Pastor Roland Keller makes me really happy. If you happen to fall upon my blog, reader, take a look at his; for his blog is the compilation of many more years of studying Scripture and living life.
(Preface: this is not a pet peeve of mine, or a petty annoyance. This is not unnecessary anger, this is not an empty-stomached rant.)
There is a set of billboards advertising for the awareness of discord in the Middle East, Palestine vs. Israel in particular, to college students, comparing atrocities of war (committed by Israelis against Palestinians) to those of the German concentration camps of the Second World War. None of this irks me. It is a noble cause to alert college students of modern history's contemporary events. It is noteworthy to pay attention to details and statistics of violence committed against and by any groups of humanity.
There's just one thing: beneath the mission statement board, there was a movie-rating stamp that said "Rated "T:" Truth: WARNING: IT MAY SET YOU FREE."
Uh. Yeah. That's unacceptable.
1. It is unprofessional to misquote your source.
a. This quote was plagiarized from Jesus in the gospel of John, 1st century A.D.
b. This quote was taken vastly out of context, rendering this an example of cherry-picking. You can't slice and dice sentences, much less a person's coherent thought. Especially when that Person happens to be the Son of God Almighty and the only One worthy of claiming total authority over capital T truth. But I get ahead of myself.
c. The correct context for Jesus's statement-- "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, [then] are you my disciples indeed; AND you shall know the truth, AND the truth shall set you free." (John 8:31-32, in context of claiming unity with the Father and having the power to free sinners from sin; capitalization mine).
2. It is unprofessional to intentionally use loaded language and put more emphasis on the emotional strength of an argument than on its logical weight.
a. But we live in a post-modern world where feelings trump doctrine.
b. Are you really going to argue with yourself?
c. Furthermore, it is unprofessional to use emotional language when you diametrically disagree with the logic of that emotionally compelling argument.
3. It is unprofessional to claim religious authority in a political statement.
a. Exhibit A: the 2012 republican presidential primary candidates.
b. Not only do people hide behind the facade (just pretend like we're French and the squiggly extends below the "c") of church-state separation, (which is biblical but not necessarily constitutional), assuming that church/state separation = God/state separation, they inevitably borrow from their primary authority, both corporately and personally in lawmaking. You can't help but default to your primary set of beliefs when you vote, unless you're one of those lame "I-just-vote-how-my-party/district-wants-me-to-vote" representatives. (Mental note to self: gerrymandered districts = Districts of Panem?)
c. Thus, even if you must claim, when questioned hard and long enough, religious (thus, divine) authority behind one's political opinions, our post-modern American society chooses to squelch this sort of speech.
d. Therefore, this mission statement is inherently flawed.
(Preface: this is not a pet peeve of mine, or a petty annoyance. This is not unnecessary anger, this is not an empty-stomached rant.)
There is a set of billboards advertising for the awareness of discord in the Middle East, Palestine vs. Israel in particular, to college students, comparing atrocities of war (committed by Israelis against Palestinians) to those of the German concentration camps of the Second World War. None of this irks me. It is a noble cause to alert college students of modern history's contemporary events. It is noteworthy to pay attention to details and statistics of violence committed against and by any groups of humanity.
There's just one thing: beneath the mission statement board, there was a movie-rating stamp that said "Rated "T:" Truth: WARNING: IT MAY SET YOU FREE."
Uh. Yeah. That's unacceptable.
1. It is unprofessional to misquote your source.
a. This quote was plagiarized from Jesus in the gospel of John, 1st century A.D.
b. This quote was taken vastly out of context, rendering this an example of cherry-picking. You can't slice and dice sentences, much less a person's coherent thought. Especially when that Person happens to be the Son of God Almighty and the only One worthy of claiming total authority over capital T truth. But I get ahead of myself.
c. The correct context for Jesus's statement-- "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, [then] are you my disciples indeed; AND you shall know the truth, AND the truth shall set you free." (John 8:31-32, in context of claiming unity with the Father and having the power to free sinners from sin; capitalization mine).
2. It is unprofessional to intentionally use loaded language and put more emphasis on the emotional strength of an argument than on its logical weight.
a. But we live in a post-modern world where feelings trump doctrine.
b. Are you really going to argue with yourself?
c. Furthermore, it is unprofessional to use emotional language when you diametrically disagree with the logic of that emotionally compelling argument.
3. It is unprofessional to claim religious authority in a political statement.
a. Exhibit A: the 2012 republican presidential primary candidates.
b. Not only do people hide behind the facade (just pretend like we're French and the squiggly extends below the "c") of church-state separation, (which is biblical but not necessarily constitutional), assuming that church/state separation = God/state separation, they inevitably borrow from their primary authority, both corporately and personally in lawmaking. You can't help but default to your primary set of beliefs when you vote, unless you're one of those lame "I-just-vote-how-my-party/district-wants-me-to-vote" representatives. (Mental note to self: gerrymandered districts = Districts of Panem?)
c. Thus, even if you must claim, when questioned hard and long enough, religious (thus, divine) authority behind one's political opinions, our post-modern American society chooses to squelch this sort of speech.
d. Therefore, this mission statement is inherently flawed.
4. It is anti-biblical, thus anti-Jesus, thus anti-God, thus anti-humanity (that progression isn't necessarily linear...) to speak of capital T truth outside of the words of Christ, who is the Λογος .
a. Truth is a little bit funny in that if something is true, then all of humanity is required to accept it wholeheartedly and to perform it and to relish it and to obey it. This is not a necessity but an obligation.
b. If true and valid and accurate anti-strange-pro-Palestinian-wall arguments are made, then there's a disparity.
c. True arguments are made daily, hence discord in the Near East.
d. Neither side is capital T true in their aspirations, else one side would rationally be obligated to acquiesce and surrender.
e. This wall's pro-Palestine emotional appeals are not capital T true.
f. Where's the beef?
This upsets me greatly. Or maybe I'm hungry... Nah. I'm pretty sure this's what's bothering me.
No comments:
Post a Comment