Skip to main content

Checking In On The "Drunk Ex-Pastors" (Podcast 14)

Jason (Stellman) and Christian had a re-hash of their discussion about what exactly constitutes "indoctrination." I still believe that the negative connotation it carries (which Christian takes as the real definition) is wrong. I would grant that some conceptions of "Christianity" are simply fideism, that is, claims without reason, with no basis in reason, as naked appeals to authority or the threat of punishment. But Christian should simply say that. That is, it does not follow that rejecting a set of beliefs proposed because the reason to believe is "because I said so" requires the rejection of anything that purports to be supernatural (agnosticism/atheism). All that is to say, I'm looking forward to more of Christian explaining his story.

Jason basically made that exact point in the first 15 minutes or so, and brilliantly, at that.

I agree with Jason on almost every point usually, but I have a growing appreciation of Christian. Frankly, it had been hard to imagine that someone who is not crazy or stupid could be on the "Left" (as both of these guys are). He would probably say the same of me.

I could have a beer with Obama, if I ignored everything substantive about him or his policies. And actually, that's pretty much what Obama has asked America to do. He's gotten an assist from the media, and from crazy people, who truly despise him. Obama can point to them and quasi-convincingly believe that everyone who opposes him is insane. That's a fairly easy move for a narcissist. Just sayin.'
Labels:

Comments

Christian said…
Jason, there is a real definition of indoctrination. It's not just me "taking it as the real definition." Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster: "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs." You'll find similar definitions in every dictionary. The transliteration of the word is not the definition of the word.

And, hey, Jason S. and I actually agree on quite a bit, so you'll eventually agree with me too! ;)
9:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
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...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more