Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why I Became a Kinist, redux...



I recently read, again, my own words on my own blog. Not to be narcissistic, but to reconsider earlier thoughts. Sometimes when I do this I have more to add to what I wrote in the past. I've been adding more reasons to my previous thoughts on why I became a Kinist, and will enlarge on them in subsequent posts. But for now, please take a few moments to read my first post on the topic, Laurel's Lament, or Why I Became a Kinist.

2 comments:

ehud would said...

So, would you say that you became a Kinist on a sociological basis first?

Alot of the time I find people to have some disconnect between their observational analysis of the world and their religion-- as if the two don't overlap. Clearly, you have no such problem; but do you find Christians, as I often do, taking exception to such a testimony?

If you give a sociological argument they reply, "Ah yes, but where is it in the Bible?" Then you show it to them in the Bible only to have them turn about with,"What tangible purpose could such racial doctrines serve?" At which point you remind them that you covered that issue in your sociological analysis, which is to say that both scripture and reason support the same conclusion in the matter: It makes sense holistically-- from all angles.

But the average Judeo-christian will take it all in and say, "Ahah! There's the fatal flaw in your argument...you have to call on BOTH scripture AND observation to make your case!" As if it were a weakness for Kinism to be coherent both in-text and in the world! It seems that folks these days would prefer to adopt Immanuel Kant's pagan 'Secular/Sacred Distiction' rather than acknowledge the unified field of reality proposed in scripture.

Laurel1861 said...

Good morning, Ehud,

I'd say it was both at once, that sociological observation was based on my knowledge of how Christ wishes His people to be, which is why watching the slacker culture take over was so frustrating. I didn't cite chapter and verse in the original post because I prefer to write direct descriptions of people and events. That doesn't mean that God's Word, chapter and verse, aren't on my mind.

The back-and-forth you describe with the "average Judeo-Christian" sounds much more like a classic Catch 22 (you can't win, no matter where you turn or what you do) than anything else. They don't like God's Truth, especially when it is solidly demonstrated by real-world observation, so they attempt to set the conversation up so they can, hopefully, catch you in some inconsistency somewhere.

"As if it were a weakness for Kinism to be coherent both in-text and in the world!"

Which it is. Consistent, that is.

God is unchanging, which is one reason Judeo-Christians who want to alter His Word to mean what they want it to mean hate those of us who take it as unchanging so much.

God bless,
Laurel