The Guessing Game Suspended

After much ado about my guessing game regarding the identity of my friendly emailer, I've decided to do the "right" thing and rescind my contest. In fact, from now on, I will do my utmost to protect his anonymity on this blog should I choose to refer to him at all in the future.

However, it should be known that my decision is in no way based on this threat:

_____________________________

Steve,

This game you continue to play on your blog (communicating about private emails I have sent to you) frankly shows nothing more than the tenuousness of your mental condition. It is an embarrassment - but not to me. If you have any self-respect left, and if not for yourself then for L. and J. [edited], I would suggest you drop this. It will only create tension that you do not need. I do not want to see this escalate beyond where it is and go more public than it has. I have been very good to you (remember Lindora and the personal loan?) and most folks (despite what may be playing in your head) are not going to see your rantings and ravings as justified, trust me. This is the time to drop this. Be smart.

_____________________________

Therefore, "rantings and ravings" aside, with all due respect, and in an effort to "be smart", in subsequent posts I'll try to be a bit more introspective. I'll use the "royal we" when I ask questions like "Why would we want any 'self-respect'? Have our holy monks taught us nothing?" Or, "Why do we care about what 'most folks' think?"

If it becomes necessary to refer to the author of either of the emails posted so far, I feel it's more respectful to refer to him by a better moniker than "Emailer". Therefore, for the time being, he shall be dubbed--Somebody. Another example: Why would Somebody's immediate reaction to reading his own words be to remove me as a friend on Facebook, start sending emails to Heaven knows whom, and issue the threat quoted above?

So, after all of our visits to Holy Mountains, seminars with famous monks who knew famous monks, interviews with great men and women of the Holy Orthodox Faith, have we forgotten how to leave our gift before the altar? Mercy...

A Threat!

I REALLY want to wait until next week to post our Emailer's emails, but he continues to tempt me...

Maybe after Liturgy....

The Results Are In!

Happy Thankgiving, Ya'll!

Minus my Emailer's poor spelling (btw, weird is spelled, "wEIred", not "wIEred", or maybe I'm as wrong as you), I may post his subsequent posts in a few days. Meanwhile, I'm taking those days off to consider if his "bcc" emails to one of our participants was a threat or just blowing smoke up our butts...

Nevertheless, I'm getting LOTS of hits on my blog, which as I've been taught, is all that matters...

A Guessing Game!

I quote from one of my guilty-favorite movies (Shaft), and my absolute favorite actor, Samuel L. Jackson--"...I know a sh*t-load of games!" So, let's play a game! A guessing game!

The rules are simple. You guess who wrote the following email to me a day or so ago. The first person to guess correctly gets a Phantom Dollar (in case you don't know, that's code for "you get nothing"). The second person to guess correctly gets two Phantom Dollars, the third three, etc. The reason for the arbitrary increase in Phantom Dollars is that it's my game, damn it! Heh, heh...

Be assured that the only changes I've made to this email are that I've excluded the person's name and the name of the parish to which the person refers (also I've changed the font color to separate it from the rest of this post). So to quote again, this time from my favorite movie villain (not telling--it's another guessing game), "And--here--we--go!"

Hi Steve,

I have been thinking about you and wondering what and how you are doing. We haven't seen you for awhile and while I hesitate to be intrusive, I wondered if you are basically finished with us (IE [name of parish])? I hope that's not too bluntly put, and I hope my asking isn't offensive. I ask out of concern and interest, not to invade your privacy (although that is what I am doing!), or to increase our parish body count (we are big enough!). Anyway if you are ever interested in reacquainting with - hopefully - an old friend (I will be 60 soon), let me know.

And, finally to paraphrase from another movie-favorite that we might all share in common, "Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller...!"

Miracles

The following is from my late professor, D.Z. Phillips’ work, “The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God”. I quote this long paragraph, as an example of one his teacher’s ability to think differently (i.e., philosophically) about religious issues.

In the discussion of a purported miracle, it seems that the only choice we have is either to explain it away naturalistically, or to establish that it is the result of higher causal powers. Now and again, however, one comes across examples that escape this stranglehold. [Peter] Winch discusses the various reactions which ensued when, in a church in a southern US state, a statue of the Virgin Mary was seen to weep from time to time. The case became celebrated, discussed on television, etc. The disputants divided along now familiar lines. On the one hand were those who claimed that the phenomenon could be explained easily in terms of deception, condensation and the like. On the other hand were those who denied that there could be a naturalistic explanation of the weeping statue. It was being caused to weep by higher powers. Winch was disgusted with both sides of the debate. What had the considerations adduced to do with veneration of the Virgin? Quite apart from these disputants, however, was a woman who simply said, ‘Why shouldn’t the Holy Mother weep over the sins of the world?’ She showed no interest in explanations. Her question is a religious response, and to understand it one would have to pay attention to religious categories of thought in which veneration of the Virgin plays an important part. No doubt such a woman may turn out to be too trusting. She may be fooled in many ways. But the losses or dangers are not all on one side. Those interested only in condensation, trickery, etc., will never see the Virgin weep; for example, weep despite the trickery (p. 17).

Phillips, recalling his teacher, Peter Winch, says that we’re caught in a “dominant naturalistic interest in the world, and what it asks of us by way of explanations and empirical evidence (p. 16). But, using the story of Moses and the burning bush, Phillips points out that “Moses’ initial reaction to the bush which burns without being consumed, is to approach it to find out what is happening (ibid.)” Phillips adds:

But, in the story, it is precisely that quest for explanations that is forbidden by God speaking from the midst of the bush. Moses is told to take off his shoes for he is on holy ground. In our culture, it has become almost impossible not to ask Moses’ initial question, and to pursue it by every explanatory means at our disposal (ibid.).

Holy ground.

How unwise it is of us to think causally, sterilely, scientifically, about all matters religious.

An Atheist

If you have ten minutes, please watch the following video on Doug Mataconis' blog, entitled "The Arrogance of Clergy and Organized Religion". He's an atheist with some interesting political views, which are refreshingly outside the box.

Unfortunately, his scope of knowledge of Christianity seems somewhat limited. For example, he mentions nothing about Orthodox Christians in this clever tirade against organized religion; he rails against the particularly western dogma of Penance, and seems sadly to have glommed on to the doctrine as if it were the primary and constant experience of all Christians. He misses the various "grammars" of prayer as they fit into the varieties of religious experience, to use the title of William James' excellent book.

 And yet, my primary question is for my Eastern Orthodox friends. How would you address this man? Does he raise any points that hit close to home? Are there any Orthodox bishops in America vying for power who fit into Mr. Mataconis' criticism of religion? If so, should one be honest about it to those outside the Church? Should one warn potential converts if it's the case, or let them discover it later even if they lose their Faith as a result? As always, comments are welcome!

Religion Clause: Jediism Founder Accuses British Supermarket Chain of Religious Discrimination

Howard M. Friedman, in his blog this morning, Religion Clause: Jediism Founder Accuses British Supermarket Chain of Religious Discrimination
presents us with the founder of a new religion based on the Star Wars mythos. After my initial reaction, (yes, I laughed), I began looking at some information on this and other new religious movements. 

Upon reflection I came up with some questions, which I now pose to those more knowledgeable than I:

1. If one has no interest in any of the tens of thousands of religious denominations, sects, or various off-shoots of religion, what's wrong with starting another, and gathering some 500,000 people of like mind?
2. Is there some measure by which we can say, "Oh, that isn't really a religion, just a bunch of crackpots." What would that measure be? British law sure thinks it has such a measure!
3. What's the difference between this Jediism group surrounding itself around various interpretations of the Star Wars books and movies and the Evangelical bible-church groups that spring up seemingly daily?

Anyone's help would be greatly appreciated!