Sometimes people think that the opposite of believe or belief is doubt. That is not the case, in fact. The opposite of belief is unbelief or more completely, rebellion. When people refused to believe Jesus, they, in fact were rebelling against the truth and the facts that they had been given.
So what is doubt? Selwyn Hughes says, "Doubt can be used to detect error." He went on to quote an unknown author, but one who was prescient with regards to the 21st century. "The inescapable presence of doubt is a constant reminder of our responsibility to truth in a twilight world of truth and half truth."
Hughes sums doubt like this. "It acts like a spur to challenge us to find out the truth about a situation. It is precisely because all is not certain that we have to make certain."
Francis Bacon opined, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will begin with doubts he will end with certainties."
Hughes concludes, "Doubt can act as a sparring partner both to truth and error. It keeps faith trim and assists us in shedding the paunchiness of false ideas."
I didn't have to write much for this lesson. Doubt is not an enemy, it is a friend, a tool. In a world of "fake news," a world that has seemingly abandoned absolute truth, doubt is a torch to guide through the morass of prevarication and fabrication.
(Aside: It is almost humorous how, once confronted with the reality of a relativistic world our unbelieving friends recoil in shock and horror. Yet for years we have been bombarded with the claims that everything is relative. "There are no absolutes." And several commentators add, "There are absolutely no absolutes, including this statement.")
We cannot live in a world without absolutes. We absolutely cannot live in a world without absolutes. And unbelievers have not done so. They simply chose which absolutes they will accept and which they will ignore or deny.
Our present situation would be funny if it weren't so sad. The Bible uses a phrase, "sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind." And when faced with a real life example of "fake news" or relational logic, they are very uncomfortable, as all of us are.
You may have heard that trouble follows when we doubt our beliefs and believe our doubts. Now we must also beware of enshrining "doubt" once the question is verified. If we continue to doubt after having the doubt answered, we are heading for trouble. "Is the Bible reliable?"is a common question. Once that has been answered, to continue to ask and doubt is not a legitimate use of "doubt."
Once a question has been addressed, we "doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." Man is built for certainty. Doubt does not undermine certainty. It illuminates uncertainty. Don't doubt it. It keeps us intellectually trim.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Friday, February 10, 2017
Jamie
I used to know a Hispanic guy named Jamie. I called him Jamee for a while, then learned that the correct pronunciation was HyMe. That has nothing to do with our thought for today, but I was reminded of it when I titled the essay. Ime or more accurately I-Me. (And I get paid by the word, so am pumping up the paycheck.)
Our communications channels are overwhelmed with, what I consider to be an egregious grammatical error. I will illustrate. Can you find at least three errors in this sentence? "Me and him is going fishing." (Trick question. There are four.) Now for the coup de gras (That's French for the final blow–or something. CDG). "Give the fishing tackle to he and I." Let me expand. "Give the fishing tackle to David and I."
TV, radio, print media, and regular conversations are replete with the I-Me error. Even people who should know better, and those who have already been instructed by me, persist in making this mistake. (Mrs. Cheney must be spinning in her grave.)
Grammar lesson. "I" and "he" are subjective pronouns. That means that they are used as the subject of a sentence or phrase. In our CDG the prepositional phrase is, "to he and I." Notice that the pronouns are the subjects of the preposition, so should be "him and me."
I am not sure why this error has become so widespread. I have a wild guess, but who wants that? Well, you might if you have read this far. I surmise that the "royal we" syndrome has struck the I-world. (Not to be confused with the i-world, like i-Pad, i-Phone, etc.). Some say that the Queen of England uses the "royal we," as in, "We will be present." She means "I will be present."
Just saying give it to "David and me," sounds a little pedestrian and plebeian. So they dress it up by using the classier "I" instead of me. Like I said, wild guess. Maybe it is just hearing an error enough makes it sound right. But somebody had to start it. Hint: Say the phrase without the other name or pronoun. "Give it to I." That sounds awkward and dumb, to me anyway.
The thing that I think is funny, is that in attempting to appear cultured and erudite, they are in actuality reverting to "hillbilly" jargon. "Me and him is goin' fishin'." Sorry Mrs. Cheney.
And here are a couple of Googles who agree with...I.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/when-to-use-i-and-when-to-use-me
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/i-vs-me/
Now bring on those split infinitives. "Give the fishing tackle to absurdly overloaded David."
Our communications channels are overwhelmed with, what I consider to be an egregious grammatical error. I will illustrate. Can you find at least three errors in this sentence? "Me and him is going fishing." (Trick question. There are four.) Now for the coup de gras (That's French for the final blow–or something. CDG). "Give the fishing tackle to he and I." Let me expand. "Give the fishing tackle to David and I."
TV, radio, print media, and regular conversations are replete with the I-Me error. Even people who should know better, and those who have already been instructed by me, persist in making this mistake. (Mrs. Cheney must be spinning in her grave.)
Grammar lesson. "I" and "he" are subjective pronouns. That means that they are used as the subject of a sentence or phrase. In our CDG the prepositional phrase is, "to he and I." Notice that the pronouns are the subjects of the preposition, so should be "him and me."
I am not sure why this error has become so widespread. I have a wild guess, but who wants that? Well, you might if you have read this far. I surmise that the "royal we" syndrome has struck the I-world. (Not to be confused with the i-world, like i-Pad, i-Phone, etc.). Some say that the Queen of England uses the "royal we," as in, "We will be present." She means "I will be present."
Just saying give it to "David and me," sounds a little pedestrian and plebeian. So they dress it up by using the classier "I" instead of me. Like I said, wild guess. Maybe it is just hearing an error enough makes it sound right. But somebody had to start it. Hint: Say the phrase without the other name or pronoun. "Give it to I." That sounds awkward and dumb, to me anyway.
The thing that I think is funny, is that in attempting to appear cultured and erudite, they are in actuality reverting to "hillbilly" jargon. "Me and him is goin' fishin'." Sorry Mrs. Cheney.
And here are a couple of Googles who agree with...I.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/when-to-use-i-and-when-to-use-me
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/i-vs-me/
Now bring on those split infinitives. "Give the fishing tackle to absurdly overloaded David."
Monday, February 6, 2017
What Part of Football....
(This is not political, so if you are looking for controversy, I will disappoint you.)
There is an old saying, (or there ought to be and I just invented it) "What part of stupid do you not understand?" One of the axioms in football (see above parenthesis) is that when protecting a lead you do not do dumb stuff. An old coach of the Titans (unnamed) used to "sit" on a three point lead. Once the Titans got a three point lead, he would go into "three rushes into the line, and punt" offensive mode. He said that his defense could and most of the time would protect the lead and we would win.
Atlanta may not have done quite that in SuberPowl (can we say that?) LI, but the fourth quarter had some glaring instances of football savvy being abandoned. Forget that New England was on a roll. Atlanta fumbled the football on a sack.
Most sack-fumbles come on a blind side hit. The QB does not see the rusher coming and loses control of the ball when a freight train hits him at 60 mph. (Or so it seems.) But this sack was right in his face. The good old "tuck rule" would have protected him had he tried to just take the sack. But he tried to throw it with an 8 foot gorilla slamming into him. Mistake number one of the overt kind.
Then the Falcons, who had played "belly button defense" all game long switched to, sadly again, the Titans' favorite pass defense. Early in the game even a completed pass resulted in a defender on the receiver for essentially no yards after catch. Then after the turn over, and the rest of the game they used the 5 yard cushion, backing up at snap, then chasing after the catch. It works like a charm–to lose the game.
Recover onside kick. Good move guy. Then in the waning minutes, they moved into field goal range for the "easy" clinching score. Fantastic catch. Probably the play of the game had they kicked the FG. "No dumb plays." Right? So the first thing is the QB stays in the pocket for a sack. No slipping out the side for a throwaway ala Tom Brady.
Thirteen yard loss. Still not completely messed up or hosed as we say in chemistry.* Throw for a short gain to regain some yardage and ease the distance for the FG try. But wait, the left tackle held a rusher, who seemed to be falling to the ground anyway, and 10 more yards of penalty cost about 20-25 yards of field position. Incomplete pass. Punt.
Still, not all is lost. Punt fielded on the 10 or so. But the "let'em catch it and run" defense comes through beautifully. Pats march down the field and score...and complete the second consecutive two point conversion. Tie ball game.
Overtime. No criticism of the coin toss. But after that, we watched the let'em catch defense back down the field for the winning touchdown.
Ballgame. What part of football do you not understand?
*Hosed describes an experiment that went so badly that we just bring out the garden hose and wash it all into the sink.
There is an old saying, (or there ought to be and I just invented it) "What part of stupid do you not understand?" One of the axioms in football (see above parenthesis) is that when protecting a lead you do not do dumb stuff. An old coach of the Titans (unnamed) used to "sit" on a three point lead. Once the Titans got a three point lead, he would go into "three rushes into the line, and punt" offensive mode. He said that his defense could and most of the time would protect the lead and we would win.
Atlanta may not have done quite that in SuberPowl (can we say that?) LI, but the fourth quarter had some glaring instances of football savvy being abandoned. Forget that New England was on a roll. Atlanta fumbled the football on a sack.
Most sack-fumbles come on a blind side hit. The QB does not see the rusher coming and loses control of the ball when a freight train hits him at 60 mph. (Or so it seems.) But this sack was right in his face. The good old "tuck rule" would have protected him had he tried to just take the sack. But he tried to throw it with an 8 foot gorilla slamming into him. Mistake number one of the overt kind.
Then the Falcons, who had played "belly button defense" all game long switched to, sadly again, the Titans' favorite pass defense. Early in the game even a completed pass resulted in a defender on the receiver for essentially no yards after catch. Then after the turn over, and the rest of the game they used the 5 yard cushion, backing up at snap, then chasing after the catch. It works like a charm–to lose the game.
Recover onside kick. Good move guy. Then in the waning minutes, they moved into field goal range for the "easy" clinching score. Fantastic catch. Probably the play of the game had they kicked the FG. "No dumb plays." Right? So the first thing is the QB stays in the pocket for a sack. No slipping out the side for a throwaway ala Tom Brady.
Thirteen yard loss. Still not completely messed up or hosed as we say in chemistry.* Throw for a short gain to regain some yardage and ease the distance for the FG try. But wait, the left tackle held a rusher, who seemed to be falling to the ground anyway, and 10 more yards of penalty cost about 20-25 yards of field position. Incomplete pass. Punt.
Still, not all is lost. Punt fielded on the 10 or so. But the "let'em catch it and run" defense comes through beautifully. Pats march down the field and score...and complete the second consecutive two point conversion. Tie ball game.
Overtime. No criticism of the coin toss. But after that, we watched the let'em catch defense back down the field for the winning touchdown.
Ballgame. What part of football do you not understand?
*Hosed describes an experiment that went so badly that we just bring out the garden hose and wash it all into the sink.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)