I took an exam tonight. Fundamental Theology. Welcome to the Catholic Church! You can learn an entire semester's worth of theology without touching a Bible. [Ha! I knew it!--ed.] Simmer down. There has to be a bridge between the truths of reason and the dogmas of faith. Enter Fundamental Theology. But we're not denying the Bible; we're dealing with the preambles to faith first. Duh. That's what you would do if you weren't a fundie. [Pagan.--ed.] Fideist. [Bread-worshipper.--ed.] Eucharist denier. [Ecclesiolator.--ed.] Schismatic. Anyway, I was thinking about humor. We were discussing absurdity in class not long ago, and our teacher said that two main reactions to absurdity exist: laughter and sadness. Personally, I've had too much of the sadness lately for my taste. I digress. "Humor...it is a difficult concept." "We learn by doing." Oh, dear, a Trek-gression has occurred! I hate it when that happens. What is the difference between good humor and bad humor? What makes Bill Cosby funnier than say, Jackass? Well, the absurd in observational comedy is nothing less than the distance between what is, and what ought to be. If we can be aware of our mistakes without being destroyed, we don't take it personally, and we can laugh at ourselves. It's like a risk pool for guilt and shame. There isn't as fine a line between funny and mean as some people think. And slapstick is only funny when we know no one gets hurt.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments