|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Of ramblings, irony, and the effect of the InternetSo, a good friend of mine recently wrote a blog post. It can be found here. It referred to another article, which can be found here. These articles ask an interesting question: is the Internet making us stupid? (Specifically relating to reading, in the primary analysis, but a good general question.) This question inspired some thoughts. I couldn't resist the delicious irony of posting them here.  My answer to the question: yes. My solution? SUCK IT UP AND READ! Or do whatever it is that you feel like the Internet is depriving you of your capability to do. A bit overstated, but my answer. I just went through Chretien de Troyes' Romances and Dostoevksy's Demons in a couple of weeks, and it was surprisingly difficult... possibly because I've also been reading webcomics, which, if the article is correct, are as bad as it can possibly get. But I did read those books successfully, enjoyed them tremendously, and will probably re-read them sometime in the next five years... not necessarily because I really really want to do so, but because I've recognized since I left PHC the importance of continuing to read extensively. Therefore, I deliberately choose to read things that I know will challenge me. But it is worth noting that the more online work/research/reading I do, the more difficult it is for me to garner interest in long magazine articles or extensive books. I wonder if there's any connection between this phenomenon and today's tendency to publish books in series and sequels and prequels even though there's no particularly unique story being told in each volume? I'm in the middle of my fourth series in the past two years that gets really annoying because there's a ton of smaller volumes, all of which are really telling only one story. Argh. (Someone got smart and packaged one trilogy as a single volume... that was nice. Still obnoxious because the author had written the same story for three books, with resulting confusion, but...) There may also be some connection to the increasing success of television shows that set up a static platform and tell a single story per episode within that platform... CSI, for instance, or Eureka. This happens while shows based on long, drawn out plot arcs... of which type Babylon 5 is probably the most extreme example, but others come to mind... like Firefly... struggle more and more to survive long enough to catch people's interest... Come to think of it... The most recent crops of successful computer/platform video games have been focused on re-playability and variety/uniqueness in gameplay to produce a popular game, with emphasis on open worlds that can be played for a lot of hours, rather than a really extensive story arc... See the success of Guitar Hero or Grand Theft Auto (whatever number it's at now). Even Oblivion, which one might expect to be a massive RPG, has a simple storyline... it just takes a long time to do it all. Although, to be fair, I don't go in for the long story arcs in a computer game myself... I like RTS... so I might just not be "in the know." (Argh... now that I mentioned RTS, pardon me while I go drool over Starcraft II for a minute.) Anyway, all that to say... yes, the Internet is making us stupid. Mostly by providing ever newer and more innovative ways for us to be mentally lazy, if we so choose. So, just like I need to SUCK IT UP AND EXERCISE, all of the people complaining about how the Internet or video games or whatever are making us dumb (by which they mean incapable of reading, writing, doing advanced math or scientific research, etc.) should SUCK IT UP AND ______________________. P.S.: As per usual, this rambling is poorly organized and not very clear, so I'll make an effort to actually check this thing in case people want to ask questions. | | |
| Taken from The 30th Anniversary Reader's Digest Reader, The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. p 288. The Vanishing American Some years ago, during the depression, a government agent traveled through the Tennessee Mountains making small allotments to impoverished farmers for seed, stock or needed improvements. He found one woman who lived alone, scratching out a bare living on two acres of barren ground. "If the government should allot you $200, what would you do with it?" he asked her. The woman thought a moment. Her cabin had no floor, its windows were covered with tar paper, light came through the broken walls. Finally, she looked up. "Reckon I'd give it to the poor," she said. - F. Emerson Andrews in The Atlantic Monthly Just in case anyone missed it... look again at the title. | | |
| Hrmm... it has been brought to my attention that I haven't updated in a long time. On pain of death, I shall now update. Ummm... Hi? Life updates... I still work weekends, I'm starting next quarter of school at the end of the month with a class I'm actually looking forward to taking (Computer Apps), and... uh... my house is being wrecked... I mean painted green. Think that's about it... Yup. Further questions can be e-mailed. (It amazes me how much time I spend on blogs/forums and yet how little time I spend on mine. E-mail is better.) Bye-bye. | | |
| Due to direct intervention from God, I went back to the church in which I grew up this last weekend. Worship was excellent, preaching was mediocre – as per usual – but I did carry away one exceptionally interesting (to me) thought, and those of you who read my xanga are now officially doomed to hear about it. (So if you don’t like what one of my good friends calls “walls of text” you should stop reading now.  Consider yourself fairly warned.) The preacher on this fine day was a fairly well known man in many evangelical/worship circles, and he preached about making declarations with the intent of affecting the spirit world. Several interesting/on-the-edge-of-heretical-because-he-was-preaching-not-thinking-but-meant-well- things came out of his mouth, but the one that caught my attention was this. “Most people have the misconception that Satan is more powerful than they are. They have this idea that it’s God, then Satan, then the angels, then us little humans. But it’s not like that. It’s God, then us – as the Church, we have authority over all else.” (Rough quote, probably in need of some AMEN-uhS!, but fairly accurate.) Ordinarily I’m not sure that I’d have problems with this, but for one thing. The entire message was preached to the effect that we, as individuals, should take authority over problems in our lives. (With which I agree, provided the word authority is changed to responsibility – a change which I believe would accurately represent the intent of the preacher.) My problem comes when, in that context, the preacher says that we have more power than Satan. While I’m not prepared to enter a full discussion about the authority on/in this world of one whom I believe the Bible refers to as “the prince of this world”, I think I can safely say this: as the body of Christ, the Church, I am in entire agreement that our authority surpasses that of Satan. However, I’m not sure that I believe, in the sort of individualist, self-help, take-personal-authority-in-Jesus’-name sort of way he seemed to be preaching the message, that we have any authority over Satan. As an Anglican, and a fairly high-church Anglican at that, it seems to me that what authority we have, in any individual sense, even as members of the Church, comes only when we are doing the will of the Lord. And I know it isn’t any authority that comes from us personally, although I suspect it may be a disservice to the preacher to say that he intended the comment that way. So I believe that, rather than taking the approach that we should identify problems in our lives, declare them interference from the devil, and declare authority over him and them, which seems to me to be inflating our sense of personal authority, it is more appropriate to seek the Lord’s will regarding what we can do on our own strength (very little), and in what ways we should act to be fulfilling His will. In this way alone can we truly be assured of the Lord’s authority over satanic influence in our lives, as well as the influence of our fallen natures. However, having reached a conclusion – or rather, resolution – which I find acceptable on this matter, I am assaulted by another question. I think I can state with complete safety and certainty that it is a weakness of the Protestant/charismatic/evangelical movement that those Christians coming out of this movement are taught to rely entirely too much upon themselves as individual Children of God. That status is a special status, with all kinds of special privileges and protections – chief among them being forgiveness of sins, eternal life with God, and a good night’s sleep (yes, it’s Scriptural) – but I think the Protestant/evangelical movement doesn’t appropriately emphasize the importance of being part of the Church body. (To prevent misunderstanding: I don’t think they do a bad job of being a Church body, just of teaching members how to act as a part of one.) And I have to wonder whether or not teachings like this, which can be extremely misleading regarding how and in what ways a Christian has authority over Satan and his co-fallen angels, are not extremely dangerous. Granted that God will protect His children… still, it can’t be a good thing for Christians to go out into their daily life believing that they, as individuals, can exert Godly authority over whatever problems they ascribe to Satan in their daily walk, without being properly “under apostolic authority” or acting as supported members of the Church and tools of the will of God. Confrontation with the enemy of mankind while relying on a sort of inflated sense of personal authority seems, to me, almost as hopeless as confrontation with the enemy of mankind using Wicca or some other sort of false spiritual authority. “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?” (I’ll have to look that reference up when I’m not so tired – sorry.) It seems to me that while high church may also often be slightly lacking in instruction in spiritual warfare, our mistake is more one of failing to emphasize it in any meaningful way than of sending out warriors unequipped. So my question is this: are my concerns legitimate, or is there some aspect to Protestant/evangelical teachings in this area that I’m missing or that might be a blind spot of the high church approach? Or was this simply a one-time kind of mistake that isn’t made on a broad scale, and I'm just being paranoid? Once again, I’m forced to apologize for the lack of organization and clarity in this post. I also apologize for any offenses which I seem to give to my Protestant/evangelical brethren – ‘tis unintentional, I assure you. All feedback from all sides is welcome. EDIT: Today I baked a cake for my work party, and my family and friends were all shocked. The only people unsurprised were my co-workers, who think I'm a genius because I fix things faster than maintenance, do sudoku, and read Oliver Twist. There is something wrong with this picture...  | | |
| Hmmm...  You are St. Melito of Sardis! You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins. http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/quiz/ | | |
|
