Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for September, 2013

As a non-Christian who was raised by fundamentalist parents and sent to religious schools–creationist, among other things–I look at the debate among Christians over evolution with nostalgic amusement. David Michael McFarlane, a student at Union Theological Seminary, recently wrote an article in The Huffington Post, asking whether Christians could give up creationism. He says that his faith doesn’t need a literal creation event some 6,000 years ago.

But fundamentalists insist that such an event is necessary. First, the text describes it, so it must have happened. But more importantly, without a Fall, there’s no need for a redeeming Christ. I’m sitting off on the sidelines nodding my head and saying, you finally figured it out, under my breath (not always), but there it is.

So let’s work with the premise that Christ is necessary. Let’s say that humans exist in a fallen state and have to be extracted from that.

600px-Fossil_hominids

Let’s even say that until the life and death of Christ some 2,000 years ago, there was no way to elevate humans. Can’t we allow for the possibility that human beings were insufficiently developed before that point? Does it matter how they became that way–either by dropping down or simply by never having risen up? Christians preach that human beings aren’t worthy on their own. Nothing about accepting the science of evolution has to challenge that.

Of course, this would mean understanding that the Biblical stories are just that–stories. That is not meant to reduce the Bible in value. In fact, I regard stories as our most basic way of understanding the world. As I said, on this matter, I’m an outsider looking in, so it’s just a suggestion.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Writers, throw away your thesaurus. Yes, you read that correctly. You need a dictionary, but Roget’s collection of synonyms, temptingly gathered together like so many loose women on the docks is a good way to catch VD–verbal disease. Consider the following:

Personally, yours truly made a break for the nest egg to countenance a liquid measure of formula.

Ridiculous, right? Except that sentence is the result of hunting through the treasury (the root meaning of thesaurus) to puff up this sentence:

I went to the store to buy a quart of milk.

Of course, it’s silly. But I see writers–mostly college students, but others, too–looking for a fifty dollar word when a five cent word will do. We all want to look smart. And we need to vary our words and sentence structures to keep the reader from falling asleep. But if you grab some uppity group of letters just because it sounds more sophisticated than a one or two syllable word, you’re likely to go astray, particularly if you don’t check the definition. This is because while English has words that are closely related, in most cases, each one has its own elements that it alone means.

Mark Twain once said that the difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug. Don’t let the thesaurus strike you out, or you’ll annoy me.

Cross-posted at OghmaCreative.com.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: