bowing the knee to hollywood
this is in further response to the last post and comments (i think i got it right, jo), and evidence to the seriousness of something coming through in our Canadian election.
if stephen harper is scary to Christian believers simply because of feeling and intuition, then Christians have become like the world in a very sly and subtle way: we make decisions based on image, not on truth. or, even more dangerous, we equate image with truth. please understand: this is not about who you vote for. it is about how we discern truth. good Lord (not used flippantly), do we make our decisions based on image? do we take image for truth? do we believe glamour is trustworthy and insightful above all things?
if stephen harper is scary to Christian believers simply because of feeling and intuition, then Christians have become like the world in a very sly and subtle way: we make decisions based on image, not on truth. or, even more dangerous, we equate image with truth. please understand: this is not about who you vote for. it is about how we discern truth. good Lord (not used flippantly), do we make our decisions based on image? do we take image for truth? do we believe glamour is trustworthy and insightful above all things?
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:13 PM
18 Comments:
Here's the deal AP. I'm not sure the people on your blog are saying they won't vote for Harper (I plan to) but they are simply saying that the guy comes across a little creepy. Don't confuse creepy with ugly. If we were voting based on looks the ever dapper Jack Layton would have my vote. Sure he has a cookie duster and therefore has something to hide he always wears nice suits. Martin is homely as a dead dogs arse and people love to vote for him. I think you may be blowing this whole creepy thing out of proportion. It's perfectly natural to base an opinion about how someone makes you feel on your feelings. Dangerous is a whole other story but let's face it, the Prime Minister doesn’t have enough power to be truly dangerous.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
aj--it's not about the election or voting for harper, but how we make decisions. if image if the guide to truth, then it scares me. when you say, "It's perfectly natural to base an opinion about how someone makes you feel on your feelings," the question is not, "Are you right?" but, "Is it Christians?" basing our consideration and opinion of people on projection and facade (which is what image is, not necessarily looks and style), is to accept image-generated feelings as the best source to guide. it's completely uncritical and totally unChristian.
Two quick observations:
"It's perfectly natural to base an opinion about how someone makes you feel on your feelings."
Pause and parse this sentence. Anybody laughing yet? I am laughing and crying and scratching my head and praying like Job.
For we have now entered the Woody Allen land where every decision can be justified by an appeal to the emotions. Did we follow Christ into this foreign land? Did he say, I am the way, the emotion, and the life? Did saint Paul say that the Gospel of Christ was the warm feelings unto salvation?
A second quote:
"The Prime Minister doesn't have enough power to be truly dangerous."
This statement is false. The PM of Canada (executive branch of government) has more power over both the legislative (Cabinet and Parliament)and judicial (e.g., Supreme Court) branches of government than any other democratically elected head of state on this planet, including the President of the USA and the PMs of Australia and the UK.
That is not my opinion. That is a fact. It became true under Trudeau and has stayed true ever since. The PM is the most "dangerous" man (or woman) in this country because of his or her powers of cabinet, judicial and civil service appointment, the demands of party discipline, and powers of spending the public purse. For more on this see Jeffrey' Simpson's truly frightening book, "The Friendly Dictatorship" (MacClellan and Stewart).
As a result, Canadians should not be deciding who fills that chair according to who looks like Grandpa or who creeps them out. And Canadians should be very worried by apparently large numbers of those who think that this is no big deal.
Just as the consequence of sin is yet more sin, so the consequence of (not) voting for dumb reasons (regardless of the party you vote for) is getting the government you deserve.
Some Guy
Aaron...I wish all you do "blessings". I am very disappointed in AJ. Also, Paul and I agree that Luke is the smart brother in your family! Terrible, terrible AJ!
As Christians we must evaluate everything through the lens of truth. I agree. This is exactly why I can't vote for the liberals. They've deceived, stolen and lied to us. So, yeah Harper doesn't make me have warm fuzzies..in the end I too have to be logical and put what I "see" and "feel" aside and stick with integrity and vote that way. How can we vote a dishonest, cocky govt back in...arrgghh. No way!
ps..to base on opinion on feeling is ok in some instances. But in crucial decision making...we all know that logic must be the stronger force. (this coming from an emotional gal, ha)
what a good "post" ap. :) true story: when i first graced the land of canada, i tested the 2nd-year students at my college lunch table-- who were canadian--what is the name of your prime minister?? and [surprise]: they didn't know. after gafawing a bit, not a one of the three canadians in their 2nd year of college knew! i, a lowly 18 year old american, had to be the one to inform them. pitiful. just pitiful. and, wow, i never thought i'd say this, but in this particular post, i completely agree with the perrys. come on you canadians--get serious about your christian duty to your country--don't vote by whims and fancies, but by factual critique and resonable choice. [gets off soapbox] (i say the same thing to americans as well).
AP,
I agree with AP that we should not vote or judge a person based on image. As an intuitive person, however, I do make some judgements based on more than simply "facts". I think truth is more than just facts, in fact truth is a person, Jesus Christ. Maybe that's a tangent though and doesn't apply directly to this post.
I know nothing about the Canadian election so I can't comment intelligently about it...although it doesn't seem to stop AJ.
Sorry, cheap joke :o) Don't take too much offense AJ, just the proper amount.
John
Hey John... Your comments were good and true, but peripheral exactly to the Cdn election. If someone heard Harper's ideas, the Conservative platform, etc. and found them scary, then that is fine. They may be right or wrong, but would be fine. The problem highlighted in a previous post was that people seemed to find him scary without any basis, just intuition (and that from Television and Newspaper photos!).
I don't think Some Guy in MB is going to argue with your expansion of the definition of truth. But while truth is more than fact, it is surely not less than it. And I know that your judgments about people would arise from more than just initial contact. I, for one, distrust many people for no good reason. I do not (hopefully!), however, share my mistrust about someone because I realize that it is for no good reason that I dislike them. What do you think?
i just read the wikipedia entry on him and he sounds pretty decent to me. He even looks like a normal guy, the strangeness must only come across in motion.
He's even in my 9th favorite church, the christian missionary alliance :)
AP,
I think you're exactly right. We can't help but have initial (often unfounded) impressions of a person and sometimes those impressions turn out to be right. But sometimes they turn out to be totally wrong. I can think of one of my closest friends who is totally different than my initial reading of him. What a waste it would have been if I hadn't taken the time to get to know this brother because of an initial wrong impression.
The problem with politics is that we don't really get to know the person, just an image. So it's tricky. I loved Ronald Reagen.
Part of it was policy and issues but part of it was just he as a man. Or, more accurately, my perception of him as a man. If that perception was divorced from any supporting facts, however, it would be foolish.
As I mentioned, I am an intuitive person, but I didn't mean to give the impression that facts don't matter. They do. Alot. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead is important to me. But my relationship with Jesus is more than simply fact, it's also this intangible truth that I can't explain, but expresses itself as something that seems more like intuition.
As I said, I don't know enough about the Canadian election or candidates to comment intelligently, but the election does matter to me. For three reasons:
1. Jesus says clearly that we are to love our neighbor. As an American, Canada is my neighbor. My next door neighbor in fact.
2. Government effects the lives of people. It is not the ultimate solution to our problems, but it does have real impact on real people. We should desire leaders with integrity who can effectively serve their people.
3. AP is Canadian and I love AP. Therefore, since the Canadian elecion is something that AP is passionate about, I care about it too.
Intuition is important. Facts are important. Idle gossip and unfounded attacks are not. In leaders, I look for character first, then at the issues they support or oppose, their competency, and, lastly, their personality and style. But wrapped up in all of that is my intuition, the intangible "gut feeling".
Long answer, sorry.
John
Again, I have never said there is anything wrong with the guy or that I am basing any part of my decision on how he makes me feel. I'm just saying he makes me feel a certain way. I don't like the way changing diapers makes me feel but I do it anyway because it is the best rational course of action. I don't disagree that the PM has allot of control but I'm not sure control of Canada equals enough power to be dangerous. PM can waste money, President can destroy countries. I'm sure that won't be a popular statement and therefore righteous judgment will flow for you keyboard as it seems to against any comment that doesn’t agree with you. Ultimately I'm very comfortable with the possibility that I am wrong on this point.
As for my now famous line about feelings I have again been misunderstood. It was deliberately absurd to drive home the point that what you feel is what you feel and it's easier to ignore feelings than change them. My whole point is that feelings shouldn’t dictate actions or decision making. Don't confuse basing opinions or decisions on feelings with "basing feelings on feelings" I'm trying to agree with you but you are making darn hard by misconstruing what I'm saying.
AP you said "basing our consideration and opinion of people on projection and facade (which is what image is, not necessarily looks and style), is to accept image-generated feelings as the best source to guide. it's completely uncritical and totally unchristian". What I am saying is that I cannot control the impression someone else makes but that doesn’t mean I assume they are true to their surface impression. All we truly know about these guys are the “facts” that their campaign managers and the media choose to give us in order to create a certain impression anyway. Have fun being right.
PS Maves you can kiss my bum.
PPS Gently
jo--thanks for the post. sorry i missed it earlier.
aj--sorry if you have been taken out of context or misinterpreted. if all you are saying is, "people make people feel a certain way, but that is not a legitimate final discernment about their character," then we're totally on the same page.
on a side note, i do enjoy being right, but i more enjoy truth. if i only enjoyed being right, i'd never have a blog and air my opinions for all to combat (or support).
AJ:
A short tip: if everyone misunderstands you, it's not that they misconstrue what you say. It is that you are communicating badly or not at all.
At least, that is how I feel.
And invoking the Americans, yet again, proves that on this point you are ignorant and should pay attention to your betters (like AP)--that is, people who actually are familiar with the politics of their own country and that of their nearest neighbor.
A President cannot simply destroy a country. S/he cannot go to war--I assume that's what you mean behind the anti-W blather--without massive support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whether the current war in Iraq is justified or not, W couldn't have done it on his own. Just ask Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. So find a better example.
And yes, the most powerful individual in a country is de facto (and in the PM's case, de jure) the most dangerous person. This is not a moral judgment. This is, again, a fact. The fact is, there are little to no checks on that power in Canada like there are in the US, the UK, and Australia. That was and remains my point. Which I did communicate clearly and which you did misconstrue.
By the way, pointing to a perceived fault with the Americans in order to distract us from a personal gaffe is a very Canadian and very shameful thing to do. Stop it.
Peace Out, Bro.
Some Guy
PS: Maves is, imho, off the hook. It's you who needs the chapstick.
Now that is a post....thank you "some guy" whom I assume is the brilliant Tim. I love Tim. You have said what I had longed to say: In short....Aj is stupid. He is a terrible communicator of ideas and "some guy" has stated that well (thanks Tim...if you are some guy). Ah, I choose not to kiss Aj's ass...I will kick it. That will bring me more joy! PS...If anyone sees our PM and punches him in his lying head....I will gladly let them feast on all the Scallops that Digby has!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home