Tweeders

There's an implied element to Twitter that is conspicuously ignored in its language. Can there be so many followers without leaders? Are you willing to admit that following someone means you're allowing them to lead you in some way? Are your own tweets leading anyone anywhere worth going?

The Insufficiency of Time

"Time heals all wounds"

Who said it? It's not in the Bible. Most would attribute this proverb to Chaucer, who actually got it wrong here. It's vaguely comforting; it's just not really very true. It's the kind of popular line people pull out when they are groping around in their ill-stocked memories for something compassionate to say to a grieving friend (a good reason to memorize Scripture). When I look back on some of the things I did and said in my teens, I often ease my regret and disgust with the thought that these events occurred over ten years ago and I'm a different person now. I can forgive myself for having been so daft and coarse. On a much smaller scale, if I can keep myself from gnawing my nails for a week, I often look at my former nail-biting self as a sort of monster, far removed from the civil human I am now.

But let me ask you this: if the man were caught today who had murdered your brother ten years ago, would you accept his version of that defense? "I was a different person then. Time has healed this wound. I am not responsible for what that young man I was once did so long ago." A general rule of jurisprudence is that if the argument only sounds good when you're using it to defend yourself, then it's probably not a good argument.

Time cannot erase consequences. It cannot separate you from culpability that you have earned for yourself. It cannot make you into a different person. In fact, most often time festers wounds, multiplies bitterness, and hardens hearts. Time is no friend to the hurting. That's why Hell is such a believable reality to me.

But Jesus IS a friend to the hurting. And if you'll let Him, He will take that time, along with all the mess that is your life and He will forgive and recreate every bit of it.

He will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
   from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
   from all the earth.
            The LORD has spoken.
Isaiah 25:8

"Be very careful then, how you live, not as unwise but as wise, and redeeming the time, for these days are wicked." Ephesians 5:15-16

Nietzsche is Dead. God is Risen. Christ Will Come Again.

Nietzsche misidentified the body of the god whom he pronounced dead. His philosophy had successfully attacked and killed the Supreme Ontology of Greek metaphysics, not Yahweh of the Jews. Easy mistake to make, considering the contagious Neoplatonist conceptions of the God of Scripture found in Origen and Augustine. In fact, the Great I AM had his own people to kill him, but that was 1900 years prior to Nietzsche, and unlike the philosopher's own demise, Jesus' death just didn’t take.

I wish you a very surprising Epiphany today. 

What Happens When I Read Descartes in the Morning

The attempt to divorce reason from revelation is itself irrational. Reason cannot exist without revelation because a grammar cannot generate its subject. Reason is form and not content, which is to say it can only contain something that exists independently of it. The life of the mind is an attempt to make sense of that with which it has been confronted. The mind is an operating system; revelation is a series of programs. The ability of reason to arrive at Truth is contingent upon:

a.) the furnishing of sufficient and reliable premises by an outside source,
b.) one’s ability to receive these revelations accurately, and
c.) one's ability to interpret and meaningfully combine these to produce useful conclusions.

I think an honest and humble assessment will show that this is an uncommon confluence of circumstances. Our mental logic boards are filled with viruses and there's a lot of bad information out there to begin with. God help us.

Recent Logos/Ethos/Pathos Sighting

Calvinist philosopher John Frame claims that knowledge has three perspectives to it: the normative perspective, situational perspective, and existential perspective.

1. The normative perspective asks, “What do God’s norms [the Bible] direct us to believe?”
2. The situational perspective asks, “What are the facts?”
3. The existential perspective asks, “What belief is most satisfying to a believing heart?”

Sounds an awful lot like:

1. ethos (ought = goodness)
2. logos (facts = truth)
3. pathos (satisfaction = beauty)

 I'm sure Mr. Frame cited my blog in his dissertation, so I won't bother to check. Although I am a little miffed that he botched the order. Amateur.