tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343439372519556254.post2592197529143544814..comments2024-02-11T03:50:53.613-05:00Comments on Counterlight's Peculiars: So, Just What Is The Point Of It All?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343439372519556254.post-61918385463605569532013-06-04T08:36:55.816-04:002013-06-04T08:36:55.816-04:00"Perhaps our task as Christians is to fight e..."Perhaps our task as Christians is to fight evil and death, not unbelievers and outsiders.<br /><br />So what do you think?"<br /><br />Exactly.it's margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13577280471100732619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343439372519556254.post-66870811199102217662013-06-04T01:46:27.413-04:002013-06-04T01:46:27.413-04:00I think in some sense that the Triumph of Secular ...I think in some sense that the Triumph of Secular Humanism IS the Triumph of Christianity. Think about it: everyone, except the truly insane, desires to be Good. Desires the Good. While the antitheists have a "Good Without God/Be Good for Goodness Sake" slogan, it's really an oxymoron. The words "Good" and "God" are inextricably linked. Our very notions of ethical "goodness" come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. "Good w/o God" merely wants to do away w/ the <i>personality</i> of the Good.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is because of the oxymoronic nature of GWOG secular humanism (esp antitheism), that threatens it to go off the rails, and actually subvert/invert/pervert the Good. That's the danger, I think, if notions of the Good are completely cut-off from the LOVE that allows Itself to be put on the cross.<br /><br /><br />But there's another question: the above deals w/ the cognitive (abstract "Goodness", abstract "God"). What of the affective?<br /><br />The biggest problem for too much liberal Christianity, too much conservative Protestantism, AND most (if not all) secular humanism, is losing touch w/ affective ritual. Sacramentality.<br /><br />This, of course, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has in spades . . . but I think that 21st century "Traditionalism" pretends that the Bloody Crucifix/Ikon they venerate is Christ's Blood-mixed-with-their-own . . . when they're actually adding to Christ's Blood the Blood of Christ's Least-of-These (whom they're busy crucifying. See re latest gay-bashing murders in NYC *or* Russia)<br /><br />Well, that's enough of my blather for now. TEC is closest to Getting It Right (IMHO, of course!), but there remains much more to do. Somehow, those Secular Humanists who choke on the "G word" (the one w/ only 1 "o"!) need to find a way to personalize The Good enough to (say) Eat It. Incense It. Chant It.<br /><br />Otherwise, "Be Good for Goodness Sake" is nothing but the Capitalist slogan it sounds like [If you want to know where that leads, see re "Michael Ginsberg" on last night's <i>Mad Men</i>!]JCFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14516376500318551838noreply@blogger.com