Just to let you know, I've invited both to be authors, so hopefully they'll be posting. Edith's already keeping a blog you may want to check out at http://gloradin.blogspot.com
see y'all :)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
first chapter
This chapter really reminds me of the very first class i walked into at duke: intro to philosophy (freshman seminar) in the sense that it tries to use logic to argue everything. The rules of the game are to making sound/cogent arguments, and the arguments are always directed against skeptics.
I guess the author took a really general skeptic view of language and truth to pick a fight with. From what I gathered, the argument connecting language and God is that the fact that we can derive meaning from language suggests that there is something universal to be described, and that language actually carries meaning about the world. And then a step further, accepting that there is such thing as meaning in the world means there are certain truths, but these truths have to be defined (and most people think we're not capable of defining these truths), and that's where God comes in. But skeptics argue that there is no meaning, no absolute truth in the universe. Language has no higher meaning, no authoritative power. *skip a few steps* therefore, there is no God and the Bible is just a book with no meaning or truth.
The author's argument against this was pretty much just exposing a paradox (which i found really unsatisfying). She basically said, 'well if words have no meaning, then the skeptics' words have no meaning either and they contradict themselves' you cant say there's no absolute truth because believing that there is no absolute truth is in itself, a truth you believe in. *sigh* i really dont like logical arguments cause they're so pointless to me, it's just playing a game. agreeing with others and their methodology just to say "i beat you at your own game.. but dont worry i don't play that game anyway.. i rely on faith.. which is illogical in itself." ???
it reminds me of the "why is there suffering" lecture last year after proxe stations that left a lot of people (along with myself) unsatisfied.. it attempted to produce a cogent argument for an all-powerful, loving God to allow suffering in the world. It's like trying to use math to solve a reading comprehension problem. I believe that you can't use philosophy and logic to explain God.
as for the scenario on pg 24, i agree with you sabrina, language has changed a lot over time, especially with the bible. there are so many different translations, oral traditions, and even canons. not to mention the cultural barriers. i think the author was just trying to make another argument against skeptics who believe in essense that we think therefore we are. That we interpret whatever we read in our own context (culture, social, time, etc influences). any meaning we give to something we read is just a reflection of our background. but the author is saying that it would be impossible for us to learn something new if we came about learning everything based on what already defines us. But i would say that even in our removed cultural contexts we can still learn something new. I think the author got too wrapped up in making arguments against skeptics, that there is little conclusive, "how should we read the bible" application
i think it was good though how the author at the end says we should examine parts of the bible like who the authors actually were, why the wrote it, etc. i think that understanding historical background is extremely important. even though the author gives a tough example of how 2 people read the same thing once, they both reached completely different conclusions, cautiously.. i'm ok with that. i took a new testament class (historical basis) last year. it seemed like the non-christians in the class would take what they learned and strengthen arguments against God, while the Christians took what they learned and it reaffirmed their faith. I think that more important than where/who you grew up with, your background, your friends, family, etc your heart is still on its own. You can decide to give it to God or keep it for yourself. If your heart is set on something whether it be that God isn't real or that He is, anything you read or experience will probably be fit into that thought until you make a decision to accept God or not. Even if there is an absolute truth, if you're so bent on believing otherwise, you'll never find it. So to answer the question that is the title of the chapter, "Isn't it all a matter of interpretation?", yes, it's a matter of interpretation until you become open to thinking otherwise. When you let God in, when you seek with enough curiosity to look deeper into the bible, the meaning hidden between the lines, experience an answered prayer, then you find that you're not just interpreting a religious manuscript, you're interpretting God's will. Yes i understand this is very circular thinking, logically speaking, but i'm not gonna try to make a cogent argument for what i believe. I believe what I believe because I believe I've seen how God has worked in my life :)
P.S it's absolutely gorgeous outside!!!! dolphins! sand! waves! wind! warm! salty-air! VAST ocean! tell me there's no meaning in life... :D
I guess the author took a really general skeptic view of language and truth to pick a fight with. From what I gathered, the argument connecting language and God is that the fact that we can derive meaning from language suggests that there is something universal to be described, and that language actually carries meaning about the world. And then a step further, accepting that there is such thing as meaning in the world means there are certain truths, but these truths have to be defined (and most people think we're not capable of defining these truths), and that's where God comes in. But skeptics argue that there is no meaning, no absolute truth in the universe. Language has no higher meaning, no authoritative power. *skip a few steps* therefore, there is no God and the Bible is just a book with no meaning or truth.
The author's argument against this was pretty much just exposing a paradox (which i found really unsatisfying). She basically said, 'well if words have no meaning, then the skeptics' words have no meaning either and they contradict themselves' you cant say there's no absolute truth because believing that there is no absolute truth is in itself, a truth you believe in. *sigh* i really dont like logical arguments cause they're so pointless to me, it's just playing a game. agreeing with others and their methodology just to say "i beat you at your own game.. but dont worry i don't play that game anyway.. i rely on faith.. which is illogical in itself." ???
it reminds me of the "why is there suffering" lecture last year after proxe stations that left a lot of people (along with myself) unsatisfied.. it attempted to produce a cogent argument for an all-powerful, loving God to allow suffering in the world. It's like trying to use math to solve a reading comprehension problem. I believe that you can't use philosophy and logic to explain God.
as for the scenario on pg 24, i agree with you sabrina, language has changed a lot over time, especially with the bible. there are so many different translations, oral traditions, and even canons. not to mention the cultural barriers. i think the author was just trying to make another argument against skeptics who believe in essense that we think therefore we are. That we interpret whatever we read in our own context (culture, social, time, etc influences). any meaning we give to something we read is just a reflection of our background. but the author is saying that it would be impossible for us to learn something new if we came about learning everything based on what already defines us. But i would say that even in our removed cultural contexts we can still learn something new. I think the author got too wrapped up in making arguments against skeptics, that there is little conclusive, "how should we read the bible" application
i think it was good though how the author at the end says we should examine parts of the bible like who the authors actually were, why the wrote it, etc. i think that understanding historical background is extremely important. even though the author gives a tough example of how 2 people read the same thing once, they both reached completely different conclusions, cautiously.. i'm ok with that. i took a new testament class (historical basis) last year. it seemed like the non-christians in the class would take what they learned and strengthen arguments against God, while the Christians took what they learned and it reaffirmed their faith. I think that more important than where/who you grew up with, your background, your friends, family, etc your heart is still on its own. You can decide to give it to God or keep it for yourself. If your heart is set on something whether it be that God isn't real or that He is, anything you read or experience will probably be fit into that thought until you make a decision to accept God or not. Even if there is an absolute truth, if you're so bent on believing otherwise, you'll never find it. So to answer the question that is the title of the chapter, "Isn't it all a matter of interpretation?", yes, it's a matter of interpretation until you become open to thinking otherwise. When you let God in, when you seek with enough curiosity to look deeper into the bible, the meaning hidden between the lines, experience an answered prayer, then you find that you're not just interpreting a religious manuscript, you're interpretting God's will. Yes i understand this is very circular thinking, logically speaking, but i'm not gonna try to make a cogent argument for what i believe. I believe what I believe because I believe I've seen how God has worked in my life :)
P.S it's absolutely gorgeous outside!!!! dolphins! sand! waves! wind! warm! salty-air! VAST ocean! tell me there's no meaning in life... :D
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Here's the announcements from this week, if you guys are interested (3 videos). It was spring break sharing week, so no recording.
Take care,
ben
Take care,
ben
the first!
I guess I'll share my thoughts first since you guys are probably still sleeping right now. Before I share about the book though, I'd like to write down something I was thinking about earlier this week.
Last Friday (a week ago) was my first time at a homegroup here. After an icebreaker question, we began to worship. I was very conscious about the words we were singing like "Your will controlling my every move" or something along those lines, and I wondered, why are the German people here okay with singing this? Don't they think of the Nazis/WWII or the Stasi? As I thought about it some more the next day, I realized another factor that played into what attitude they have is their age. The people in my home group are around 30 or younger I think, which means it's possible that they didn't have too much firsthand experience of a divided Germany (I have a feeling the Germans in our group also grew up in the West). The history might still play a role for other young people who aren't Christian though. Anyway, just thought that was interesting.
So, on with the book. I felt very illiterate while reading the first chapter ("Isn't It All A Matter of Interpretation?"). I couldn't really follow her argument about how language has no meaning unless God exists. When you guys wake up, would someone help explain that a little more? I'm sorry I'm not more specific with my confusion.
I also didn't see how the scenario she paints on pg. 24 isn't reality. HASN'T language changed over time and some meaning been lost to us due to living within a different context? Take for example old texts like Shakespeare. The average student can hardly understand his work without the footnotes and without having learned some background. Am I reading this wrong?
I am a confused girl.
Last Friday (a week ago) was my first time at a homegroup here. After an icebreaker question, we began to worship. I was very conscious about the words we were singing like "Your will controlling my every move" or something along those lines, and I wondered, why are the German people here okay with singing this? Don't they think of the Nazis/WWII or the Stasi? As I thought about it some more the next day, I realized another factor that played into what attitude they have is their age. The people in my home group are around 30 or younger I think, which means it's possible that they didn't have too much firsthand experience of a divided Germany (I have a feeling the Germans in our group also grew up in the West). The history might still play a role for other young people who aren't Christian though. Anyway, just thought that was interesting.
So, on with the book. I felt very illiterate while reading the first chapter ("Isn't It All A Matter of Interpretation?"). I couldn't really follow her argument about how language has no meaning unless God exists. When you guys wake up, would someone help explain that a little more? I'm sorry I'm not more specific with my confusion.
I also didn't see how the scenario she paints on pg. 24 isn't reality. HASN'T language changed over time and some meaning been lost to us due to living within a different context? Take for example old texts like Shakespeare. The average student can hardly understand his work without the footnotes and without having learned some background. Am I reading this wrong?
I am a confused girl.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Rockbridge
Hey guys! Who's gonna be back in time for Rockbridge (May 4-9). You should come!! It would be a great time to reconnect with the chapter. The registration form is up at http://www.duke.edu/web/IVCF/rb09.pdf
Let Ace or I know if you have questions or need a scholarship (we have them, so if you need, ask!).
Let Ace or I know if you have questions or need a scholarship (we have them, so if you need, ask!).
Saturday, March 7, 2009
IV update
Hey guys!
A lot's been happening around here lately. We had Coach Cutcliffe speak last large group, which was pretty cool. Some new GiGs are starting, including another frosh one. We've finished up CTeam for next year and are ready to announce. The Bonx team left this morning after being worried about havign enough cars until very recently. Yeah, it's been cool.
In other news, OIT'sservers have pretty much died. They crashed twice this week, knocking out wireless on campus and a lot of Duke sites, including ours. But I've uploaded some new content recently.
A lot's been happening around here lately. We had Coach Cutcliffe speak last large group, which was pretty cool. Some new GiGs are starting, including another frosh one. We've finished up CTeam for next year and are ready to announce. The Bonx team left this morning after being worried about havign enough cars until very recently. Yeah, it's been cool.
In other news, OIT'sservers have pretty much died. They crashed twice this week, knocking out wireless on campus and a lot of Duke sites, including ours. But I've uploaded some new content recently.
- The Team Fun Video from Two weeks ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkXbaBtK0f0&feature=channel_page
- Last week's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C3xwsz6HIw&feature=PlayList&p=F4E569523AE0D56A&index=0&playnext=1 (notice it's a playlist--two videos)
- iTunes: https://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/new.duke.edu.1678278435
where's the time gone?
Sorry about the long delay in updates guys. I haven’t done such a great job with time management, but that’s my bad. The number of facebook posts I haven’t responded to has been the highest it’s ever been in quite some time.
I went to visit a good friend in Edinburgh over the weekend (we grew up together in the same church), and that was huge blessing. It was the first time in a while that I could talk to someone about spiritual stuff in person. I appreciate this blog and the correspondence I have with people through e-mail or facebook, but it is definitely different when there’s a physical person to talk to. One of the things we talked about was how we felt that Christianity in our cities, based on our respective experiences, was more like one’s cultural background. Yeah, some people go to church on Sundays or fellowship, but there doesn’t seem to be the kind of eagerness to learn/ engage/be challenged that I’m used to in IV. I personally haven’t been to a fellowship yet due to class and program conflicts, but my friend Vicky has, and she says that the people who go spend the first 3 hours eating and socializing before any discussion actually begins. My own experience with church on Sunday has been of very traditions-centered services with sermons that seem to only skim the surface. Although, I don’t know, maybe I’m not being humble enough. I’m not saying that this kind of Christianity is unique to European cities like Berlin and Edinburgh. Even my classmates in the program reflect this. We have a surprisingly “religious” group of kids here. There’s one atheist/Buddhist, one Quaker, three Catholics, one Mormon, and one other Protestant besides me (they are all self-declared to be these). The only one who seems to take what they’ve said of themselves seriously is the Mormon. But, wait, who am I to judge? Agh. I’m visiting another church tomorrow that was recommended to me by the lady who works for an IV-like organization here. I hope God will keep me humble and my heart open for what’s to be said.
In other news, I’ve been busy not finishing my reading assignments. XP We’ve had to read three books so far (The Sorrows of Young Werther, Tannhaeuser, and Faust). The amount of each book I’ve read decreased with each book, not that I read much of the first one. That’s only for my afternoon class though. The morning class is taking it’s toll on me. Those 3 hours in the morning seem to get longer each week. At least we get to do some cool stuff though. Like on Thursday, we went to one of the worst parts of Berlin and visited a museum to learn about the creation of the bezirk (it’s like a borough) and the history since we’re discussing stuff like crime and immigration at the moment. Another activity I liked was how we were split into two groups and had to create a crime story. We’re supposed to present our pieces on Monday. Should be exciting.
This is directed more towards Jason and Christina: I haven’t received the book yet, but I know you guys’ve had it for a while, so feel free to start without me. I have no idea when it should be arriving. Just let me know where you guys are at. If you’ve got time, please share what you’ve been reading and/or reactions to it. :)
I’m missing you all.
I went to visit a good friend in Edinburgh over the weekend (we grew up together in the same church), and that was huge blessing. It was the first time in a while that I could talk to someone about spiritual stuff in person. I appreciate this blog and the correspondence I have with people through e-mail or facebook, but it is definitely different when there’s a physical person to talk to. One of the things we talked about was how we felt that Christianity in our cities, based on our respective experiences, was more like one’s cultural background. Yeah, some people go to church on Sundays or fellowship, but there doesn’t seem to be the kind of eagerness to learn/ engage/be challenged that I’m used to in IV. I personally haven’t been to a fellowship yet due to class and program conflicts, but my friend Vicky has, and she says that the people who go spend the first 3 hours eating and socializing before any discussion actually begins. My own experience with church on Sunday has been of very traditions-centered services with sermons that seem to only skim the surface. Although, I don’t know, maybe I’m not being humble enough. I’m not saying that this kind of Christianity is unique to European cities like Berlin and Edinburgh. Even my classmates in the program reflect this. We have a surprisingly “religious” group of kids here. There’s one atheist/Buddhist, one Quaker, three Catholics, one Mormon, and one other Protestant besides me (they are all self-declared to be these). The only one who seems to take what they’ve said of themselves seriously is the Mormon. But, wait, who am I to judge? Agh. I’m visiting another church tomorrow that was recommended to me by the lady who works for an IV-like organization here. I hope God will keep me humble and my heart open for what’s to be said.
In other news, I’ve been busy not finishing my reading assignments. XP We’ve had to read three books so far (The Sorrows of Young Werther, Tannhaeuser, and Faust). The amount of each book I’ve read decreased with each book, not that I read much of the first one. That’s only for my afternoon class though. The morning class is taking it’s toll on me. Those 3 hours in the morning seem to get longer each week. At least we get to do some cool stuff though. Like on Thursday, we went to one of the worst parts of Berlin and visited a museum to learn about the creation of the bezirk (it’s like a borough) and the history since we’re discussing stuff like crime and immigration at the moment. Another activity I liked was how we were split into two groups and had to create a crime story. We’re supposed to present our pieces on Monday. Should be exciting.
This is directed more towards Jason and Christina: I haven’t received the book yet, but I know you guys’ve had it for a while, so feel free to start without me. I have no idea when it should be arriving. Just let me know where you guys are at. If you’ve got time, please share what you’ve been reading and/or reactions to it. :)
I’m missing you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)