Comment on An apology to PUC by wesley kime.
Iâ€™m so old I remember being instructed only, from cradle roll to college (LSU, by the way; back then LSC), from parables. Matthew 13 is naught but parable upon parable. The Speaker Himself said so. But now all I hear about are allegories, metaphors, even paradigms, which must be itself a metaphor for whatever is left over. Genesis 1 is allegoric, the chiefest and fattest. Our scholars say so.
If they say so, but then Job has got to be the most applicable allegory this side of Genesis 1 of this siteâ€™s defense of Genesis 1. Behold Jobâ€™s cast of characters â€“ Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite — metaphors and noms de cyber for our regulars, if you will.
In flaying the lonesome and sore beset Job, the metonymic blog-master, coming through as as testy and touchy as ours, if you must, but eventually exonerated by God (Job hath â€œspoken of me the thing that is rightâ€ Job 42:7), those ancient bloggers were by turns as caustic and sarcastic, every bit as aggressive and abusive, rather more empathetic and courtly if always as profligate of advice and wisdom, even better second-guessers and quicker to tell Job he hadnâ€™t a shredy-shred-shred of evidence, playing not only the devilâ€™s advocates but agents. Biblical precedent, there. But, alas, so much more poetic.
So the question is not whereâ€™s your evidence but whereâ€™s your meter?
wesley kime Also Commented
An apology to PUC
Lucian says: â€œDudeâ€ — Hmmmm, is â€œProfessorâ€ Kent loosing his cool?
Ah, thatâ€™s the macro-mega-question taking over right now. Natural instinct and norms of decorum and usage evolved over the eons would easily recognize that cool is, sigh, being lost. But research into the emergent norms of pop-academia, employing google or data from any mega-macro Postmodernist seminar, especially those of a theological bent, compels the opposite conclusion. â€œDudeâ€ is not uncool; â€œdudeâ€ is cool. â€œDudeâ€ is â€œinâ€ — in academic street talk as well as MTV. Hard to tell the difference sometimes. Indeed the latest underground â€œHandbook of Style for Postmodernist Doctoral Dissertation,â€ a privately published mega-macro-volume, duly mega-macro-peer-reviewed, renders â€œdudeâ€ absolutely mega-mandatory to all academic discourse. Working in â€œdudeâ€ is as pivotal to peer-acceptance as working in footnotes and booting out Genesis 1. Micro- vs. mega- may still be quibbled among the unlearned, but not â€œdudeâ€ among the enlightened. â€œDudeâ€ is the not-so-secret ivy password, like in the trenches of WWII, like to get into a speakeasy, or for a high-five between spies, or when we were kids in tree houses.
That â€œdudeâ€ is mega-established as cool is not moot; whether it is to be coolly applied to friend (as once â€œbrotherâ€ was among us) or foe (as in â€œyouâ€™re on a slippery slope, dudeâ€), is. Context herein would seem to suggest the latter, but usage, according to research into it, is sloppy.
An apology to PUC
PS: Oh, and what about “organic,” as in “organic foods”? and “sustainable.” It’s a game, listing all the slick new vocabulary changes, like us kids used to see who could count the most new car models we saw on a trip. Why hasn’t Facebook thought of it? Changes you can believe in.
Recent Comments by wesley kime
Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK
Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.
The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.
When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.
I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.
Nobel Prize Winner “Blinded by Belief”: Retracts 2016 Paper on RNA Self-Replication
The confession that Szostak made is boggling! If anybody has been on a “journey”, Szostak has! And this analysis by Sean of that journey and its implications is truly awesome. It should be published widely… I’m surprised nobody has commented on it yet. No comment could do it justice.
I’m reduced to being simply curious. Was there talk of rescinding Szostak’s Nobel? I propose another Nobel category: a prize for most honest scientist, and Szostak would be the first winner. Few other scientists would be eligible, particularly among evolutionary scientists, who collectively seem to have suffered a blindness mutation. He should be TIME’s Man of the Year.