdays, ie the anniversaries of their deaths. But the Church celebrates St John’s birthday as manifesting the triumph of God’s grace because St John was born sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
His asceticism
For most of his life, St John the Baptist lived a life of prayer as a hermit in the Judean desert. He practiced great asceticism, wearing a camel hide (the equivalent of the later hair shirt) and eating only locusts and wild honey.
So, after he started preaching in public, we might expect that he demanded considerable austerities from people who came to hear him.
But instead he taught alms giving - for those who could afford it - and obedience to basic moral laws. For example, Jews collaborating with the Roman occupation forces were told only, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely; be content with your pay.”
His prophetic role
St John also taught that the Messiah was coming and that the people needed to repent of their sins. He was in the line of the prophets of Judah and Israel, who had looked forward to the coming of the Messiah.
But St John was more than a prophet. He was given the privilege of actually seeing the Messiah and announcing that He had come.
Then, protesting his unworthiness, he baptized the Lord and had his message confirmed. He saw the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus and heard the Father’s voice declaring that Jesus was the Son of God.
His martyrdom
The local ruler was King Herod, a son of Herod the Great who had murdered the Holy Innocents. Then, as now, it was a delicate political situation. Herod became afraid that St John might stir up the masses, and he had him arrested and thrown into prison.
Herod had an irregular union with Mariamne, who was both his niece and his half-brother’s wife. St John had denounced this breach of the moral law and Mariamne did not forget this insult. When the chance came, she persuaded Herod to have St John beheaded.
O God, who has made this day worthy of honour
by the birth of blessed John:
grant to Your people the grace of spiritual joys,
and direct the minds of all the faithful into the way of eternal salvation.
His vocation
An angel appeared to St John’s father, Zachary, and told him that he would have a son, even though Zachary and his wife, Elizabeth, were advanced in age.
Zachary did not initially accept this and was given a sign, that he could not speak until the child had been born. In contrast, St John’s mission was to preach to crowds and tell the Jews that the Messiah would be coming shortly.
St Zachary was a priest under the Mosaic Law, and the angel appeared to him while he was offering a sacrifice in the Temple. This meant that, as his son, St John was also a priest under the Old Covenant.
However, he did not serve as a priest and his vocation was to herald the coming of the Messiah. As the forerunner of the Messiah, he was not a priest under the new dispensation.
His sanctification
Mary came to visit Elizabeth and assist her with her pregnancy. Bearing the Divine Word in her womb, Mary brought the Savior to the unborn child whom Elizabeth was carrying. At that moment, as the angel had said, the infant St John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born”.
Which is why St John is so different from other saints. The Church usually celebrates their heavenly birthdays, ie the anniversaries of their deaths. But the Church celebrates St John’s birthday as manifesting the triumph of God’s grace because St John was born sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
His asceticism
For most of his life, St John the Baptist lived a life of prayer as a hermit in the Judean desert. He practiced great asceticism, wearing a camel hide (the equivalent of the later hair shirt) and eating only locusts and wild honey.
So, after he started preaching in public, we might expect that he demanded considerable austerities from people who came to hear him.
But instead he taught alms giving - for those who could afford it - and obedience to basic moral laws. For example, Jews collaborating with the Roman occupation forces were told only, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely; be content with your pay.”
His prophetic role
St John also taught that the Messiah was coming and that the people needed to repent of their sins. He was in the line of the prophets of Judah and Israel, who had looked forward to the coming of the Messiah.
But St John was more than a prophet. He was given the privilege of actually seeing the Messiah and announcing that He had come.
Then, protesting his unworthiness, he baptized the Lord and had his message confirmed. He saw the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus and heard the Father’s voice declaring that Jesus was the Son of God.
His martyrdom
The local ruler was King Herod, a son of Herod the Great who had murdered the Holy Innocents. Then, as now, it was a delicate political situation. Herod became afraid that St John might stir up the masses, and he had him arrested and thrown into prison.
Herod had an irregular union with Mariamne, who was both his niece and his half-brother’s wife. St John had denounced this breach of the moral law and Mariamne did not forget this insult. When the chance came, she persuaded Herod to have St John beheaded.
O God, who has made this day worthy of honour
by the birth of blessed John:
grant to Your people the grace of spiritual joys,
and direct the minds of all the faithful into the way of eternal salvation.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The road to Emmaus
Sunday’s Gospel reading (Novus Ordo) was about the Lord meeting with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The sermon made the standard points that the disciples met the Lord in the “breaking of the bread” and that this alludes to the Eucharist.
We can look further at the liturgical aspect. First, there was the “Liturgy of the Word”, moving the disciples to a knowledge of Christ. This was followed by the “Liturgy of Communion”, when the disciples experienced the Lord as really present.
By the way, the evangelist identifies one disciple, Cleopas, but does not name the other disciple. Had the person been forgotten by the time St Luke made his enquiries? Had the person apostatized? Or is there some other explanation?
Or is the name left unspecified so that we can put ourselves in his or her place?
We can look further at the liturgical aspect. First, there was the “Liturgy of the Word”, moving the disciples to a knowledge of Christ. This was followed by the “Liturgy of Communion”, when the disciples experienced the Lord as really present.
By the way, the evangelist identifies one disciple, Cleopas, but does not name the other disciple. Had the person been forgotten by the time St Luke made his enquiries? Had the person apostatized? Or is there some other explanation?
Or is the name left unspecified so that we can put ourselves in his or her place?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Modal logic
Me: … And that’s how you derive this differential function.
Ben: I would probably have worked it out if I had enough time.
Me: You’re probably right.
Ben: I’m definitely right.
Me, smiling: Definitely.
Ben: I would probably have worked it out if I had enough time.
Me: You’re probably right.
Ben: I’m definitely right.
Me, smiling: Definitely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)