2nd Timothy 3:16 is a popular verse for illustrating the importance of the Bible, and also in support of sola scriptura.
But am I the only one to have wondered if and how it can possibly be referring to itself? At the time it was written, the New Testament hadn't taken final shape, naturally (though I imagine that one or more of the Gospels and/or the Gospel source document(s) may have been around in some form). And it's far-fetched indeed to suppose that 2nd Timothy's writer included 2nd Timothy as Scripture, anyway.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Timothy isn't part of Christianity's biblical canon. Being actually written by an apostle is a good basis to trust it (all the shaky, disreputable other "gospels" don't have that basis).
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village
No, I don't mean to knock the observation that other people than the parents, the "village", are involved in a child's upbringing. They are, and that is normal and dare I say healthy. Generally (not absolutely), an insular childhood fails to adequately prepare someone to be part of the larger society. (That's merely one of the reasons why I personally wouldn't choose home-schooling.) Frankly, people will need to interact with citizens other than relatives, so shouldn't they get some practice while still under the supervision of parents who are fulfilling their proper roles of protection, guidance, and support?
But one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village in the current culture is because the parents sure aren't doing it. I just read an interview with a successful actress who recently became a mother (I don't know whether the pregnancy was "intentional" or not), and the sheer scale of ignorance and selfishness exhibited about the family unit is astounding. She mentions her surprise at how strong her desire to be with her child is (ever hear of a mother bear and her cubs before?). She says that her feelings for the father have increased in intensity since the birth, because she sees that when a child enters the picture then the parents are thereby linked forever in their sharing of it (gee, do you suppose marriage isn't solely a decadent short-lived expression of romance but also for the sake of, say, the most vulnerable members of the resulting family, the children?). She says that she's fine if they marry or don't (after all, why should a father be obligated to take responsibility for the offspring he's, well, partly responsible for? Why should he be obligated to do his part in raising the child?). She says that as the child grows, marriage might become more important later (as opposed to now during the most formative years, when the child will be raised by a hireling much of the time?).
I'm all for understanding, unity, and compromise, but sometimes I can't stop myself from getting the impression that some people think so differently that they may as well be living on another planet. Admittedly, despite my comments her child does have a couple significant advantages that will probably allow him to turn out all right, if a lack of boundaries and a drive to find real selfless love don't cause him to enter the orbit of myriad detrimental influences. He will benefit from a quite comfortable amount of wealth and a mother who does indeed experience maternal impulses for him.
The sad truth is that not all children with similar, uh, non-family-oriented parents have those compensations. Want a recipe for a drug dealer, in general terms? Combine the rough life of poverty with the no-hope perspective of nonexistent opportunities with the no-rules moral vacuum engendered by absent or skewed-priority parents. People always make choices, but their environment predisposes them to viewpoints and their viewpoints predispose them to evaluate choices differently. Even if someone held to the fatalistic view that individuals ("sheeple") just "do what they're taught, what they know", doesn't that mean that it would be all the more important for them to be taught/raised in stable, supportive family units that demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt what love is?
But one obvious reason why raising a child takes a village in the current culture is because the parents sure aren't doing it. I just read an interview with a successful actress who recently became a mother (I don't know whether the pregnancy was "intentional" or not), and the sheer scale of ignorance and selfishness exhibited about the family unit is astounding. She mentions her surprise at how strong her desire to be with her child is (ever hear of a mother bear and her cubs before?). She says that her feelings for the father have increased in intensity since the birth, because she sees that when a child enters the picture then the parents are thereby linked forever in their sharing of it (gee, do you suppose marriage isn't solely a decadent short-lived expression of romance but also for the sake of, say, the most vulnerable members of the resulting family, the children?). She says that she's fine if they marry or don't (after all, why should a father be obligated to take responsibility for the offspring he's, well, partly responsible for? Why should he be obligated to do his part in raising the child?). She says that as the child grows, marriage might become more important later (as opposed to now during the most formative years, when the child will be raised by a hireling much of the time?).
I'm all for understanding, unity, and compromise, but sometimes I can't stop myself from getting the impression that some people think so differently that they may as well be living on another planet. Admittedly, despite my comments her child does have a couple significant advantages that will probably allow him to turn out all right, if a lack of boundaries and a drive to find real selfless love don't cause him to enter the orbit of myriad detrimental influences. He will benefit from a quite comfortable amount of wealth and a mother who does indeed experience maternal impulses for him.
The sad truth is that not all children with similar, uh, non-family-oriented parents have those compensations. Want a recipe for a drug dealer, in general terms? Combine the rough life of poverty with the no-hope perspective of nonexistent opportunities with the no-rules moral vacuum engendered by absent or skewed-priority parents. People always make choices, but their environment predisposes them to viewpoints and their viewpoints predispose them to evaluate choices differently. Even if someone held to the fatalistic view that individuals ("sheeple") just "do what they're taught, what they know", doesn't that mean that it would be all the more important for them to be taught/raised in stable, supportive family units that demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt what love is?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Pascal's Wager flipped
Pascal's Wager is that belief in Christianity, and behavior based on that belief, potentially have eternal, heavenly consequences that far outweigh the corresponding consequences of disbelief in Christianity (if death is just death, then one's beliefs simply wouldn't matter).
However, consider situations which involve certain death if someone acts as if Christianity is true. This has been the case for many individuals. Now, a believer would proceed to make the decision that results in shuffling off this mortal coil, thereby going on to grander things. He or she probably wouldn't need to think twice.
To an unbeliever, the mortal dilemma looks much different. Pascal's Wager looks less promising because the scales hang between eternal life and earthly life, and of the two earthly life is clearly the safer "bet". For him or her, one choice is to take a chance that Christianity is true, so that earthly life is traded for the incomparably richer eternal life. The other choice is to take the chance that Christianity is false, so that eternal life is nothing more than pretty fiction and therefore earthly life is infinitely better than death.
When someone's life is on the line, Christianity's veracity cuts both ways. Christianity being true would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely more rewarding; yet Christianity being false would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely less rewarding (because then it would be cutting precious life short for precisely Nothing).
However, consider situations which involve certain death if someone acts as if Christianity is true. This has been the case for many individuals. Now, a believer would proceed to make the decision that results in shuffling off this mortal coil, thereby going on to grander things. He or she probably wouldn't need to think twice.
To an unbeliever, the mortal dilemma looks much different. Pascal's Wager looks less promising because the scales hang between eternal life and earthly life, and of the two earthly life is clearly the safer "bet". For him or her, one choice is to take a chance that Christianity is true, so that earthly life is traded for the incomparably richer eternal life. The other choice is to take the chance that Christianity is false, so that eternal life is nothing more than pretty fiction and therefore earthly life is infinitely better than death.
When someone's life is on the line, Christianity's veracity cuts both ways. Christianity being true would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely more rewarding; yet Christianity being false would imply that Christian behavior is infinitely less rewarding (because then it would be cutting precious life short for precisely Nothing).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)