With virtues and sins, there is often a point of similarity between them that seems to cause some people to get confused, and even to think that they are not really much different from each other.
As an example, image that there are two men who know the same woman. One man loves her as truly as he able, cares for her and wants to see her happy. He tries to help and protect, and would give his life for hers should the need arise.
The other man sees her as an object of desire, and wants only to consume her on his own lusts. Perhaps he will treat her kindly, but it is all calculated to his own ends.
On a superficial level, one could say that if either man had his way, the results would be the same--whether through marriage or not (and there's no reason to think that the second man would not marry her, especially if he regarded it as 'only a ceremony') each would have a sexual encounter with her.
And the same could be said of other virtue/vice pairs. In both justice and revenge, there is the desire for the punishing of the guilty, and even to the point of ending the guilty person's life should the crime be so heinous. Chesterton in 'Orthodoxy' points out that some in his time tried to say that the martyr and the suicide were actually the same, because both choose death. Peace and cowardice are too often mistaken for each other, because both do not want conflict.
But they are not the same, despite the one point of superficial similarity they may have. Love and lust are not the same, and saying that each would lead to sex is not saying they are the same. For the man who loves a woman, she will be much more then just a sexual partner, much more then just a body. She will be a person, and he will care for the whole of her. For the man with lust only, she will be only an object, a thing by which he pleases himself.
And it is here that the true difference comes out. It was C.S. Lewis who noted that the modern virtue has become 'unselfishness', while the old virtue was 'love'. The difference was subtle but important--'unselfishness' is actually a selfish 'virtue', because the important aspect is the doing without, while 'love' has the wants and needs of the one loved as its main consideration.
For the man in love, the woman, the beloved, is his concern. For the man in lust, his own desires are his main concern. For those wanting justice, the law and it's consequence are what is important, while to those wanting revenge the main thing is their own 'blood lust'. The martyr dies for things higher then himself or herself, while the suicide dies only for his or her own self. Those who love peace will see the need to fight for it at times, while cowards will have no conflict but also no peace.
And perhaps that should be expected. Evil may be likened to a parasite, or a leech. It can only exist because it has a good think to take life from. Evil may also been seen as the deformation of a good thing. If such is the case, the point of connection between the good and the evil would be similar, but that would not make the them the same things--if anything, it makes the evil more evil, because it must lessen the good and take life from it in order to exist.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Monday, August 6, 2007
the duggars
I thought this was an interesting bit of news that has developed into a lively debate.
Arkansas Couple Welcomes 17th Child
They also have a pretty nice website, too. Rather tastefully done. I would recommend not centering the paragraph text like that, but at least they don't have huge red Helvetica text screaming at the viewers.
Duggar's website
Arkansas Couple Welcomes 17th Child
They also have a pretty nice website, too. Rather tastefully done. I would recommend not centering the paragraph text like that, but at least they don't have huge red Helvetica text screaming at the viewers.
Duggar's website
Monday, July 30, 2007
"Where'd My Queen Go?" chess tournament
Saturday was another chess tournament in Lexington. This one turned out to be a pretty significant one in my days playing in tournaments.
I've managed to get my USCF rating over the 1600 line, which in local tournaments is the line between the 'big boys' and the rest. When I returned to tournaments last years, almost exactly a year ago, I think I was about 1530, and for some reason my rating didn't go up very quickly. It also didn't help that I didn't play in many tournaments. I think it was the Kentucky Open that finally put me over 1600, and a solid tourney in June put me up a little more.
Still, in this tournament, I was the lowest rated of the Open/over 1600 section. Actually, the first couple of rounds, there was one other who was lower, but he didn't play the last two rounds.
The game in round 1 was against a guy named Baker, a guy I've known from my early days in the Lexington 64K Chess Club, and who was rated in the 2000s. I think this may have been the second time I've played in a tournament, I can't remember how that first game ended. This game was fairly even for most of the game. I did sacrifice a pawn to mess up his queen-side pawns, but he worked up an attack against my king, and then I goofed and dropped a pawn, and then with my king already vulnerable he sacs a rook and gets a convincing attack. In trying to surround my king, he made the kind of move that much more often then not would have been at least good enough, but he overlooked that his own king was vulnerable, and he wound up in a mating tactic.
The second game was a hard draw against a guy named Sword. I think I had an advantage in the middle game, but again my king got vulnerable (I'm noticing a trend here) and things got interesting. The middle and ending were back-and-forth, and with time running down we came to an obviously drawn position.
The third was against the highest-rated person in the tournament, another 2000, maybe close to 2100, named Wagner. It was, relatively speaking, a rather calm game. A few times it may have lit up and gotten interesting, but in the end we were well on the way to exchanging into a bishops-of-opposite-color endgame, which is as drawish as an ending gets. Instead of playing out everything to the inevitable half-point, my opponent offered a draw and I accepted. And we drew in only 24 moves. My first 'grandmaster draw' :-).
So, three games, two points--a win and two draws. This put my a half-point behind Sword who had 2 1/2 points, and tied with Wagner at 2. There were two other players at 1 1/2, one of whom had a bye in the last round.
So, the last round game was pretty weighty. I played one of the 1 1/2 point guys, an 1800 I think he was in rating. It was a game of getting an early advantage and grinding it out over 30-40 further moves into a win. The game closed up early, and I had a space advantage. In trying to gain some room, he allowed his pawn structure to get some weaknesses, and from that point it was manuever, manuever, exchange, manuever, exchange, win a pawn, win another pawn, win a piece through the threat of a knight fork, win the game. Maybe slow and ugly, but effective.
Wagner beat Sword in an adventure of an endgame, and with 3 points each Wagner and I tied for first overall in the tournament.
So, as lowly as it may be in the overall chess world, I actually won a Lexington chess tournament, or at least tied for first. Not just my section of it, but the whole enchilada. It was a 'wow' moment, and I'm still not completely over it.
I've managed to get my USCF rating over the 1600 line, which in local tournaments is the line between the 'big boys' and the rest. When I returned to tournaments last years, almost exactly a year ago, I think I was about 1530, and for some reason my rating didn't go up very quickly. It also didn't help that I didn't play in many tournaments. I think it was the Kentucky Open that finally put me over 1600, and a solid tourney in June put me up a little more.
Still, in this tournament, I was the lowest rated of the Open/over 1600 section. Actually, the first couple of rounds, there was one other who was lower, but he didn't play the last two rounds.
The game in round 1 was against a guy named Baker, a guy I've known from my early days in the Lexington 64K Chess Club, and who was rated in the 2000s. I think this may have been the second time I've played in a tournament, I can't remember how that first game ended. This game was fairly even for most of the game. I did sacrifice a pawn to mess up his queen-side pawns, but he worked up an attack against my king, and then I goofed and dropped a pawn, and then with my king already vulnerable he sacs a rook and gets a convincing attack. In trying to surround my king, he made the kind of move that much more often then not would have been at least good enough, but he overlooked that his own king was vulnerable, and he wound up in a mating tactic.
The second game was a hard draw against a guy named Sword. I think I had an advantage in the middle game, but again my king got vulnerable (I'm noticing a trend here) and things got interesting. The middle and ending were back-and-forth, and with time running down we came to an obviously drawn position.
The third was against the highest-rated person in the tournament, another 2000, maybe close to 2100, named Wagner. It was, relatively speaking, a rather calm game. A few times it may have lit up and gotten interesting, but in the end we were well on the way to exchanging into a bishops-of-opposite-color endgame, which is as drawish as an ending gets. Instead of playing out everything to the inevitable half-point, my opponent offered a draw and I accepted. And we drew in only 24 moves. My first 'grandmaster draw' :-).
So, three games, two points--a win and two draws. This put my a half-point behind Sword who had 2 1/2 points, and tied with Wagner at 2. There were two other players at 1 1/2, one of whom had a bye in the last round.
So, the last round game was pretty weighty. I played one of the 1 1/2 point guys, an 1800 I think he was in rating. It was a game of getting an early advantage and grinding it out over 30-40 further moves into a win. The game closed up early, and I had a space advantage. In trying to gain some room, he allowed his pawn structure to get some weaknesses, and from that point it was manuever, manuever, exchange, manuever, exchange, win a pawn, win another pawn, win a piece through the threat of a knight fork, win the game. Maybe slow and ugly, but effective.
Wagner beat Sword in an adventure of an endgame, and with 3 points each Wagner and I tied for first overall in the tournament.
So, as lowly as it may be in the overall chess world, I actually won a Lexington chess tournament, or at least tied for first. Not just my section of it, but the whole enchilada. It was a 'wow' moment, and I'm still not completely over it.
Friday, July 27, 2007
because we all know cats are evil...
...and a bit of cat humor is a good way to round out the day.
Cat Predicts Patients' Deaths
Or perhaps as bad...
Pet Your Cat, Get Schizophrenia?
But fear not, there is hope...
Doggie Howser: Woman says dog detected her cancer
Thanks to jhud and brooklynblessed1 at Christianity.com for the articles. Funnny stuff. Here's the source I first saw them at.
Grim Reaper kitty?
Cat Predicts Patients' Deaths
Or perhaps as bad...
Pet Your Cat, Get Schizophrenia?
But fear not, there is hope...
Doggie Howser: Woman says dog detected her cancer
Thanks to jhud and brooklynblessed1 at Christianity.com for the articles. Funnny stuff. Here's the source I first saw them at.
Grim Reaper kitty?
thoughts about harry
Last weekend saw an event, a very unusual event. The release of the seventh and last Harry Potter book caused a very big stir. A friend of mine went to a book store close to midnight, and his description of the size of the crowd waiting for midnight to purchase the book was that it was huge--lines, not one but several, stretching over a hundred yards from the store entrance, the mall parking lot was filled, with people parking in a nearby theater and another store, and they were still coming.
Probably few books have caused the stirs these books have, at least in recent times. No doubt in other eras there have been books that have caused more severe reactions, but I can't recall one that has caused so much nowadays.
Of course, the stirs have been good and bad. In Christian circles, the books have been more then a little controversial.
On the one hand, there are those who condemn the books. They are, after all, about witches and wizards, with magical spells and curses, and not only that, but they portray those things in positive lights. Although they are obviously works of fantasy fiction and do not necessarily portray things realistically, they still glorify the training in and use of magic, and that makes them dangerous. Call it a gateway, or a slippery slope.
On the other hand, are those who seem them simply as literature. They are very well-written books, with characters that are well-developed and easy to care for. The magic in them is so cartoonish and unrealistic that it is hard to believe it can be taken seriously.
One of my first memories of the stories wasn't really about the books, at least in a direct sense. I was in Tennessee, and one evening I went to a nearby book store, to get some coffee and hang out for a bit. I think it was a Friday evening. It also happened to be the day leading up to the release of a Harry Potter book, I don't know which one, but as it was roughly seven years ago, it was probably towards the middle of the series. The store was more crowed then usual, with kids in costume, and I was unaware of what was going on until I was there for a while. The one thing I remember from that evening was something that didn't sit well with me--whether serious or not, there was someone doing palm reading for some of the kids.
So for some time, I wasn't really interested in the books. I wasn't necessarily against them, but I wasn't really for them, either. I did see the movies, which I thought were well-made.
It wasn't until late last year that I started reading the books, and went through the first six very quickly. I enjoyed them, and read through them as I haven't often read books, and I've read a lot. I liked the stories and the characters, and at times there were parts of it that were among the most moving I had read.
So, I suppose that explains where I stand on the books, more or less--I like them, and think they're fine. Much of my recent reading, in fact, has been in fantasy fiction--Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, for example, not to mention the occasional reading or rereading of Tolkien.
Where the more-or-less comes in, is that I understand why people don't like them, and I can respect their caution. But I have some thoughts for them, too.
How long and how many stories do we have that involve some kind of magical element? I write as someone from the US and from the west. How many of us were raised on stories of, say, Jack and the magical beanstalk, or Snow White and the dwarves and her witch step-mother, or Cinderella and her fairy god-mother who waves her wand and makes pumpkins into coaches. Magic is a major element in many children's fairy tales--even the fact that they are called 'fairy' tales tells us of their magical elements.
And our movies. Even disregarding the Disney fairy tale animated movies, what about, say, the Shaggy Dog--a guy gets a piece of jewelry which magically turns him into a dog. Or The Wizard of Oz, "Are you a good witch, or a bad witch?".
Shall I go on? Literature would be a good place. Several of Shakespeare's works have magical elements in them. Again, we could point to the Wizard of Oz as a literary example, even before the motion picure example.
And to really add to the things to think about, there are Tolkien, Lewis, Lawhead, and Hicks and Weisman who have written fantasy with a Christian message.
Perhaps these examples do not prove Potter is ok. Maybe they only show how subtly error has crept in over time. Maybe Lewis wasn't correct in using magical elements in his Narnia stories, no matter his intentions.
That is a fair position, and may be correct. But I don't want to go into such a debate for now. But it is something those both for and against the books need to consider, just how much magic is in our stories of various kinds. HP is only one of the latest in a long line, not really anything new.
Probably few books have caused the stirs these books have, at least in recent times. No doubt in other eras there have been books that have caused more severe reactions, but I can't recall one that has caused so much nowadays.
Of course, the stirs have been good and bad. In Christian circles, the books have been more then a little controversial.
On the one hand, there are those who condemn the books. They are, after all, about witches and wizards, with magical spells and curses, and not only that, but they portray those things in positive lights. Although they are obviously works of fantasy fiction and do not necessarily portray things realistically, they still glorify the training in and use of magic, and that makes them dangerous. Call it a gateway, or a slippery slope.
On the other hand, are those who seem them simply as literature. They are very well-written books, with characters that are well-developed and easy to care for. The magic in them is so cartoonish and unrealistic that it is hard to believe it can be taken seriously.
One of my first memories of the stories wasn't really about the books, at least in a direct sense. I was in Tennessee, and one evening I went to a nearby book store, to get some coffee and hang out for a bit. I think it was a Friday evening. It also happened to be the day leading up to the release of a Harry Potter book, I don't know which one, but as it was roughly seven years ago, it was probably towards the middle of the series. The store was more crowed then usual, with kids in costume, and I was unaware of what was going on until I was there for a while. The one thing I remember from that evening was something that didn't sit well with me--whether serious or not, there was someone doing palm reading for some of the kids.
So for some time, I wasn't really interested in the books. I wasn't necessarily against them, but I wasn't really for them, either. I did see the movies, which I thought were well-made.
It wasn't until late last year that I started reading the books, and went through the first six very quickly. I enjoyed them, and read through them as I haven't often read books, and I've read a lot. I liked the stories and the characters, and at times there were parts of it that were among the most moving I had read.
So, I suppose that explains where I stand on the books, more or less--I like them, and think they're fine. Much of my recent reading, in fact, has been in fantasy fiction--Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, for example, not to mention the occasional reading or rereading of Tolkien.
Where the more-or-less comes in, is that I understand why people don't like them, and I can respect their caution. But I have some thoughts for them, too.
How long and how many stories do we have that involve some kind of magical element? I write as someone from the US and from the west. How many of us were raised on stories of, say, Jack and the magical beanstalk, or Snow White and the dwarves and her witch step-mother, or Cinderella and her fairy god-mother who waves her wand and makes pumpkins into coaches. Magic is a major element in many children's fairy tales--even the fact that they are called 'fairy' tales tells us of their magical elements.
And our movies. Even disregarding the Disney fairy tale animated movies, what about, say, the Shaggy Dog--a guy gets a piece of jewelry which magically turns him into a dog. Or The Wizard of Oz, "Are you a good witch, or a bad witch?".
Shall I go on? Literature would be a good place. Several of Shakespeare's works have magical elements in them. Again, we could point to the Wizard of Oz as a literary example, even before the motion picure example.
And to really add to the things to think about, there are Tolkien, Lewis, Lawhead, and Hicks and Weisman who have written fantasy with a Christian message.
Perhaps these examples do not prove Potter is ok. Maybe they only show how subtly error has crept in over time. Maybe Lewis wasn't correct in using magical elements in his Narnia stories, no matter his intentions.
That is a fair position, and may be correct. But I don't want to go into such a debate for now. But it is something those both for and against the books need to consider, just how much magic is in our stories of various kinds. HP is only one of the latest in a long line, not really anything new.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
evaluation???
I came across this yesterday. The link to the original is on the page.
evaluation
I think the writer makes some good points about these questions. Some of the 'requirements' mentions seem to be rather shallow.
For myself, take this one--
2. Are people greeting me as a job or a joy?
I have to admit to having a certain small distaste for the whole 'greet people at the door' thing. It's not that it's wrong, but that I don't care for it. I would rather not have to run a gamut of hand-shakers and back-patters in order to enter a church.
A couple of months back, I went to a certain church for the first time (I had actually been in the building before, but for other reasons). I did manage to get in the building itself without incident, but on getting to the foyer of the chapel, there were people standing outside of it, and one man, obviously a greeter, practically jumped towards me in some kind of effort to greet me.
I don't want to impune (sp) anything about him, his assignment or his intentions, but it was almost unnerving.
It's not that I don't believe in caring for people or in making them feel welcome, and if for most people that does make them feel welcome, then so be it. I can accept that.
So, for me, that 'requirement' is not one of mine.
5. Is there spirited music playing as people gather?
6. Does the music move me?
There is something rather modern-day about such a question. If a church was playing somber organ music, for example, would that not be acceptable? Would such music not be moving?
The whole music thing is frustrating for me, especially as someone who did study music for a while. I like music, I enjoy it, but how much it is emphasized by some religious teachers is unsettling to me.
I do not listen to what is called 'praise and worship' music. I have listened to it at times, but I do not now, except when a church I'm at sings a p&w chorus. It all sounds santized, generic, the same.
Perhaps I am not any better then the guy and his 'requirements', though. It's just that what he may consider 'moving' I consider 'generic'.
9. Is there a printed outline with Scripture already printed on it?
11. Does the message title promise a relevant topic I am interested in?
I think the '...leaven' guy may be a bit unfair with his criticism of these, though they are silly 'requirements'.
15. Is the service no more than 71 minutes?
I am sympathetic to this one. I have sat through very long sermons in the past, and I don't think this 'requirement' is completely unreasonable. I can see where it may become selfish, but so can the idea the 'longer is better'.
The '...leaven' writer does make a good point at the beginning, about what things aren't mentioned--things like what the church's beliefs and doctrines are. That such things were omitted does cause me to raise the eyebrows. Are the superficials now more important then the essentials? I think some superficials, like a good Sunday School or good music, are fine, but only if the essentials of sound beliefs and doctrine are in place.
evaluation
I think the writer makes some good points about these questions. Some of the 'requirements' mentions seem to be rather shallow.
For myself, take this one--
2. Are people greeting me as a job or a joy?
I have to admit to having a certain small distaste for the whole 'greet people at the door' thing. It's not that it's wrong, but that I don't care for it. I would rather not have to run a gamut of hand-shakers and back-patters in order to enter a church.
A couple of months back, I went to a certain church for the first time (I had actually been in the building before, but for other reasons). I did manage to get in the building itself without incident, but on getting to the foyer of the chapel, there were people standing outside of it, and one man, obviously a greeter, practically jumped towards me in some kind of effort to greet me.
I don't want to impune (sp) anything about him, his assignment or his intentions, but it was almost unnerving.
It's not that I don't believe in caring for people or in making them feel welcome, and if for most people that does make them feel welcome, then so be it. I can accept that.
So, for me, that 'requirement' is not one of mine.
5. Is there spirited music playing as people gather?
6. Does the music move me?
There is something rather modern-day about such a question. If a church was playing somber organ music, for example, would that not be acceptable? Would such music not be moving?
The whole music thing is frustrating for me, especially as someone who did study music for a while. I like music, I enjoy it, but how much it is emphasized by some religious teachers is unsettling to me.
I do not listen to what is called 'praise and worship' music. I have listened to it at times, but I do not now, except when a church I'm at sings a p&w chorus. It all sounds santized, generic, the same.
Perhaps I am not any better then the guy and his 'requirements', though. It's just that what he may consider 'moving' I consider 'generic'.
9. Is there a printed outline with Scripture already printed on it?
11. Does the message title promise a relevant topic I am interested in?
I think the '...leaven' guy may be a bit unfair with his criticism of these, though they are silly 'requirements'.
15. Is the service no more than 71 minutes?
I am sympathetic to this one. I have sat through very long sermons in the past, and I don't think this 'requirement' is completely unreasonable. I can see where it may become selfish, but so can the idea the 'longer is better'.
The '...leaven' writer does make a good point at the beginning, about what things aren't mentioned--things like what the church's beliefs and doctrines are. That such things were omitted does cause me to raise the eyebrows. Are the superficials now more important then the essentials? I think some superficials, like a good Sunday School or good music, are fine, but only if the essentials of sound beliefs and doctrine are in place.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
bits and pieces
Gore Gorges on Overfished Sea Bass
What more can be said? Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"? Of course, it's already been shown that he doesn't exactly do well at conserving energy, so is this really surprising?
I wonder when people will realize that the only 'green' this guy really cares about is the kind in his billfold?
Restricting Family Size May Become Unavoidable, Says Environment Group
All the wackiness is that the top of this article. Towards the end, some people with some sense are allowed to voice their opinions.
Bumble Bee Replaces Mickey Mouse Lookalike on Hamas TV
There is a surrealness to this sickness.
But on a better note is this last bit of news...
Christian Group Gathers in DC to Show Support of Israel
What more can be said? Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"? Of course, it's already been shown that he doesn't exactly do well at conserving energy, so is this really surprising?
I wonder when people will realize that the only 'green' this guy really cares about is the kind in his billfold?
Restricting Family Size May Become Unavoidable, Says Environment Group
All the wackiness is that the top of this article. Towards the end, some people with some sense are allowed to voice their opinions.
Bumble Bee Replaces Mickey Mouse Lookalike on Hamas TV
There is a surrealness to this sickness.
But on a better note is this last bit of news...
Christian Group Gathers in DC to Show Support of Israel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)