Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    writer and layabout
  • Favorite movies
    The Mission anything w/ Bogie The Grapes of Wrath many "chick flicks" (guilty pleasures!) End of the Affair The Third Man
  • Favorite music
    Beethoven Gershwin Mahler (and Mehler) Wynton Marsalis Black Sabbath (No, I'm not kidding) Grand Funk (now I've lost all respect, right?) Resurrection Band The Call The 77s almost all blues music
  • Favorite creative writing
    Francois Mauriac Larry Wiowode James Baldwin (unbeliever who breaks your heart) C. S. Lewis Kierkegaard (the 10% I understand) Walker Percy Ralph Ellison (best African-American novelist EVER) John Steinbeck D. H. Lawrence (naughty bits!) Charles Dickens N. T. Wright (but I'm just starting) Flannery O'Connor (esp. "Everything that Rises Must Converge") Charles Williams and too many more
  • Favorite visual art
    I'm an idiot here, even though my father paints. Rembrandt Chagall Monet James Trott (my dad! Hahaha)

jon_trott's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. That was beautifully done, a fitting remembrance of a complex, but profoundly Christian, artist. jon
  2. Persistence of Waffles... my loooong post I composed somehow got flushed completely. No one removed it. I think I did something myself. But argh, I had spent some time on it. Oh, well. I'll perhaps have time tomorrow or something to scribe those questions you wanted... Re feminism, I'd love to have a discussion on it. Just not sure this is the venue. Maybe we should all get together at the Gender Revolution Tent next year, and pose for a photo op by the banner (that's a bad joke based on the thread about CBE elsewhere here). Blessings, Jon
  3. I hear that! In fact, I just spotted a Billy Graham interview done by Newsweek where he basically talked about focusing on the central things of the faith more. It was a fairly moving, and thought-provoking, interivew. Your line about 'there just isn't time' is sort of what he was saying. I slowly have been trying to educate myself on the science of the evolution debate, mainly because I have a few people near me that would (I think) perhaps be more open to the gospel if they in turn knew Christians willing to grapple with science. That said, I'm also like you in that I'm unsure how much time I'll continue investing in that pursuit. I already sink a whole lot of time into gender issues (as is painfully obvious elsewhere on the board), and should be finishing up a few different book projects of my own. We each have our field(s) the Lord has asked us to plow, and we'd best be plowing those fields. As far as evolution goes, my present position (gently held!) is that God made all that is by one means or another, and that the Genesis account's description of a real (to quote ol' Francis Schaeffer) "space-time" fall did in some way, at some point in time, occur to humanity. Without those realities, the rest of the Christian story would collapse. So a young-earther and theistic evolutionist could, at least, agree on those things... Blessings, Jon
  4. I think, Chashab, you may be referring to "scientism,"a religion rooted in the misbelief that all things ultimately can (and perhaps will) be revealed via scientific methods. Novelist Walker Percy (among others) riffs nicely on that idea in his Lost in the Cosmos. But Percy did, I believe, think evolution was more than the spurious scientism, rather being good science.... I'm greatly simplifying (thus probably damaging) the man's ideas. Best to read him on it. As far as evolution and Christianity, there are many links easily found on this, such as: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/ch...lutionists.html A guy that offers a downloadable 1 hr long powerpoint presentation on Christianity and evolution (from a charismatic / evangelical theological framework and an evolutionary science framework) is Denis Lamoureux. The free download and/or playable file is here. Again, I am not locked into the theistic evolution model. I see some theological problems (or should I say I *think* I see some theological problems) with theistic evolution. Mr. Lamoureux doesn't answer 'em all for me by any means. But he does offer a nice starting place. Blessings, jon
  5. Uh... Peter... please don't misquote me. Really not trying to be snarky here.... kindest possible voice... please don't say "Jon Trott said" or "suggested" or another other such thing when involved in one of your (to my subjective judgement, anyway) rather pointless debates re Christian feminism. Your own opinions are yours. Enjoy them. I'll try to enjoy mine, as long as others don't misrepresent them. And no, Peter, I won't respond to your further postings on this topic. That includes if you choose to disregard my request. Sincerely, Jon Trott
  6. --content deleted-- I'm certainly with you on the first issue, but not so much on the second. BUT, I wouldn't at all have linked the two together.
  7. Not much new to add to this thread, really, other than a sad story... I tried to discuss evolution (at least four or five different "possibilities" philosophically/theological/scientifically speaking) with a small group of folk very, very dear to me (not at JPUSA). I sent the group an email explaining my understanding of at least the below: 1. Young-earth creationism - Inst. for Creation Research and so on. 2. Old-earth creationism 3. ID (Intelligent Design); different or not from 2.? 4. Theistic evolution 5. Non-theistic evolution - Richard Dawkins Now I did this not as someone deeply committed to ANY of the positions (though I confess I then and now initially rejected both 1. and 5. as pretty much untenable from an evidentiary and theological perspective, respectively). My goal was to engage my dear ones in a discussion that might bring light collectively to us all as a thoughtful discussion ensued. My own issues had to do mainly with theistic evolutionists solutions (which I was then not much aware of) regarding some biblical difficulties that arise when/if the theistic model is embraced. Likewise, for young and old earthers, what do they do with some of the science (and no, the ICR folks' 'science' wasn't what I was talking about). The result? I got emails basically telling me that to even raise such an issue was a sign of my increasingly softening stance toward biblical authority -- also evidenced, I was told, by my feminist readings of the Good Book. Not one of my respondents wanted to actually discuss the science, theology, and so on involved in the whole thing. I was stunned to discover that the young-earth theory was the "only" theory they considered biblically valid. These were very educated folk, by the way, not a few of them having a more complete (as in formal) education than I, the college drop-out, have. So it was very disheartening, and I guess their Pavlovian response pretty much has made me duck and cover on discussing some issues with Christians "right" or "left" on this issue (or whatever terms one wishes to replace "right" and "left" with). Sigh... Blessings, jon
  8. For me (no bricks, please) it was The Brothers Karamazov -- the old MGM one (which somehow, I'd always blamed on Disney until I looked it up today online). Maybe because the novel is so great... but the movie was, to me, a real stinker. Runner up? Oddly enough, another F. D. novel, Crime and Punishment -- the movie was a late 80s or early 90s made for TV version, so maybe it isn't fair for me to torch it. But they ruined it, almost completely. Maybe what I'm saying is that Dostoevsky isn't a guy you easily adapt? Blessings, jon
  9. Uh... COPS? Hehehe. This was true up until fairly recently, I admit with chagrin. House. This is, however, getting thin for me. Great idea, but how long can they go w/ it? CSI - I loved this show when it first came on... along with the rest of the American public. But it, too, is getting thin. VERY thin. I'm not sure I'll continue tracking it. Judging Amy -- both my wife and I's favorite show, which is probably why they CANCELLED it a while back. CNN -- Because I believe as long as I'm going to torture myself with television, why not get a double-dose? TMC (Turner movie channel).... not a "show", though. Same with Sundance and IFC, I guess. Maybe a thread called "favorite TV channel"? Hehehehe. Blessings, jon
  10. I agree with essentially all that you said above. I was referring to the fact that some do not hold to the statement that I quoted. and further, some mistakenly elevate the picayune to the essential. That's the trick, eh? Figuring out what those essentials are. But of course that last phrase -- "in everything charity" -- points to the same place Jesus did with his "new commandment": John 13:34 "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." How does that work here? Well, that's what we have to sort out.... hehehehehe..... Blessings, jon
  11. Took the words right out of my mouth. That is a fine romance story, and says a lot for both of you. blessings, jon
  12. I'd like to announce right here that listing films I've watched the most will promptly signal to many that my taste is in my tootsies. But... in no particular order... - High Plains Drifter (why? There's something about Clint painting a town red - literally - that just does it for me, despite how politically incorrect the movie is for a feminist type such as myself.) - The Big Sleep (Probably in the past ten years I've watched this thirty times. I'll watch it thirty more. Why? Bogie and Bacall. Script written by -- among others -- William Faulkner. The hothouse scene at beginning is alone worth the trip, but it by no means ends there. Nuff said.) - The Maltese Falcon (... just great. Bogie, of course.) - Princess Bride (need I explain?) - Almost any pirate movie, esp. those with Maureen O'Hara in them. Why? Because she's lovely and makes her leading man (whether Leslie Howard or Tyrone Power or Errol Flynn) appear all the more swashbuckling. I have an old VCR tape with three or four of these on it that I -- with and without little kids watching as well -- have practically worn out. - Various chick flicks. But my openness to abuse ends here... I'm not about to name them! Blessings, jon
  13. I kin see that me un Mr. Buckeye er gonna have a shoot-out! Hehehehehe... The Wiki entry on Grapes of Wrath does a pretty good job (w/ spoilers, though). I will note that even if you do not like G of W, you may well like other Steinbeck fare, including East of Eden (the obvious source for the James Dean flick of that name), The Red Pony (begins with a hired hand blowing a booger out his nose; can't get better than that--wink), and The Pearl (one of the most beautifully tragic, and astonishingly short, exactly compacted tales among modern novels). I think the latter is the only serious competition against Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea for being the "perfect" mythic tale told by a 20th Century author. But note how I've changed the subject from Grapes of Wrath.... Hehehehehe.... Blessings, jon
  14. I think it is about time for a flame war over Steinbeck. (JOKE!) But really, I think Grapes of Wrath is brilliant. It does cause me, though, to ponder one reality I've often run into with other books and movies that are heavily message-oriented. Sometimes, the medicinal qualities are so intense that it prevents the medicine from being taken. Like that great philosopher Mary Poppins said, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." A good lesson there for we evangelical types involved in the arts. But please.... if you have not finished Grapes of Wrath, do it. You won't be sorry. And remember, Steinbeck was a younger member of that "lost generation" of writers where writing a "happy" ending was impossible. They had such dread of "sentimentalism" that they veered (IMO of course) to an opposite extreme -- a sort of literary nihilism. But Steinbeck's GofW actually did not do that. It was a socialist statement, which for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear at that time, looked pretty much like the only way to deal with what was happening to the American social fabric. In short, he did offer hope at the end... Okay, I'll go ahead, but first... :spoilers: The ending of the book involves a woman, abandoned by her husband, whose breasts are full of milk due to just having had a baby (I think the baby dies earlier, but don't recall for sure--been a while since I read it). When the Joad family (her extended family) encounters a man who is literally starving to death, she offers him nourishment from her own breasts. I can't tell you how powerful this scene is in the book--it brings tears to my eyes when I read it. Blessings, jon
  15. I say "theological mess" with great affection. And it still moves me, for whatever mysterious set of reasons.
  • Create New...