This picture seems appropriate concerning this post.
I'm gonna do something on this blog I've never done before: post about a book Kelsi recommended to me that I actually liked! Shocking, I know. But one must be varied and unpredictable lest one fall into the boring pit of monotony and languish there forever. So anyway, let's get talkin' 'bout
The Hunger Games!
So I'm sure if you're acquainted with Kelsi you've heard at least a passing description of this book, but I'll let you have the benefit of the doubt and give you the rundown. So it's the future, right? And it's set in this place that once was a magical world called North America, see? And human civilization is split up into twelve districts scattered throughout the country and a capital city that has dominion over all the districts, okay? And years ago there used to be thirteen districts but when all the districts rose up against the Capital, District 13 was obliterated, comprende? And now every year, to remind themselves how pathetic they are and to dissuade them from ever rebelling again, each district has to give up one boy and one girl below the age of 18 to fight to the death in gladiator style games that the whole country will watch, you know? And the winner will have untold fame and fortune, but the twenty-three losers will have death. And that's the setup.
The story follows Katniss, a girl from District 12 who is desperately trying to make ends meet for her family of three (herself, her sister, and her mama) by hunting and trading. But her world is turned upside down when she is randomly chosen to compete in the games. And so Katniss The Hunter Of Squirrels And Other Small Rodents must become Katniss The Killer And Stabber Of Teenage Boys And Girls. And it is awesome indeed when she does.
I loved this book so hardcore. Action is one of the hardest things to do and do well in literature (I refer to bazillions of sci-fi books that fail miserably) and yet this book had me white-knuckled through all of its intense sequences. There's a rather awesome part when the Games first begin that's quite shocking and intense, but I won't spoil it. And kudos to Suzanne Collins for not pulling any punches. She makes a story about teens and tweens killing each other be as brutal and harrowing as it sounds. There's no sissy "maybe everyone can survive and be best friends forever" endings in this book. Only killing, killing, and then some more killing! Of course, if the book was straight action it would get rather tedious no matter how well written it was, and so it's just as well that the parts that take place outside the Games are engrossing. Ms. (Mrs.?) Collins has created a very intriguing world that I'd like to explore more and has filled it with characters that actually seem real and relatable. The dialogue never seems cheesy or hackneyed like it does so many other young adult novels. And let's talk about comedy! There's nothing funnier than teenagers killing each other in brutal and gut wrenching ways, amiright? And that previous sentence just put me on every 'Most Wanted' list in the country.
Obviously I can't say enough good things about this book, so I'll stop right there. Oh, except this: whoever you are, read this book immediately so we can talk about it and get to work on writing our fan fiction together. And if you read this book and you don't like it... I don't want to know you.
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.