Roman computer gods and you!

2 weeks ago, in the class for which I began this blog, we watched “How Should We Then Live?” by Francis Schaffer. That was all fine and somewhat humorous at times. Yesterday I was cross-referencing the term “Deus Ex Machina” (the new title of my blog—it means “god from the machine”) and all its various interpretations when I came across Cooper's Law. Simply put it says that “all machines are amplifiers.” Today I had an epiphany.

You see, I picked “Deus Ex Machina” as the new title to suggest the literary usage (sudden inexplicable resolution to an impossibility) as well the idea of blogging to explore Christianity (think about it: God from the machine/computer). Anyway, Cooper's Law is also a literary device (particularly in sci-fi) that says that any piece of predominant technology (especially advanced-tech) in literature serves as an amplification to human persona and, quite possibly, as a deus ex machina.

So, what about Francis? Well, at one point he says that the pagan gods of the Romans, like the Greeks before them, were simply amplified humanity: "Their gods depended upon the society that had made them and when this society collapsed the gods tumbled with it.”

Do you see where I'm going with this? Two notable thinkers from completely different spectrums (Schaffer a Christian historian and Cooper, well he either invented the cell phone or wrote some books) coming up with similar devices. Schaffer + Cooper = Techno-deity. I might be completely misinterpreting these two by comparing them. Either way, it made me think.

What do you think? Has our modernistic techno-saturated science-worshipping knowledge-junky culture developed its own pantheon? I know what G.K. Chesterton thought:

"When men stop believing in God they don't then believe in nothing, they believe in anything!"

The Dichotomy of 'Man'

I've alluded to this idea before. It's what I meant when I said "...neo-platonic dichotomism and its affect on the culturally disenfranchised west...." What does that actually mean?

When you think of humanity in the realm of the individual, do you think of a whole person or a makeup of different elements (ie: body, spirit, mind/soul)? Does the way you live (or the way others live) match the way you think? Whether it does or not, which perspective does it reflect?

I would argue that most of us in the West (ie: North America, not specifically cowboy-west), whichever way we would pose to understand our makeup, live as though we are, in essence, a conglomeration of different parts. This is dichotomism (or trichotomism). This, I believe, is linked back to neo-platonism which elevates the psuche ('mind/soul') and/or the pneuma ('spirit') above the soma ('body'). That is, neo-platonists believe (and believe that Plato believed) that the physical world is just a shell for the true essence of humanity: the mental/spiritual.

So what?! What does this actually mean? Well, Western culture (largely perpetuated by Western Christendom alongside re-elevation of the mind in Modernity) has bought into this fully. Think about it. How many activities or practices or whatever do you actually involve your whole self in?
I'll point out the obvious problematic example in Joe Christian:
-Joe works for a construction company (mainly physical, somewhat mental)
-Joe takes night school to get a better job (almost entirely mental)
-Joe goes to church on Sunday (spiritual) but leaves his faith at the door on his way out and goes home to eat nachos and watch football (physical and mental only).

Obviously I'm exaggerating the case but I think you get my point.

Alright, what's the resolve? From my example you may point out that 'Joe' just needs to pray more during the week to have more 'spiritual' existence/exercise (kind of like 'walking the spiritual dog'). Ok, maybe. But I pointed out the neo-platonic idea for a reason. Yes, 'Joe' is spiritually starved, but isolating his other 'elements' isn't good for him either. If you were to ask 'Joe' what he considered to be the most important part of his being, being a 'good Christian' he would answer his spirit. In fact, I bet most of us would order our importance as spirit, mind, then body (whether we practice that or not).

So here's my point: God made us as whole individuals. In fact, he made us as parts of a larger whole of community too. I will not argue against the idea that we have different elements (the Bible can attest to the existence of both physical and metaphysical) but I will not buy into the idea that we should keep said parts quartered off from each other. Good athletes will tell you that the game is just as much mental (or perhaps even more so) as it is physical. Think about that. What if our worship services engaged our body/mind/spirit deeply throughout? How about our 'menial' jobs? What about (*soapbox alert*) eating?!?! Imagine a meal where our bodies were comfortable and being fed and our minds and spirits were engaged with each other in 'conversation' and thankfulness to God.

For more on 'holism' see 'the Bible' (especially any parts written by someone who had any degree of a 'Hebrew' connection).

Dag, yo!

So, I just tried on a new template for my blog and, [insert expletive here], lost my links. Huh. Well, I'll fix that later. So, how'she look?

Well, I just perused through the other blogs from amongst the fine folks in my 'Christianity and [Western (so far)] Culture' Class. And you know what I realized? The rest of you have stayed right alongside the weekly material. Well, good for you!

But, you know what? I think that's ok. I'm just writing the way my thought pattern delineates. I may not address the exact same issues as everybody else but I'm not too worried.

Hmm. What's with all the dead links???

Try clicking here.

Man Found on Road: Ned!

...so, perhaps I should add some detail to my last two posts (1, 2)...
Well, if you read the one and watched/listened to the other you are probably getting some idea of some of my ideals. I'm ecologically minded (can't say 'ecologist' since I don't have the appropriate studies under my belt and 'environmentalist' is to sterile). I'm also a supporter of the opensource/free culture movement (which you would have gathered if you had checked out "Free Mickey"). Add these to other elements of my polity and you quickly realize I'm somewhat of a "gen-x hippie" (though, that may be a redundant title).

I wont bother to get into free culture movement (seriously, Free Mickey should be enough to inform and convince you). And as far as Christian ecology goes Scripture and the ramifications of this guy, this guy, and this guy should be enough.
So, perhaps I haven't added all that much detail to my previous 2 posts (other than more hyperlinks... surprise).

Oh well. My point was more of simple clarification. As is common with me, however, clarification is rarely simple and never clear. How about this: I promise to blog about neo-platonic dichotomism and its affect on the culturally disenfranchised west sometime within the next two weeks (or whatever).

Free Mickey!!!

Creation Care

As introduction (and caveat) to this blog entry let me first say that I'm fairly passionate about this issue. Let me 'second' [sic] say that my blog entries are best viewed using Mozilla Firefox WebBrowser. The main reason is because I use so many blasted links! With Firefox, if you press 'ctrl' when you click on a link it opens up in a new 'tab' (the same thing happens if you click your wheelmouse button on a link). VERY handy for reading an article full of links you would like to check out without going back and forth forever. (That, and it just works better than Internet Explorer).

70% of China's fresh water is undrinkable! (I'm sure this didn't help). Check here and here for more info.

Well, this is good news!
Funny, the world's top scientists have been making this case for years (probably close to 50 now) and it took a terrorist backed government being elected to finally 'tip' the iceberg [bad pun and allusion intentional].

I'll hold back and stop linking to global environmental problems (oops!), but I would like to make a point of all this. That is, what is the Christian response? First, should our perspective be shaped by our faith or is this purely a non-spiritual issue (like wearing a red rather than blue sweater-vest). I think it's significantly more important than cardigans. Ok, then what is the faith response? I see three possible responses:
1. Ignore it--don't care
I'm not even going to bother refuting that position! The consequences are obvious.
2. Interpret Genesis 1:28 as "domination" or "despotic rule" and generally hold disdain for the earth. Hey, the world is evil, right? And it's all going to be destroyed in the end anyway, right?
May I suggest reading Revelation 11:18b? Did you even know the Bible said that?
3. Interpret Genesis 1:28 as "benevolent rule" or "stewardship" and drop the neo-platonic undertones that have cursed Christian communities since the days of Paul.
But what responsibility does that then leave us? Check this book out for a start.

However, there is another responsibility. That is that taking on a holistic (and fundamentally Hebraic) view of God's Creation automatically gets you labeled a heretic and "New Age Sympathizer" by folks in response #2. (I suppose they wouldn't be particularly fond of this book!). However, the issue of syncretism and symbiosis is for another entry. So is the nature of Christian holism. I'd better leave this topic for now, but please comment.