May 2, 2010
Dear Tommy, Thomas, and Katie,
WHO KNOWS?
God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ Exodus 3:14
Tonight we conclude our eleventh year of Sunday Evening Thoughts. And what an honor is has been! As always, you have challenged me to think more critically, and to love more fully. I hope that I have reciprocated.
Here are some of your thoughts throughout the year:
On the first Thought last August, a long-time Thinker had just read “Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling.” I had planned to read it. Alas, I never did. It’s on my summer list.
Another wrote, “I can't believe you've been writing this for 11 years now...thanks for including me! We're getting old!” Ouch, but true.
And another, “its funny...i have my music on serious blast right now...i turned it down....late notice..”
The second Thought was about sci-fi literature as a literary form in the bible. Someone wrote, “Tommy, please tell me you do not believe the Bible is anything other than the revealed word of God.” I wrote them back and said that I did believe that, but it is written in “various literary forms: i.e poetry, parables, and sci-fi. … Still, I do not equate God and the bible.”
This Thought also talked about Alzheimer ’s disease. Someone wrote, “Came across a great quote as I'm trying to deal in reality with the political debate on health care. I don't know where I'm at philosophically on the topic but the quote is germane to the discussion and is too good not to pass along. ‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’” C.S. Lewis. (I still do not know how to solve the health care problem even now that some legislation has been passed. Nevertheless, something more still needs to be done. Since this Thought, I have had rotator cuff surgery. The bill for the outpatient room only for this procedure (note: it was not in a hospital) for 55 minutes (your mom timed it) was $27,150.)
I wrote back, “I too am confused what to think about health care. On the one hand, I think insurance companies and doctors (99% are incorporated) have an ethical obligation to make as much money as possible for their companies (which is good for my IRA stocks), and on the other the costs have skyrocketed to the point that unless you have full coverage, then they will take everything you own even for a simple treatment (Sentara will now take some assets as payment- my nephew bought an apartment building from them).”
I took this Thinker comments to heart and wrote the next week’s Thought about health care. A Thinker in the “health industry” wrote me to say they were, “a medical thinker...who is directly part of the solution but indirectly part of the problem!”
Several wrote to offer condolences to “Sherwood the Barber” the next week.
On the Thought called “Pocket Aces” about the movie A Serious Man by the Coen Brothers (The Big Lebowski fame), based on the Book of Job, someone wrote, “You have no choice on what hand you're dealt, only on the way you play it!” Unfortunately, I have only met person who likes this movie as much as I do. He is the Assistance Manager at the Naro Video store (an independent, electric video store).
In “Not Miller Lite,” about Dorothy Day’s diaries The Duty of Delight, a person wrote, “I'm sure you know there's a difference between labor and work. Labor is by nature and work is by artifice. We labor to grow food and we work to make money to buy food.” I answered, “Ahhh, very perceptive.”
In the Thought about nihilism, someone corrected my composition, “When using a dash to set of a side thought, one uses the "em dash" as opposed to regular dash (a.k.a, "en dash") or hyphen (a.k.a, minus sign) with no spaces. Example: "Whether existential nihilism—life is without objective meaning or value; or moral nihilism—moral values are contrived abstractions." … further proof I lack in my writing---and am flawed. Another said, “... I believe in miracles!”
In writing about the relationship of divine characteristics to egocentric beliefs, a person wrote, “Don't confuse morality and theology.”
On the Thought about not stressing out because, it all works out in the end, two of my oldest Thinkers wrote, “to use a rollercoaster metaphor, you only go around once and the ride will be too short.” And, another, “I stress too much.”
Blogging about Borg’s book, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, another correction of both grammar and lack of clarity, one of my favorite Thinkers wrote, “I'm not sure what you mean by this: "To summarize Borg, the person Jesus taught in the Gospels a revolutionary concept of a new kingdom different from the prevailing notion held by Rome, the dominant imperial power, and to a lesser extant, the local Jewish political establishment, as exemplified by Herod (s)." So where you have "Are we the 'Rome' who has expanded its military might exponentially over the decades," you should have "Are we the 'Rome' that has . . ." Also, I think you should elaborate on this a bit more: "Dorothy Day did not believe in many public entitlements, something people find surprising, but she did believe in 'economic justice.' She believed the poor deserved the “best seat in the house,” not just a straw mat. She believed in 'social justice.'"
Love,
X
Also, you only use the word "who" for people.” … I appreciate all corrections.
This person continued, “Do you think the Gospels support Communism more than any other form of government?” I answered, “... if you mean Marxist Communism, Mao Communism, or Stalin Communism, then no. If you mean a communitarian approach to goods and services, a more equitable distribution of wealth, a break-down of social classes - "no Jew or Gentile, no male or female" - then yes. If you mean a violent revolution to install a more oppressive government (i.e. Mao and Stalin), then no; if you mean a non-violent revolution where the needs of all are obtained, then yes. Are asking if Jesus a revolutionary? Then, yes, he wanted to overthrow Rome and they killed him - but his revolution was non-violent. As Gandhi said, "It's not that Christianity is wrong; it's that is has never been tried." If you are asking me as a practical matter does it work? I do not know.”
This Thought talked about reconciling Jesus’ radical message with everyday life and politics of 2010, and I said I was not sure how to do that. Another person, unbeknown to the above email, wrote, “Sometimes the best answer…the truest response, is “I do not know!” and suddenly things just seem to take their proper place, at least from personal perspective!”
Another wrote on this same topic that they had had the most controversial discussion ever in their Sunday School Class on this very topic. I wrote back, “‘Controversy’ is good!”
The following week, on “Straddlers”, I wrote I disagreed with the author that family cohesion is more important with working-class families than upper-class ones. Someone wrote, “I've heard - and I don't remember the source, so you'll have to do your own research if you care - that the divorce rate is actually higher among those of lower economic classes. I know that is counter to what we've thought - that divorce is high across the board - but I am not so sure that is true.
Interestingly, in a book we are reading on Global Poverty in my JF group, we just read a story about coffee farmers in Nicaragua and how this CRS microfinance group helps them improve their businesses. A lot of the families were able to send their kids to college because of it. However, as in the US, there is now the question - Will the kids take over the family farm, or use their education to become professionals? A good parallel.”
The author, Al Lubano, wrote to thank me for the S.E.T. … a little name dropping!
On the recent Thought about language of science and religion, a person wrote you,
“Dear Thinkers,
Novak "almost" has it in his fourth point, in my humble opinion. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Neither is a "componant" in the search for truth...they are each solely and exclusively THE search for Truth. The pursuit of Truth is their ultimate function and purpose! Their function is not to allay suffering. Suffering will exist but will have an end. Truth is eternal.
Sometimes thinking too hard throws one off the path of Truth.
Yours truly,
A Lite Thinker
I wrote them back, “... I like "humble opinions" - the more the better! You and Job are very existential.” I also heard a scientist from the CDC in Atlanta wrote them in agreement. Still, I see most of all religions problems coming from not thinking enough than from thinking too much: i.e. the systemic problem of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, fundamentalism in some Protestant denominations (and in Judaism) leading to war, and radical Islamic teachings.
On this topic, a person wrote, “it's not that religion and science can't exist. It's that they really aren't even talking about the same thing. What does praying have to do with the temperature it takes for eggs to incubate sufficiently to allow development of the embryo? Nothing. Science is only concerned with results. Science has no opinion on the existence/nonexistence of God. Science is not looking for purpose - it is not concerned with "why" there is existence - it's only concerned with how it works mechanically. I know you like this guy Novak, but these descriptions aren't scientific, they're philosophical, and science is not a form of philosophy. At its core science is no more than statistical mathematics. Science only exists as falsifiable experiments that can be reduced to a series of probabilities of quantities. Actually, it must be reduced to a series of quantities. If it can't it's not science. Theology is not science because it cannot be reduced to quantities. It can be reduced to logical statements, or maybe symbols or numbers, but logical statements are not quantities...”
I responded that, “… their thought had merit, but we can, and should, still ask why.
Coincidentally, another scientist, also a Thinker, wrote me, “Nicely written. I've pretty much tried to keep it simple - for my own sanity: science answers the 'what' question and religion answers the 'why' question.”
And another, “…reading a book called The Powers that Be. I personally hate the book so far, but we nonetheless got into a good conversation last night which included the science and religion question.”
In the last Thought – “Thought and Mind,” a Thinker girl wrote to say she had had an abortion. I wrote her, “I know it was a hard decision. In the U.S., we view abortion very severely; whereas in other countries (so I've read), especially China, abortion is extremely common - almost as much as a regular type of birth control (i.e. condoms or the pill). A little off-topic, but I get very frustrated when I hear my fellow Christians condemn women who have had abortions, but only view Iraqi or Afghani women and children killed in OUR WARS as collateral damage, with little moral weight.”
I hesitate to end this year’s Sunday Evening Thoughts on such a heavy note, but really, that is life: Sometimes good, sometimes not; hopefully more good than bad. Again, thank you for the honor of reading this blog.
… have a great summer!
Love,
Dad
