Disqus - Latest Comments for themattscott

Re: Watch: Christian Rapper Answers Macklemore's 'Same Love' Gay Anthem

themattscott — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:21:57 -0000

Heterosexual people suffer from HIV/AIDS more than homosexuals.

The statistics reveal more people living with HIV were infected through heterosexual sex than any other exposure route - See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-F...

Re: When Home-Schooling Goes Horribly Wrong…

themattscott — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:19:33 -0000

Eh, I see both sides of this argument. I was homeschooled in a religious household for six years before finishing my junior and senior years at a public school (well really, I did one year at the public school and another year doing a joint college/high school program). My parents did an OK job of teaching us, but only three teachers (out of eight that I had) at the public school did what I consider a good job when it came to teaching students. It really wasn't until college that I began to see teachers (in this case, professors) who really understood pedagogical methodology.

Re: Identity and Responsibility: The Irony of Self-Labeling

themattscott — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:13:15 -0000

My apologies for taking four days to respond; the semester started last week, and I decided to spend the past weekend doing nothing (since I won't have that opportunity again for 16 weeks).

Regarding the necessity of separation (with the assumption that I've interpreted your question correctly): I do not think separation is a necessity in any relationship, but that it will happen in almost every relationship. I fully acknowledge that many Christians would wholly reject my assumption of the Christian identity; but I hope that I will continually work toward deeper relations with them and break that separation.

Regarding the peoples and powers that would prefer to remain in a state that happily dehumanizes (to return to the original terminology), and would accept their own dehumanization in the eyes of others: I would say that it is precisely these people who need to understand the fullness of humanity. I think that working with a concept of personhood/humanity that is anything less than a holistic view will create a very stunted level of growth in that individual.

I readily agree that Christian theology is radical. But in my comment I meant along the lines of radical in comparison to typical expressions of Christian Theology (i.e. I would not define substitutionary atonement as "Radical").

I also agree that protestant ecclesiology is wanting (and any ecclesiology that views itself as protestant will be wanting in my eyes, if by no other means than that it asserts an ecclesiology for something other than the Church-catholic). Really, ecclesiology is a field in which I have never taken much interest; while I have done a little reading about it lately, I am still very much a novice. Personally, I'm less concerned with the practices of the Church as an institution, and tend to view the Church simply as the sum of those who claim to act as Christians. Although again, I need to spend some more time ruminating on the subject.

Re: Identity and Responsibility: The Irony of Self-Labeling

themattscott — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:50:31 -0000

Larry,
I'm wondering if you'd be willing to flesh out what you mean by individuation "through the ultimate identity of Christ." Specifically, what do you mean by "ultimate identity"? Is that speaking eschatologically, or more along the lines of our final identity resting in Christ?

One note about rejecting individualism to allow individuation: I have found that rejecting an action that I have, or could, commit tends to lead to me committing the very action I set out to reject. Refocusing, however, is a far easier way to change which actions I am prone to commit. For example, I spent many years trying not to be a jerk to people and failing. It wasn't until I began to try to be loving/kind/charitable that I stopped acting like a jerk (so often). Hopefully that example helps clarify my meaning. In this case, curing "individualism" won't come from trying to be less "individualistic," but from trying to be more relational.

Anyway, my theology (and Žižek’s) is a bit more radical than what I've presented in this post. One of my upcoming posts will undoubtedly deal with this topic, but I'll say a bit about it briefly. I think the goal should not be to retain a "Christian" identity; instead, we should find ever deepening ways of losing identities, which act as reinforced assertions of separation between ourselves and others. Again, if individuated, then there is no loss of actual personhood, nor of belief, but a loss of forced separation and broken relations.

On the topic of ecclesiology, I'm interested to read Jones' latest book about Emergent/Relational ecclesiology. I have a feeling that it'll be an ecclesiological position that reduces the focus on internal divisions within the Church, provided my interpretation of Moltmann's position is akin to Tony's interpretation.

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

themattscott — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 03:23:41 -0000

I think there's a couple points that need to be addressed before I can really answer that question.

I don't think that we should "make it a point to include every voice," but that we should make it a point to include precisely those voices we desire to exclude (and that every voice should be allowed the space to speak). This enables the creation of a pluralism, which is not a bad thing. In a true pluralism, not only do I allow every Other the space to hold her/his own belief and make truth claims, I must also allow myself to judge the other's claims--not in a judgmental way, like "that opinion is terribly stupid" but as an assessment of your perspective on the truth claim itself, a la "Matt, I believe pure inclusivity is an impossibility in reality." The common idea of pluralism (which I heartily oppose) posits that each opinion is equally valid, leaving claims like "We are all just flying purple fish dreaming that we are human" just as 'valid' as "Whatever we are, we have no choice but to act in the world." This outlook allows for neither change nor growth, and instead instills the particularistic system (fueled by heterogeneity) that you mentioned. A real pluralism creates discussion driven not by the assertion each particular belief, but by the engagement and relation of every belief with every other belief.

This allows for new understanding, creativity, and (I believe) possibilities for the world. To concretize that thought: If I allow someone to express their beliefs that GLBTQ people are sinners and same-sex love is wrong, and if I actually listen to what that person is saying, I can begin to understand why they hold that view. In seeking to understand the other, I find new ways to make myself understandable. Beyond the GLBTQ subject, another example I frequently encounter because of pluralism is that my own view is strengthened. If I allow others to judge my belief and provide them the space to talk to me about those judgments, then I encounter things about my beliefs that I couldn't grasp on my own. Essentially, without encouraging those that disagree with me to engage with me, I miss out on understandings that would be otherwise inaccessible to me.

As far as "group identity" goes, I think what one seeks in an identity is vitally important to what the group will look like. Really, I don't believe that we should be placing our identities in groups, and if I am asked to label myself, I attempt to make the label something that eschews actually using that label as my identity (i.e. I am an atheist-Christian--a seeming contradiction in terms that requires someone to actually engage with me to find out about my belief, similarly to the term you used instead of Christian a few years ago).

Letting go of identity, I think the important question is, "what is the purpose of the group" (what 'common goals' are we aiming for, in your words). To me, being united in a common goal actually makes inclusivity easier (and achieving the goal is, in turn, easier because of this inclusivity). Most, if not all, groups come together to create a better world. Groups that fly planes into buildings do so because they think it will help create a better world; as do groups that pass out gospel tracts to random strangers, or groups that donate every moment of free time to working with the poor. Where these groups go wrong and end up harming the world (rather than achieving their desire to better it) stems, I believe, in the lack of embracing voices who would challenge their belief. In defining what opinion is acceptable within a group, you pre-determine the course that every discussion will take.

The post that I was supposed to post today (well, it's after midnight, so yesterday) speaks to another problem that we encounter by excluding those who we have deemed "unacceptable" to allow in our circles. It's actually written, I just need to make some final edits/clarifications, it should be up by the end of the day tomorrow (Sunday).

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

themattscott — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:29:40 -0000

I understand that in response to Gregg's question, "are you back in your old church?" it may seem like I am not actually actively engaged in the very thing that I am asking of others, but enacting this philosophy is something that I attempt to carry out in every aspect of my life--not just in relation to the Church. However, even if I am a hypocrite, I don't think that actually matters to the message itself. If you don't believe I am acting accordingly, then challenge me to do so, but don't let my own failures dicate your own action in this manner.

And please understand how much respect I have for you in how long you continued working at your church. I could see the frustration you were feeling in the early days of the cohort, and I found (and still find) the fact that you kept working at the church a challenge to my own desire to "abandon ship."

As for my "ideal," that term seems to imply that my faith in love/inclusion is unrealistic. I understand that feeling, and in response I turn (again) to Martin Luther King Jr.:

"Certainly these are great words, words lifted to cosmic proportions. And over the centuries, many persons have argued that this is an extremely difficult command. Many would go so far as to say that it just isn’t possible to move out into the actual practice of this glorious command. They would go on to say that this is just additional proof that Jesus was an impractical idealist who never quite came down to earth. So the arguments abound. But far from being an impractical idealist, Jesus has become the practical realist. The words of this text glitter in our eyes with a new urgency. Far from being the pious injunction of a utopian dreamer, this command is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. Yes, it is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies."
What likely comes across as my "pious"ness stems, I believe, not from an insistence that you've gotten it wrong, but from a personal fear that I too may hit the point where all of the hurt becomes too much. I understand the need to pull back and rest (and recover from the hurt), but I hope that I am challenged to linger in that resting space no longer than necessary.

Re: Musings

themattscott — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:11:48 -0000

I should definitely read it. Especially considering it's been sitting on my bookshelf waiting for me since the beginning of last semester.

Re: Progressive taxation pt2

themattscott — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:43:40 -0000

"ometimes I think you just say absurd things to get a reaction from me!"
I feel the same way about your response.

"I have an issue with people being taxed a higher percentage of their income solely because they had a larger sum."
It's not that sole issue, but rather what is predicated from having a larger sum, which is the ability to pay more without reaching a point of collapse.

"So with your implication that it's unfair for everyone to be held to the same standard, i can see where the word 'tautologous' gets tossed in."
We are disagreeing on what standard is applied. Government should not tax people past their breaking point, thats mine. Government should not tax anyone differently, that, or something like it, is yours. But, as far as the tautology goes, you can plug in majority or minority in either place, and the opposite term in the other, and net the same valid statement, which is, essentially, tyranny of the minority or the majority over the other is a Bad Thing.

"a consumption tax would favor those who.. consume less? especially given that our nation would never tax basic food."
The Fair Tax is basically a consumptive tax. The problem is the required tax rate still effectively hurts the poor more than anyone else.

"if that' equality based on the same general scale... we can call this equality too I guess: everyone's only taxed 100% of the first $20,000 they make. then everything else is tax free. Clearly you'll think this is stupid as it is in no way feasible. Duurrr. But. It's equal. So we have the same incentives, right?"
You're arguing for a state of tax equality, but this particular equal tax isn't good because equality can be bad? WTF?

Re: Why I don’t believe in god–pt3: Design

themattscott — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:48:45 -0000

First off, thanks for your comment, but please refrain from posting it 13 times. I hate to have to block people, but I also hate having to manage comments.
Moving along now...
I didn't mention anything about god's sovereignty, indeed that would be taking the notion of god for granted, a notion at which this post is centered.
As for purposelessness, meaninglessness, and worthlessness, I'm afraid I disagree. While there was perhaps no inherited meaning in my life, I choose to make meaning. While, perhaps, I was not given a purpose by some designer, I choose to create a purpose. I can choose to create these two things, I don't need them implicitly or explicitly given to me by a third party.

As for worth, here shines your biggest issue with your line of reasoning. Worth is, by far, the easiest of the three to have without the need of a god. My friends have worth to me, my family has worth to me, you have worth to me, and those same feelings are reciprocated amongst my family and friends toward me. Even if my family, friends, and everyone else held no value on my life, I assign worth to myself!

Re: Why I am Agnostic, pt 2–causality

themattscott — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:35:38 -0000

guess what, you just previewed my "why I'm not an atheist" argument. Great.

Though, I do object to your Cartesian-esque view that that we cannot innately know something outside of ourselves, but I'll obviously touch a bit more on that later.

Re: Why I am Agnostic, pt 2–causality

themattscott — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:33:41 -0000

“I also choose to accept that my sensual experiences are rooted in a reality beyond my own perceptions--again, not because of an argument, but because it's apparent to me that this is the case.”

Meh, solipsism was all I focused on last year.

Anyways, in regards to sense/experience, I do cling to some modern levels of thinking, I do believe in pure experience (remember all my talk of Nishida?) that happens before interpretation, thus objectively (though Nishida would take it a step farther and say that pure experience is beyond even the objective/subjective divide, but that’s another argument for another day). I do not cling deeply to some pure empiricism, (And while I’m probably best labeled a positivist, I don’t actually think I am) and do open the door to true “fact” lying outside of sensory experience, I think pure objectivity is something out there, but something untenable by our innate subjectivity.

Where was I going with this argument? I dunno, I’ll stop.

Re: Why I am Agnostic, pt 2–causality

themattscott — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:12:43 -0000

My argument (actually, Russell's argument, slightly modified) takes a bit of a different approach, having much more to do with theodicy, but I like your reasoning here.
I question, then, if you think it's impossible to approach the basis of God in any sort of objective way? And I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, I wanted there to be a God, yet came to a conclusion that I saw no evidence nor reason for a god.

Re: Why I Am Agnostic

themattscott — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:01:33 -0000

I think agnosticism is the best term to explore my viewpoint, but I would hesitate in saying that it was either rooted in modernism, or within the a/theism dichotomies of before. If anything, I view it as the ultimate standpoint of "I don't know, and I'm not comfortable with making truth claims about it."

Re: continental philo, when I finally start applying to post-grad programs, it will (most likely, but I may change a bit) be for continental, but I'll probably look for those programs that intertwine analytical standpoints with it (this is becoming more a more common practice).

Re: Why I Am Agnostic

themattscott — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:52:24 -0000

I think I had swung myself overboard from the ship of theism about a year ago, but for some reason I got caught up in some trailing lines and was taken for a ride for a while.

Re: Why I am not a Christian (pt 2)

themattscott — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:54:53 -0000

Thanks?

Re: Why I am not a Christian (pt 2)

themattscott — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0000

re: Phantasies, I'll pick it up next time I'm at a bookstore (about once a month).

Re: Christ, yeah, that needs a post. Good point.

Re: Why I am not a Christian

themattscott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:01:16 -0000

I've been wanting to pick that book up, but my stack of books to read is a bit intense, and even with multi-booking it (a lovely skill I've newly acquired) I don't know when I'll get around to it.

Thanks for recommending it though, personal recommendations do tend to carry a bit more weight with me. :)

Re: Why I am not a Christian

themattscott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:59:51 -0000

Truth. I never put much weight in the headier proofs like first cause, but there were other things like the vast number of requirements that are needed for human survival, things like this comforted me for a while. Not so much anymore.

Again, I'll kinda prod this a bit more over the next few posts.

Re: Why I am not a Christian

themattscott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:58:37 -0000

I don't know if I'd consider myself a naturalist, but I certainly lean that way quite often, then the next day I don't. :)
Such is my life.

Re: Why I am not a Christian

themattscott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:55:58 -0000

Fair enough, I'll break into some more defining content over the next few posts, my world had another mini-blow up today so my plan to write something tonight was nixed.

Re: Why I am not a Christian

themattscott — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:54:43 -0000

solace and comfort have been found on this road.

Re: the tornado to stop the "gays"

themattscott — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:54:34 -0000

I wonder if, were some ill to befall Piper's church, would he find what sin he needs to repent of? Would he see it as a sign of God's displeasure? Or would he see it as an attack of the Devil and a direct reason to continue along his "path"?

Re: Health and Care

themattscott — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:38:59 -0000

I think Glenn Beck has the largest, most outspoken audience out there. They think him very serious, they imagine him a genius, and a shepherd for "liberty".

Re: Health and Care

themattscott — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:35:51 -0000

I think you misunderstand the system as it's being proposed. First, those who would claim it to be free are the uneducated masses, understandably certain financial costs are involved (which according to projections will actually SAVE money for the US in the end), and those financial costs will probably be borne by the upper class. I stated at the beginning of this post that I would be ok with an increase in my tax costs to help pay for health care (though perhaps we could cut the defense budget instead).

Your second point, that there is no incentive to work hard, is rather amusing. From the anti healthcare side, there are consistent exclamations of the goodness of the american doctors, they're the best in the world and so on and so forth. Then they utter that these doctors will go elsewhere because of "socialized medicine" which is rather amusing as their choices for non-socialized medicine countries are rather limited. Anyways, I'd be curious to know which part of the plan will cause a loss of incentive to our healthcare practitioners?

Re: Boundary Waters trip map

themattscott — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:13:37 -0000

Nice, I think I'll need to take a break from technology sometime soon too. Glad to see yours was cleansing.

I'm liking the new minimalist theme, by the way.