So you FAT participants now know Shannon. Well Her mother has been working for some time on a book quilt to raise money for the Coalville Library. She's been sending quilt squares to authors explaining what she's doing and they sign it and sometimes send a signed copy of their books back. As this is a book blog with ties to Coalville I had to put it up on our blog. She has a website http://www.joslibraryquilt.com/
Which we should all visit.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Blinded By Science
{pictured: science being awesome}
I know what you are saying right now, "Well golly, it sure has been a long time since Kelsi has posted anything." That is what you were saying RIGHT GUYS because I know all you ever do is sit at the computer and wait for me to post on the book blog.
Well today is your lucky day! Because whilst on break at work, I conquered my latest volume of knowledge: The Prism and the Pendulum by Robert P. Crease.
This particular reading was a break in form for me: a nonfiction book that basically listed and described the ten "most beautiful" experiments in science, plus some reasoning and argument for why they could be considered beautiful. Among the experiments listed: Eratosthenes' measurement of the earth's circumference, Foucalt's pendulum, and Millikan's oil-drop (are any of these familiar to you folks? Because none were familiar to me before I read this book. I ain't no science nerd.) Between every chapter describing and analyzing each experiment, there was a chapter that discussed beauty, perception, artistry, and other such topics.
I won't attempt to deceive you: there were parts of this book that bored me. But that is only because I have a very limited understanding and interest in the scientific discipline. What kept me going was Crease's obvious passion on the subject. You could just tell by reading The Prism and the Pendulum that he has this big crush on physics, and it's super cute. In all seriousness, though, I find it fascinating to listen to people discuss and explain the things they love. It can keep me interested in even the most inaccessible subjects.
My favorite experiment to read about was Newton's leaning tower experiment. OKAY THAT'S A LIE I really just wanted to reference Isaac Newton so I could link this comic, because what would this blog post be without a link to my favorite webcomic? NOTHING. It would be NOTHING.
Next up I am going to try to finish Reconstructing America but trust me, it's taking forever. Probably because I finally acquired my own copy of The Hunger Games and now I spend all of my spare time re-reading that marvelous tome.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
just so everyone knows, i know this wordle is totally egotistical b/c it's based pretty much entirely on mine and gavin's conversation, but I really like how in the bottom left hand corner it says "Jesus like Kenny". That made me smile. As soon as another post is made the wordle shall be adjusted accordingly.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
What I'm Reading Next
Lately I have had zero to little time to read, but I wanted to pop in really quickly and let you all know I am not dead/in a coma. Next up on my reading list:
Lincoln: Selected Speeches and Writings
Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis (the same fella who wrote American Creation)
The Thirteen American Arguments by Howard Fineman
Reconstructing America by James W. Ceaser
Three of these books are required reading for my fall classes. That's how sad my life has become.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
a good quote, and a slam at le bleus
So, I'm reading The Letter of Marque (which is awesome by the way) and I found a marvelous quote from Lord Nelson:
"There are three things....which you are constantly to bear in mind. First, you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own respecting their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your King: and thirdly, you must hate a Frenchman as you do the Devil."
Isn't that so awesome? While I obviously would have a hard time obeying every order without question, I'm sure the motivation would be greater were I a sailor on board a King's vessel where the lives of myself, the crew, and the ship were dependent on the exact functioning of the parts as a comprehensive whole.
Finally, isn't it funny how everyone hated the French? The Brits did, the Russians did, the Germans did, it seems like no one would ever be willing to extend mercy to their heathen hides.
No wonder they're out of the World Cup.
"There are three things....which you are constantly to bear in mind. First, you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own respecting their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your King: and thirdly, you must hate a Frenchman as you do the Devil."
Isn't that so awesome? While I obviously would have a hard time obeying every order without question, I'm sure the motivation would be greater were I a sailor on board a King's vessel where the lives of myself, the crew, and the ship were dependent on the exact functioning of the parts as a comprehensive whole.
Finally, isn't it funny how everyone hated the French? The Brits did, the Russians did, the Germans did, it seems like no one would ever be willing to extend mercy to their heathen hides.
No wonder they're out of the World Cup.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
You Can't Handle More Posts!
Haha I'm so happy to have used this title. Everyone take a moment and look at it (ahhh).
Ok well Kenny said we need more posts the only problem is I have been re-reading many books lately because...well I'm going on a mission and I will miss my books. But, many of my rereads have not been posted about thus far and if they have oh well I'm giving my take on them. So here goes my first of hopefully many to come (because lets be honest all I do is read nowadays).
Lets start by getting my obsession with CS Lewis out of the way.
The Great Divorce
Awesome I love it and it brings up many points about "Heaven and Hell" that I had never really thought of before. The whole point of the book is to help the reader understand that logically one cannot bring Hell to Heaven nor vise versa. One concept it introduces that I thought was done marvelously was that we are not only the same person when we die, but based on the way we are we won't want to go to heaven if we belong in hell and likewise not fitting in in hell will likely mean we go to heaven. I really like the way CS Lewis uses cool logic in all of his writing. He never relies on his readers belief or faith in his subject to carry their attention. He leaves them no choice but to agree with him for at least the duration of his story.
Screwtape Letters.
I'm pretty sure Kelsen already reported on this one...but I couldn't find it. All I have to say is that this is one of my favorite C.S. Lewis books. He analyzes sin and the way we are tempted in such a funny and realistic way. This is definitely an aha book that causes the reader to think twice about the way they live. I like that.
As sad as you all may think it is, I have been re-reading Harry Potter because I love it. I grew up with HP and thus am exempt from being considered a bandwagon fan. Harry taught me how to love reading as a pass time and not just a way to learn things. So I will review all of the books at once to save you all the time.
Harry Potter 1-7
Basically the way JK Rowling writes is brilliant because she matured her writing as HP got older. I'm not sure she did this on purpose because she was after all an emerging writer and it could have been a happy accident. But she might have just learned how to write by the end of the books. Either way I love all of them in this order:
Also, just so you all know, I thought JK Rowling was a man until 7th grade when my older sister not-so-kindly set me straight, but not before completely humiliating me.
So there you have it (wow I feel much better). More to come I am sure.
Ok well Kenny said we need more posts the only problem is I have been re-reading many books lately because...well I'm going on a mission and I will miss my books. But, many of my rereads have not been posted about thus far and if they have oh well I'm giving my take on them. So here goes my first of hopefully many to come (because lets be honest all I do is read nowadays).
Lets start by getting my obsession with CS Lewis out of the way.
The Great Divorce
Awesome I love it and it brings up many points about "Heaven and Hell" that I had never really thought of before. The whole point of the book is to help the reader understand that logically one cannot bring Hell to Heaven nor vise versa. One concept it introduces that I thought was done marvelously was that we are not only the same person when we die, but based on the way we are we won't want to go to heaven if we belong in hell and likewise not fitting in in hell will likely mean we go to heaven. I really like the way CS Lewis uses cool logic in all of his writing. He never relies on his readers belief or faith in his subject to carry their attention. He leaves them no choice but to agree with him for at least the duration of his story.Screwtape Letters.
I'm pretty sure Kelsen already reported on this one...but I couldn't find it. All I have to say is that this is one of my favorite C.S. Lewis books. He analyzes sin and the way we are tempted in such a funny and realistic way. This is definitely an aha book that causes the reader to think twice about the way they live. I like that.*Deep Breath*
Almost there I promise.
As sad as you all may think it is, I have been re-reading Harry Potter because I love it. I grew up with HP and thus am exempt from being considered a bandwagon fan. Harry taught me how to love reading as a pass time and not just a way to learn things. So I will review all of the books at once to save you all the time.
Harry Potter 1-7
- 3 (because Harry gets a personality and the overall story starts)
- 7 (because all of the characters are developed and thus rock)
- 4 (because it has the best shock factor)
- 6 (because we get to know Dumbledore)
- 2 (because its better than 1)
- 1 (because its better than 5)
- 5 (because I don't really like 5...)
Also, just so you all know, I thought JK Rowling was a man until 7th grade when my older sister not-so-kindly set me straight, but not before completely humiliating me.
So there you have it (wow I feel much better). More to come I am sure.
Beyond Politics
After reading War and Peace, I decided to take a day or two and read something so incredibly awesome that I could hardly contain my enthusiasm, so I read the 11th Master and Commander book (The Reverse of the Medal, which I'll be posting about next). Following the wonderful 4 hour journey with Captain Jack Aubrey and his trusty ally Stephen Maturin, I decided to hunker down with another thinker, <-- this book (I don't know why I love those arrows so much, but I do), Beyond Politics, a 220 pg. treatise on public choice theory by the now-deceased William C. Mitchell and one of our very own professors here at USU, Randy Simmons.The book is a brief summary of public choice theory and the market-failure oriented welfare-economist perspectives and a treatise on why the government can't honestly be expected to solve any problems that individuals in their individual and non-coerced collective capacity can't solve themselves.
Basically, public choice theory attempts to use the tools, treatises, and dialogues of economics to understand political and governmental behavior. Contrary to the claims of the welfare-economists, socialists, governmental do-gooders, etc. the government is not the place where virtuous righteous citizens come to deliberate and decide the issues facing the nation in a manner most beneficial to the greatest number of constituents (the nation as a majority-whole). Instead, the government is a place where self-interested politicians and bureaucrats come to maximize their personal considerations (votes and prestige for politicians, salary, security, and power for bureaucrats) and even those who are not consciously selfish will be perverted by the structure and process of the system.
The book does not argue that the government shouldn't attempt to solve the problems of poverty, pollution, urban violence, etc. The book argues that the government can't solve these problems for a variety of institutional and "scientific reasons. The attempts to do so have resulted in at best little gain and at worst massive losses to the situation. Some examples:
- Many welfare programs are traps designed to maximize votes for the middle-class, not function as safety nets.
- The costs of the Clean Air Act have been twice as large as the benefits.
- Political campaigns are characterized by discussions about which candidate is best at pork barrel (substitute "theft from non-constituents" for "pork barrel") politics, not which candidate best serves the public interest.
- Taxpayer monies have been used to destroy important environmental amenities, including Yellowstone National Park.
- Regulations usually end up serving the regulatees, not the consumer.
- Fiscal policies exaggerate and exacerbate business cycles. Some cycles are caused by fiscal policies.
- Voters are rationally ignorant of the actions and often even the names of their politicians.
- Given voting cycles and the role of leadership, the results of many democratic decisions are arbitrary.
This view I hold to, nearly dogmatically. I look forward to any debate sure to follow. I'm sure AJ and Luke will voice their contrasting but dogged hatred of authority and the government, I'm sure Kelsi will tell us yet again how sick she is of us talking about politics, and Kelsha will remind us to be nice to each other.
WE NEED MORE POSTS!
I know that i'm a total hypocrite on this point, but we need to increase the output of posts. We had 25 in January! That's almost more than the rest of the following months combined. So here we go, I shall begin with the book I finished today, then I shall post about 1 of the 7-8 books I have read in the past couple months every other day.
I throw down the gauntlet! It is timed we started talking more about our awesome books! The good Lord knows we have nothing better to do with our time!
I throw down the gauntlet! It is timed we started talking more about our awesome books! The good Lord knows we have nothing better to do with our time!
Monday, June 14, 2010
20,000 Leagues of Boredom
Finally the arduous journey has ended. I felt just as trapped by this book as if I were a prisoner on a submarine!
Why I didn't like it:
1st and foremost, the whole thing was too archaic for my taste. Much of the book was his speculations many of which were way off. To him many things were wonderfully imaginative, but to modern common knowledge he's way off. Everything in the ocean according to Jules is phosphorescent. The whole ocean is glowing. I've been scuba diving and in that short amount of time I learned too much to get sucked into to Julesies adventure. While this is my 1st reason I also here cut the most slack. The dude lived in the 1800's and for his time he did pretty well. I just didn't connect with the time. I think that's because it's an 19Th century adventure taking place in a foreign world. But the world is not so foreign to me and I just couldn't get pulled with half of my brain constantly shouting, "Wrong, Wrong that fish isn't real"
2ND: Intense drama would be going on and the narrative would push it aside with pages of lists. Lists of what you ask? FISH!! The stupid fish that the professor was seeing outside the lounge window. Page after page of fish classifications. At one point Nemo and Ned Land are both fuming and the Nautilus is driving aimlessly through the ocean, tense right. Wrong! in the middle of the we describe the aquatic life floating out of the window! Not only describe but classify three pages worth. The first page being a list of fish already classified in another ocean! For the love of my simple sanity shut up!!!
3rd: He, or at least the translator has no skill for action. Moments that could be exciting were listed off with the same droll as the fish classifications.
My greatest example to illustrate how much this book sucked, is that Captain Nemo has a pipe organ on his little boat and I don't care, it couldn't save the book.
I will say that the ending picked up and finally addressed the mysteries of Nemo,and got into a little meat of the moment, but why not write that way the entire book and make it good. Instead it was crap. Interesting note though. According to my book Verne has been largely mistranslated over the years. My version bragged itself up as being true to the original, but if that's the original than it's no surprise the translators attempted to spice it up. They must have been trying to sell books instead of speculative fish encyclopedias.
Monday, June 7, 2010
War and Peace
The deed is done, the beast is won.
After 20+ hours of reading time, many trips to the domain of wikis to get a comprehensive historical background and minute details of the 1,317 characters that Tolstoy insists on employing in this tome, I have finished War and Peace, also known as War, What is it Good For? for those who keep up on the pop culture of the late 90s early 00s (which I apparently do not).
This post shall be the following (in the spirit of Kelsha's wonderful Moby Dick post):
1) A brief introduction to the stories (all 73 of them) and characters,
2) A general outline of the book, and
3) Lessons learned and points presented.
The story of War and Peace is the story of several Russian families in the early 1800s. It extends from just before the wars of Napoleon with the Grand Coalition to the conclusion of the First War of the Fatherland (the Second being tentatively the two World Wars, and definitely WWII) with Napoleon's cowardly retreat from Russia and the return of everyone's life who hasn't died to normal.
The principle characters are
-Pierre Bezuhov, an eccentric and philisophical man who spends the whole book striving to find meaning and happiness in life.-The Bolkonsky family, including Andrey Bolkonsky, an intelligent and sharp man striving to honor himself and his family who becomes embittered after the battle of Austerlitz and is subsequently trying to discover his own purpose (though not intentionally); and Marya Bolkonsky, a spiritual girl who is rich (though ugly) and is constantly on a higher spiritual plane than everyone else.
-The Rostov family, including Nikolay, the eldest son and noble patriot. He enlists in the army (as every male character will do in the book) and sets out with the best intentions seeking to defend his fatherland and czar from the evil impugnity of the French upstart. Also included is Natasha, the youngest daughter and prettiest who takes you on a roller-coaster of both being charmed by her grace and innocence and hating her guts for being such a typical teenage girl.
The story, very broadly speaking, goes as follows:
Peace, 1:
Russia is at peace, the 1,317 characters are introduced, 45 of the 73 storlines (80% of which will not be finished) are begun. The reader is invariably confused.
Good quotes:
"To tell the truth is a very difficult thing; and young people are rarely capable of it." (p.217)
War, 1:
Russia, Austria, and the Grand Coalition are at war with Napoleon. Here we have the setup and execution of the Battle of Austerlitz, considered by many to be Napoleon's greatest victory (though Tolstoy will go to incessant lengths to prove that he's a very short French idiot who happened to have his miniscule frame in the right place at the right time as per the laws of history). Andrey and Nikolay are both serving in the army, Andrey as a adjutant on one of the generals, Nikolay as a cavalryman looking for the thick of the action. Andrey and his general think the whole battle of Austerlitz as planned by the brilliant tacticians is a bad mistake, but the czar adopts the plan and the Coalition troops go into battle, falling perfectly into the traps Napoleon sets, who then waves his very very very very very very small white hand (and you know what a very very very very very very small white hand means? don't you?) and proceeds to obliterate them. Andrey is caught in the thick of action and being the true noble he is grabs the standard of his troops and rushes at the enemy. He is wounded and prepares for the inevitable death awaiting him and __ thousands of other innocent young men. In this state he has a revelation, quoting from the book:
(Napoleon and two adjutants ride upon Andrey's dying body)
"That's a fine death!" said Napoleon, looking at Bolkonsky. Prince Andrey (I forgot to mention everyone in this book is royalty, because, you know, peasants aren't cool) knew it was said of him, and that it was Napoleon saying it....he heard the words as he heard the buzzing of the flies. It was not merely that he took no interest in them, but he did not attend to them and at once forgot them. There was a burning pain in his head; he felt he was losing blood, and he saw above him the high, far-away, everlasting sky. He knew it was Napoleon, his hero, but at that moment Napoleon seemed to him such a small, insignificant creature in comparison with what was passing between his soul and that lofty, limitless sky with the clouds flying over it....
So that's that. Austerlitz is lost, Nikolay manages to survive and distinguish himself, Russia makes peace with France, and everything returns to normal.
Peace, 2:
Everything returns to 'normal'. Pierre, who in previous times has been unhappily married to the supposed most intelligent woman in Petersburg, continues to struggle finding happiness in life. He has an impressive interview with a Russian Mason, who encourages him to join the Masons and gives him quite the personal sermon. Excerpt of the same:
"I would never be so bold as to say I know the truth," said the mason...."No one alone can attain truth; only stone upon stone, with the cooperation of all, by the millions of generations from our first father Adam down to our day is that temple being reared that should be a fitting dwelling-place of the Great God." (p.318)
The interview changes the course of Pierre's life. He joins the Masons and tries to find meaning in their rituals and symbolism (which ultimately falls short of its mark).
Other things happen, but the most notable in my mind is that PRINCE ANDREY DOESN'T DIE! He returns to his family and falls in love with Natasha. The Natasha-Andrey episode is a love story worthy of a brief sumalysis (summary + analysis):
Andrey is embittered after his survival of Austerlitz. He doesn't care for God, his friends, and or those outside of his family. His love for Natasha gives him new hope. He loves her purely despite her lack of anything other than a pretty voice and looks, which any male will find typically noble of the male race, and any girl will find condescending and offensive (not really, but I need a contrast). The only proviso is: that his father (who is even more bitter than his son) wants them to wait a year. In the meantime, Andrey goes traveling abroad. While he's off, Natasha is seduced by a loser and a failure named Anatole Kuragin (don't worry, he gets his later) because of his good looks and charm despite his total lack of depth. The whole marriage proposal falls apart, and Andrey is left even more embittered and Natasha is left hollowed out emotionally and abandoned by her promised lover.
War, 2:
WAR AGAIN! Napoleon, despite his entreaties and promises, invades Russia on a weak pretext and launches his 600,000 troops at the Russian Empire intent on occupying Moskva and annihilating the opposing forces. All the main heroes are again involved, and despite Andrey's disillusionment with the army and all things he previously considered important, he joins the military and is placed in command of a regiment on the front line. Despite the foolish attempts of certain generals to engage Napoleon in a battle which would only be disastrous to the Russian campaign, the Russian forces manage a general retreat back towards the outskirts of Moskva which climaxes in Napoleon's capture of the sacred city and the battle of Borodino.
The battle of Borodino is the scene of the Russian stand where despite the brilliant calculations of Napoleon the Russian line endures strong and ultimately holds the French from taking the field. We see dramatic scenes of bravery from all our major male characters: Pierre, taking up arms in defense of his city, stands with artillerymen blasting away at the French position, Nikolay bravely rides his horse against the foe, and our my dear Andrey commands his regiment with dauntless bravado. Alas, a grenade from the dastardly French cannons falls on Andrey's regiment position and badly wounds him.
The battle itself is a success for the Russians. Despite their heavy losses they held the French who suffered heavy casualties themselves and ultimately lack the force to sustain their campaign and must begin the long retreat.
Pierre, who has been captured by the French, is, along with hundreds of thousands of troops, retreating across the ever-chilling Russian frontier, and disaster is laid for their descent all along the way. Lots of things happen, but this post is already insanely long, most aren't reading it even at this stage, and therefore we shall skip to:
Peace, 3:
In our third episode of peace we see the ascent and conclusion of many things: Andrey's death after finally uncovering the importance of love, Pierre's discovery of the meaning of life in the simple appreciation of one's existence and environment, and everyone still alive after ten years of bitter war and bloodshed gets married to each other.
LESSONS LEARNED:
Tolstoy's thesis is a theory of historical interpretation. He maintains throughout the book that the illusion of control posited by Napoleon and his Russian nemesis(s) is completely false, and that it is the individual decisions of the individuals acting in certain places which really matters. There is obviously way more to this than that, but this is the first time I've read the book, and a more complete understanding will have to be discovered in subsequent readings.
Tolstoy also wants to impress upon the reader the lesson learned by Pierre, that the simple life is the good life, that the peasant is the hero, and the noble is just diluting himself and corrupting his soul. In this I take issue with Tolstoy, but we'll leave that to the comment section.
REVIEW:
War and Peace was completely worth the time spent reading it. It's long. Very very very very very very long (almost in exact inverse to Napoleon's hands being very very very very very very small). I struggled to enjoy it for the first 250 pages, but then the battles start and it becomes both beautiful in narrative, gripping in action, and revealing in the nature of existence. I learned things about myself reading this book, and any book that does that is worth your time.
I also learned a lot about the philosophy of history. I don't agree with everything Tolstoy said, but it requires some serious mulling. Do human beings really have any free will? How is that will defined? When are we free and when are we agents to be acted upon?
In conclusion, I want everyone to read this book. If you've already read it, read it again. You'll get more out of it. Tolstoy's an engaging and brilliant writer, and you'll come away from the book better than you started. I haven't done it justice, but several sections of the book are some of the best emotional writing that I've ever seen, and it completely captivates you.
I've heard that Anna Kanerina is a better book, but I think that depends on your perspective. War and Peace is a historical fiction, presenting both a historical thesis of interpretation along with gripping love, battle, and family scenes. I haven't read Anna Kanerina, but I doubt it is quite as broad in its scope. Nevertheless, I look to read it too one day and shall give a more fair assessment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
p.s. gavin, Christians didn't stone people, the followers of the Law of Moses did.
Bret-I don't dispute that Jesus commanded the Jews to stone people, but again, I hardly think it is fair to place our 21st century code of morality as an absolute stamp of the 'fairness' of another civilization. There were a multitude of reasons for the social forms of organization and coercion that existed in the days of Moses, as today, and I hardly think we stand in a fair place to judge that. I'm not saying it's good to stone people, I'm just saying that every culture has attributes developed for environmental and other reasons and sometimes they seem strange when compared to our own.
Bret - point 2, I also don't think that individual Christians really do decide what the 'Christian' thing is. I think individual Christians pretend to do that, but that doesn't make it valid. I also don't claim a monopoly on interpreting what the Christian thing is, and I read a lot of the scriptures, so I hardly think many people can claim such a lofty privilege.
and your slam was well received. take that sarah palin.
A- The whole episode is not factual in the first place. The "exodus" never happened. The talmud is admitted by the world's foremost biblical archaeologists (Finkelstein, Herzog, et al) to be nothing more than mere legends, codified to consolidate political power by King Josiah. There is no evidence of Hebrews existing inEgypt, escaping from it, conquering Jericho, or that David's "kingdom" was anything more than a small desert clan. It even remains a point of debate whether the ancient Hebrews were even monotheistic. Biblical literalism, given the actual scholarship, is a bridge too far.
B- The same justifications you're giving for stoning here could just as easily be made from the point of view of a radical Muslim, if not moreso, as they have far more license to feel a need to "survive amidst hostile forces" in today's current world than the Jews did in a fairy-tale one. So how are you to prove your justification right, and theirs wrong?
C- I find it odd that you differentiate between the "morality" of ancient Judaism and that of the 21st century, especially in regards to Jesus. I thought god was unchanging? Why the inconsistency? Was it easier for him to watch an adulteress stoned to death back then than it would be today? Was it somehow less evil and barbaric? Why is it that the god of the Old Testament was such a vindictive, childish imp, and how is that somehow alleviated by a barbaric, bloody human sacrifice? You'd have to bend your mind into a pretzel to make that logic work.
Ultimately, the same supernatural rationalizations, superimposed into the world of reality - puts your arguments, and those of any other radical religionist on equal shaky footing.
A-I don't give absolute credence to every story in the Bible, nor to the veracity of its scale in many cases, but that doesn't undermine the theme. I believe unilateral dogmas on both sides concerning its origin fail to be either constructive or given to calm deliberation, wouldn't you agree?
B - While I personally feel that capital punishment is at best tenuously justified, that is my opinion, there are good arguments on both sides. The fact that Jews or Muslims stone(d) people for various crimes is obviously disconcerting to me, when viewed through my 21st century perspective, but before I look for the nearest pebble with which to stone other cultures, I prefer to take a moment wherein I consider the failings of our own culture. I'm not saying it's ok to stone people, I'm just saying it's not ok to do a lot of things, but various cultures have various reasons for doing the things they do and when it comes to a culture so near and dear to my heart like ancient Judaism I want to take a moment before I superimpose my enlightened sense of rightness on them.
C-God is unchanging, but neither requires him to establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of circumstances. I believe God created us to be different, that He loves our diversity, and that His plan for our progression is best calculated to our individual and cultural characteristics. In answer to your question, I do believe that it was hard for God to watch an adulteress get stoned to death just the same as it is now.
Ultimately, the ultra-rational arguments of the enlightened ex post philosopher, superimposed with limited knowledge in a world of immense complexity, is just as shaky as the arguments postulating the world is 7000 years old.
Further, you make the mistake of expounding on what "god" is, does, and doesn't do...only to close out your argument by insinuating that we're too "limited" in our knowledge to make any rational arguments. If the world is "immensely complex", you ought not make extraordinary claims to know the mind of a therefore unknowable deity.
Further, I agree that I offered a personal interpretation of God's interaction with His children, which is neither authoritative nor comprehensive, but I nowhere claimed extraordinary insight into His thinking or behavior. I offer lay opinions from a biased perspective for the sake of expounding my thoughts. But that still leaves my point about absolutism. I doubt either extreme of the faith argument has the requisite knowledge to make these definite irrefutable claims, and I believe that applies to your arguments of social and religious criticism. I've been trying to advocate the open-minded perspective (which is ironic considering my position) considering the reasons for various practices of etc....
I also will maintain that racist comments made by any person of authority in the Church were not expressed with the mind of Christ or the spirit of His inspiration.
FURTHER! I love you like a brother gavin, though I have not seen you in far too long.
As far as absolutism is concerned, I run into this line of thought all too often. For me its troublesome, because it essentially claims that since neither 87 nor 11 equal the requisite 100, both numbers are equal in value, which is absurd. Don't confuse my rejection of deity and biblical ideas for a positive assertion.
As far as the racist comments, that is also troubling to me. Prophetic statements, given history of the last century, seem to run squarely with the political and social mores of the time, rather than with some divine providence. Today's current anti-gay crusade will be looked on by tomorrow's saints as "not with the mind of Christ or spirit of his inspiration". Thought I'd agree, it would certainly be beneficial for the church to be on the right side of history for once, rather than have to explain away the demons of its past.
That said, I echo the brotherly love. I rarely turn down a debate, and appreciate the level-headed nature you approached it with. And thanks be to Bret for the use of his wall!
As far as the legitimacy of the Bible and other scriptures, while I obviously can't jump into the fundamentalist camp and say every verse in every book of every testament is not only the literal word of God but the literal accurate portrayal of historical events, I do believe that the majority of scripture is inspired text. While it might contain unsubstantiated legend, I believe that it is useful for both literature and philosophy. I understand that all scripture contains inconsistencies and the occasional anachronism, but I believe that is the price we pay for our humanity. We get things wrong sometime, but don't let this undermine your faith in the theme.
Finally, on the mores of the Church. I am not an expert on this issue (I have a hard time believing anyone is), but I think the Church is trying to walk a very difficult position between protecting a social institution it venerates and honoring the truest Christian principle. It's not going to walk this line perfectly, I no doubt will find myself questioning the wisdom of its course at times, but I think this requires me to participate in the intra-ecclesia discussion even more, not abandon it.
As for the theological noncognitivism as it relates to Christianity, I truly believe that there exist truths about God and Christ that have been clearly defined and can form a basic conceptual idea of who and what They are. VERY basic admittedly, but still delineated. I also believe the consistency of these attributes so much contested in the preceding posts to be manifest in the scriptures, even the Old Testament (although I freely admit it takes serious sallies into the insane at times, which I'd like to credit to fractious compiling, bad redaction, and just the occasional crazy rabbi). I especially feel that the Christian conception of God described in the New Testament through Christ's example and teachings and and in the Book of Mormon through various sermons and revelations hits truer to the mark than any other philosophy or creed.
All these things said, I recognize the metaphysical debate leaves much for the faith to answer. I would never contend that the religion of Christianity be completely rationally provable with our current knowledge of the universe. My personal experiences with Christ lead me to believe in His existence and verify the things I learn, but these are individual sensory perceptions based on the faculties of a young ignorant high school graduate, and ultimately rest on my personal faculties (and I won't make the Cartesian leap into asserting their ultimate validity, though I'd like to think it is the case).
THEREFORE! Gavin my brother. I concede your superior IQ and admit my admiration for your advanced conceptualization but obstinately maintain my defense of the fundamental tenets of Christianity like a true unreasonable zealot! I do this with no malice and having sincerely enjoyed the debate. We must collaborate on source material, I would very much enjoy reading some selected treatises from your bibliography.