Why do I read

Julia asks a good question and has one answer. Some questions have answers.

Do I read to find out who I am? No - I don't think so. At least not consciously. At first I read because I was taught to read. It was fun to see the colour. Then I read because I was good at it and could read a story in the hour between awakening and rising. Then I read too fast because I was told speed reading was good for you. Wrong. Then I met the metaphysical poets and my screeching tires paused for a moment. Then I read to search for a solution to insoluble problems. Then in the anointed Jesus, I found a solution.

Then I read fast to make up for lost time and I read so much drivel wrongly and so much that is good with next to zero understanding, trying to stuff everything into a word like 'justification'. I read to define and to bolster the truth I had discovered. Wrong again.

Funny - I read comics as a child so now I can read Kavalier and Clay and enjoy a great story (even though it would be possible to draw false conclusions from it). That's a book I read quickly to find out what 'happened'.  I have a much greater appreciation for comics and my own history after this lighthearted prize winning fare.

Now I read to hear the voice of past authors or to rejoice in the authority of the one whose banner is over me and who has left for me his mark on the texts I now read very slowly. I no longer read for fear that I am left out or so totally screwed up that there is no escape. Perhaps I am reading to know who I am - but also to know that I have things in common with those whose voice I hear in the text whether author, redactor, or interpreter.

It's a good meme - why do you read?

Getting back to Ruth

It has taken me a long time to start another translation project. I continue to consider doing a detailed analysis of Ruth and its grammar. So much study and work to do though. John Hobbins has some nice detail on a few posts, most recently here.

On faith and evidence

An early morning thought - faith is not blind nor vainly hopeful. Faith is based on a growing body of personal evidence. Come hell or high water - I believe because the evidence for love is greater than the evidence of the finality of death. My evidence is congruent with the invitation in Psalm 34 - taste and see that the Lord is good. Taste is evidence based. Nothing about moral behaviour here, just trust. Happy the one who trusts in this Lord. Happy - as in 'what? me worry?' That and more. And I am not on a power trip. The problem for an observer of me - even me myself - is the subjective nature of the evidence and the deceptive nature of my inference engine. But still, given the uncertainty, my evidence is in me. This growing body of personal evidence is sufficient to the evidence of my growing body. There are no rules but the rule of the Spirit in the self-giving of Jesus leads to acts of maturing love even in me. Foolish perhaps? My human stubbornness transformed into tenacity, my inordinate desire into adoration, my darkness into light, his death in me and I in him into life. The other practical things do not go away: I still have investments, I still do business, I still must find words and works in community, I still worry over the state of things, and there are plenty of problems over which I do not have control. But the day by day, moment by moment hope does not leave me an orphan.

I repeat what I wrote yesterday because I hope it begins to get away from triumphalist Trinitarianism: I learned this personally in the death of Jesus through which I have learned to know the teaching of God. In itself, such Torah is anointing. And I add that this death is for me a beginning and a continuing because of his life in God that I believe is his resurrection. Don't believe me - if you have or if you haven't, try it for yourself.

Various thoughts on science,

In response to the claim here (a nice one - ht on all these links to exploring our matrix) my thought is that God is not a dualist.

In response to truth - various philosophical blogs like this one - I think that it is all in what one perceives. Last night I had some severe muscle spasms in both lower legs. As I stumbled into the bathroom, a floor as flat as any I know, each tile appeared to me as a mixing bowl, concave and deeper in the centre than the edges - at least 3 or 4 inches deeper. And as I put each foot down, the truth of their concave reality was presented in the signals to my brain. Clearly, the normal signal processes were delayed and what was flat (really?) appeared not so. How do I know the difference?

Various folks are responding to hve (or חוא) about who and why vs how and what and other interrogatives.In my field of work, software development, the distinction between requirements and design was said to be between the what and the how. This distinction is only partly useful since making such judgments depends on what tools you have available and therefore what 'how' you can imagine for your 'what'. In the same way, our perception is limited by our theories of the whole.

I don't usually read this blog. The arguments there against various forms of 'creationism' are not mine but I like the way the article on 'earth' is put. I try to avoid these discussions. The problem of evil is too close to the human problem. Why would God allow cats to play with mice or wasps to indwell caterpillars? Why would a loving God allow humans?

How can I be 'Christian' and not be a dualist? Simple: whatever is and whatever is to be is too deeply loved by Spirit to be orphaned. I learned this personally in the death of Jesus through which I have learned to know the teaching of God. In itself, such Torah is anointing. I think Julia gets to these reality images in posts like this one.

On the cunning serpent I made a comment. Perhaps it will get by moderation.

The failure of love

For the joy that was set before him, despising the shame, endured the cross, and sat down on the right hand of the throne of God

Humans would rather this - for the rightness of his moral character, increasing shame, forcing the enemy to endure it, and putting everyone out of the Holy Place

We just don't get it.

Adoration

Some singing from a Russian Orthodox Choir - shows that there is lots to singing that goes beyond words.

Apophatics

Rachel has a great rhetorical repast here.