A man's upbringing, his talents, his circumstances, are usually a tolerable index of his vocation. If our parents have sent us to Oxford, if our country allows us to remain there, this is prima facie evidence that the life which we, at any rate, can best lead to the glory of God at present is the learned life. By leading that life to the glory of God I do not, of course, mean any attempt to make our intellectual inquiries work out to edifying conclusions. That would be, as Bacon says, to offer to the author of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie. I mean the pursuit of knowledge and beauty, in a sense, for their own sake, but in a sense which does not exclude their being for God's sake. An appetite for these things exists in the human mind, and God makes no appetite in vain. We can therefore pursue knowledge as such, beauty as such, in the sure confidence that by doing we are either advancing to the vision of God ourselves or indirectly helping others to do so. Humility, no less than the appetite, encourages us to concentrate simply on the knowledge or the beauty, not too much concerning ourselves with their ultimate relevance to the vision of God. That relevance may not be intended for us but for our betters - for men who come after and find the spiritual significance of what we dug out in blind and humble obedience to out vocation...The intellectual life is not the only road to God, nor the safest, but we find it to be a road, and it may be a the appointed for us.
- from "Learning in War-Time" (The Weight of Glory) #CSLewis
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Friday, September 5, 2014
The Claims of Religion: Do All to the Glory of God
It is for a very different reason that religion cannot occupy the whole of life in the sense of excluding all our natural activities. For, of course, in some sense, it must occupy the whole of life. There is no question of a compromise between the claims of God and the claims of culture, or politics, or anything else. God's claim is infinite and inexorable. You can refuse it, or you can begin to try to grant it. There is no middle way. Yet in spite of this it is clear that Christianity does not exclude any of the ordinary human activities. St. Paul tells people to get on with their jobs. He even assumes that Christians may go to dinner parties, and, what is more, dinner parties given by pagans. Our Lord attends a wedding and provides miraculous wine. Under the aegis of His Church, and in the most Christians ages, learning and the arts flourish. The solution of this paradox is, of course, well known to you. "Whether ye eat or drink or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
All of our merely natural activities will be accepted, if they are offered to God, even the humblest, and all of them, even the noblest, will be sinful I'd they are not. Christianity, does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one; it is rather a new organisation which exploits, so its own supernatural ends, these natural materials.
- from "Learning in War-Time" (The Weight of Glory) #CSLewis
All of our merely natural activities will be accepted, if they are offered to God, even the humblest, and all of them, even the noblest, will be sinful I'd they are not. Christianity, does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one; it is rather a new organisation which exploits, so its own supernatural ends, these natural materials.
- from "Learning in War-Time" (The Weight of Glory) #CSLewis
Monday, August 18, 2014
Gunfight Rule #1
Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns
Bring all your friends who have guns.
Bring all your friends who have guns.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
17 August 1942
Just prior to dawn, the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion under Lt. Col. Evans F. Carlson landed on Makin island from the submarines NAUTILUS and ARGONAUT. The next day the Marines left the island after destroying a seaplane base, two radio stations, a supply warehouse, and killing about 100 Japanese soldiers.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
9 August 1942
With the Guadalcanal airstrip secure after heavy fighting with the Japanese, the 1st Engineer Battalion commenced work on the runaway using captured equipment.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Something to consider
Muslims who say that differences in the Gospels are evidence of their unreliability rarely ever consider that the Qur'an contains parallel accounts of the same event that differ in detail, order, and content.
What did Lot say to the people of Sodom? Well that depends on which Surah we read:
Surah 7:80 - Will you commit foulness such as no creature ever did before you? For you come with lust to men instead of women; you are indeed a transgressing people!
26:165-166 - What! Of all creatures do you come unto the males? And leave the wives your Lord created for you? No, but you are people who transgress.
27:54 - Will you commit abomination knowingly? Must you practice lust with men instead of women? No, you are but a people that are ignorant.
29:28-29 - You commit obscenity such as no creature did before you. Do you come unto men, and rob on the highway, and practice wickedness in your meetings?
The literary nature of our primary translation, The Majestic Qur'an, means that the same Arabic terms sometimes are translated by English synonyms. The nature of the one word fahishat, rendered as "foulness," "abomination," and "obscenity," is defined here as "come unto the males," i.e., homosexual behavior. Buy in Surat 7 and 27 the Qur'an uses an interrogative, "Will you commit?" and in 29 add a reference to the sin's uniqueness, "as no creature did before you," yet one uses the decorative and the other the interrogative.
Surah 27 adds "knowingly" (literally, "while you see"); 29 includes further sins (robbery and wickedness). Surah 7 records the condemnation as "you are a transgressing (mus'rifuna) people"; 26 says you are a people who transgress" using a different term, aduna. Surah 27 moves further from both by saying they are ignoring (tajhaluna).
With the Gospels, we can see for instance why Matthew or Mark would use different terminology, as they drew from a common oral translation and sought to reach differing audiences in differing contexts. But how, in the Islamic view, can those three Qur'anic statements be harmonized? Did Lot say this three times?
On a simple literary level, these texts are very similar, yet we are looking at the Qur'an and specifically at the belief that these are the very words of Allah without human intermediation. The less conservative Muslim could suggest Muhammad used different terms and cadence and phraseology to produce a pleasing poetic form for his recitations. But Muslim orthodoxy has concluded that none of this can enter into the analysis of these parallel texts.
The heavenly Qur'an has nothing to do with Muhammad's thoughts, knowledge, or even means of expression. So why would Allah recite Lot's words in different ways? Did Lot speak of other sins, as in Surah 29, or not? Did he say "knowingly," as in Surah 27, or not? Islamic orthodoxy's demands as to the nature of the Qur'an revelation require answers to these questions.
What did the people of Sodom say to Lot?
7:82 - Drive them out of your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!
26:167 - If you cease not, O Lot, you will soon be of the outcast.
27:56 - Expel the house hold of Lot from your city, for they are people who purify themselves!
29:29 - Bring Allah's torment upon us if you are truthful!
There is wide variation as to the people of Sodom's response among these four accounts, all narrated, we are told, by Muhammad. It is easier to note the connections than the differences (with Surah 29 being even more "different" than the other three) Surat 7 and 27 refer to Lot and his people as those who "keep themselves pure" or "purify themselves" and include a command to expel or drive them out (with only a slight difference in forms). One could easily assume that each text gives a selection of many shouted-out replies borne of anger against Lot, but this does not mesh with the Islamic belief in the nature of the Qur'anic revelation.
How did Allah punish the City of Sodom?
7:84 - And We rained a rain upon them. See how was the end of the criminals!
26:173 - And We rained on them a rain. Zsnf dreadful is the rain of those who have been warned.
27:28 - And We rained a rain upon them. Dreadful is the rain if those who have been warned.
29:31 - We are about to bring down upon the people of this city punishment from the sky because of their corruption. And We have left a clear sign for people who understand.
In the fifth parallel account, Surah 11, that final judgment is styled, "So when Our commandment came to pass, We overthrew [that city], and rained down on them stones of baked clay, one after another." This provides a parallel with Surat 29 leaving 7, 27, and 26 closely parallel, again with slight differences in wording and phraseology. Surah 7 directs people to "see" how their end came about, while 29 refers to this judgment as a "clear sign people who understand," and 26 also speaks of if as a sign, yet which did not bring belief.
Note here the precisely identical Arabic text of Surat 26 and 27 in phraseology. Why is this significant? Because it shows the author could provide exact duplicate narration if he wished. In the majority of the parallels we can identify in the text, he does not. Though thus raises the question of why, the orthodox Islamic view of inspiration and revelation does not allow us to pursue the matter, for it denies that the author's intentions can be discerned-the author is not Muhammad or a later reactor, but Allah himself.
What did Lot say to the people of Sodom? Well that depends on which Surah we read:
Surah 7:80 - Will you commit foulness such as no creature ever did before you? For you come with lust to men instead of women; you are indeed a transgressing people!
26:165-166 - What! Of all creatures do you come unto the males? And leave the wives your Lord created for you? No, but you are people who transgress.
27:54 - Will you commit abomination knowingly? Must you practice lust with men instead of women? No, you are but a people that are ignorant.
29:28-29 - You commit obscenity such as no creature did before you. Do you come unto men, and rob on the highway, and practice wickedness in your meetings?
The literary nature of our primary translation, The Majestic Qur'an, means that the same Arabic terms sometimes are translated by English synonyms. The nature of the one word fahishat, rendered as "foulness," "abomination," and "obscenity," is defined here as "come unto the males," i.e., homosexual behavior. Buy in Surat 7 and 27 the Qur'an uses an interrogative, "Will you commit?" and in 29 add a reference to the sin's uniqueness, "as no creature did before you," yet one uses the decorative and the other the interrogative.
Surah 27 adds "knowingly" (literally, "while you see"); 29 includes further sins (robbery and wickedness). Surah 7 records the condemnation as "you are a transgressing (mus'rifuna) people"; 26 says you are a people who transgress" using a different term, aduna. Surah 27 moves further from both by saying they are ignoring (tajhaluna).
With the Gospels, we can see for instance why Matthew or Mark would use different terminology, as they drew from a common oral translation and sought to reach differing audiences in differing contexts. But how, in the Islamic view, can those three Qur'anic statements be harmonized? Did Lot say this three times?
On a simple literary level, these texts are very similar, yet we are looking at the Qur'an and specifically at the belief that these are the very words of Allah without human intermediation. The less conservative Muslim could suggest Muhammad used different terms and cadence and phraseology to produce a pleasing poetic form for his recitations. But Muslim orthodoxy has concluded that none of this can enter into the analysis of these parallel texts.
The heavenly Qur'an has nothing to do with Muhammad's thoughts, knowledge, or even means of expression. So why would Allah recite Lot's words in different ways? Did Lot speak of other sins, as in Surah 29, or not? Did he say "knowingly," as in Surah 27, or not? Islamic orthodoxy's demands as to the nature of the Qur'an revelation require answers to these questions.
What did the people of Sodom say to Lot?
7:82 - Drive them out of your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!
26:167 - If you cease not, O Lot, you will soon be of the outcast.
27:56 - Expel the house hold of Lot from your city, for they are people who purify themselves!
29:29 - Bring Allah's torment upon us if you are truthful!
There is wide variation as to the people of Sodom's response among these four accounts, all narrated, we are told, by Muhammad. It is easier to note the connections than the differences (with Surah 29 being even more "different" than the other three) Surat 7 and 27 refer to Lot and his people as those who "keep themselves pure" or "purify themselves" and include a command to expel or drive them out (with only a slight difference in forms). One could easily assume that each text gives a selection of many shouted-out replies borne of anger against Lot, but this does not mesh with the Islamic belief in the nature of the Qur'anic revelation.
How did Allah punish the City of Sodom?
7:84 - And We rained a rain upon them. See how was the end of the criminals!
26:173 - And We rained on them a rain. Zsnf dreadful is the rain of those who have been warned.
27:28 - And We rained a rain upon them. Dreadful is the rain if those who have been warned.
29:31 - We are about to bring down upon the people of this city punishment from the sky because of their corruption. And We have left a clear sign for people who understand.
In the fifth parallel account, Surah 11, that final judgment is styled, "So when Our commandment came to pass, We overthrew [that city], and rained down on them stones of baked clay, one after another." This provides a parallel with Surat 29 leaving 7, 27, and 26 closely parallel, again with slight differences in wording and phraseology. Surah 7 directs people to "see" how their end came about, while 29 refers to this judgment as a "clear sign people who understand," and 26 also speaks of if as a sign, yet which did not bring belief.
Note here the precisely identical Arabic text of Surat 26 and 27 in phraseology. Why is this significant? Because it shows the author could provide exact duplicate narration if he wished. In the majority of the parallels we can identify in the text, he does not. Though thus raises the question of why, the orthodox Islamic view of inspiration and revelation does not allow us to pursue the matter, for it denies that the author's intentions can be discerned-the author is not Muhammad or a later reactor, but Allah himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)