Strugr

One book that changed your life:

H. Saving the Appearances, Owen Barfield

R. Preaching & Preachers, Martyn Lloyd-Jones

One book that you've read more than once:

H. The Once and Future King, T.H. White

R. Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell

One book you'd want on a desert island

H. Isaiah

R. Long-Distance Teleportation for Dummies

One book that made you laugh

H. The Saviour of the World, B.B. Warfield (the laughter was Psalm 126-ish)

R. Tintin and the Red Sea Sharks, Hergé

One book that made you cry

H. The Annals, Tacitus

R. World Book Encyclopedia: Ch-Cz

One book that you wish had been written

H. Diary of a Nobody, vol. 2

R. The Eidolon, C.S. Lewis (I don't know if that would have been the title –I doubt it-- but he did start a book about Helen and the Trojan war that I would have been happy to read.)

One book that you wish had never been written:

H. The book of Mormon. Though it made me laugh.

R. If Everybody Did, Jo Ann Stover

One book you're currently reading:

H. Ovid's Metamorphoses

R. La Historia de la Salvación y Sagrada Escritura, Herman Ridderbos

One book you've been meaning to read:

H. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, Umberto Eco

R. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Richard Muller

Now tag five people:

H. Carl Trueman, Josh & Alana, Paul the UFC apologist, Evie, Our RE

R. They should have had a category for strangest book: Voyage to Arcturus, David Lindsay

(H. They should have had a category for one book you wish you had written. The Delegate from the Congo: the Untold Story of the Westminster Assembly, with mildly acerbic editorial notes by Chris Coldwell)

First of all let me say how much I have already profited from the ‘I don’t want to argue about this: those who do are simply holding to a point of pride’ technique. This is the kind of pre-emptive strike that promotes unity while at the same time, establishing one’s own humility a priori. To assault the bastion is merely to make a show of divisive pride. No argument is necessary or even possible beyond this point; the debate has been skillfully channelled from a potential source of ongoing dispute into a dead end of dominant meekness. This also works, as I have learned from another reformed message board, with an appeal to the reflex action of the 'old man'. 'The old man won't like this: the old man wants to reject it' etc; thus settling the terms of the discussion from the start, with objection as a function of the sin nature. Calling people ‘gnostics’ and at the same time ‘rationalists’ is a solid VanTilian argument, asserting both extremes at once without compromising either in a mealy mouthed intelligibility, and embracing the paradox. Meanwhile writing off an argument as something you’ve ‘heard before’ is a beautiful way to avoid direct confrontation, while at the same time, avoiding indirect confrontation also. Moreover it suggests that should you choose to respond, the other person would be as wearied as you are. While at the same time suggesting that truth is novelty, and novelty, truth. This is all we know on earth and all we need to know. Bottom line: if enough people have already thought of it, it can't be true.

‘I don’t even know you’ suggests an unwillingness to engage in disagreement without a previous ten year history of gut to gut wrenching intimacy, or at least personal testimony from the last three employers. Moreover it casts suspicion on the character of the unknown party, who is so lightly willing to enter into adverse relations without a commitment.

‘You should be ashamed of yourself’ suggests such a deficiency of the Spirit in the other person, and such an abundant indwelling in yourself, that no matter what the other person says in reply it looks like he is resisting the conviction you have fallen under so heavily on his behalf. In short, while you are so zealously convinced of his shortcomings, there is no way he can stand against you. This leaves him no option but to sit down; and unity will be restored.

All of these techniques are admirable, useful, effective, and most of all promoting of unity. But accusing people of being two dimensional in the bonds of peace is the best.

(“I'm not casting a slur on your intelligence or anything: I'm just saying.... you're one dimension short of a fully categorical reality.”)

The heroine stood holding Rip’s chewing gum until she realized that if she were to escape from random lurking danger, now was her opportunity. But she would have to act fast: there is only so much interest in a pile of rubble, and the crowd would not be distracted for long. Quickly she darted into a barn, and seized on a set of man’s clothing. It did not conceal her womanly figure, but since nothing possibly could, she leaped on a horse and galloped out into the street. Clouds of dust from the earthquake hung thickly in the air. She could not see her hand in front of her face. Indeed, it was on the saddlehorn. She could hear people choking on dust all around; and overhead, the thunder of a man’s voice above the dusty fumes: “YOU’LL HAVE TO COUGH LOUDER IF YOU WANT ME TO HEAR YOU.”

She had not gone far, when her horse tripped over something in the street and knocked her to the ground on top of it. It was the horizontal form of Snort.

“What are you DOING down here?!” the heroine demanded. “Everywhere I turn, you’re in my way! Why can’t you stay off to one side like normal people?!”

Snort sat up. “Ah. Pahdon me. It is true that ah can’t see well in all this dust, but it would appeayah that you ah wearin’ man’s clothing. It would also appeayah, if you will furthah pahdon mah sayin’ so, that it does not conceal your womanly figure.”

The heroine ground her teeth.

Snort continued. “Ah have read about these things in heayah.” He produced the copy of Donovan’s Otter. “It would in fact appeayah that it was bound to occur. The ottah in this book wears Donovan’s clothing, but it does not, in fact, deceive Donovan.”

“That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of!” the heroine exploded. “Why do you read such garbage!”

“YOU’LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP, MADAME,” thundered down from above.

“I WASN’T SPEAKING TO YOU!” The heroine shrieked.

“THEN IT SEEMS THAT WE’LL HAVE TO MARRY TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT,” the thunder intoned. “IF YOU HAVE NO CARE FOR YOUR OWN REPUTATION, CONSIDER MINE! I BEG YOU, MY DEAR—MY DEAR…”

“NOBILETTE”

“IT IS USELESS FOR YOU TO PROTEST: I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

“I WASN’T PROTESTING!!”

“THEN YOU WILL MARRY ME? OH, MALARIOUS JOY!”

“Delirious, ah believe, that is; Delirious!” shouted Snort.

“THIS MAN IS DELIRIOUS!” the voice thundered in alarm. “JUST LISTEN TO HIM! QUICK, SOMEBODY, CALL FOR HELP!”

Nobilette fomented in helpless rage. “THIS IS ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR BANANA!”

“YOU SAY IT’S MY BANANA! MY BANANA IS DELIRIOUS!!! WHAT SHOULD I DO?!! I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH DELIRIOUS PIECES OF FRUIT!”

“FIRST OF ALL, YOU SHOULD TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR EAR!” yelled Nobilette.

“IT IS IN MY EAR!” came the thundering shout. “I PUT IT THERE THIS AFTERNOON, AND IT HASN’T MOVED SINCE!”

“TAKE IT OUT!” screamed Snort.

“YOU MAY DOUBT, YOUNG MAN, BUT I CAN VOUCH FOR IT’S WHEREABOUTS: I HAVE BEEN IN THE VICINITY OF MY EAR ALL DAY, AND IF MY WORD ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, THEN YOU CAN ASK THIS BANANA, WHO WILL CONFIRM MY LULLABYE!”

“WE DON’T DOUBT, WE WANT YOU TO REMOVE IT!” Nobilette groaned.

“YOUNG LADY, YOU WILL REMOVE ALL DOUBT WHEN YOU MARRY ME. UNTIL THEN, THESE TOWNSPEOPLE WILL LOOK ON ME WITH A SUSPICIOUS EYE. I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD YOU SPEAK TO ME, BUT THEY DID, AND THEY WILL NOT BE CONTENT UNTIL WE ARE WED!”

“OH IT’S NO GOOD!” Nobilette yelped in anguish. “YOU’LL NEVER UNDERSTAND UNTIL YOU GET RID OF THE BANANA!”

“YOU SAY I HAVE TO WED THE BANANA?” The minister cried. “YOU MEAN THE BANANA SPOKE TO ME IN THE STREET?! BUT IT’S DELIRIOUS! I CAN’T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF A DELIRIOUS BANANA! SURELY YOU CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THAT—WHY, IT COULD HAVE SPOKEN TO ANY ONE OF YOU!”

A long time ago, longer ago than anyone possibly be objective about in our hopelessly enlightenment mentality, a man named-- well we will not give his name in case there are copyright issues-- went for a voyage around the world, leaving his wife and small son, in the care of his wife, for a period of seven years together. He had been commissioned by the Vatican to evangelize the heathens, as well as to spoil them, and bring back their goods. Upon doing so he found his wife and son well, though seven years advanced in years. So he took his son with him, leaving his wife, for she was not well at the time. At least I assume she was not well, for what strapping woman in her right mind would not want to accompany her husband and son on a ten year voyage to the nether parts of the world to be entertained among savages who were better known for their worst atrocities than for any of the lesser ones they had accomplished. However we digress. The young man was deeply impressed, upon visiting the court of Kodokan, with the martial art forms of the peoples he visited, and on his return he published them, as well as a fascinating account of his travels, throughout the Christian world.

This produced consternation among thirteenth century homeschool parents, who were not sure that they wanted their children meditating before a finite and breakable stack of bricks, in the shape of a government school. Moreover their children were taught to memorize the platitudes of an Eastern religion, when they ought to have been learning their catechism, so that more children wound up being able to recite “When the enemy comes, welcome him: when he goes, send him on his way” than the answer to “What was Abel?” Something had to be done: some were arguing for reaffirmation but the party that won out, by methods which greatly enhanced their arguments, was arguing for redefinition. So it came to pass that the pope officially recognized the sports of the eastern religions, integrating togas into the liturgy of the church.

The approach to ethics as a matter not distinct from the approacher's ability to defend his position with throwing knives (for the dichotomy between spiritual and physical impact was thought to be 'gnostic') became known as 'Judeo-Christian'. The 'e' was added for lingual flow.

I hope this little elucidation has been helpful, at least in proving the extent of Ruben's vast ignorance of pre-enlightenment categories.