1) Phonomania: The compulsion to make noise (!).
2) In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, if Sabretooth has healing powers and can get shot and not even be bothered, why does Wolverine always act as if he gets shot, he'll die, and go and "rescue" him?
3) If you know me fairly well, you may know that I like one-liners and um, two-, three-, and four-liners?
Anyway, lines like, "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return", "Rest in pieces", "Prepare to meet your maker", and things like that could possibly be used to great effect in battle...or might just make you seem odd, but it seems to work in movies, such as "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" in The Book of Eli.
I know, I know, they're movies, and movies get lots of things wrong, but sometimes they can get things right.
However, although "I am (or "will be") more powerful than you can possibly imagine" sounds like is has somewhat of the same effect as the other lines, think about it for a second: "More powerful than you can possibly imagine." Considering I can imagine just about anything
Although I often like to try to be grammatically correct, sometimes I think "incorrect English" sounds better. For instance, is it just me, or does "Try to catch (or "stop") me" sound better than "Try and catch (or "stop") me"? Maybe it's just me. But even though that applies to grammatical structure, it's more of the exception than the rule, and it does not apply to punctuation. The writer/punctuation stickler Lynne Truss, author of the book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, goes around trying to fix incorrect punctuation by inserting commas and apostrophes into words, etc. I'm kind of like that; bad punctuation irks me, but so do a lot of other incorrect things, such as these:
1) The term, "helpmeet". As I've said before, the words in the Bible are "help meet for him", or "a help fit for him." Somehow those two words got stuck together to create a word that's not in the Bible...at least it's better than helpmate.
2) Pretending to have something you don't, be something you aren't, etc.
By this, I just mean things like "ricers" (slow cars with body kits and loud exhausts) as opposed to sleepers (cars that don't look fast but actually are), etc. Be genuine; be yourself. If you want to look like you don't have something that you do, as is the case with "sleepers", that's fine, but don't do the opposite; you might just make yourself look foolish.
For people to call the "nave" in a church or chapel an "aisle" doesn't bother me too much, since most people don't know the walkway's "real name and common usage has
I rebel against common usage errors!
Hm, maybe I should write a whole post on things that annoy me. ;-)
OK, to the main point of this post.
This post deals with dualism (in theology), which if you haven't heard of, is a system of thought that holds that you are separated into two parts, body and mind, which are "secular" and "sacred."
One dictionary defines dualism as this:
In philosophy and theology, any system that explains phenomena by two opposing principles. Many philosophers hold to a dualism of mind and matter, or mind and body. For many theologians, the two principles are those of good and evil.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
This line of thinking, known as gnosticism, is at least as old as the time of the Paul and other apostles in the New Testament.
In fact, I believe Paul addressed it in one of his epistles:
1Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: {science: Gr. knowledge}
(KJV)
The gnostics held that the body was evil and the soul/mind were good, so if you could have the "secret knowledge", you could be part of their "exclusive spiritual group" or whatever it was they claimed to be.
Gnosticism is still alive, albeit in slightly different forms and known by different names. However, the core belief it introduced that has pervaded evangelical Christian culture is "the soul is good, but the body is evil.
This belief shows itself in various ways, including the following:
1) "Let's just give out the gospel and get as many people into our church as much as possible; we don't need to worry about discipling them or things like that." While I'm sure you won't find many (if any) churches that will say the second part of that statement, their actions often show that that's what they believe. After all, if only the spiritual is good and the body and all that his to do with this earth is evil, then there's no point in developing other than the "spiritual."
It seems part of this has to do with whether you hold to a premillenial or postmillenial eschatology, but that's a discussion I'm not going to get into right now.
2) There has been a compartmentalization of Christian beliefs into a "sacred" section, while the "secular" part remains separate. This means that Christian thought does not influence the "non-sacred" parts of their (those who have been influenced by dualistic thinking) lives, resulting in at least two problems: in many areas, they are no different than non-Christians, and in others, they try to be "completely Christian" but don't do it correctly and it comes at the cost of quality, etc.
In case what I've said doesn't seem to be particularly clear, I recommend that you read the books, Understanding the Times, by David A. Noebel, and Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey, for a much more comprehensive and interesting take. Well actually, even if what I've said is crystal clear
The former compares and contrasts the Christian, secular humanist, Marxist/Leninist (communist/socialist), and cosmic humanist (New Age) worldviews and shows the weaknesses and inconsistencies with the non-Christian worldviews. This book is good for a variety of things, including simply learning about worldviews if you haven't studied much about them, and being able to defend your beliefs and argue confidently with those who have opposing worldviews (I believe most intellectuals - and most people, period - in America espouse the secular humanist or Marxist/Leninist worldviews). Although Understanding the Times does not discuss the secular/sacred split, I think you should read it because if you're going to learn about how to have a consistent Christian worldview, it helps to learn about what a worldview is exactly and how you can counter other worldviews.
Once you've learned about worldviews, read Total Truth about how to have a complete Christian worldview; as I've said, it's important for your faith to be a part of your entire life and not just one part.
In fact, I believe Paul addressed it in one of his epistles:
1Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: {science: Gr. knowledge}
(KJV)
The gnostics held that the body was evil and the soul/mind were good, so if you could have the "secret knowledge", you could be part of their "exclusive spiritual group" or whatever it was they claimed to be.
Gnosticism is still alive, albeit in slightly different forms and known by different names. However, the core belief it introduced that has pervaded evangelical Christian culture is "the soul is good, but the body is evil.
This belief shows itself in various ways, including the following:
1) "Let's just give out the gospel and get as many people into our church as much as possible; we don't need to worry about discipling them or things like that." While I'm sure you won't find many (if any) churches that will say the second part of that statement, their actions often show that that's what they believe. After all, if only the spiritual is good and the body and all that his to do with this earth is evil, then there's no point in developing other than the "spiritual."
It seems part of this has to do with whether you hold to a premillenial or postmillenial eschatology, but that's a discussion I'm not going to get into right now.
2) There has been a compartmentalization of Christian beliefs into a "sacred" section, while the "secular" part remains separate. This means that Christian thought does not influence the "non-sacred" parts of their (those who have been influenced by dualistic thinking) lives, resulting in at least two problems: in many areas, they are no different than non-Christians, and in others, they try to be "completely Christian" but don't do it correctly and it comes at the cost of quality, etc.
In case what I've said doesn't seem to be particularly clear, I recommend that you read the books, Understanding the Times, by David A. Noebel, and Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey, for a much more comprehensive and interesting take. Well actually, even if what I've said is crystal clear
The former compares and contrasts the Christian, secular humanist, Marxist/Leninist (communist/socialist), and cosmic humanist (New Age) worldviews and shows the weaknesses and inconsistencies with the non-Christian worldviews. This book is good for a variety of things, including simply learning about worldviews if you haven't studied much about them, and being able to defend your beliefs and argue confidently with those who have opposing worldviews (I believe most intellectuals - and most people, period - in America espouse the secular humanist or Marxist/Leninist worldviews). Although Understanding the Times does not discuss the secular/sacred split, I think you should read it because if you're going to learn about how to have a consistent Christian worldview, it helps to learn about what a worldview is exactly and how you can counter other worldviews.
Once you've learned about worldviews, read Total Truth about how to have a complete Christian worldview; as I've said, it's important for your faith to be a part of your entire life and not just one part.
-Max out
No comments:
Post a Comment