Jump to content

jon_trott

Member
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jon_trott

  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.
  16. Interesting thread. Without going into all the theological mess, JCS the *album* was my introduction to Webber & Rice, and I listened to that album both as a wanna-be atheist (I'd play it for my poor unfortunate Christian friend whenever he dared show up) and then as a new Christian (I knew it was off but it comforted my new faith anyway--go figure). The album didn't have all the songs the movie did, including "Could We Start Again, Please." Anyway, when I saw the movie I liked it very much; the "doctrinal problems" for me lessened (the album simply ends w/ an instrumental, called significantly "John 19:41" (which reads, of course, "41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden. In the garden was a new tomb in which no man had ever yet been laid. [Verse 42 should have been included: "Then because of the Jews' Preparation Day (for the tomb was near at hand) they laid Jesus there."]). In the movie, a symbolic scene of ambiguity occurs with a shepherd figure leading sheep. Was the shepherd Jesus? One is left to guess, but that is a better conclusion than the LP (original recording). Anyway, I did love the album as a teen, and also Godspell which I played INCESSANTLY after becoming a Christian. I even bought the Doobie Bros album w/ "Jesus is Just Alright with Me," just so I could record it over and over on a cassette to play at my leisure. Yep, xian rock music was rare in them old days -- A few Larry Norman albums, a Barry McGuire LP... pretty thin. So I guess I did the best I could -- anything talking about Jesus was good enough for me. It makes me smile to remember that.
  17. Thanks. As for REZ, I still remember the first time I heard them (looking so scruffy and underwhelming at the old Barry St. Church JPUSA was renting at the time) as one of the most startlingly powerful art experiences of my life. But of course I loved Grand Funk and Black Sabbath when I was a kid. So whadja expect? Hahahhaahahahahaha! It was my pleasure to get to write lyrics (and one song) for REZ... but here's the real fun fact: "Jolly Jonah Jamison" the DJ voice on "Awaiting Your Reply".... yep. Me.
  18. As a "newbie" I speak non-authoritatively here. I'd suggest the followng. 1. This one seems clear enough: Any poster who claims to be a believer is, by default, bound by Christian standards. Whether posting here or speaking to someone face to face with whom he/she disagrees, Christians don't ever get a "pass" when it comes to actually practicing our faith. The flagship verse for all human interaction, cyber or otherwise: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." We get forgiveness when we blow it, of course, providing we ,a., repent to God, and ,b., make restitution as best we can to our neighbor we've wronged. But that's a different topic. 2. A poster who does not consider her/him self a believer is bound by the board's own policies, which she/he agreed to by registering. Blessings, jon
  19. Andrew wrote: Too late... I've been satanically syncopated, infernally intonated, viciously vibrated, carnally callibrated, electronically enebriated, demonically doctrinated, and risquely rejuvinated. In short... LET'S ROCK!!!! Jon "augmented seventh" Trott
  20. "Come back and fight like a man!" HG all the way. Gilliam more for what he did later...
  21. stef, I do remember the interview, but was not the interviewer. I sorta felt bad for U2 in that scenario later on, as they tried to hint to us that they'd rather not be interviewed by a Christian magazine, period. We were, to be honest, concerned for them; they went through a period there where the band both internally and externally was being pressured to "drop" the more Christian elements (and social elements) of their lyrics/approach. Of course, after Rattle and Hum they did experiement with the whole Mephestopheles (too lazy to spell right) thing. We were trying to get them to be more up-front, and I think they sensed that and wouldn't cooperate. Looking back, I think we should have offered them more grace. I do also think they (Bono and the Edge at least, as the two avowedly Christian members of the group at the time) could have used more accountability and input to/from a body of believers somewhere. But Bono has been a powerful force for good on this planet, and I think we (as do many evangelicals) tended to want to define the artist's role for them rather than let God do that. Sigh... My own rap on "christian" bands (hmm... perhaps even "christian" artists period) is that there is strictly speaking no such thing as a "christian" band, unless by that we strictly mean the members of the group are all avowed evangelicals. It gets dicey, though. My own sons have a band (The WIITALA BROTHERS--their capitalization) which is not discernably Christian in most of its lyrics. Yet they are Christians. Is WB then a "Christian" band? Hehehehe.... Then there are those "Christian" or "gospel" groups that live lives more seedy than most "secular" bands ever thought of living.... In short, it gets pretty squishy, don't it!? The quote I recall from that interview was Bono (I think) saying that they felt they were being "secret agents" for the Lord; whether one appreciates that idea or not (and I'm ambivalent about it myself) it certainly indicated he thought of U2 as having a Christian witness and purpose. One aside I can't resist: The Peters Brothers. YIIIIKES! I remember them all too well. They were in the proud tradition of Bob Larson (not quite as over the top). What was wierd to me about all that was how these two guys -- with accountability to who?!? -- elected themselves experts not only on music, but spirituality and the arts. The classic of all classics, of course, was / is Bill Gothard and his Institute on Basic Youth Conflicts (or whatever it is called). I remember once reading his riff on musical scales, and how the augmented seventh was somehow demonic -- I about fell out of my chair laughing!! Blessings, Jon
  22. I voted for "October," at least in part because I remember how fresh and new and completely original they sounded in the midst of the "new wave" stuff then so popular. U2 were like guys that had been hiding in a cave somewhere, stepped out into the light of day, strapped on their instruments, and played (Edge!) this sort of stratospheric music that left us breathless. I was Cornerstone magazine's music reviewer back then, and u2 was unknown in the U.S.; "October" was additionally stunning for its freeform use of Christian imagery in the lyrics (the rumor was that the lyrics had been lost and Bono had to recreate them in the studio as a sort of stream of consciousness thing). I know... they got much better musically. But it doesn't matter. I still remember that raw, unearthly music pouring out of my fairly cheap stereo, every song seemingly more atmospheric and wierdly beautiful than the last.... Blessings, jon
  23. Thank you. Barth is a guy I don't know a lot about, though one of my dear friends is slam-out crazy over him. I wonder if he, like Kierkegaard, got a roughing up by fundamentalist / evangelical writers (the latter for F. Schaeffer, for instance) that was undeserved. Kierkegaard did for sure; that I know from both reading SK and from reading others' research into SK. Barth I'm guardedly positive about having read/heard little. Let me know if you had some leads / comments there. And Humboldt's Gift is a really good book--so is Sammler's Planet, for that matter, though not quite as good as HG. I also liked Augie March, but can't for the life of me recall it right now to explain just why. Bellow is one of those moral fiction writers that one wishes would have (??) become a believer... Never mentioned what I've been reading lately... A biography Richard Wright: The Life and Times by Hazel Rowley is a fair knock-out. Wright's Native Son is one of those novels that didn't do much for me when I read it. But since then, I've had to rethink a lot about Wright, and am about to start the Library of America restored text version of his Black Boy (a novel that's thinly disguised autobiography). Though Wright won't displace Ralph Ellison in my book as the best African-American novelist ever, he probably almost single-handedly both made space for and defined black literature in America... Blessings, Jon
  24. Love Dickens. All of 'em (and I think I read just about all of 'em, though would have to check a list). (Added this later...>>>) But hey, too many didn't like Steinbeck! I'm blown away by that.... I *loved* Steinbeck as a kid; read almost his entire collection in a month or two (yes, I was an odd kid). Grapes of Wrath is an absolute masterpiece, with one of the most beautiful, rending, and iconic endings I've ever encountered in literature. Steinbeck was, for me, a genius. Winter of Our Discontent (admittedly odd choice, but there it is) really got me as a kid, too... a moral man basically goes slowly to seed in a profoundly Christian (I think) narrative. But as the ones I don't care for... Ulysses by James Joyce... that was voted #1 novel of the twentieth century by some "official" group in the last little while... I own the thing but it is a pain to get through, unlike Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man which is good. (I haven't, to memory, read anything else of his.) Re 'U', I'll try again, likely. Hemingway. I doggedly read a number of his books over one summer as a teen, and liked (as others have also) only one: The Old Man and the Sea. (Actually, that one I read in school as part of a very good English class.) Farewell to Arms disgusted me, and The Sun Also Rises did too. Heck, so did For Whom the Bell Tolls. Why? I honestly think, in retrospect, that I was unconsciously a feminist reacting to his non-feminist (!!!) streak. Read Toni Morrison's riff, called (I think) Blackness in the White Imagination, which gives ol' Ernie a paddlewhacking on other grounds. Kafka's The Trial, but not because it wasn't good. It was too good at doing what the writer wanted it to do; I read it at only fourteen, and it helped make me a life-long Christian nihilist (that is, there is either Jesus or nothing). Betcha want me to explain. I can't. I gotta leave for supper! (The below is NOT a novel! Duh, me! Oh, well. I'll leave it.) Diary of Anne Frank for similar reasons to Kafka; I was only twelve, and had gotten so wrapped into the book that when it ended as it had to I wept with a mixture of horror and rage. I remember wishing I'd never heard of Anne Frank! So the innocent / naive sentimentalism of childhood meets up with the inexorability and inexplicability of evil. It is a great book, of course, but one I would forewarn young tender-hearts about before setting them loose with it.
  25. I tell people if they want a manual on "how to do community," read Vanier. It will cure them of that idea. Vanier to me is brilliant. We've had him at the festival, though depressingly when he appeared at Main Stage there was only a smattering crowd there -- mostly JPUSA folks, I suspect! "Forgiveness is the heart of community." Absolutely true in our experience. His riffs on people who are wounded bringing out in turn our own wounds, and that this is what community often is about... again, brilliant stuff that has been lived rather than theorized by its author. It is so hard to talk about the book, mainly because for this pilgrim, opening it ANYWHERE reveals some nugget of reality. I just tried that with my desk copy, and here's what I got (at random, now): Ha! Resonant with me.... and the worst thing is, that "the rougher elements of our personality" keep on showing up. Tenacious little boogers. Blessings, Jon
×
×
  • Create New...